• 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 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Just a thought, otherwise I´m not following this thread, why is it so hard for some people to understand that there is some things we dont know and it will take a very long time for us to understand. Once we thought jerusalem was the center of the world, once we thought the earth was flat, once we thought the earth was the center of the world, once we thought if we flew to the sky then we would reach heven. We now know more than we did hundred years ago, we now know more than we did thousand years ago. Science changes with each day, religion does not change. Science has brought us so much knowledge and will continue to ease our lives, we will never stop searching for knowledge. Right now science has brought use evolution as a theory, science has gone so far as give us facts that evolution does happen.

My takes on this is that Religion is a part of our culture, part of our ethics, part of our social structure. Science is a part of our future, a part of our way of changing the world. These things should not mix, and therefor creationism has no reason to be in the modern world because creationism contridicts science. Religion has often stopped scientific process and lets not let that happen again, we are way past that stage.

Like a said to one of the most respected member of this forum, Religion is of the spirit, Science is of the mind.
 


<< 1859 - Darwin publishes &quot;On the origin of Species&quot;
1925 - Tennesee bans the teaching of evolution; Scopes trial ensues (?)
1929 - Arkansas and Mississippi ban the teaching of evolution
1961 - Morris and Whitcomb publish &quot;The Genesis flood&quot;
1963 - Research Society founded. Tennessee reqires all books except the Bible to carry a notice that portrayals of origins are not scientific fact.
1967 - Tennessee overturns ban on teaching of evolution undir which Scopes was convicted.
1968 - Sumpreme Court overturns Arkansans ban on teaching evolution making all such laws unconstitionional.
1972 - Founding of the Institute for creation research.
1981 - California court rejects charged that teaching evolution violates freedom of religion. Arkansas reqires &quot;equal time&quot; for creation science and evolution.
1982 - Luisiana enacts an equal-time law. Arkansas law requiring the teaching of creatism is overturned by a federal court ruling that creationism is religion, not science.
1987 - Suprime Court overturns a Louisiana equal-time law
1991 - Philip Johnson publishes &quot;Darwin on Trial&quot;
1994 - Court of Appeals rules that a school district may ban teaching creationism.
1996 - Micheal behe publishes &quot;Darwin's Black Box&quot;
1997 - Luisiana court overrules a law requiring disclamers to be read in classes of evolution. Appealed to US Suprime Court
1999 - Kansas Board of Education inserts creationism into school science standards.
 >>



2000 - Mday continues hating all fundamentalist morons.
 
Jeez this thread is long. I'll admit i skipped pages 5-6 🙂 hehe

Anyhow, its amazing how people how ignorance through the language they use. The momment someone says that evolutionary theory states that we evolved from monkeys.. its obvious they know very little about it. That mis-statement which has been used over and over again is completely wrong. We did not evolve from monkeys, monkeys are still here🙂 Think of evolution as a family tree, somewhere very far down the line we shared a common ancestor, but split off. That is why we did not evolve from monkeys/apes, but are so genetically similar.

Another thing i read(probably by whitedog)was the question of why gorrilas don't have tails. Are you lacking this common sense you keep touting? Nature takes the most efficient route, so imagine the tail required to suspend a gorrila which weighs hundreds of pounds from a tree. It would obviously be so big and unwieldy that it wouldn't be necessary. Also, gorillas are big.. in fact they are ussually the top dog in the food chain. They don't need to hide in trees to survive.


It just irks me that people bring up common sense when arguing for creationism.

Also, scientific theories can be proven wrong. Creationism cannot be proven wrong, therefore creationism is not science.

lordmaul,

You would do well to take some science courses, you reek of ignorance.

If there is a god, it is apparent from our growing scientific knowledge that he works rationally. Things make sense and follow laws. It is then possible that a logical god could create a universe that follows these laws and allow for evolution. Its better then the magical nonsensical idea of creationism.
 
