In the mid-1700s—about a century before the birth of geology and the first scientific attempts to determine Earth's age—an archbishop of the Church of Ireland named James Ussher mapped out the genealogies and chronologies of Biblical characters all the way back to Adam and Eve, and concluded that the world was created in the year 4004 B.C.
The earliest scientific attempts to estimate the age of the Earth exceeded Ussher's number by tens of thousands of years, and the Biblical and scientific accounts have only diverged further since.
So, what happens when you try to reconcile them? We give you (via ilovecharts) the Geologic Time Scale For Creationists:
the "happy" face of people who believe in creacionism is that don't react so badly as muslims about believes. maybe if every time our faith is attacked, should be taken it with a grain of salt, many lives could be spared!!
i certainly believe that this kind of evidence beyond make us feel insulted, should teach us that there is different points of view and we must to find the ways to confirm everything that we believe. because our nature is to doubt what our senses perceive
Although it should probably say so to be clearer, this chart obviously only applies to Young Earth Creationists that really do believe Earth is 6,000 years old. When every piece of science says Earth is much, much older, I have no problem with discounting that position.
When it comes to intellectual rigour, and answers to empirical questions, the religious point of view is just the opinions of people who prefer to believe things they don't understand, can't justify, and prefer not to.
What I find darkly amusing is the apologetics; the attempts to clarify by explaining what they think is a stronger position. Witness the details of actual creationist theory in this thread -- people actually think this is compelling and reasonable.
Hmmm. I do not seem to be in a particularly tolerant mood for bulls**t today.
and by the way. the WWI could be fight on dinosaurs like Dinoriders???
way better than tanks and planes!!!!
You can either argue, or you can laugh.
HA ha hah hah aha ha!
Laughing at ignorant people is such fun!
Thank you PopSci for defending our freedoms!
I don't think this article slights religion at all. Ussher, who is in geology text books (Hence, the science relation to the article), came up with his "theory" which was later upended by geologists of the time. Anyone who is religious knows of someone prominent in their religion that has backed a dumb theory or said something stupid before and, it will probably happen again. So, theistic people, don't get wrapped around the axle about it. Unfortunately, it's the least scientific minded of religious folks that seem to think they know science the best.
Also: Robot goes to the church of Transformerism where Optimus Prime is the patron saint. LOL!
i feel like people commenting on this thread aren't taking into account that there is a creationist museum in america. There are creationist textbooks and there is a huge creationist movement that has been trying to put itself into science classrooms since before any of us were born. It didn't just start and it's not just one or two relatively quiet people that believe the world is a few thousand years old.
@ROBOT: science and religion are not completely isolated entities. They are both methods of thought that are meant to find answers/certainty about things we can't grasp from our sensory experiences alone. So, if a holy book says the world is about 6000 years old and a science book says it's 4.5 billion years old. I'd say the two are at odds with each other. Don't get me wrong, you can ascribe to thoughts from both methods, but I think it's misleading to imply that only an act of foolishness would pit one against the other. I mean.. we all remember the stories of Galileo and Copernicus, right?
Its too bad a majority of people who don't agree with religion think everyone believes the world was made 6k years ago just because we believe in God.
This was a man, who decided to add some sort of personal importance to the history of religion, and he thought he was right. This is no different than when they added "Limbo" and made money off it..
There are countless of times a single person or small group of people have added or changed things in religious history which made it much easier to push aside the belief of a higher power now for people.
What if we logged all the "mistakes" made in science throughout the history of it and used them individually to excuse it ALL as false the same way you do about religion?
Im not a bible thumper, nor do I believe anything is wrong with it. I believe in a supreme being, in a way that allows it to be acceptable to me and makes sense to me. Its too bad not everyone holds onto some sort of spirituality, once I found mine, life became... well, life...
* I’m living the future so the presence is my past *
"For a science-oriented website, there are an awful lot of commentors advocating a worrying degree of sympathy and credibility to creationist thinking.
Guys, I don't know what to say. That stuff is crazy and stupid; it deserves no respect and should certainly receive none here."
