• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

USA: 60% think that "god created earth" is science

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The bible can be inpreted in different ways. When it says 'image' some people might think physical, other's might think or souls (whos existance is a totaly different discussion). The bible doesnt state it clearly, therefore we dont know and you cant say your interpretation is correct and mine isnt.

"The most dominant religion in India today is Hinduism. About 80% of Indians are Hindus. Hinduism is a colorful religion with a vast gallery of Gods and Goddesses. Hinduism is one of the ancient religions in the world. It is supposed to have developed about 5000 years ago. Later on in ancient period other religions developed in India."

Ok, this is a good paragraph. Hinduism is older than chritianity and it has many gods and godesses. Why should the christian god be the one who created everything?

"At the heart of Hinduism is the panentheistic principle of Brahman, that all reality is a unity. The entire universe is one divine entity who is simultaneously at one with the universe and who transcends it as well. Deity is simultaneously visualized as a triad:

Brahma the Creator who is continuing to create new realities
Vishnu, (Krishna) the Preserver, who preserves these new creations. Whenever dharma (eternal order, righteousness, religion, law and duty) is threatened, Vishnu travels from heaven to earth in one of ten incarnations.
Siva, the Destroyer, is at times compassionate, erotic and destructive. "

Another example. What makes you think that Brahma and not Jehovah (that is the god's name, right? if not, sorry). After all, hinduism is older than chritianity.

"The time required for God_If_He_exists (I obviously believe He does) is irrelevant. Whether it was six days or 14 billion years doesn't change the core question of whether you believe in Mind or Matter as the First Cause"
It doesnt change the question, but we know that its impossible for all that to happen in 6 days

Capn, if god created the earth and the universe, then what created god? if god was just there, then why couldnt have the big bang 'just happened'? its useless to argue over that, since we will probably not know ever (at least withing our lifetimes)



Finally, one little sidenote. Over the last several hundred years religion has contantly been proven wrong. After all, wasnt copernicus (or was it galliley?) burned at the stake for believing and proving the earth want part of the universe.

The answer to evolution and the big bang is probably not conceivable to our feeble minds. After all, how many people in 2000BC would have belived that the world was round? their logic would have stated that we sould just slide off and fall. Same principle here.
In the future science will answer all our questions, we just wont be around to see them (too bad)
 
Click this link and this, Ornery, and answer some of the questions posed.

Oh hell, that's too friggen easy you tool! I don't have any damn theories, so I'm exempt! But I do love watching the struggle against the mighty Creationists by the superior evolutionists. Damn, if it's such a lop-sided battle, why is it still continuing? How much effort do you people put forth to squash the Flat Earth followers? Why might this be different? Keep yammering on, I'm loving it! 😛
 
First of all, the Bible NEVER taught the earth was flat. It was badly misintrepreted by the Catholic Church up to the 15th century.

The Bible speaks of the "circle" or "sphere" of the earth. It also speaks of the Creator hanging the earth upon Nothing (Job 26:7) - in contrast to many ancient people beliefs (Hindu - for example) of the earth resting on the back of a giant turtle swimming in the cosmic sea.

Although it is a moral guide and book of history, the Bible is an accurate book when it occasionally touches on science.
 
Despite all the Bible bashing that some engage in, I would be interested in hearing a scientific and rational explanation as to how the Genesis account could have so much common ground with modern scientific theories.

Let me put it simply: what is your explanation as to how a "mythical account" written thousands of years ago could be so relatively accurate, albeit in poetic form?

See my 1/10/2001 3:41 pm post for details on the uniqueness of the Hebrew creation account and its correspondence with current scientific theory.
 
Yes as I mentioned in my 1st post on this thread, & as Orney has discovered there are a couple of creationists in/from Queensland. Ken Ham is one of those Queenslanders.

We Australians get much amusement out of him & his group - they are a real novelty, as they are about the only creationists in Australia.
 
Warpo, on your link:

The Earth's Magnetic Field


<< If we extrapolate back as far as 10,000 years, we find that the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as that of a magnetic star! >>


The earth's magnetic field has always been chainging, as you can see here.

The Mississippi River Delta


<< it can be determined that the age of the delta is about 4,000 years old. >>


Yes. The delta is four thousand years old. The river have very well could have chainged its path, as rivers are known to do. Also, the Mississippi could have been formed much later, and probibly was.

Petroleum and Natural Gas


<< the type of plants involved and the texture of these deposits testify of turbulent waters, not a stagnant swamp. >>


Right. Please tell me how the heck they thought that one up.

