Poll: 63% of Americans think Bible literally true

[nakedemperor]

It appears that empirical science (mechanical science, operational science) include both observing (aka "seeing it"), and repeatable testing. When dealing with the issue of origins, no one can observe what happened in the past or do repeated testing on what happened in the past.

You can repeatedly prove by radiocarbon dating and other atomic decay methods that rocks were created millions of years ago. You can observe through weathering, sedimentation, and erosional forces over the course of single human lifetime, and then observe strata and canyon walls and see that geological processes take in the order of millions-billions of years. Also, I'm not going to argue origins (again) on a predominantly evangelical messageboard. But to assert that the world is younger than 10,000 years old is to disregard fundamental tenents of science on the order of stubborn closed-mindedness. Or blind faith. Semantics.

We can only take the phenomena we observe around us and make assumptions. Some people choose to believe that there was no supernatural influence in the beginning of the universe, others choose to believe that there was. And so we have theories stemming from these a priori assumptions.

This is very reductionist. To assert that all assumptions (read: all hypotheses) suffer from the same lack of provability is overly-simplified; the law of gravitiy can be viewed as an "assumption" that all objects will fall at a rate of 9.8 feet per second, even if it has happened as such every single time it has been tested. This is a hyperbolic example, obviously, but shows that different hypotheses (say, the "assuming" that an apple will fall at9.8fps, and "assuming" that God created the universe <10,000 years ago) are assumptions with different levels of credibility and testibility. You argument that radioactive isotopes havent always decayed at the incredibly consistant rate that they do today, is , for example, an "assumption" with very low probability and zero testibility.

Also, most of science is not at all affected by the assumption that the earth/universe is billions of years old. Most of the branches of modern science were founded by men who believed that the earth was thousands of years old and created by God over a period of six days.

And their scientific worldviews were flawed; scientific branches like astronomy were hindered by the religious beliefs of scientists, and furtherd by the concessions of the religious community. Re: Galileo, e.g.

Theories of origins do not affect the scientific method,

Yes. Scientific method affects theories of origin.

 

[deaddude]

Again the are entire books of the bible that are present in some religions and absent in others. So Which version is beleived to be Literally true? The Catholic bible (which includes the book of Jubilees), The Coptic Bible (which has the book of Enoch), and the King James Version (which has neither) have some significant differences.

 

[Nienna]

You can repeatedly prove by radiocarbon dating and other atomic decay methods that rocks were created millions of years ago.

See post #48 for problems with the basic assumptions behind radiometric dating processes. The general method is to submit a rock sample to a lab along with a "guesstimate" about how old they expect the sample to be. Several tests are run per sample, and sometimes different samples are taken from nearby spots in the strata because results vary so widely. I am not saying that scientists purposely "cook" the results. But, with the variation in the results of the tests, they must use more than one method, and so they fall back onto circular reasoning. How old is this fossil/ rock strata. Run the radiometric tests. Varied results? How old do you expect the fossil/ strata to be? Is there a result close to this? Ok, go with that one.

Radiometric testing has also been observed to be quite wrong. For example, K-Ar dating was used on five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Ngaururuhoe in New Zealand. One lava flow was observed to have occurred in 1949, three in 1954, andone in 1975. Yet the testing showed results from about 270,000 to 3.5 million years old (AA Snelling, Proc. 4th ICC, 1998, pp503-525).

You can observe through weathering, sedimentation, and erosional forces over the course of single human lifetime, and then observe strata and canyon walls and see that geological processes take in the order of millions-billions of years.

Indeed, one can observe weathering, sedimentation, and erosional forces and their effects! One can observe that there appears to be no weathering and erosion between layers in rock beds, even observe ripple marks, even raindrop dips! Also, rock layers are undisturbed by worms, roots, and other biological activity. The layers must have formed very quickly for all of this to be preserved! If the layers had been exposed as they formed, erosional forces would have removed these features.

Also, I'm not going to argue origins (again) on a predominantly evangelical messageboard. But to assert that the world is younger than 10,000 years old is to disregard fundamental tenents of science on the order of stubborn closed-mindedness. Or blind faith. Semantics.

Well, I hate to say it, but there seems to be no other response. The above statement is simple assertion. I was trying to give observed data to back up my belief in the teachings of the Bible.

This is very reductionist. To assert that all assumptions (read: all hypotheses) suffer from the same lack of provability is overly-simplified; the law of gravitiy can be viewed as an "assumption" that all objects will fall at a rate of 9.8 feet per second, even if it has happened as such every single time it has been tested. This is a hyperbolic example, obviously, but shows that different hypotheses (say, the "assuming" that an apple will fall at9.8fps, and "assuming" that God created the universe <10,000 years ago) are assumptions with different levels of credibility and testibility.