Since when did name calling and prima facia disrespect become part of scientific method? I certainly do not hold to the cosmology that believe the world to rests on an elephant sitting on a turtle. That does not mean I treat those beliefs with contempt or scorn. I might argue against them based on the evidence mankind has gained over the last few millinium on the issue, but not with disrespect.
The angry secularist is a cliche' of self-refferrential incoheirence. If there is no greater, second, or after life, then there is no benefit to whining at others who hold to beliefs, no matter how incorrect. The only valid responce from an athiest in the view of theism is apathy. Those who do believe in cosmic repercussions to their actions (karma, an afterlife, etc), do have motivation to proslytize.
Science debases itself when it tries to debunk religion. Science should simple strive to understand the world and present the truth of it to the world. Then, people can see how their beliefs align or do not align with the world. When science acts to debunk religion, it takes upon itself an AGENDA - which allows people to disreguard science wholesale, since "SCIENCE" now is out to destroy their worldview (usually with deciet - since "SCIENCE" is always changing its mind about what is true).
If you truely believe creationism to be junk, then do not waste your time arguing against creationism. Instead, do solid science, teach truth and rational thought, and trust that if someone sees good science with a rational mind they will cast aside previously held beliefs.
If you cannot do this, ask if it is because you (1) do not have sufficient scientiffic evidence, in which case, what harm does their beleif do while that evidence comes to light?, (2) you do not have confidence that your position would hold water in light of the evidence, (3) you do not trust your fellow man to be rational (at which point, why argue with him at all, since to argue ration with someone who is irrational is itself irrational).
In case anyone has forgotten, evolution would also be considered a "religion". You "believe" that the earth created its self from nothing. Evolutionist or anyone does not have ANY solid evidence for evolution, or no one has seen it happen, but they say that it is a science, and that they have proven it. Someone might say that we do not have any evidence that our God made the earth and that he exist, but that is were religion comes in. Your right, we don't, but we also don't call ours a science and force it into everyone's head. We call it a "religion", and we say that we "believe" that God made the earth 6k years ago.
THIS IS GREAT!!!!!!!! THIS ARTICLE WAS CLEARLY WRITTEN WITH THE INTENTION OF STIRRING UP A HEATED DEBATE!
I, LIKE MANY PEOPLE HERE, AM MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT EITHER PARTY HAS TO SAY ON THE MATTER. WE AS A SPECIES LEARN THRU EACH OTHER. AND SO ANY TOPIC WORTHY OF DEBATE (SCIENCE VS. RELIGION) IS SURELY WORTH PLACING ON POPSCI. THIS IS ALMOST A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT.
LOL HELLO TO ALL THE PEOPLE ENTERTAINING EACH OTHER! BET YOU HAD FUN DEBATING THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?
@Oni See you claim this isnt what the creationism movement is about, but thats complete bull. I had a dead serious 3 hour argument with a guy who believed the earth was 6000 years old, and I really wish I could say it was the first time it has happened. So clearly this chart seems accurate for what a great many creationist believe. But hey dont take my word on it. Go to www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum and see for youself
and i quote
"Its exhibits reject universal common descent and biological evolution, and assert that the Earth and all of its life forms were created 6,000 years ago over a six-day period." So before you try to tell people its NOT what your movements about maybe you should actually learn what your movement is teaching others.
The cosmos is only a half century old, since 50 years or so ago, is when It first came into the world to view it. I imagine 30 plus years in the future, my view of the cosmos will grow dark and my in soul will see a completely new view. Perspective and plays a large part too.
You do realize you are the first and only one, typing caps right.....
I have one question for all of the evolutionist.
Were you there?
4.5 billion years ago or 6000 years ago? lol
@Bufu: I think you're making a lot of assumptions about non-believers. There are tons of people that rely on science to understand their physical world, yet are still more than willing to accept the idea that there are forces beyond their comprehension. Personally, It's the institutions that try to claim what goes on beyond our comprehension that generally irks me. You can define the terms to whatever works for you, but, for me, the term "religion" seems like that thing people use in an attempt to find certainty about things that are completely untestable: What do dreams mean? What's past the furthest star? Why does life exist? Whenever any of these questions get anything remotely close to convincing evidence, it's always coming from scientific study and it's usually nowhere near what a religion had previously claimed.
