News Article: Conservatives trust in science has declined sharply

uafan4life · Apr 2, 2012

cbi1972 said:
Positing an omnipotent creator for the rules of the universe is an example of the logical fallacy of special pleading (everything requires a creator except a creator). But worse, it has no explanatory value and makes no predictions, so it is simply not science.

I didn't say that it was science.

I simply stated that the discoveries and/or conclusions drawn from scientific study regarding the age and/or evolution of the Earth do not necessarily contradict the existence of God.

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

gmart74 said:
seriously??? so when 100's if not 1000's of scientists, in almost every field of science, completely and separately come to a similar conclusion, then you give it the same level of rigor as ancient unscientific people who thought the world was flat? really.....

Yes seriously. That is why I used the flat earth example. It was established fact backed by everyone who should know except one.

We do have more knowledge, better data collection, more evidence now than then. That very well can be irrelevant. We have just as much misunderstanding.

gmart74 said:
I am all for questioning science and keeping an open mind. i am absolutely a fan of questioning single studies in a single field.

I agree, but there isn't one single piece of scientific evidence that indicates the earth is only 6500 yrs old. not a single one. every scientific study shows the earth is at least a billion yrs old. even if they were wrong and misplaced a decimal point, that is still vastly older than creationists talk about. so im all for keeping an open mind, but at some point it is time to be realistic.

* oh yeah, i forgot to mention erosion studies support it as well- so in addition to all of the other assumptions, we also must believe that the grand canyon was formed a million times faster than ever measured. or that it rained for 1000 yrs nonstop in order to weather various geological structures, and then suddenly the weather became normal as soon as recorded history started. it just seems to me that young earth theory requires a level of hand waving that just can't be taken seriously by anyone with an open mind. to believe in young earth theory requires one of 2 beliefs
1. that every law of physics suddenly changed all in the last 10,000 yrs.
2. that god deceptively (and correct me if im wrong but isnt satan the one who is into deception) made the world look a lot older than it is.

You misunderstand how creationists think. A God who is capable of making a man out of dust and a woman out of a rib, and changing the universe with a word is all capable. I personally believe in that God. I also believe that we have just as much capability of fundamentally misunderstanding how that God works as we do everything else.

If you do not believe that God exists, I can understand your point of view. If you are going to try to prove that negative you are going to have a tougher time than the age of the earth. What is interesting to me is the two conclusions you draw. The first is based on what you believe is a misunderstanding of the data by the creationist. The other is based on a misunderstanding of God and his possible motives by you. Very astute. There are other possiblilities, but if you just focus on the two you presented, based on human history have we not made such fundamental mistakes on both conclusions to completely change how both were viewed?

I am willing to reasonably discuss and base decisiions on the best knowledge we have, but I also have faith in a creator. I personally fall on your side if the specific example of the age of earth we have crept into here, but by being completely dismissive you are giving a perfect example of a major reason there is mistrust.

Bodhisattva · Apr 2, 2012

rizolltizide said:
I'ma take him out on my boat, but mainly because he says he has a hawt Asian wife.

She's cute, but she's also become really mean over the years. She'll throw those little pointy sharp elbows like Dikembe Mutumbo.

gmart74 · Apr 2, 2012

mittman said:
Yes seriously. That is why I used the flat earth example. It was established fact backed by everyone who should know except one.

that is a myth. many people realized the earth was round. anyone who has hiked to the top of a tall mountain can see the curvature of the earth. many people noticed it and there was evidence to support the notion that earth wasn't flat. it just took time to get the idea to be accepted by the mainstream (church).

You misunderstand how creationists think. A God who is capable of making a man out of dust and a woman out of a rib, and changing the universe with a word is all capable.

OK, so please give a rational explanation as to why a benevolent god would make the earth seem older than it really is.

I am willing to reasonably discuss and base decisiions on the best knowledge we have, but I also have faith in a creator. I personally fall on your side if the specific example of the age of earth we have crept into here, but by being completely dismissive you are giving a perfect example of a major reason there is mistrust.

