Total Posts:262|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is the Earth 6000 to 10,000 Years Old?

monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 12:06:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

What difference does it make to know how old an illusion is that will be destroyed soon? Isn't it more important to know who created these illusions and our "being"?
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 12:16:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:06:50 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

What difference does it make to know how old an illusion is that will be destroyed soon? Isn't it more important to know who created these illusions and our "being"?

You've taken the con side obviously. But you've done so in such a way that you could be discouraging those who would take the pro side. You've also stated that it's an illusion and that illusion will be destroyed soon. What do you mean by soon and why do you think that fundamentalism can't experience a renaissance with the Republican party coming to power in the next two elections? Wikipedia does refer to 40% to 50% support too.

Can we all take a position of encouraging others to state their positons on this question, as opposed to driving them away with insults? I think it's the only way to find if the 30% estimate is correct, as well as trying to determine if this forum's participants are representative of Americans.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 12:26:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:16:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:06:50 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

What difference does it make to know how old an illusion is that will be destroyed soon? Isn't it more important to know who created these illusions and our "being"?

You've taken the con side obviously. But you've done so in such a way that you could be discouraging those who would take the pro side. You've also stated that it's an illusion and that illusion will be destroyed soon. What do you mean by soon and why do you think that fundamentalism can't experience a renaissance with the Republican party coming to power in the next two elections? Wikipedia does refer to 40% to 50% support too.

Can we all take a position of encouraging others to state their positons on this question, as opposed to driving them away with insults? I think it's the only way to find if the 30% estimate is correct, as well as trying to determine if this forum's participants are representative of Americans.

You better stick to your Wikepedia and plagiarize everything that's written in there. It's obvious our Creator hasn't given you anymore to think with.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 12:51:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:26:30 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:16:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:06:50 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

What difference does it make to know how old an illusion is that will be destroyed soon? Isn't it more important to know who created these illusions and our "being"?

You've taken the con side obviously. But you've done so in such a way that you could be discouraging those who would take the pro side. You've also stated that it's an illusion and that illusion will be destroyed soon. What do you mean by soon and why do you think that fundamentalism can't experience a renaissance with the Republican party coming to power in the next two elections? Wikipedia does refer to 40% to 50% support too.

Can we all take a position of encouraging others to state their positons on this question, as opposed to driving them away with insults? I think it's the only way to find if the 30% estimate is correct, as well as trying to determine if this forum's participants are representative of Americans.

You better stick to your Wikepedia and plagiarize everything that's written in there. It's obvious our Creator hasn't given you anymore to think with.

I had no intention of plagiarizing anything. I'm detecting that you are angry with even having me ask the question. It's as if you need to distance yourself from fundamentalism because you view their young earth beliefs as embarrassing. I can't help you with that.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 1:14:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:51:41 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:26:30 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:16:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:06:50 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

What difference does it make to know how old an illusion is that will be destroyed soon? Isn't it more important to know who created these illusions and our "being"?

You've taken the con side obviously. But you've done so in such a way that you could be discouraging those who would take the pro side. You've also stated that it's an illusion and that illusion will be destroyed soon. What do you mean by soon and why do you think that fundamentalism can't experience a renaissance with the Republican party coming to power in the next two elections? Wikipedia does refer to 40% to 50% support too.

Can we all take a position of encouraging others to state their positons on this question, as opposed to driving them away with insults? I think it's the only way to find if the 30% estimate is correct, as well as trying to determine if this forum's participants are representative of Americans.

You better stick to your Wikepedia and plagiarize everything that's written in there. It's obvious our Creator hasn't given you anymore to think with.

I had no intention of plagiarizing anything. I'm detecting that you are angry with even having me ask the question. It's as if you need to distance yourself from fundamentalism because you view their young earth beliefs as embarrassing. I can't help you with that.

I'm not at all angry with you or anyone else. But by you labeling me as being on the con side of things, then you don't know who I am. I'm not on either side of the coin, I AM the coin.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 1:31:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 1:14:22 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:51:41 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:26:30 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:16:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:06:50 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

What difference does it make to know how old an illusion is that will be destroyed soon? Isn't it more important to know who created these illusions and our "being"?

You've taken the con side obviously. But you've done so in such a way that you could be discouraging those who would take the pro side. You've also stated that it's an illusion and that illusion will be destroyed soon. What do you mean by soon and why do you think that fundamentalism can't experience a renaissance with the Republican party coming to power in the next two elections? Wikipedia does refer to 40% to 50% support too.