And just to be clear here, I'm not talking about getting an allegorical meaning or treating religious texts as folk lore, mostly based in a quasi-factual framework. I'm talking about real conviction. For example I like greek mythology; i find it fascinating and chock-full of meaningful stories. But, I don't think my fascination would necessarily make me any more or less religious.
As for spirituality, I don't know what to tell you. I'm still not entirely sure what the word means.
It depends on your view!
Remember this not about science, it is about a belief!
The craddle of civilization began with the Sumerians and when scientist learn of the Sumerian writing of Gods who came down from above and created several versions of humans to work for the Gods, until they settle upon one type of human, they tend igore the "GODS" part as fairy tails, but later call the Sumerians highly advanced.
Everyone just picks and chooses, what they 'prefer' to believe..... lol.
Well, this was my first visit to popsci and the sheer mass of derp in the comments do not exactly entice me to return. I'll reiterate my initial impression: for a science and technology website, a significant number of the people replying here are idiots.
Perhaps this is more due to other people led here through social network site, so I won't judge just yet. It's not an encouraging sign, though.
To respond on a personal level,
"Since when did name calling and prima facia disrespect become part of scientific method?"
OK, you. I will not stoop to correcting your spelling and grammar, but please do something about it. Anyway, what the f*ck does the scientific method have to do with my comment? I do not eat breakfast using the scientific method, and I do not generally employ it in conversation. To have that as your first line of defence hints very strongly that you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.
Besides, this is not prima facie. About a decade ago I was a rather militant atheist, and debated the issues quite a lot. But... I got bored. Religion is dull, both socially and theologically. I don't argue it anymore because "you cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reason himself into", and also because it is simple nonsense to me. I've done this dance before, and I know your kind. You'll excuse me if I choose to spend my time on something more fruitful.
Lets remember "the" definition of science: (from a dictionary)
1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. Any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. Systematized knowledge in general.
5. Knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
Well, Robot, I don't know what to say to that. Are you implying that the theory that Sumerians having Gods creating them and writing on tablets as an equally plausible theory to the one where
Sumerians just made the Gods up? Am I just being close-minded when I think that shooting someone in the head will kill them? I mean, some guy on TV says it will kill them, but I haven't been around for a gunshot to the head. So, what do i know? There is also this minister that says Jesus can save me from a gunshot, so maybe I should listen to him. Since they are both theories, they are both inherently equal, right? Do I really get to "pick and choose what I 'prefer' to believe? Could it possibly be a little more complicated than that?
Hypocrisy is the main problem here.
People say they follow this religious book or that, then when asked they say "well I don't believe that part"
But somehow they expect us to accept their views as valid?
And when members of their faith DO embrace everything in those "holy" books they are called extremists.
They are not extremists. They are only doing exactly as their religion dictates.
So just admit that the "holy" books are WRONG.
The hypocrisy is costing lives.
Your right about people saying "I don't believe that". That would be like people picking and choosing what they want to believe, but people now days tend to make everything fit their way of life.
And some of us wonder why we have so many churches now days or Bibles!lol
I think the problem lies in that people are to comfortable in their SIN. Someone confronts them about it and instead of not doing it anymore, they just find a Bible that fits, a church that says it is ok, or another religion that makes them "feel" better. Or you could be like most people. They just say that they believe in nothing and that they are here for no purpose!lol
Creationist, secularist, evolutionist, naturalist - what productive purpose do these labels serve?
Look, people, the bible (just like EVERY other religious text) was written, edited, and translated several times over by PEOPLE. There are no religions that believe man is infallible. Myths, fables, and parables (just like history) can teach wisdom, but no one is really expecting to find proof that a tortoise at some point in time had a foot race with a hare.
