• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Now, Nipper and Sonic, you have both made the same claim but have yet to provide any backing for your claims.

Please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
So one finds a modern human skull in a geological plane that also has "prehistoric" fossils and immediately concludes that the modern skull is out of place...... That seems like the worse type of science to me.
Please give us instances of this happening. I don't mean link us to a creationist website; I mean cite scientific papers where such a find has been made and such a conclusion reached.
Emphasis mine. Still waiting LittleNipper. Links to cult pseudo-archaeology sites are not gonna cut it. In fact, if you want to debate any of the specifics in the two links you provided I'd be more than happy to educate you as to why the claims are nonsense.

I'm not sure what your "one finds a modern human skull in a geological plane that also has "prehistoric" fossils and immediately concludes that the modern skull is out of place...... That seems like the worse type of science to me." is a reference to- Oldoway Man maybe? There are so many pseudo-archaeological claims similar to your ridiculous posts it's hard to be sure what you're talking about. I'll cover Oldoway Man just in case:
In 1913 the remains of an anatomically modern human were discovered at the Olduvai Gorge by a Prof. Hans Reck who claimed it was about a million years old. The find was immediately controversial as wholly intact and undamaged hominid fossils are too good to be true. The problem is that despite Reck's claims to the contrary the burial was likely intrusive; that is there were red pebbles and limestone pieces around the skeleton that were abundantly present in higher layers but only sparsely in the strata in which it was found. Clear evidence of intrusion. Louis Leakey was inspired to take over in the Olduvai Gorge where Reck left off and he found that Reck's initial assumptions were incorrect. Also, Prof. Reck was forced to admit he was wrong- Leakey's overwhelming evidence convinced Reck to reassess the age of the Oldoway Man and he changed his million year estimate to around 20,000 years old for the remains.
See: Creationist Arguments: Anomalous Fossils

If your post wasn't a reference to Oldoway Man please let me know.
 

JustWondering2

Just the facts Ma'am
Now, Nipper and Sonic, you have both made the same claim but have yet to provide any backing for your claims.

Please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

Tumbleweeds - I think you put this very well! Also what you said, esspecially the last sentance should be a stock answer to anything LN and his buds post. Keep hammering it home and either they will shutup or putup.

We can't help what kind of or religious beliefs we are born into. I for example guess I was lucky in that I was not forced to "believe the Biblle or else" growing up. My family was more agnostic than anything else. But they did teach we a lot of good lessons that came from the Bible, such as the Golden Rule and the 10 Commandments. I was exposed to Christianity via going with friends to their churchs, which my folks never stopped me from doing. So it's not like I wasn't exposed to religion as a kid. But I grew up very curious about the world around me, space, biology, geology and science in general. As a teen I remember thinking about what I had learned about Dinosaurs and the fact they were not mentioned in the Bible. As asked the pastor of the chuch my questions. His answeres were as can be expexted not scientific at all. He summed up our talk in one sentance and told me to read more in my Bible and less in science books by saying: "Well son, some times you just gotta have faith in what the Bible says is true and disbelieve anyone that says different". Needless to say my questions went unanswered!
A wise man of Galileo time said ( I think he might have even been the Pope at that time ) "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, Science (Galileo) tells us now the Heavens go".
Wow all that time ago and that sure sounds like separation of church and state/science!
Religion and folks that take the Bible as 100% literally as truth should stick to their beliefs and stay out of science! One can be a Christian and still believe in science or even be a scientist. Being a athist is not required. What is required is an open mind. Belief in evolution and a 4.5 byo Earth does not rule out God. It simple means the authors of the Bible were after all just men, divinely inspired, perhaps. But men never the less. Then later on in the time of Consintine, who decided what writing would be included? Again just men! What books were left out in favor of others? Were they all translated 100% correctly and the 100% word of God?
Don't know about you, but I've never in my life known anyone that never made mistakes, have you? I've know a lot of folks that thought they were pervect, I bet you have as well!
Sorry but common logic and common sense should tell anyone a book whose origins were verbally past down for many generations, then written, copied over and over again, then translated several times, then decided upon inclution by mortal men to be 100% word for word correct over 2000 years later must have been brainwashed as a child in order to think the Bible is 100% word for word literally true!
As others have said here and on other forums. It goes back to how you were raised and what you were told to believe in! To all of the Christian Fundamentalist on this site who believe their belief system (redemtion through Christ) is the only way. I propose that if you had been born instead to an Islamic based family and brought up in the same way you would feel exactly as you do now, except you would be referencing a different book of truths!

I don't have any scientific evidence to back up what I've said here. This is just the view of an average American man (56) who grew up in the South (DFW area), who has been exposed to many different view point through his life, has an average education, attended many different denominations of churchs and has been interested in Science and how things work all his life. Oh and I might add someone who was given the gift of common sense without a lot of absolutes or brainwashing by his family.
 