Can we all take a position of encouraging others to state their positons on this question, as opposed to driving them away with insults? I think it's the only way to find if the 30% estimate is correct, as well as trying to determine if this forum's participants are representative of Americans.

You better stick to your Wikepedia and plagiarize everything that's written in there. It's obvious our Creator hasn't given you anymore to think with.

I had no intention of plagiarizing anything. I'm detecting that you are angry with even having me ask the question. It's as if you need to distance yourself from fundamentalism because you view their young earth beliefs as embarrassing. I can't help you with that.

I'm not at all angry with you or anyone else. But by you labeling me as being on the con side of things, then you don't know who I am. I'm not on either side of the coin, I AM the coin.

Oh alright then, you're not on the con side. You're trying to say you're the coin because you don't have the courage to take a position. It's pretty obvious that you're embarrassed by the question and don't want to hear it pursued. You think it can be left unanswered.

That's fine with me. I'll include a choice for people like you that don't want to answer the question for some reason or other.

However, it's obvious that you're a Christian and it seems like you're a devout one so with that in mind I have to say that you don't speak well for Christians. I think that good Christians wouldn't be afraid to deal with the question honestly.

Paranoia on your part? What else could it be? You think I'm trying to trap you somehow?
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 1:50:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

They think it because they used a method of measuring time done by comparing people's age to the age of other people. By doing this they judged that around 6,000 years had passed since Adam and Eve. It's the same system they used to judge when Jesus was born.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 2:23:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 1:14:22 PM, bornofgod wrote:
I'm not on either side of the coin, I AM the coin.

This owned lol
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 3:08:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 1:31:54 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 1:14:22 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:51:41 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:26:30 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:16:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:06:50 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

What difference does it make to know how old an illusion is that will be destroyed soon? Isn't it more important to know who created these illusions and our "being"?

You've taken the con side obviously. But you've done so in such a way that you could be discouraging those who would take the pro side. You've also stated that it's an illusion and that illusion will be destroyed soon. What do you mean by soon and why do you think that fundamentalism can't experience a renaissance with the Republican party coming to power in the next two elections? Wikipedia does refer to 40% to 50% support too.

Can we all take a position of encouraging others to state their positons on this question, as opposed to driving them away with insults? I think it's the only way to find if the 30% estimate is correct, as well as trying to determine if this forum's participants are representative of Americans.

You better stick to your Wikepedia and plagiarize everything that's written in there. It's obvious our Creator hasn't given you anymore to think with.

I had no intention of plagiarizing anything. I'm detecting that you are angry with even having me ask the question. It's as if you need to distance yourself from fundamentalism because you view their young earth beliefs as embarrassing. I can't help you with that.

I'm not at all angry with you or anyone else. But by you labeling me as being on the con side of things, then you don't know who I am. I'm not on either side of the coin, I AM the coin.

Oh alright then, you're not on the con side. You're trying to say you're the coin because you don't have the courage to take a position. It's pretty obvious that you're embarrassed by the question and don't want to hear it pursued. You think it can be left unanswered.

That's fine with me. I'll include a choice for people like you that don't want to answer the question for some reason or other.

However, it's obvious that you're a Christian and it seems like you're a devout one so with that in mind I have to say that you don't speak well for Christians. I think that good Christians wouldn't be afraid to deal with the question honestly.

Paranoia on your part? What else could it be? You think I'm trying to trap you somehow?

You didn't understand what I meant by "I am the coin". I AM where ALL information comes from so whatever comes out of your mind and my mind all came from the same exact mind of our Creator where all information exists. You happen to not understand this fact but I do since I was created as our Creator's voice and speak for Him.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 3:13:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 2:23:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 3/8/2014 1:14:22 PM, bornofgod wrote:
I'm not on either side of the coin, I AM the coin.

This owned lol

He will never understand what I meant by that, not even with my explanation.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 4:29:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.
30% could be fairly accurate. I'm a YEC myself. I say that 30% could be fairly accurate because I think a good number of Christians believe in OEC. And then more than likely most everyone else in the U.S. embrace what the majority of scientists believe.

What are your objections to a YEC?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 4:50:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

Not all religious people are fundamentalists who support YEC.

It is true there is a reasonable majority of preachers in the U.S who believe in YEC and preach it. That is obviously an embarrassment because it's so obviously nonsense and doesn't gel with what the Bible says.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 4:58:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 3:19:10 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
http://iliketowastemytime.com...

impossible!!

