same here! yay!

Can you prove that theory to be false?

I think it's also interesting (read: obvious) that the percentage of YEC believers decreases with level of education.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

It's going to remarkably easy to prove that theory to be false. Think fossils, carbon dating, ice cores, and pretty much the entire science of geology.

@thesituation The vast majority of scientists agree that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. here is one of many, many links to prove this point. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

This is true. But if you know anything about Christianity (not meant to be demeaning), you'd know that Christians believed that God created the Earth. Given this, the common Christian must then take into consideration what state God created the Earth in. For instance, what if God created a log that was already half-way burnt? If a person were to see that, it would seem as if the Earth's past would extend to the point when the log first caught fire. But that wouldn't be the case.

Same basic deal here. The tool used to determine the age of the Earth is radioactive decay. What if the Earth, when first created by God, already had significantly lower ratios of the radioactive elements? It would then seem as if the earth was indeed at least 4.5 billion years old. But if God had actually done that, then the Earth really wouldn't be 4.5 billion years old.

My main point here is, you can't criticize the beliefs of others when the answer isn't obvious.

That being said, I firmly believe in evolution and the Big Bang Theory, but I would not be surprised or upset if I found out that Young Earth Creationism was actually the true beginning.

Since when we call religious myths theories? Since ever, unfortunately.

I'm not in that country! go me!

The fact that something can't be proven false doesn't make it true. If you don't agree, then prove that I'm not an ancient Hindu God. If you cannot prove this, then I guess I must be. In fact, anything I say that you cannot prove to be wrong, must be true.

Something based on belief cannot be proven, because it isn't science. Only science can be proven, because science can be reproduced by every person on the planet. Belief cannot. You wanna learn more? Attend a class of theory of science.

On what grounds would you define religious beliefs as non-theories?

A theory is a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena in a way consistent with scientific method. YEC contradicts empirical evidence. It might very well be true but it's not rational to believe in it.

Why is it that people can't read through and understand good English? (this is directed at you, Yeoman) I never claimed it was true. I merely said that you should not criticize those with other beliefs. Most people believe in the existence of a deity. With that in mind, science no longer proves, but only offers evidence.

The reason it might be true is what you've given.

The Situation is absolutely on point with his question, "Can you prove that theory to be false?"

Just like nobody can prove the existence of God, nobody can prove that God does *not* exist. Same goes for many/most religious beliefs, including creationism.

It's also dangerous for society to be calling people unintelligent for holding a religious belief, as the OP has suggested. Unless of course that belief is violent, which of course, Creationism is not.

I believe in creationism but I also read the early chapters of Genesis a little differently because the word "begat" or means "is the ancestor of" in hebrew and so there could be several generations between between what we perceive to be father and son under a literal translation. This type of gapping is seen in Matthew's account of the lineage of Christ where several names are ommitted and only the important people are listed. Matthew did this for math reasons (hence the "14 generations...14 generations...14 generations) Thus, there could be dozens of generations between one name and another.

Just another thought to put out there.

@ulytau
What you're thinking of is a theorem. Would a political theory be considered a theory? It isn't a "proposed explanation of empirical phenomena in a way consistent with scientific method". Yet it is a theory. You're classifying all theories under the common subcategory of the scientific theory.

Situationist, I think you've made your statement. Enjoy the feeling and enjoy whatever beliefs you prefer.

Look people, you can't argue with beliefs. They simply don't obey proof that they don't like. So let's just leave them to it and hope they don't grab too much power.

The arts and philosophy has much lower standards for what passes for theory because of the immeasurability of casues, impacts... Political theory is not a scientific theory proper.

I am not getting into the proving/disproving the existence of God, which I believe is a much deeper philosophical and theological question to be pondered, and would have warranted a much longer post. I mention only young-earth creationism. Now, to answer Mr. Situation & Co., I can criticize young-earth creationism because, as a matter of fact, it is pretty obvious that it is false. And it is reasonable to call people believing in young-earth creationism at the very least to not be thinking clearly at all in this one situation (pun intended). And I certainly agree with those who say that just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it is true. Luckily for those who do not believe in young-earth creationism, there are many people out there who work to refute/disprove the claims of young-earth creationists, so this doesn't turn into a "You can't disprove it!" type of argument.

@ulytau
The same would go for religion then, as immeasurablity couldn't be greater.

Thanks for supporting the notion that YEC is not a scientific theory.

this is a website which actually goes to lengths to refute the claims of young-earth creationists, one major group in particular, answers in genesis, article by article.
http://www.answersincreation.org/

@Jpgredsox
Yes, from a scientific perspective, the YEC does seem completely unreasonable and false. Indeed, you can criticize YEC. But that's not my problem with the OP. The OP is criticizing those who believe in YEC. That's a seemingly subtle difference.

When you take into account deities, then all of a sudden, YEC doesn't seem to be so outrageous an absurd anymore. Think of this from the perspective of those who believe in it. It's an explanation that is backed by religious beliefs (which are just as strong as, if not stronger than scientific support IN THEIR MIND). So even the most intelligent mind, if armed with beliefs such as mentioned above, will believe in YEC.

Main point, for those of you too lazy to read/understand what I wrote: criticize the theory, but not the people who believe it.

@Ulytau
I never claimed it was a scientific theory. It's far from it as science directly disagrees with it. I just called it a theory. Not a scientific theory.

It's OK to call it theory under such circumstances since the word theory is an empty box then. I'm with Ancient Chinese scholars on the point that words and their meanings should be concrete and in harmony, otherwise we just argue about nothing like we did hee ;)

@The Situation Those who believe in OP can be criticized, because their belief is not backed by any type of scientific studies, let alone any reason or logic. Yet they attempt to promote and spread their undeniably false views, most notably by building a "Creation Museum" in Kentucky as well as printing children's coloring creationist books to indoctrinate individuals at young ages. And no, the most intelligent person would not believe in it, because there would be an inherent contradiction in his views, assuming the most intelligent person would accept certain scientific laws. And the presence of a divinity does not change the equation, because scientific facts are overwhelmingly against young-earth creationism and there are other theologically acceptable views (such as the views of the website I posted above) to reconcile creation ex nihilo from God and evolution/age of the Earth.

Yeah... I was just looking for something to call it. I suppose it was all about nothing ^.^

@OP

Did the lesson include the percentages in other countries around the world?

@Yonni I only saw polls dealing with the US