If those saying the bible is based on the science and knowledge of people over 2000 years then you are mistaken. You are not at fault though, because what you do not know you cannot be held accountable for. You are only accounted stupid if you know a thing and yet ....
anyway what I was going to write was that there are many references in the bible about concepts that man at the time had no idea of, geographical things like that the earth revovles around the sun, not the theories that were beleived up until only a few hundred years ago. THere are many more references like that, so before passing judgment on what you do not know to be fact, work out the facts first. 😀
 
If those saying the bible is based on the science and knowledge of people over 2000 years then you are mistaken. You are not at fault though, because what you do not know you cannot be held accountable for. You are only accounted stupid if you know a thing and yet ....
anyway what I was going to write was that there are many references in the bible about concepts that man at the time had no idea of, geographical things like that the earth revovles around the sun, not the theories that were beleived up until only a few hundred years ago. There are many more references like that, so before passing judgment on what you do not know to be fact, work out the facts first. 😀
 
viper007



<< If those saying the bible is based on the science and knowledge of people over 2000 years then you are mistaken. You are not at fault though, because what you do not know you cannot be held accountable for. You are only accounted stupid if you know a thing and yet ....
anyway what I was going to write was that there are many references in the bible about concepts that man at the time had no idea of, geographical things like that the earth revovles around the sun, not the theories that were beleived up until only a few hundred years ago. THere are many more references like that, so before passing judgment on what you do not know to be fact, work out the facts first >>



What you dont seem to know is that that knowledge was known to alot of other cultures, like in Babylon, China, America, long before people think jesus was born. Just things were forgotten. The greek found out how big the earth was, they knew. The bible is not a scientific book, its stories based around something that might have happened, some of it did happen, some we will never know if it happened. The bible itself is not good enough to be even considered scientific.
 
I think it is time to put the shoe on the other foot. Militant atheists are so intent on cornering Christians and demanding &quot;scientific explanations&quot; for the apparent age of the earth that is postulated in a wide cross-section of scientific disciplines. Let me state my two questions up front.

Question 1: Why is Genesis unique amongst ancient Near Eastern creation texts? Why does Genesis alone (as far as we know) teach that matter is not eternal?

Question 2: Why does the Genesis account alone match up so well with current scientific interpretations of the geological record?


Those who want more details can read further

Yet no one has given a reasonable, scientific explanation for how a religious text (Genesis) written thousands of years ago can have so much common ground with current scientific thought. Or as to why this text would be unique amongst all creation accounts in regarding its statements about the nature of the physical universe?

Why is Genesis unique amongst ancient Near Eastern creation texts? Why does Genesis alone teach that matter is not eternal?


Why does Genesis alone teach that the universe is finite in age. Furthermore, the universe itself, in the biblical accounts, is taught to be running down and &quot;wearing out as a garment.&quot; Though the Bible is not a scientific textbook, these &quot;mythic&quot; statements are in line with current scientific theory. Other creation accounts contradict science in these areas.

Once again, consider the atheist Sir Fred Hoyle's statement:

<< . . . the general concept of gods of gods located fairly and squarely within the Universe was common in ancient times throughout the Near East. The Hebrew departure from this position was evidently very great. >>

Or Dr. George Smoot:

<< There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing. >>

Smoot also says:

<< Until the late 1910's, humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn't take Genesis literally had no reason to believe that there had been a beginning >>


Why does the Genesis account alone match up so well with current scientific interpretations of the geological record?


Genesis and geology both describe Earth first as formless and empty, then as covered by a primitive universal ocean. This in turn was followed by the appearance of dry land.

Both agree that darkness covered the Earth in its earliest history. Science requires this darkness because of the virtually universal scientific acceptance of early opaque debris clouds in theories of planet formation.

Both agree that animal life first inhabited the sea.

Both agree that plant life preceded land animals.

Both agree that birds preceded mammals.

Although this point is more debated, it appears that both agree that new life forms appeared abruptly, with no transitional forms.

Both testify that mammals, and finally humans, were the last to appear.


Please give a scientific and rational explanation as to how Genesis achieved this insight.


The major point of dispute involves the use of the word &quot;day.&quot; But Philo, Josephus, Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, Jerome, Augustine, and many other ancient Jewish and Christian thinkers viewed the the &quot;days&quot; in genesis as non-literal, even though they had no &quot;scientific pressure&quot; to contend with.

If the word &quot;day&quot; in the Genesis creation account must be interpreted literally, then why does God refer to the entire six day creation account by saying, &quot;These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.&quot; Why is it a necessity to interpret the six Genesis creation days literally when Genesis itself, after the seventh day, refers to the whole process as one day?

If the word &quot;day&quot; must be interpreted literally in the creation account, then why do so many of the Jewish and Christian fathers, who were under no pressure from evolutionary theory (it didn't exist yet) and who often knew the original Hebrew and Greek of the Scriptures far better than we ever could, fail to interpret those days in such a matter?
 
Is &quot;horoscopes&quot; a genuine response to my questions? Horoscopes are a farce. The language is so generic that it can apply to virtually anything. Genesis is far more detailed in its sequence of events.

