4 in 10 Americans Believe God Created Earth 10,000 Years Ago

a reply to: Xtrozero

You mean smart enough to use Google and Wikipedia? Approximately 200,000 years ago. Not only that but we can trace the evolution of man over millions of years.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Xtrozero

You mean smart enough to use Google and Wikipedia? Approximately 200,000 years ago. Not only that but we can trace the evolution of man over millions of years.

Ah but that my friend is where you are wrong, we go back a few 100,000 years and we are talking different species. They could not breed with current man. Go back 100000 year and that is a much differnt man. Most likely without full development of speech yet, go back 6000 years and that is when modern man basically started.

My point is they leave it up to the person to determine what is current ...

Then they say 4 in 10 believe man started 10,000 years ago.

So you really didn't answer my question well, 100,000 is to far back to count.

originally posted by: GetHyped
There's no such thing as "100% irrefutable evidence" in science. Multiple, independent lines of evidence all point to a very old earth, if there's anything we can rule out it's a 10,000 year old earth or 10,000 year old created mankind.

The point I was trying to make is that even though the information seems more credible coming from a Scientist backed by scientific data, we still cannot trust that the information is truthful. There is no way for us to directly confirm whether life existed beyond the point we can remember existing.

a reply to: Xtrozero

No, homo sapiens go back about 200,000 years. Same species.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

As opposed to what, trusting a 2,000 year old book?

a reply to: GetHyped

Still you fail to grasp the deeper meaning behind my post.

But I do not wish to bore others by arguing with you, so please continue to misconstrue the meaning of posts of others as much as you like...

a reply to: Dark Ghost

What is the deeper meaning? Your argument from personal incredulity?

originally posted by: Degradation33
Hey, a faith debate, I love these endless semantics battles.

FAITH

Definition 1 - Complete trust of confidence in someone or something.

"I have faith that the sun will rise everyday"
"I have faith that the garbage man comes on Tuesday."

Definition 2 - Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

"I have faith that magic pixies are hidden in the bottom of my garden"
"I have faith that when we die our consciousness is downloaded into another vessel or ascends to an ethereal plain."

It seems to me even in this context definition 1 is still based on observational data. There are two definitions for a reason.

To say, "Scientific theory is faith until proven or discredited" is erroneous. Until data is verified a hypothesis fits neither definition, because no trust is present. Only after data is collected and the theory is proven can it be considered "faith", but only per definition 1.

Any takers?

Well we believe the sun will show up every day because, it has for our entire lives. Based on a lifetime of observations, you have every reason to expect it to show up tomorrow.

Same with the garbage guy. You can even call the company the day before and confirm the schedule. No faith required.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

OK, done messing around. I'll give a serious response here.

There is no way for us to directly confirm whether life existed beyond the point we can remember existing.

That's sounds along the same line of solipsism to me. "Knowledge outside of one's own mind is unknown whether or not it truly exists"

If M-31 (Andromeda) is 2.5 million Light years away. That fact alone contradicts any epistemology at your disposal.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I tested out of all the science in college, so I guess you are right that I was not formally trained in it. I did have to take the highest math class needed for my field though, I couldn't test out of all of that at MTU.

I evaluate everything, I am not limited to evaluating things by the rules that people have made. I examine all sides of the story. Yes science did create all of our technology, but you have to ask yourself if this technology is even necessary on a regular basis. Technology can make us dependent on technology.

I understand radio carbon dating well, reading many articles on it. It is all based on comparing known sources that we know the ages of, going back to about three thousand years and using a comparison of the life of certain radioactiv decay..half lives... to judge the age. This is all right when dealing with known things in a time period where we know certain conditions existed. But it doesn't always work. In certain areas on this planet, radio carbon dating does not work correctly. This area is one of those areas. There are dozens of these places on the planet. Why do they exist? They know of this so they take this into consideration but you have to ask....why does this occur. I have read some scientific articles about this and the articles just say that it does not work properly in all areas. It shows that dinosaur bones are much younger than they are. Now either there were dinosaurs in this area much later or there is something going on, maybe these areas are actually correct and the other areas are not. It seems like these areas have something in common...little salt. Salt can be a catalyst...but not always. Their is still something else involved. But I have only seen assumptions as to why this occurs, they seem to accept that their dating system does not work in these areas and just discount these areas in their conclusions.

So if these systems are so accurate, how come they do not apply to these anomaly areas. I see this dating method as accepted in the field even though it does not always work.