You are trying to equate my dismissiveness of the young earth theory with my belief in the existence of a god. to me one has nothing to do with the other. i have no interest in proving god does or does not exist. the only reason i bring it up is bc the one and only "scientific proof" of a young earth is what they quote from the bible. everything else they completely make up to try and support their conclusion.

so i would love to reasonably discuss anything but i am going to have to require some bit of science to back up the other side's argument before i can treat it as anything other than a fairy tale.

Bama_Dawg · Apr 2, 2012

uafan4life said:
I've never really understood the whole be-all-end-all debate over the "how old is the Earth" question when it comes to creationists versus non-creationists.

One solution to that apparent contradiction is that many creationists could very easily be wrong in trying to take the Genesis account of the creation as in being a literal 7 (24-hour) day period. There is nothing in the actual Hebrew text that prevents the Genesis account from being allegorical, even when taking into account the "Evening and Morning" references and the application of the seven days of creation with a seventh day of rest as a pattern for the Jewish Sabbath. After all, the seven "days" of creation came from God's perspective and not man's. Both David and Peter make references to God being outside of our concept of time. While those references are not talking directly about creation the principle is still a constant - God exists and acts outside of our time. Therefore an "age" or "era" or "day" - all the same Hebrew word - to God could conceivably refer to any amount of physical concept of time. Many "scholars" will point to the references in the Genesis account of the "Evening" and "Morning" being the first day, the second day, etc. as proof that it was a literal 24 hour period. As far as the "Evening" and "Morning" are concerned what determined, from God's perspective, when the "Evening" and "Morning" came? After all our "day" and, as a result, our "Evening" and "Morning" are determined by the speed of the Earth's rotation in relation to the Sun. According to the Genesis account the Sun wasn't created until the fourth day. How, then, was the "Evening" and "Morning" determined on days 1 to 3? If you take the creation account in Genesis to be allegorical as opposed to literal then there is no reason why God could not have created the universe in its infancy, set it in motion, watched and helped as necessary as it developed along its expansion, created (either miraculously or providentially) life on Earth, and then rested as His creation was ready to evolve on its own. This would naturally account for both the age and development of the Earth, as believed by Evolutionists, without making that age a contradiction to the Earth being God's creation.

This isn't an unreasonable approach. The trouble is, even if the word "day" was meant as a metaphor, you still run into the scientific impossibility of the order of creation. We're told the sun, moon and stars, for example, were created after the Earth.

cbi1972 · Apr 2, 2012

gmart74 said:
so i would love to reasonably discuss anything but i am going to have to require some bit of science to back up the other side's argument before i can treat it as anything other than a fairy tale.

It is not a failing of science that science can't prove Spiderman doesn't exist.

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

gmart74 said:
that is a myth. many people realized the earth was round. anyone who has hiked to the top of a tall mountain can see the curvature of the earth. many people noticed it and there was evidence to support the notion that earth wasn't flat. it just took time to get the idea to be accepted by the mainstream (church).

Of course it was a myth. That is the point. People notice inconsistancies with the accepted scientific 'facts' all the time and get dismissed as uninformed.

While everyone is making wild predictions here, let me make one. in 1500 years the majority of scientist will look at us as just as uninformed as we do them.

gmart74 said:
OK, so please give a rational explanation as to why a benevolent god would make the earth seem older than it really is.

We could stray a long way here, but if you want to get theological. There are numerous examples in the bible of God allowing and even using unbeliever's misconceptions and unbelief to accomplish a purpose. In fact the whole story of Jesus is an example of God using even those who believed in his existance, but misunderstood him, to perform the sacrafice Jesus accomplished.

gmart74 said:
You are trying to equate my dismissiveness of the young earth theory with my belief in the existence of a god. to me one has nothing to do with the other. i have no interest in proving god does or does not exist.