Let me put it this way:

Suppose a previously lost, ancient religious text was rediscovered. Let's say that this text was verified from the most critical scholars to have, in its current form, have originated in at least 500 B.C.

Of course that text would use the literary forms, customs, and language of its day. Given this fact, if that mysterious text matched up so well with what we currently know about cosmology and the origins of planet earth, albeit using &quot;mythical&quot; terminology, would the &quot;open-minded,&quot; atheistic, scientific community mock it like it does the Genesis account?

I doubt it. Genesis is mocked not because of what it says, but because of bias. To many, it represents the standard form of religion in this culture. I will grant that some of that bias is earned by authoritarian religion. But a genuine love of knowledge would pursue all options, not rush to an a priori judgment.
 
The Bible as &quot;one single reference as an argumentive point&quot;? I have heard this one sentence related to many, many topics of discussion. What power must be possessed by this &quot;ONE reference&quot;. And, for those of you who do not know this, this &quot;book&quot; is not one book but a collection of Historical Law Books, Chronicles, Dreams and Visions that were written down, Songs, Letters, Testimonies commanded to be written by the king of the time......

&quot;greatest scientific minds&quot;? Ever heard of Stephen Hawkins? Definitely one of these. He has dedicated years and years of his life using scientific methods to prove &quot;the Big Bang Theory&quot;, otherwise known as evolution. He himself, being the Atheist he is, has said the more he has proven scientifically, the more he has proven there must be the existance of GOD.

95% of the people believe in GOD? I, too, doubt that number. But, I would dare to say that more reflects the percentage of people who has never read the &quot;Book&quot;. Or, read much more than the short, sporadic verses they were required to memorize in Sunday school when they were 7 or 8 years old. But yet, a great number of those people are all ready to try to prove or disprove It's validity. Read it first!

If....just suppose....God does exist in the manner the Bible describes -- omniscient......why could He not use &quot;Science&quot; to create the universe? He would definitely have to know Math! Calculus even! Biology, Physics, Thermodynamics, every science known to man, and then some we don't know! We can already scientifically prove that evolution is the manner in which things work (too many facts back this up). But, does that disprove GOD? or, does it just prove that evolution is the manner in which He works?

Many people misinterpret the writings in the Bible by trying to take it too literal. Greatest example: 7 day creation. How many people have said or heard someone say, &quot;Well, back in my day......&quot; Are they referring to yesterday when they say that? NEVER! They are referring to years ago. Applying that principle to God creating everything in 7 days. Days? How about Ages or Eras. (i.e. the Jurassic Era or the Ice Age) Each proven to have lasted millions of years.

Come on people! Re-think your thinking! What if, evolution and creationism are one in the same? :Q
 
Czar:

I agree that Genesis' purpose is &quot;religious&quot; in the way you probably mean it, not scientific. Questions about ultimate origins (for example, &quot;What preceded planck time?&quot😉 are beyond current scientific paradigms.

Still, science presupposes that logic and reason are superior to dogma and emotion. So, in an attempt to rise above the endless religion versus science wars, in a genuine pursuit of knowledge, can anyone give a rational and logical explanation for the uniqueness and profundity of the Genesis creation account?

Is genuine knowledge only attainable through the paradigms of current scientific methodology? If so, then how can Genesis be explained? The writer seemed to know something about the process by which we got here. Something that current scientific methodology did not begin to confirm until the late 1910's.

Even as late as 1992, before data about background radiation was confirmed, many scientists rejected the Big Bang theory simply because it sounded too much like Genesis. Consider this statement by John Boslough, who criticized the Big Bang theory as the &quot;scientific model of Genesis.&quot;

<< For the time being, the big bang remains a scientific paradigm wrapped inside a metaphor for biblical genesis, a compelling although simplistic pseudoscientific creation myth embodying a Judeo-Christian tradition of linear time that led to Western ideas about cultural and scientific progress and which ordained an absolute beginning. >>



I guess microwave background radiation suddenly meant that the Big Bang is no longer a &quot;pseudoscientific metaphor for biblical genesis&quot; and now is legitimate scientific theory?

But then that is rather confirming of the main tenets of Genesis, is it not? So where did Genesis come from? Was it all a lucky guess?
 
I guess it's a question of &quot;God&quot; or &quot;god&quot; to say for certain that &quot;God&quot; absolutely exists is a positive statement thus requiring proof to be valid (the bable is not proof). Atheism is not a positive assurtion it is simly a statement that one has seen no reason to believe in &quot;god&quot;.