YEC (Young Earth Creationism) advocates would not consider this to be valid because carbon dating was used to validate the age of this tree. They believe all radiometric dating to be seriously flawed. (the scientific community does not agree, and neither do I)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 5:11:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

"...the National Science Board has asked Americans if they accept the idea that the continents have been moving for millions of years " and 80 percent agree. Ten percent say they don"t know, and only another ten percent firmly reject it."

I have not looked up the stats, but I would imagine 10% is much closer to reality. Also, I think 'Creationism' is vague if not already defined as 'Old Earth' or 'Young Earth', and a 'literal interpretation' could refer to a literal creation week, but not a young Earth. Gallups phrasing of the polling questions were not specific enough, IMO.

http://www.rawstory.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 5:14:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 4:50:44 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

Not all religious people are fundamentalists who support YEC.

It is true there is a reasonable majority of preachers in the U.S who believe in YEC and preach it. That is obviously an embarrassment because it's so obviously nonsense and doesn't gel with what the Bible says.

One of the few times we stand on common ground.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 5:22:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 4:29:20 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.
30% could be fairly accurate. I'm a YEC myself. I say that 30% could be fairly accurate because I think a good number of Christians believe in OEC. And then more than likely most everyone else in the U.S. embrace what the majority of scientists believe.

What are your objections to a YEC?

YEC must ignore evidence for an old Earth in order to maintain their beliefs. I will leave it to the theists to describe the religious objections to YEC. (Which I would be interested to see)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
gray28
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 6:34:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This really should have been a poll. I don't believe the earth is only that old. That's pure nonsense and shame on anyone thinking it.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 7:21:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 4:29:20 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.
30% could be fairly accurate. I'm a YEC myself. I say that 30% could be fairly accurate because I think a good number of Christians believe in OEC. And then more than likely most everyone else in the U.S. embrace what the majority of scientists believe.

What are your objections to a YEC?

I didn't start this thread to mock anybody for their beliefs so I'm not going to state my objections. But thank you for having the courage and commitment to state your position on the 'pro' side. It makes me think that you are a much more mature and stable person than bornofgod.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2014 9:29:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The willfull refusal, of the alleged believer, to use the brain that his god allegedly gave him and instead believe the idiots that propound this ridiculous lie is an indictment of their religious indoctrination.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 6:19:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

It's very worrying. But I am guessing many of the people in the poll just haven't 'heard the news' that the Earth really is ancient. And a minority of the people who believe in YEC are just ignorant. The latter of which is seriously dangerous for society as we are required to be come increasingly scientific in order to compete & survive.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 6:33:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 7:21:02 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/8/2014 4:29:20 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.
30% could be fairly accurate. I'm a YEC myself. I say that 30% could be fairly accurate because I think a good number of Christians believe in OEC. And then more than likely most everyone else in the U.S. embrace what the majority of scientists believe.

What are your objections to a YEC?

I didn't start this thread to mock anybody for their beliefs so I'm not going to state my objections. But thank you for having the courage and commitment to state your position on the 'pro' side. It makes me think that you are a much more mature and stable person than bornofgod.
The presentation of this thread is very mature in nature, so it actually demands maturity to stay in line with it. I think it was actually quite clear to me from your first post that your intention is not to mock anyone, which became even more evident after each of your following posts.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 7:13:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 5:22:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/8/2014 4:29:20 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.
30% could be fairly accurate. I'm a YEC myself. I say that 30% could be fairly accurate because I think a good number of Christians believe in OEC. And then more than likely most everyone else in the U.S. embrace what the majority of scientists believe.

What are your objections to a YEC?

YEC must ignore evidence for an old Earth in order to maintain their beliefs. I will leave it to the theists to describe the religious objections to YEC. (Which I would be interested to see)
Actual YEC scientists don't ignore evidences of an old earth. They actually do look at the whole picture including evidences for a young earth.

One of the arguments against Creationist Scientists in general (putting aside YEC/OEC for a moment) is that they almost unanimously are evangelical Christians. I honestly don't know how many Creationist Scientists are not evangelical Christians, but even if there are none, I don't think it's really a valid argument against Creationism within the field of science. And one of the reasons for that is that on the other side of the coin, a significant majority of scientists (biological) are atheists and agnostics (around 95%). So I don't think the claim that bias would only exist on the side of Creationist scientists is valid.

One of the problems here is that there is a significant number of highly educated, credentialed, qualified Creationist scientists who know far more than your average person, or even those fairly well versed in science from university level courses. They know as much as evolutionists do. They practice the very same science, come up with many of the same conclusions, but have a different outlook when it comes to historical science. Would that be surprising or impossible? I don't see why.