Anyway, thats just some of them. I don't want to hear any more from creation 'scientists', who hardly know their left hand from their right.
 
It strikes me funny that people rant and rave about &quot;scientific facts&quot; and how the bible is a bunch of myth... then when Scientist present &quot;scientific data&quot; that go against what other scientist are saying, you dismiss them SIMPLY because they represent religion.

Get real.
 
We dismiss them SIMPLY because it has no proof, or even evidence. The only thing that supports your 'theory' is a several thousand year old book, which was origionally passed on by word of mouth. You know what happenes when people tell stories; they get exagerated and embellished. In reality, you have no idea what the bible really said.

What you base your life on is a two thousand year old mistranslation of an exagerated fairy tale. Dosen't sound like anyone with any sort of education could believe this.
 
BoberFett: I don't treat it as an icon. It is merely a site in which a large amount of scientific evidence and facts have been collected in one easily referenced format. The information is thoroughly documented and referenced. Ornery and his ilk use sites like creationresearch.org as a sort of &quot;icon&quot; also.

Ornery: you said

<< I dare ya to click the link and check out the &quot;science&quot; aspect of Creationists. >>

. I merely used the same derogatory style that you used first.


<< I don't have any damn theories, so I'm exempt! >>

I don't have any theories myself, I merely do my best to learn about the findings of other scientists. You certainly appear to follow such creationist nonsense. Do you have any sort of logical, factual answers, or are you just going to evade answering questions some more? You have proved the title of one of those pages quite well (Questions Asked But Never Answered).
 
<<We dismiss them SIMPLY because it has no proof, or even evidence. The only thing that supports your 'theory' is a several thousand year old book, which was origionally passed on by word of mouth. You know what happenes when people tell stories; they get exagerated and embellished. In reality, you have no idea what the bible really said.>>

YOU have no idea of what the Bible really says.
 


<< then when Scientist present &quot;scientific data&quot; that go against what other scientist are saying, you dismiss them SIMPLY because they represent religion. >>

They are dismissed not because of their religion, they are dismissed because their theories don't correspond with the real world evidence.
 
apoppin, you are denying that the bible has ever been changed since it was written? Your saing that the bible is 100% like it was when they started telling it? You believe that people have not exagerated it or chainged it in any way, shape, or form to fit their personal point of view?

Pttff.
 
<<Ok, this is a good paragraph. Hinduism is older than chritianity and it has many gods and godesses. Why should the christian god be the one who created everything?>>

?And? &quot;In the beginning&quot;, &quot;Genesis&quot; has nothing to do with the Christian religion Pyro! Do your homework.

The Christian religion began when Christ lived/died 2000 years ago.

Moses wrote the story of &quot;the creation&quot; more than 1400 years before Christ' time. Still not as old as Hinduism, but way before Christian religion started.

Some people do say that 1 day could have been a million years to God. What about this then. God created Adam on the &quot;6th day&quot; (Genesis 2: 7)&quot;the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.&quot; Doesn't sound like evolution to me....
Now, if a day was a million years, Adam was an Old fart when he died, because then there was the 7th day. He would be a million years old by this time..
Oh but wait, Adam didn't live that long, he only (only.. hehe) lived 930 years.

Genesis goes on to list every generation from Adam to Abraham. Other books in the bible go on to list every generation from Abraham up to King David, and from Kind David up to Jesus.

It even goes into detail as such as how old the person was when their son was born, and hold old the son was when his son was born... all the way from Adam to Abraham, who lived from 2166bc-1991bc). Jews kept very good documents on their descendants in those days.

No, I'm not stating facts here, just showing you that the bible goes into detail about many things, and there's a reason for it too... 😉
 
<<They are dismissed not because of their religion, they are dismissed because their theories don't correspond with the real world evidence.>>

If that were true, the evolutionary theory would be dismissed out of hand. It has failed every test of the scientific method. It is only because the idea of a creator cannot be accepted that the evolutionary theory is popular.

<<apoppin, you are denying that the bible has ever been changed since it was written? Your saing that the bible is 100% like it was when they started telling it?>>

Actually, yes. You you find so unbelievable becomes likely if the creator is involved in keeping his message to mankind intact. All the evidence shows that the Bible's message is unchanged since the earliest writings
 


<< If that were true, the evolutionary theory would be dismissed out of hand. It has failed every test of the scientific method. >>

Provide specific examples instead of making unsubstantiated generalities.
 
