Posted on 04/21/2014 2:52:15 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Few Americans question that smoking causes cancer. But they express bigger doubts as concepts that scientists consider to be truths get further from our own experiences and the present time, an Associated Press-GfK poll found.
Americans have more skepticism than confidence in global warming, the age of the Earth and evolution and have the most trouble believing a Big Bang created the universe 13.8 billion years ago.
Rather than quizzing scientific knowledge, the survey asked people to rate their confidence in several statements about science and medicine. […]
About 4 in 10 say they are not too confident or outright disbelieve that the earth is warming, mostly a result of man-made heat-trapping gases, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or that life on Earth evolved through a process of natural selection, though most were at least somewhat confident in each of those concepts. But a narrow majority—51 percent—questions the Big Bang theory. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Who do you believe, God or unbelievers? Christians believe God’s Word. He does not lie.
Could it be that with every Big Bang, past and/or future, that God is reborn?
God is not a phoenix nor vice versa.
There is no such thing as a phoenix.
Good ol’ AP, mixing in the myth of global warming with real accepted scientific findings such as the age of the Earth and the Big Bang theory of the beginning of the universe. Pure sophistry.
The more scientists rely on conjecture, the less they rely on science. Why is it therefore surprising that a scientists conjectures are less believed than science?
The Big Bang: God said, let there be light, and there was light.
The “big bang” did not create the universe. Assuming it is true, the “big bang” is the result of the creation of the universe.
The “big bang” theory is not an adequate explanation for the origin of the universe.
If you have to “believe” in something, because it cannot be demonstrated by repeated, independent experiments, then the issue is faith, not science.
Evolution is a well-understood factor of biology, which affects all life and will continue to shape life for as long as life continues.
The Big Bang is inferred through observations of the universe. I am not a physicist; I have no idea whether the observational basis of the Big Bang is anywhere close to the evidentiary support of on-going evolution.
The estimated age of the earth is based on pretty solid physical observations. Some things, like the rate of radioactive decay, are constant.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on the behavior of CO2 fluorescence in the infrared range. I have not heard any really satisfactory explanation of how this fluorescence is supposed to heat up the entire atmosphere, or seen any observational/experimental data to indicate that this is happening. The majority of scientific publications that “demonstrate” AGW are speculations about future calamities that will happen if AGW continues. Speculations, of course, do not demonstrate anything.
So, the evidentiary basis of all of these scientific theories is of various levels of reliability, with evolution probably having the most solid basis and AGW having almost no basis.
hehe
Dumba** liberal arts graduates at AP. Every scientist understands that the Big Bang theory might be wrong and a better explanation found. Not so with anthropogenic global climate change! That means that ACC is not at all like the Big Bang Theory; anthropogenic climate change is simply another religious faith which must stand despite contradictory facts or better alternatives
Why would anyone question any aspect of a scientific theory when scientists are never wrong?
Likewise, evolution is another example of science run amok. While evolutionary principles seem to be evident in the progression of life, citing evolutionary principles as evidence for the origin of life is simply bad science.
Please tell us what the “solid basis” for so-called evolution is.
NO!
There can only be ONE “causative force”.
There can only be one ETERNAL “causative force”.
I can’t think of a more irrelevant, unanswerable question than that.
“the rate of radioactive decay ~ constant”
So please explain the blind radio-isotope dating from the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption that showed ages greater than a million years old. Isn’t the heat and pressure from a volcanic event supposed to reset these atomic clocks? Did you ever stop to consider they used the term supposed b/c they have no scientific instruments to measure atomic decay rates within the magma - the heat and pressure are simply too great. What is the beginning ratio of father/daughter elements?
If you approach evolution as a skeptic the more rocks you uncover the less any of their supposed claims hold true. When has macro evolution ever been observed? Where are the thousands upon thousands of missing links Darwin envisioned or his theory completely falls apart? What is your explanation for stasis or better yet polystrate fossils?
There are loads of evolutionary believers on these threads but they never have even the beginnings of an explanation for these simple questions. I won’t hold my breath for your answers either though.
And they want to tell us science is science, not opinion.................
Evolution is a well-understood factor of biology, which affects all life and will continue to shape life for as long as life continues.
Too many people have gotten their scientific information from teenage mutant ninja turtles.....................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.