*Note
God - (Proper Noun) As used by religions as refered to their specific God.
god - generic term refering to a god (most atheist do not proclude such a god)
G.O.D. - Gauranteed Overnight Delivery

PS: No one can PROVE the lack of existance of a god anymore than thumpers can prove that Pink Three-legged Unicorns don't exist. (Just because you can't see somthing and have no proof of it's existance doesn't mean it doesn't exist)
 
Athanasius

, can anyone give a rational and logical explanation for the uniqueness and profundity of the Genesis creation account? >>> What I think is that the Genesis part is just a collection of information from scientists from the known world at that time put together in a religious form so that common people at that time could understand it. We now often simplify things for our kids so its easier for them to understand it, we create imaginary worlds around why this is that and that is this. This has been done ever since man began to write and sooner than that even.

Is genuine knowledge only attainable through the paradigms of current scientific methodology? If so, then how can Genesis be explained? >>> What happened is that there was a low era in Europe in science from 500 to about 1800, sure there was progress but it was not as fast as it is now and how it was before. During those times alot of discoverys were forgotten. This knowledge you talk about has been known to other civilasations around the world, but forgotten for numerous reasons. There might even have been a civilazation like ours somewhere on earth 10000 years ago, we dont know, we might one day. But even though I would read about people like that in some old documents that does not make it true.

I still stick to my theory on what religion realy is. We humans have the unimaginable urge to know everything about everything, we seek knowledge where ever we go, that is one of our needs to live. We need an explination for everything. Somewhere in the timeline someone felt the need to make something up just to ease his mind, to explain the unexplainable, why is the sky blue, why is the grass green, why does snow come every year, where did we come from. These are all questions that have been explained by religion and prooven later to be completely different than religion. Whenever that happens many people find it hard to change their belives, or flex it, or make it adapt their religion to the new scientific facts. This takes time, and now it is over 200 years since Darwin came up with the evolution theory, that animals adapt to its surrounding to survive. We are nothing but animals, we are no more special than any other animal, except that we are the only animals to harnes nature, to make nature work in our interest, to change the world. This makes so many people think they are special, like they are above others. They read their religion books to find purpose, to find a goal in life, something that makes them special. This is what religion is, to make people feel good about themselves, to fill in what we dont know. The first reason will never change, the second has to change every now and then because if people dont change then science will stop.
 
Thank you Czar for responding to my questions. I don't agree with your conclusions, but your suggestion that previous civilizations may have had genuine knowledge that was lost (and is now only beginning to be regained) shows humility.

But, if Genesis represents that lost knowledge at all, in any form (and it sure seems to), then that knowledge includes deference to the presupposition of a Creator who is Mindful and who is not dependent on the universe; rather, the universe is dependent on that Mind.
 
Athanasius

That knowledge that the Genesis is based up on would then have come from many cultures, each with a different religion. Scientists who would then have studied the world from their religions perspective, this gives us many viewpoints. Because each bases his research around different religions then each is based on a different god. The writer of the Genesis then had to take all that knowledge and create a complete new picture, he maybe sided with one religion because he was of that religion. But it is well known that religions reflect one another. Like take the Greek, Romans and the Vikings, each had a god for most important things, like they all had a god for the Home, had a god for the sea, and then they had an &quot;overgod&quot;. All of them lived high in the sky, with only one gateway. These religions are so alike that thay are nearly the same. This is just a small part of all the religions in the world. If we then take christianity, buddism, and muslim, then we have a single god worshiping. These all could be the same religion, exept that the sociology behind them are different, same applies to Greek, Roman and Viking. The god(s) have adapted to the social enviroment the people lived in. When Iceland became a christian country the religion itself adapted to the culture we had. We could eat horse meat, we continied to selibrate solstanse (think its that name) but that turned it to Christmas, we continued to celebrate Christmas(solstanse) with a christmas tree. The religion you live in has adapted to other religions as well. Like if we take the pagan religion of the Vikings and Christianity then we have many resemblanse, like we have a apple tree, in christianity the first two humans ate the apples, in pagan the apple tree was protected by a god, the apples gave the gods eternal life. In christianity we have Adam and Eve, in pagan we have Askur and Embla. In christianity god made Adam out of mud(wood, cant remember) and Eve out of Adams rib. In pagan Askur and Embla were made out of two different tree types. In pagan the world was created when few giants killed their father and used his organs and body parts to create the world. It is very possible that christinity adapted this and created Eve out of Adams body part. In Christianity we have Hell, a fiery place, because christianity orginated from desert people then heat was always their enemy. In pagan religion we have a daughter of a god called Hel, the ones who didnt die in battle went there. In Hel it was freezing because pagan originated from the north, where frost was something to fear. Each religion originated from Europe or western Asia have so many common things. It is possible that all of them originated from one religion, who knows, but that religion is lost, and the genesis is just one part of the many religions that have come from Europe / western Asia. When you look at all the religions and how they have developed then you cant belive that one religion is any more right then the other, that makes the genesis not any more correct than than of the Vikings or the Romans. This is just a small part of the world. There are religions all over the world, none can be more correct than the next one.
 