There are also top-level Creationist Scientists who were evolutionists and atheists (and consequently became Christians/Born Again Christians/Evangelicals. So it would stand for reason that they would certainly be fairly well versed in evolution. They didn't became Creationists because their IQ went down.

My question would be, if a large number of that 95% of scientists who belong to the National Academy Of Sciences were to become believers in Jesus Christ (let's say 75%), how many of them do you think would become Creationists? How many would become Young Earth Creationists?

Getting back to the YEC issue, I find it interesting that no known recorded historical civilization falls within the YEC time frame. There doesn't seem to be any historical link with the ancients and alleged common ancestors (written or pictorial). We have that type of evidence possibly for dinosaurs. But not common ancestors.

And then there's the oldest living organisms (currently alive) issue. The oldest trees with verified ages fall within this time frame. Even the ones with estimated ages. However, none of the clonal trees estimated to live past the YEC age are alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

None of this of course is proof of a young age earth. But I consider them noteworthy.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 7:17:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 7:13:38 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Actual YEC scientists don't ignore evidences of an old earth.

Can you supply the names and qualifications of these "scientists".
That would be nice.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 7:59:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
One of the arguments against Creationist Scientists in general (putting aside YEC/OEC for a moment) is that they almost unanimously are evangelical Christians. I honestly don't know how many Creationist Scientists are not evangelical Christians, but even if there are none, I don't think it's really a valid argument against Creationism within the field of science. And one of the reasons for that is that on the other side of the coin, a significant majority of scientists (biological) are atheists and agnostics (around 95%). So I don't think the claim that bias would only exist on the side of Creationist scientists is valid.

1. Give me this reference saying 95% of scientists are atheists/agnostics. Because I can tell you right now, in the top academic circles of science, that is very false. I would put the number closer 60-70% (6-8x as many religious as you claim)

One of the problems here is that there is a significant number of highly educated, credentialed, qualified Creationist scientists who know far more than your average person, or even those fairly well versed in science from university level courses. They know as much as evolutionists do.

Clearly not given the tremendous rebuke that conventional scientists give them on the field. Furthermore, there are at most, a handful of actual biologists (who have studies evolution at the level of research) identify as 'Young Earth Creation Scientists'. Therefore, your claim is unsubstantiated and on shaky grounds at best.

They practice the very same science, come up with many of the same conclusions, but have a different outlook when it comes to historical science. Would that be surprising or impossible? I don't see why.

No, they don't. None of their 'findings' are ever peer reviewed and published in any remotely high impact journal (ones that would love to get their hands on ground-breaking discoveries FUI) or even lower impact junk-end journals. Therefore their scientific significance is incomparable.

There are also top-level Creationist Scientists who were evolutionists and atheists (and consequently became Christians/Born Again Christians/Evangelicals. So it would stand for reason that they would certainly be fairly well versed in evolution. They didn't became Creationists because their IQ went down.

Please give reference and the count of how many were actually evolutionary biologists.

My question would be, if a large number of that 95% of scientists who belong to the National Academy Of Sciences were to become believers in Jesus Christ (let's say 75%), how many of them do you think would become Creationists? How many would become Young Earth Creationists?

Not many I presume, since most scientists that are religious do not believe in a young Earth, they're a little more sophisticated that that.

Getting back to the YEC issue, I find it interesting that no known recorded historical civilization falls within the YEC time frame. There doesn't seem to be any historical link with the ancients and alleged common ancestors (written or pictorial). We have that type of evidence possibly for dinosaurs. But not common ancestors.

And then there's the oldest living organisms (currently alive) issue. The oldest trees with verified ages fall within this time frame. Even the ones with estimated ages. However, none of the clonal trees estimated to live past the YEC age are alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

None of this of course is proof of a young age earth. But I consider them noteworthy

You mean the oldest tree that contradicts Noah's flood? Also the dendrochronology which extends back beyond 10k years? And also living polyclonal trees that are dated > 6k years?

Yeah.....
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 9:24:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

Well according to Genesis 1 it is certainly more than 42,000, though scripture actually gives us no indication when creation of the earth started, just a bald statement that God created the heavens and the earth (verse 1) then a description of it's preparation for life, as if viewed from the planet surface, (the rest of Genesis 1), the time covered by verse 2 onwards is apparently 42,000 years.