My appologies. However, In my defense I did use the word if there.

gmart74 said:
the only reason i bring it up is bc the one and only "scientific proof" of a young earth is what they quote from the bible. everything else they completely make up to try and support their conclusion.

so i would love to reasonably discuss anything but i am going to have to require some bit of science to back up the other side's argument before i can treat it as anything other than a fairy tale.

Therein lies the whole concept of faith and humility.

Some of us believe that some knowledge have not been found out yet, revealed to us (implied in that is that there is someone doing the revealing), are beyond our understanding, or just unknowable. Equating things that we may or may not understand to a fairy tale is just another illustration of my point.

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

Bama_Dawg said:
This isn't an unreasonable approach. The trouble is, even if the word "day" was meant as a metaphor, you still run into the scientific impossibility of the order of creation. We're told the sun, moon and stars, for example, were created after the Earth.

If you believe that there is a God capable of creating the sun, moon and stars with a word would it be too large a jump in logic to believe he could twirl the earth around his pinky until he placed it?

I am not saying that that is what happened, but it is not a leap in logic.

cbi1972 · Apr 2, 2012

mittman said:
If you believe that there is a God capable of creating the sun, moon and stars with a word would it be too large a jump in logic to believe he could twirl the earth around his pinky until he placed it?

I am not saying that that is what happened, but it is not a leap in logic.

This is why the omnipotent creator is at least as big a stretch as a universe that came into existence spontaneously.

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

cbi1972 said:
This is why the omnipotent creator is at least as big a stretch as a universe that came into existence spontaneously.

This is why there is so much distrust from both sides. Those that cannot fathom the possibility of one or the other have an unavoidable built in bias.

nx4bama · Apr 2, 2012

cbi1972 said:
By now we know how you operate, and it is clear that no amount of objective fact is sufficient for you to acknowledge the legitimacy of scientific observation, reason, and the obvious conclusions they generate. The base assumptions are that observation can tell us something about our universe, and that our world behaves consistently enough that we can discern rules for its operation with enough accuracy to make predictions which have the capacity to invalidate hypotheses. These assumptions require less faith and are more practical than any other worldview you care to name. If you wish to bask in a blissfully ignorant paradise of circular logic and special pleading where everything that happens, happens because some grand omnipotent being specifically willed it to happen, and that everyone trying to explain things in a way that makes actual sense is making false assumptions and pushing an agenda, then we have nothing to talk about.

YEP! and everybody knows how you operate. You are an atheist. So, everything MUST BE explained through natural processes. You cannot/will not consider any other possibility. That's ok. You are welcome to believe that science is above reproach. It is interesting to note, however, how often main-stream science has been wrong. (see the atom, the earth at the center of the universe, the sun revolving around earth, the earth is flat, etc. all were the prevailing theories of their time).

And if you want to discuss circular logic, how about, "We know this layer of rock is x years old because these fossils are present, and we know these animals lived x years ago because we found them in this rock layer....."

nx4bama · Apr 2, 2012

cbi1972 said:
It is not a failing of science that science can't prove Spiderman doesn't exist.

science can't prove that george washington existed.......

nx4bama · Apr 2, 2012

cbi1972 said:
This is why the omnipotent creator is at least as big a stretch as a universe that came into existence spontaneously.

so, you are always saying that creationists must necessarily identify the origin of the creator.... why does evolution get a pass in this regard? where did all the matter that makes up the universe come from? and before you say that evolution does not deal in origins.... science MUST NECESSARILY identify the origin if science is to explain the existence of everything by natural processes.....

cbi1972 · Apr 2, 2012

nx4bama said:
YEP! and everybody knows how you operate. You are an atheist. So, everything MUST BE explained through natural processes. You cannot/will not consider any other possibility. That's ok. You are welcome to believe that science is above reproach. It is interesting to note, however, how often main-stream science has been wrong. (see the atom, the earth at the center of the universe, the sun revolving around earth, the earth is flat, etc. all were the prevailing theories of their time).