Czar, you are showing how little you know of the Bible and the religion of the Bible. Adam and Eve did NOT eat an APPLE - it says &quot;fruit&quot;. The God of the Bible is strongly contrasted with the gods of the other ancient religions.

All the other ancient religions use myths to explain their world. We see their description of the earth on the shoulders of Atlas or on the back of a giant turtle. Yet the Bible clearly describes the earth as a &quot;sphere&quot; hanging upon nothing.

That is quite a concept for ancient people - in contrast to EVERY OTHER ancient belief.

Wherever the Bible touches on Science it is accurate - not once - but always. Which is a remerkable &quot;coincidence&quot; for such an ancient document.

 


<< There are religions all over the world, none can be more correct than the next one. >>




I disagree. I am not saying that montheistic traditions are completely correct and polytheistic ones are completely wrong. There is common ground, but the differences are substantial. Remember, the Genesis account is unique, as far as we know. It is similar in its literary style and its poetic expressions, to other creation accounts, but the facts of creation recorded in Genesis are radically different.

All three major monotheistic religions base their foundation on the same Genesis account. The Genesis account (unless &quot;day&quot; is interpreted hyper-literally) is consistent with current scientific theory. Other mythic accounts of creation are not.

Since this current space time continuum is universal, interconnected, and operates by unified patterns, i.e, since the universe is &quot;one&quot;, it is no surprise that &quot;one&quot; mind would be the source for it.
 
apoppin

The greeks knew the world was round and knew how big it was way before anyone thought about christianity, doesnt that meke them gods in some way to you? The babylons also knew that before christianity. You also say that some thought the world was held by Atlas, well, the world he held was round.

Athanasius

Thank you for maintaining a solid discussion with me, one of a kind in this thread.

We have major religions and we have minor religions. It is like the survival of the fittest and evolution. Lets say the world is like a part of a country, in that country we have 10 tribes. Each of those tribes have a religion, each religion is uniqe, each tribe doesnt know of one another. When the first tribes meet we have two possibilities of an outcome, either one tribe kills the other or they merge.

Lets say 2 of those tribes meet and one of the tribes kills the other. Then we have 8 equal tribes and 1 a little bit stronger than the others.

Then two other tribes meet and they start by trading and then they invite one another to festivals, and then we have marrages, and in the end they merge. By merging they have to adapt their religions so we now have a new religion that resembles the two first religions but is different. Then we have 6 equal tribes and 1 a little bit stronger and one who is twice as big and more than twice as stronger than the other ones. Now we have a dominant tribe and a dominant religion.

Two other tribes meet and the merge two, a new religion a new tribe. 4 tribes equal, 1 little stronger, 2 twice as strong. Two dominant religions.

This goes on and on, and later some tribes split up and take a hybrid of some other tribes religion and so on.

The dominant religions would all resemble each other because it formed from the first two or three tribes that merged. That is why in our world the major religions have so many common ideas.
 
Czar, even though the ancient Greeks held the earth was round (which was obvious from scientific observations back then), the concept of it hanging upon nothing was beyond them.

Their gods - which mirrored them - were is sharp contrast to the God of the Bible. Their myths are also very different from the story as taught in the Bible. I say you are very unfamiliar with the Bible itself.

I also agree with you that all the other religions are mirrors and variants of each other. However, this is in complete contrast to the religion of the Bible.
 
Zucc,

<<Another thing i read(probably by whitedog)was the question of why gorrilas don't have tails. Are you lacking this common sense you keep touting? >>

Do your homework before you start pointing fingers.. You're quoting me with words spoken by someone else...

Troll.
 
My final words in this Thread...

I believe in &quot;In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.&quot; I also personally believe he did it with the snap of a finger (literal 24 hour days). Does it matter? No.

Whether he did it in that manner or (by apoppins view) over millions of years by revolution is really beside the point and doesn't really matter. He could have, and I don't care, and I'm outta here.

This was a good thread by the way. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top