Sonic247

Well-Known Member
Now, Nipper and Sonic, you have both made the same claim but have yet to provide any backing for your claims.

Please give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.
There is no point in trying to convince you, if I say people close there eyes to one thing you will say they don't or that they do things different now. It's just like Ernst Haeckel- when he was proven wrong over a hundred years before his charts were still in our textbooks. But people think we are more careful now. The truth is though, science will slowly move towards the correct knowledge (although the Bible is already there). Evolution is old, in Darwin's day Lamarck thought giraffes necks grew as they streched for leaves and this was passed on to the next generation. Now even though we know that is nonsence we still believe in evolution. The good thing is that it's less of base then it used to be. Eventually people will no longer be able to justify it with science and will move on to something else. I'm sure every generation looks back and thinks "We are so much smarter then they were 100 or 200 years ago." But never thinks that in 200 years people will think the same thing.
 

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
There is no point in trying to convince you, if I say people close there eyes to one thing you will say they don't or that they do things different now. It's just like Ernst Haeckel- when he was proven wrong over a hundred years before his charts were still in our textbooks. But people think we are more careful now. The truth is though, science will slowly move towards the correct knowledge (although the Bible is already there). Evolution is old, in Darwin's day Lamarck thought giraffes necks grew as they streched for leaves and this was passed on to the next generation. Now even though we know that is nonsence we still believe in evolution. The good thing is that it's less of base then it used to be. Eventually people will no longer be able to justify it with science and will move on to something else. I'm sure every generation looks back and thinks "We are so much smarter then they were 100 or 200 years ago." But never thinks that in 200 years people will think the same thing.

You are correct in saying Haeckel, Lamarck, and Goethe were wrong. Hell, Darwin was wrong (or at least incomplete) on a lot of the finer points. Modern Evolutionary Theory, however, is not dependent on it's past supporters to be true. Lamarck proposed a completely ridiculous version of evolution, which is why he is not called "The Father of Evolution" as Chuck Darwin is.

Darwin's ideas, while not all completely correct, created the basis that set Biology in the right direction. That's why he got the title. That does not mean that biology or evolution are dependent on his inerrency.

People have been wrong about biology. Some people have created outright frauds in biology. And both of those things will happen again. At the end of the day, however, evolution is extremely well established and extremely well evidenced and any argument against it is, at this point, an argument against science itself.

If you have any further questions we will be more than happy to answer them.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
There is no point in trying to convince you,

Cop out. You made a claim and refuse, or are unable to back it up.



Now, give an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

Or admit your claim is baseless.
 

JustWondering2

Just the facts Ma'am
OK this comes from another thread that I commented on, but it appies here as well.

Quote From: Mickial
Flame you offer stimulating reasonabl debate , I honor that. Virtually all scientist accept the Big Bang theory which states the entire universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and plantes were formed, you are correct there.

First off, you have just shown very clearly by the above statement that you either do not understand/know/comprehend what astronomers, not astrologers (by the may do you no the difference) theory of the Big Bang actually states! If you understood it you would not have made such an oversimplified statement or assumption. Speaking of assuming, you do know what you make of yourself when you do so don’t you?
Someone answered you original quote saying something like their background was not in Astronomy. But from reading their post the obviously know a great deal more about genetics than I do and from your response to their statements a Hell of a lot more than you know about the subject. As I said I cannot speak to the genetics side of this thread, but to the Astronomy side of things I certainly can! Considering I have studied and learned as much on the subjects of science, physics and Astronomy for over 45 years now (I’m actually 56). First off Galaxies, Stars and Planets (not plantes) did not magically come into existence at the moment of the Big Bang; neither did atoms of elements of Hydrogen and Helium. Only elemental particles that make up atoms came out of the Big Bang! It was several Million (with an M) years before the temperature of the expanding space became cool enough for matter as we know it to exist (the elements H & He) and it wasn’t until that time that Stars and Galaxies could even exist. Let me stop here for a moment and ask you a question. Do you have a clue as to how all of the elements heavier than H & He on the periodic table were formed and come from and don’t say God made them, because that’s not what I’m asking? The Physics of how they came into being. OK I’ll go ahead and give you the simple version “at the core of stars” by the process of Nuclear Fusion. Now that being said do you know what fusion is? OK the simple version again just for you. At the center of a star lighter elements are fused together to form heavier elements and in the process energy is release, up to the formation of the element Iron. With each step, lighter element to next heaviest, more and more energy (in the case in the form of pressure and heat) is required to set off the fusion process and more and more is released as well up to Iron. Once a star starts producing Iron at it core it days/years are numbered. Because a star is a constant battle between gravity trying to crush all the mass of the star in on itself and the energy produced at the stars core from fusion creating heat and outward pressure. See where I’m going here? I doubt it, so here goes, simple version again, shortly after the star begins producing Iron at it core the immense gravity of it mass and the lack of pressure (from fusion of iron) causes the star to collapse on it’s self. Now I’ll stop here for a moment and review a minute, first off we have the Big Bang (everything from nothing, what a concept! Sound like God to you it does to me?), elemental particles, 75%H/25%He, stars then heavier elements from the stars core. With me so far, huh? Back to elements again, so far we have talked about all that fall on the periodic table between H and Iron. OK when a star such as I have described gets to the point of making Iron and subsequently collapses on to itself and explodes into a Super Nova that blows most of the outer layers of the star out into the surrounding space with lots and lots of energy! Not someplace you would want to be anywhere near when it happens. Now I left one key point out of my above explanation. The star’s mass when it is initially formed (how much of it the star has) determines everything about the star. Some small stars will never go past Helium or carbon and will end their live in a different fashion than the one I have described above. Among the characteristics the initial mass of the star determines is it’s surface temp, color, size, density and importantly it’s life span and how it will die. Still with me so far? Lots of mass makes a bigger, hotter, more dense star that’s color is on the Blue side of the electromagnetic spectrum or sorry do you know what that is? If not google it I’ll not try and explain that to you. The less mass the star starts out with the smaller, cooler (relatively speaking), less dense and the more shifted to the red end of the spectrum. More importantly, at least to the age of the Earth and star’s, the larger a star (more massive) starts out as the shorter it life span! The smaller the longer the life span. This goes from a few Million years for the most massive stars to 100’s of billions of years for the smallest (red Dwarf) stars. OK still with me? So the older the star the redder and smaller it is and it shines for a very long time, the larger the mass the Bluer the star appears and the faster it burns up its available fuel. Ok you say what about our sun (star). Well it set’s pretty much in the middle of it all size wise. So pretty long lived 30-50 billion years and pretty much yellow in color. Oh and too small and incapable (by a long shot) of making Iron at its core.
OK all that being said, another question for you. Do have any clue as to what our blood is a compound of? Wait for it…..Iron! Wow how surprising is that? So what does that say in general about the age of our sun (compared to the rest of the universe) and where one of the most abundant elements on the earth came from? OK I know your scratching you head and don’t have a clue what I’m talking about so I’ll tell you. All of the heavy elements on this Earth (solar system as well) came from another star that lived and died and seeded our solar system long before our sun ever came into existence! Not years not 10’s of thousands of years, not even Millions, Billions of years before our sun formed in it’s present location there was a much, much larger super giant of a star in our neighborhood lived out it’s life and died out.
Bottom line is this my friend. There is no single creation event (other than the Big Bang and by the way I think that was God’s work) where all the stars and all the galaxies were formed all at once!! Period, don’t believe me I suggest you take an Astronomy class and perhaps some simple physics as well! If you do I assure you if you do and you learn even the simplest of the laws of physics and astronomy It will open your eyes to the truth and perhaps you will stop worshipping the Bible and begin worshiping God in all his glory. Physics is mans way of learning a small fraction of God’s rules that control the universe!
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Just a question- how could anyone believe the world was created 6000 years ago when there are cultures and civilizations older then 6000 years?
 

challupa

Well-Known Member
Just a question- how could anyone believe the world was created 6000 years ago when there are cultures and civilizations older then 6000 years?
That's a question I've been asking for a long time. Before I came to RF I had no idea people didn't believe in evolution, an old earth etc. Boggles the mind it does!!:facepalm:
 

JustWondering2

Just the facts Ma'am
That's a question I've been asking for a long time. Before I came to RF I had no idea people didn't believe in evolution, an old earth etc. Boggles the mind it does!!:facepalm:

Yes it does!
I wonder how many of those folks also think the Earth is flat and the center of the universe? Those are the ones that I cannot believe! Oh and I bet some of those same folks think that NASA faked the Moon landing too! LOL :facepalm::thud:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If one finds a map that tells the location of a treasure, one will apply the information and not cast it aside with the logic, it isn't scientific. The truth is that much of what has been found in archaeology has been researched because of biblical information provided. Which is more than anyone can say for the Book of Mormon (as an example).
The Bible's been the source of inspiration for much more archaeology than what we currently hold to be true. Over the years, there have been more expeditions than I care to count to find the final resting place of Noah's Ark. We just don't hear much about them because every single one of them was unsuccessful.
 

kaknelson

Member
That is quite sad but i am sure the percentage in Greece is way more with more then 95 % being Greek Orthodox blindly following the priests manical speeches and teachings
 
Top