Faith in something more than what we understand is simply part of the human experience, but blind faith is a plague upon our species. You do not have to literally believe Moses saw God in a burning bush to accept the 10 Commandments as a moral guide. Just like you do not need time-lapse video evidence of real time evolution to accept it as a logical explanation for bio-diversity and the fossil record.
Do you get to pick and choose what you believe, you ask. I have free will; I hope you do too.
As scientist admire the Sumerians to be the cradle of humanity, it is this, I respect those writings on the Sumerian walls or tablets that refer humans being made from Gods in several forms. Now the Sumerians referred to them as Gods with what knowledge or reference they had at the time. They could also be outsiders of a different kind.
And as much as the earth is 4.5~.7 billion years old and we have evolution, with the occasional surprise changes in DNA life, primates on long the evolution trail might of had some tweaking done to their DNA. These early evolved primate\humans could have been given some education with their new tweak brains as well, so as the animal\primate woke up with its new intelligent mind and given new information about himself, surroundings and the Gods above, creation did in fact begin.
In the old mind animal\primate there was darkness. And with God and the new\primate their began light, 6000\10,000 years a so ago.
So yes we can have science, we can have Gods, we can have religion, we can have evolution and it all can be true at the same time.;)
What happened to popular SCIENCE?
You simply can't accurately characterize the belief of a group of people based on the statement of one person's point of view.
"I had a dead serious 3 hour argument with a guy who believed the earth was 6000 years old, and I really wish I could say it was the first time it has happened. So clearly this chart seems accurate for what a great many creationist believe." -USNDonahue
Neither a 3 hour argument with "a guy" nor the opinion of a ~200 year old archbishop can define what a group of people thinks or believes. (As a side note, it may be anachronistic to even call the archbishop a creationist.)
(@USNDonahue If you actually have the same argument with "a great many creationist[s]," then I'm sorry you've been wasting your time.)
Are there *some* people who believe this? Yes. Does that mean every person who subscribes to creationism believes in the archbishop's conclusion? No.
This should be so abundantly clear. This is the same reason why stereotypes aren't acceptable or respectable.
So is this what PopSci is about? Is this the direction they want the site to take? Was this really the collective effort of "PopSci Staff"? Is this article an example of what the *Bonnier Corporation* is about?
It would be great for the true author to speak for himself. Whoever you might be, I challenge you to state your name and intentions. Was your inention to stereotype creationists according to the ideas of a 200 year old archbishop and a chart not made nor promoted by creationists? Or, were you just trying to be funny in a way that defines creationists as backward thinking ignorant folk in an underhanded way?
Give me a reason to disagree with the conclusion that you (the author of this article) are simply a troll who got a chance to write an article on PopSci. Otherwise I'm inclined to agree that your anonymity and silence are quite trollish.
Perhaps the author of this article is so ignorant of what actual creationists believes that that he/she thinks this misrepresentation is accurate.
I will pessimistically await for a response from the author of this article.
Imagine what havoc a no name writer in this PoPSci article has caused today. Oh the power of the media and the crazy violent people in the middle east now.
I feel you on that one, Robot. Domestication of dogs could of been guided from an ancient wolf spirit. Birds flew out of the center of the earth when the first volcano erupted, 15,000 years ago, you know, just before the first human vs. vampire war. I mean, you certainly can't disprove it. And, whatever you do, don't try and talk to those close-minded scientists and atheists about this kind of stuff. They'll just bore you with facts and laborious lectures about plausibility.
Although, I do like your idea of ancient Gods' directing man's consciousness. Heck, anything good enough for L. Ron Hubbard is good enough for me.
Strider: Who is talking about stereotypes? Sure, there are christians that don't believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, but nobody on this post has been talking about that group. There are a lot of people that subscribe to particular faiths that take rather absolute stances on how the earth was created. A gallup done this year, showed that 46% of Americans think humans just popped unto the earth 10,000 years ago(or less). [link posed below] There is always a gray area, but this article isn't addressing those people. This article is addressing a very real movement that has sparked museums, movies, plays, tv shows, radio shows, and courtroom battles against evolution. Why are you pretending like you aren't aware of this?