Genesis 1 is written in Chronological order. Genesis 2 is written from Adam's viewpoint as he was introduced to things.

Lol, I don't think nationality matters, far too many apply the wrong meaning of the word "day" in Genesis, wherever they live.
TheWarrior
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 9:54:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To answer the question, no. I am a Christian, and I belive that the earth is much older. The Bible never gives us the age of the earth. I believe that science has the best answer on this, that is the age of the earth. As to what I believe exactly youu can look at my debate with a YEC. Here is the link http://www.debate.org...
https://docs.google.com...
Lead Enforcer of the DDO Revolutionary Party
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 9:54:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 9:24:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.

Well according to Genesis 1 it is certainly more than 42,000, though scripture actually gives us no indication when creation of the earth started, just a bald statement that God created the heavens and the earth (verse 1) then a description of it's preparation for life, as if viewed from the planet surface, (the rest of Genesis 1), the time covered by verse 2 onwards is apparently 42,000 years.

Genesis 1 is written in Chronological order. Genesis 2 is written from Adam's viewpoint as he was introduced to things.

Lol, I don't think nationality matters, far too many apply the wrong meaning of the word "day" in Genesis, wherever they live.

4.5billion yrs stupid. Not 42K yrs.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 10:09:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 7:13:38 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/8/2014 5:22:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/8/2014 4:29:20 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/8/2014 12:01:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very large percentage of Americans seem to believe it is only that old. Is it possible that many people wouldn't have solid evidence to prove that it is?

This is fundamentalism at it's very roots and I would suggest that their views need to be shown as at least possible through the support of a reasonably large percentage of Americans.

Do the opinions of a large percentage of Americans support this fundamentalist thinking?

Are Americans on this forum representative of Americans overall or arte they not? Can Wikipedia's claim of even 30% be substantiated here?

I will begin by saying that I don't support the notion of the young earth but also disqualify myself because of me being a Canadian.
30% could be fairly accurate. I'm a YEC myself. I say that 30% could be fairly accurate because I think a good number of Christians believe in OEC. And then more than likely most everyone else in the U.S. embrace what the majority of scientists believe.

What are your objections to a YEC?

YEC must ignore evidence for an old Earth in order to maintain their beliefs. I will leave it to the theists to describe the religious objections to YEC. (Which I would be interested to see)
Actual YEC scientists don't ignore evidences of an old earth. They actually do look at the whole picture including evidences for a young earth.

One of the arguments against Creationist Scientists in general (putting aside YEC/OEC for a moment) is that they almost unanimously are evangelical Christians. I honestly don't know how many Creationist Scientists are not evangelical Christians, but even if there are none, I don't think it's really a valid argument against Creationism within the field of science. And one of the reasons for that is that on the other side of the coin, a significant majority of scientists (biological) are atheists and agnostics (around 95%). So I don't think the claim that bias would only exist on the side of Creationist scientists is valid.

One of the problems here is that there is a significant number of highly educated, credentialed, qualified Creationist scientists who know far more than your average person, or even those fairly well versed in science from university level courses. They know as much as evolutionists do. They practice the very same science, come up with many of the same conclusions, but have a different outlook when it comes to historical science. Would that be surprising or impossible? I don't see why.

There are also top-level Creationist Scientists who were evolutionists and atheists (and consequently became Christians/Born Again Christians/Evangelicals. So it would stand for reason that they would certainly be fairly well versed in evolution. They didn't became Creationists because their IQ went down.

My question would be, if a large number of that 95% of scientists who belong to the National Academy Of Sciences were to become believers in Jesus Christ (let's say 75%), how many of them do you think would become Creationists? How many would become Young Earth Creationists?

This is completely irrelevant, and unrelated to anything I said.

Getting back to the YEC issue, I find it interesting that no known recorded historical civilization falls within the YEC time frame. There doesn't seem to be any historical link with the ancients and alleged common ancestors (written or pictorial). We have that type of evidence possibly for dinosaurs. But not common ancestors.

And then there's the oldest living organisms (currently alive) issue. The oldest trees with verified ages fall within this time frame. Even the ones with estimated ages. However, none of the clonal trees estimated to live past the YEC age are alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Pando' is 80,000 years old. It is on your link above.

None of this of course is proof of a young age earth. But I consider them noteworthy.

We could get into a long discussion about evidence for an old Earth, but this is the religion forum, and I intend to stay on thread.

What motivates you /young earth advocates to adhere to a literal translation of the Bible? No malicious intent, I am just curious.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten