Thread: Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 believe man created by God 10,000 years ago

Originally Posted by gugi

What about the Jesus toast - is that explained by natural or unnatural processes?

the Jesus toast?

yeah, this type of thing: BBC NEWS | Americas | 'Virgin Mary' toast fetches $28,000

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

Natural processes explain rock formations but do not explain Mount Rushmore.

There is no need to explain Mount Rushmore. We know humans created it.

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

My question to you guys is if you landed on Mars and found Mount Rushmore....how would you decide if it was due to natural erosion or blasted out by someone?

It's a sculpture of human faces. It's very detailed and obviously cut out from the surrounding rock. I don't think many would think it was from natural erosion. There would be plenty of evidence it was man made.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

How would anyone know that?

If anything it would seem from the evidence that if there is a god he doesn't care about humans at all.

A, so now you're a deity expert as well. What you mean is "if there's a God and he's like humans then he doesn't care at all" because you believe that if there'd be a God he'd do the things that YOU think are right.

They aren't the same kinds of faith. Religion requires blind faith. You have to believe god exists without any evidence.

You don't need blind faith in science. It might be difficult but you can reproduce the results claimed by science and verify them yourself.

I'm sure most rely on faith with regards to science. Faith in the scientists that they are not deceiving the public.

No, you're wrong. Most people that believe in God have had plenty of evidence. What you're saying is believe in God without evidence repeatable in a lab. There's quite a difference.

So I'd say that the main difference is then believing someone else's evidence (science) versus your own evidence (religion). That doesn't mean one is more valid than the other. But people who believe in God generally believe that they've had plenty evidence.

So I still say it's the same thing. Just based on different things. The Idead FAITH doesn't change whether you put it in science/medicine/people/religion/whooping naked around a campfire/your ancestors.

Originally Posted by markevens

Science is built upon evidence.

Religion is built on myth.

The difference is so huge that I cannot imagine how one could possibly say both rely on faith.

Then maybe you should read my posts again? It is because in both science AND religion there's a trust on a higher authority/other authority.

Scientists build on the theories put forward by previous scientists. They don't go out and first try to make sure that all those theories are correct. If they did that then nothing new would probably ever be discovered.

Building on something that you didn'nt verify for yourself (trust in) is called faith.

The problem is that so many people who call up the science VS religion debate (which is a stupid debate in itself the more I think about it) think that because faith is mentioned often in religion it's a religion exclusive concept. It's simply not.

What about the parent that tells his child "I have faith in you" and as proof of that faith drives him/her to soccer practise?

How about the teacher that claims to have faith in his pupil and as a result spends extra time with him making sure that the student passes an exam.

Or the student that has faith in the teacher and as a result studies the material the teacher presented him with.

All faith, all nothing to do with religion.

I won't say what side of the fence I'm on...

Someone referred me to this url several years ago and it was so "entertaining", that I saved the url for later use: Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

Originally Posted by Sticky

I won't say what side of the fence I'm on...

Someone referred me to this url several years ago and it was so "entertaining", that I saved the url for later use: Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

That explains why there's so few normal, intelligent people in the world

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

A, so now you're a deity expert as well. What you mean is "if there's a God and he's like humans then he doesn't care at all" because you believe that if there'd be a God he'd do the things that YOU think are right.

You're the one claiming to know what god cares about and you claim I'm the expert?

And now you're telling me what I mean? I know what I mean and it's not what you claim.

There is no evidence of a god intervening in human lives at all. If he's a caring god he sure isn't doing much.

If he just cares about humans but does nothing then he's irrelevant.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

No, you're wrong. Most people that believe in God have had plenty of evidence.

They can claim they have evidence but it doesn't mean they actually do.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

What you're saying is believe in God without evidence repeatable in a lab. There's quite a difference.

Why would anyone care about anecdotal evidence?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

So I'd say that the main difference is then believing someone else's evidence (science) versus your own evidence (religion). That doesn't mean one is more valid than the other. But people who believe in God generally believe that they've had plenty evidence.

No they aren't just as valid. One is anecdotal evidence and the other isn't.
Completely different things.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

It is because in both science AND religion there's a trust on a higher authority/other authority.

Except with science you don't have to trust a higher authority. You can perform the experiments yourself. You can't do that with religion.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

The problem is that so many people who call up the science VS religion debate (which is a stupid debate in itself the more I think about it) think that because faith is mentioned often in religion it's a religion exclusive concept. It's simply not.

There is not one definition for faith. You put blind trust in the claims of holy texts. You don't have to put blind trust in scientific texts.

Big difference.

Originally Posted by Navaja

That explains why there's so few normal, intelligent people in the world

Why don't you point out what's wrong with the video instead of trying to insult?