You're right! We must not compare apples and oranges. Testing the Law of Gravity is an example of operational/mechanical science. I would not assert that this law has the same degree of "testability" as theories about the origin of the universe. That is why I compare the hypothesis that God created the universe in six days less than 10,000 years ago with the theory that the universe emerged from a "Big Bang," developed with or without supernatural aid, that nonliving matter evolved into living cells, and these from simple creatures to more complex, culminating in modern man.

You argument that radioactive isotopes havent always decayed at the incredibly consistant rate that they do today, is , for example, an "assumption" with very low probability and zero testibility.

Actually, even most evolutionists believe that there have been "blips" in the decay rates of isotopes. This was observed after atomic testing.

And their scientific worldviews were flawed; scientific branches like astronomy were hindered by the religious beliefs of scientists, and furtherd by the concessions of the religious community. Re: Galileo, e.g.

Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, et al seem to have done all right for themselves despite their beliefs about the origin of the universe. Galileo's science was actually embraced by the Church (at the time, the Catholic Church). He was labeled a heretic for disobeying a papal decree.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp

Yes. Scientific method affects theories of origin.

Would not debate this. What I claim is that theories of origin do not necessarily affect the scientific method applied to other branches of science.

 

[dmp]

Mom...I have to tell you something...please take as philia....

I love you.



EXCELLENT Reply....Very-VERY well written. You kick ass.

 

[Nienna]

Mom...I have to tell you something...please take as philia....

I love you.



EXCELLENT Reply....Very-VERY well written. You kick ass.

Philia, Brother! Back atcha!

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

That is why I compare the hypothesis that God created the universe in six days less than 10,000 years ago with the theory that the universe emerged from a "Big Bang," developed with or without supernatural aid, that nonliving matter evolved into living cells, and these from simple creatures to more complex, culminating in modern man.

It really does basically come down to that, doesn't it! There are two equally difficult to "scientifically" prove theories and the question is, which do you find easier to swallow? On the one hand you have God, an omnipotent entity that can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whoever it wants, for whatever reason it wants. On the other hand you have a system that has a 1:1,000,000...000,000 chance of actually working out. I won't lie, I find it easier to believe that the 1:1,000,000...000,000 chance worked out this once than I do believing in a literal God because a literal God is just too "awesome" for me to comprehend. The 1:1,000,000...000,000 chance is easier for me to imagine because I believe this universe has been created and destroyed 1,000,000...000,000 times and the other 999,999...999,999 times, no life ever got to the point where it could ask itself "Gee, I wonder how I came to exist?". Is it easier to believe that something out there controls every single aspect of your life or to believe that if you played 123456789 on the lottery every time, you would eventually hit the jackpot?

Let's put it another way: there is a 1:1,000,000...000,000 chance that George Bush could ever have been born. If any one of his parents died, or their parents died, or their parents died, etc. etc. before having children, then George Bush would not exist today. So, is it "unbelievable" that he could be President today? Not really because if any of his ancestors had died prematurely, he never would be here for us to say "Isn't it amazing that George Bush was ever born!".

 

[Nienna]

It really does basically come down to that, doesn't it! There are two equally difficult to "scientifically" prove theories and the question is, which do you find easier to swallow? On the one hand you have God, an omnipotent entity that can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whoever it wants, for whatever reason it wants. On the other hand you have a system that has a 1:1,000,000...000,000 chance of actually working out. I won't lie, I find it easier to believe that the 1:1,000,000...000,000 chance worked out this once than I do believing in a literal God because a literal God is just too "awesome" for me to comprehend.

Yes, it really does come down to the battle of two faith systems. It's rare that someone on your side of the issue will see it this way!

 

[Avatar4321]

I mean.. touche? Come on. Its scientific. Empirical. The fundamental tenents of chemistry, biology, history, geology, botany, paleontology are all based on the knowledge (not assumption) that the Earth is billions of years old, let alone greater than 10,000 years old.

Plus, how helpful is the "if you didn't see it you don't know it happened" argument? Not very.

Actually it very much is an assumption. You see in order to date everything you have to assume that everything happened in the past at the same rate they are today. that of course is quite impossible to verify. What you call Empircal is just faith in another way. It's quite possible that the so called empircal evidence is correct. But one thing I have learned in life is to never accept something just because the experts say it's true.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hey, MOM, I prefer to not get into a semantcis thing with you....the stories of the bible are widely held beliefs by a number of humans, as is Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other "isms" that you would consider heresy.

You have your belief, and that's great for you.

I would like to see evidence of a worldwide flood that occurred at the same time around the entire globe...most theologians have come to accept a localized flood as the most plausible explanation to Noah's plight....how large a boat would have to be built to house ALL the creatures of the world? Wouldn't it make the super cruise liners of today look small (or maybe some of the critters that didn't get on the boat were able to hide in a whale's belly)

How do people actually turn to salt? I have always pondered that one, as well.

I don't think its a localized flood at all. You see the flood over the earth is a type for baptism. Baptism is total immersion (by definition). Besides, there are flood myths in religions in both sides of the world. I don't think a localized flood can explain the legend being found in cultures on opposite ends of the world. Besides, since when do theologians know anything about religion?

As for how people turn to salt, perhaps a nuclear explosion would obliterate a body like that.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

MOM, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and your intelligence (don't ever call yourself, "just a stay at home mom," a woman like you raised 5 very strong and independent boys whom I know very well, and I send her a card of thanks on OUR birthdays!)

With regard to the flood theory, I have heard it explained that there is not enough moisture in our ecosystem to have caused a singular flood that would have inundated the entire globe at the same time.

The stories of the bible, to me, are nothing more than stories that can be used as a guide for common decency (except for the part about owning slaves and stoning). I think you can find the same tenents in the beliefs that the native American Indians held in their treatment of mother earth, and all the creatures that provided sustenance. There are many other examples of stories that can direct someone to lead a moral life, and make ethical decisions without the use of a deity, or omniscient overseer.

I enjoy the conversation, and I do believe the statistic that is the threads title....that 63% of Americans think the bible is LITERALLY TRUE!.

 

[dilloduck]

I doubt that 63% of Americans have even read it .

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I doubt that 63% of Americans have even read it .

Ya think?

 

[dmp]

re: flood...entire earth, etc...what's not to say the land masses above water have changed. Id Est, prior to the flood water already covered (guess) 92% of the world's surface...after, whatever it is currently. We see 'marine' fossils all the time anyway, in mountain, desert conditions.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

re: flood...entire earth, etc...what's not to say the land masses above water have changed. Id Est, prior to the flood water already covered (guess) 92% of the world's surface...after, whatever it is currently. We see 'marine' fossils all the time anyway, in mountain, desert conditions.

I guess it just takes a leap of faith to think it could be possible...just as a leap of faith to think it is all hooey, too.

http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/cr2.html is an interesting site, but not one that bolsters the young-earth perspective, nor supportive of a global flood.

Nonetheless....I appreciate your civility during our conversation.

 

[dmp]

Frankly, I'm on the fence as to a global flood or not...I'm not sure one was 'needed'. God caused 'a' flood, to start anew the life on his planet. If God could have accomplished that with a 1000 sq mile flood...100 sq mile flood or one for the entire planet and even the moon.

The idea is what's imporant...the idea about God using 'a' flood to renew what he made; Since the earth hadn't been around 'very long', he could have destroyed the wildlife, etc, with a smaller-scope flood. Or a big one. There is at least evidence for both scenarios.

 

[5stringJeff]

63% of Americans think the earth is <10,000 years old?

Not all Christians believe that the creation of the universe was exactly six days long. Many believe that the six days are six periods in which God did His creating.

 

[5stringJeff]

Actually i disagree with this. I have a NIV and a KJV. I prefer the KJV. I see alot of denominational interpretations in the NIV that I dont see in the KJV since the KJV was done before alot of the Denomination splits.

Avatar, I read that the LDS church uses the KJV almost exclusively. Is this true?

 

[dilloduck]

Not all Christians believe that the creation of the universe was exactly six days long. Many believe that the six days are six periods in which God did His creating.

So there are right and wrong Christians?

 

[dmp]

So there are right and wrong Christians?

Sure - if that helps you...but the big thing is:


(get ready for this)....




(suspense....builds)


It doesn't amount to two rat's asses if God created everything in 6 x 24 hours, or 6 x 'x' number of years. None of that matters in terms of the point of the Creation Story. It won't affect our salvation one iota.

 

[5stringJeff]

Sure - if that helps you...but the big thing is:


(get ready for this)....




(suspense....builds)


It doesn't amount to two rats' asses if God created everything in 6 x 24 hours, or 6 x 'x' number of years. None of that matters in terms of the point of the Creation Story. It won't affect our salvation one iota.

That's exactly what I was gonna say... minus the rat's asses part.