And if you want to discuss circular logic, how about, "We know this layer of rock is x years old because these fossils are present, and we know these animals lived x years ago because we found them in this rock layer....."

nx4bama said:
science can't prove that george washington existed.......

You obviously don't get what science is about, which is offering sensible explanations for observed phenomena, with constant revision as knowledge and understanding improves, NOT proving historical facts, disproving fantasy, or presenting made-up non-explanations as explanations.

gmart74 · Apr 2, 2012

mittman said:
Some of us believe that some knowledge have not been found out yet, revealed to us (implied in that is that there is someone doing the revealing), are beyond our understanding, or just unknowable. Equating things that we may or may not understand to a fairy tale is just another illustration of my point.

then how can we have a conversation? if the crux of your argument is that the flying spaghetti monster will reveal things to us when he wants, then what is there to discuss? why even formulate and test a hypothesis if fsm will only reveal it as he chooses? your basic premise makes a conversation impossible to have. science doesn't acknowledge faith as a viable argument.

selmaborntidefan · Apr 2, 2012

cbi1972 said:
You obviously don't get what science is about, which is offering sensible explanations for observed phenomena, with constant revision as knowledge and understanding improves, NOT proving historical facts, disproving fantasy, or presenting made-up non-explanations as explanations.

We have the same "proof" that Washington existed as we do that Jesus Christ existed.

The written works of other people at the time who say it happened.

Bama_Dawg · Apr 2, 2012

nx4bama said:
YEP! and everybody knows how you operate. You are an atheist. So, everything MUST BE explained through natural processes. You cannot/will not consider any other possibility. That's ok. You are welcome to believe that science is above reproach. It is interesting to note, however, how often main-stream science has been wrong. (see the atom, the earth at the center of the universe, the sun revolving around earth, the earth is flat, etc. all were the prevailing theories of their time).

And if you want to discuss circular logic, how about, "We know this layer of rock is x years old because these fossils are present, and we know these animals lived x years ago because we found them in this rock layer....."

I think you're missing the key difference between science and religion. The first revises itself when new evidence is presented. The latter considers this heresy.

selmaborntidefan · Apr 2, 2012

Bama_Dawg said:
Is this what you really believe? That scientists haven't definitively proven the Earth is more than a few thousand years old?

That isn't what I said.

Two points:

1) whether thousands or millions or billons - it makes no difference at all. All we have are estimates.

Do I think the earth is more than 6500 years old? Yes. I don't hold to Ussher's chronology. Nothing mandates I do so.

I also think it's probably much older than (pick a number) ten thousand years - so what? Such neither proves nor disproves
the Creation account. It does to people who have latched onto the erroneous chronology.

2) My point is that ALL we have are ESTIMATES. Scientists - even with all their science - can't sit down and say "On August 23,
6 billion years ago, this happened."

That was all I was saying.

My evangelicalism does not mandate that I accept any particular date of Creation.

selmaborntidefan · Apr 2, 2012

Bamaro said:
It makes a big difference to scientists whether it is thousands or billions of years old.

Sure it does. Not gonna get any funding otherwise. Thank you for pointing that out.

But in the larger picture it makes no difference.

Bama_Dawg · Apr 2, 2012

For fun, I just looked up "dinosaurs" on Conservapedia, and here's what I found:

Creation science asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of creation[3] approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus debunking the Theory of Evolution and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the Garden of Eden) eating only plants[4]; that pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning[5]; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood[6]; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.[7] At least 300 distinct genera of dinosaur have been identified.[8]

Archaeological, fossil, and documentary evidence supports the logical conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.[citation needed]

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are clearly references to dinosaurs,[9] [10] although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar".

I love the "citation needed" after the third paragraph.

News Article: Conservatives trust in science has declined sharply

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

1st Team

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-SEC

All-SEC

All-SEC

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

1st Team

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

1st Team

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!