Two sides, both desperately trying to offer proofs of the unprovable and unknowable. There is absolutely no way to prove either proposition, that (a) God created the universe, life, and everything else, or (b) that life and the universe arose through Abiogenesis, or without divine intervention. Have fun trying though. I'm pretty sure that there would be a Nobel prize in it for that person. Sure makes for interesting reading though. 🙂
 
<<Now, if a day was a million years, Adam was an Old fart when he died, because then there was the 7th day. He would be a million years old by this time..
Oh but wait, Adam didn't live that long, he only (only.. hehe) lived 930 years.>>

Whitedog, we are talking about creative days, not literal 24-hour periods. According to the Bible, we are still in God's Rest Day (day 7) even after thousands of years.

<<Provide specific examples instead of making unsubstantiated generalities.>>

Oh you want me to do what you cannot when making atacks on creation.

Well, briefly then:

1) The evolutionary theory predicts a pattern of gradual changes whereas the fossil record shows &quot;leaps&quot;.

2) Genes are a powerful stabalizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving.

3) Random mutations cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.

Evolution cannot explain how lifeless chemicals came alive.
 


<< The evolutionary theory predicts a pattern of gradual changes whereas the fossil record shows &quot;leaps&quot;. >>

Which leaps are you referring to? Furthermore, the fact that we do not currently have a fossil does not mean that one will not appear in the future.


<< Genes are a powerful stabalizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving >>

I don't know what biology textbook you have been reading. A genes function is to carry information between generations, and little more. Do you have any citation for such a claim?


<< Random mutations cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life. >>

Read this and comment accordingly.
 
The words of a complete idiot:

<<We dismiss them SIMPLY because it has no proof, or even evidence. The only thing that supports your 'theory' is a several thousand year old book, which was origionally passed on by word of mouth. You know what happenes when people tell stories; they get exagerated and embellished. In reality, you have no idea what the bible really said.>>

You have no idea what you're talking about. Your biblical education is so bad, it reeks.

You know, I don't mind it when people quote stuff I disagree on, as long as they &quot;know what they are quoting&quot;, but just blowing smoke to blow smoke just makes me LOL.

Moses &quot;wrote&quot; all his books on scrolls and were held &quot;Sacredly&quot; by the Jews... Every book in the bible was kept as sacred scrolls. Most that exist today are transcriptions, but of the original text...

Here's one. Ever hear of the &quot;Dead Sea Scrolls&quot;?

[edit]The bible was written from transciptions of[/edit] Scrolls that were passed down generation by generation which eventually became translated to English by King James... The Dead sea scrolls where dated some 500 B.C. &quot;by scientist&quot; and many of the writtings in them are exactally as written in the bible!
Many people had dismissed Isaiah's prophetic writtings as being written by someone after the events happened, but finding his writtings in these scrolls (which were dated hundreds of years before the events happened) brought new proof of the authinicity of the old testement writtings...

Wow! Pyro, you should REALLY think about what you say before you Open your foolish mouth.

You don't hear me bashing on Scientific discoveries or whatever, simply because I'm not educated in those area's. I stick to speaking what I know about. You should too 😉
 


<< what you cannot when making atacks on creation >>

When you provide me with a consistent theory of creation, I will be glad to attack it. Why is there so much disagreement against self-proclaimed &quot;creationists&quot; about creation &quot;theory&quot;? Why are there &quot;young-earthers&quot; and &quot;old-earthers&quot;? &quot;Young-lifers&quot; and &quot;old-lifers&quot;? Those who interpret the Bible literally, and those who do not?

From talkorigins:
Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)

Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?


Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)
 
I Ain't A Creationist, so these questions are irrelevant to me. The questions are from 1992 and seem pretty well covered by any modern Creation Science Site. Yep, every question's answered right there, in detail.
  • A Response to the Washington Post

    Creationists believer that God created each living
    > thing independently and instantaneously about 6,000 years
    > ago and all during the first six days. Evolutionists
    > believe that all living things are descended, through a
    > cumulative series of genetic changes, from one common
    > ancestor, or perhaps a few ancestors. The forest
    > ancestors would have been primitive, self-replicating,
    > cell-like structures that arose more than 3.5 billion
    > years ago. Evolutionists are, however, quite far from
    > explaining how the first living thing arose.

    This is not a problem? Is understanding how life arose just a minor detail?
And, back to the main point of this topic. I still don't see why the theory of Creation can't be touched on as well as the theory of Evolution in schools.

Edit: &quot;Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough.&quot; Damn! There's just no pleasing some people 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top