They have discovered a lot about our sun in the last ten years and the sciences that study this say they are learning, it is the common man that says we know everything, not the investigators themselves. They learn all the time, they discover things they did not know because finally they have the technology to see what is going on. Of course we knew how the sun worked before this technology was available...but how come the evidence is disproving some of what we thought was true. Because we actually made theories on assumptions with no real evidence to back it. Look at the changes in our comprehension of black holes recently when we actually created tools to see what was happening, were our theories of ten years ago correct? Theories made without any real evidence to back them?

In the coming years with the tools we have created, we will find out much more of science and we will be saying how did we get this so messed up. Opening your mind and observing the whole picture is crucial to making the right evaluation of the evidence. You cannot cherry pick evidence that backs your theory and discount things that do not fit it. You cannot narrow your vision to see the big picture.

I have a lot of respect for many scientists and researchers, especially those who evaluate things properly and try to keep their comprehension on the whole picture. In the case of dinosaurs, it doesn't matter how long ago they existed, whether it was a half million or five million years ago is immaterial. It doesn't really matter, except to the ones putting the dates on things. We should spend more time examining things so we don't mess it up and go extinct ourselves.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Xtrozero

No, homo sapiens go back about 200,000 years. Same species.

Damn, and I thought you were a little smarter, sorry.

You can't understand my point past a Goggle search. I guess we can call you a Goggle genious.

So you believe that exactly 200,000 ago the species known as Homo sapiens came to be? At 200,001 years ago we were a differnt speices?

Do you think we could take a new born from 200,000 ago and there would be little difference if they grew up in today's world?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Key word: approximately. Are you suggesting they were a different species? Then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. Good luck with that.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Xtrozero

You mean smart enough to use Google and Wikipedia? Approximately 200,000 years ago. Not only that but we can trace the evolution of man over millions of years.

Ah but that my friend is where you are wrong, we go back a few 100,000 years and we are talking different species.

Blombos Cave, see www.wits.ac.za...

""
It is an archaeological site made famous by the discovery there of two pieces of ochre engraved with abstract designs, 75,000-year-old beads made from Nassarius shells, and c. 80,000-year-old bone tools. Some of the earliest evidence for shellfishing and possibly fishing has been discovered at the site and dates to c. 140,000 years ago. The engraved pieces of ochre are regarded as the oldest known artwork.

The use of abstract symbolism on the engraved pieces of ochre and the presence of a complex tool kit suggests Middle Stone Age people were behaving in a cognitively modern way and had the advantages of syntactical language at least 80,000 years ago.
""

I also learned that the people who lived in the cave, about 100.000 years and longer ago, produced those things, beads from shells, fishing hooks, whatever they made etc. in masses...you could almost say like in a stone-age factory, sort of thing.

Does this look like a "different species" to you?

Oh, and mind you (do some research please)..they also already used some carvings/symbols, basically math to tally their production, things like that respective an early form of written language. 100.000 years ago. Sorry too lazy now to pull out all those links and references, but there are plenty if you look around on the internet.

a reply to: rickymouse

So you "tested all of the science in college" but don't appear aware that carbon dating is but one dating method?

a reply to: GetHyped

Thanks, no poll is ever going to be truly accurate and a badly designed poll can exhibit all sorts of bias but Gallup are up there with the more rigorous methodologies as far as polling goes.

I pretty much ignore them completely because of the fact that they are being used to manipulate opinions.

They are being used as a form of stealth propaganda just like science and religion.

Pollaganda uses outcome-based opinion samples (polling instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome) reflecting prior-opinion indoctrination or cultivation by the media. The results are then used to manipulate public opinion further by advancing the perception that a particular opinion on an issue enjoys majority support. The MSM then presents this "data" as if it were "news." patriotpost.us...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Xtrozero

Key word: approximately. Are you suggesting they were a different species? Then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. Good luck with that.

So once again we are back to my original question when did God make current man? I guess we can bypass the religious aspect of it all and just say when did current man start?

I suggest you look up with you super Goggle abilities the following....

Replacement model
Toba catastrophe theory
Archaic humans
Y-chromosomal Adam
Assimilation Model

Do you know that the 200,000 year old Homo Sapiens proof is ONE scull, and that ALL our evidence of man's evolution prior to that would ALL fit in the back of a pickup truck?

Once you do you homework you will see that the Homo Sapien of today is much different than the one 30,000 years ago and who we are today basically dates back to less than 30,000 years ago.

So this takes us back to the Poll, what is modern human? The poll never defines it and left it up to the person being polled to define. THAT IS MY POINT!!

I mean if you want we can debate the correlation of grass and human DNA to demonstrate that there is a connection at some point 100s of millions of years ago, but once again we are talking about some poorly worded poll to chaptalize on the faith people have in God.

I really hope you can understand that...

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: GetHyped
There's no such thing as "100% irrefutable evidence" in science. Multiple, independent lines of evidence all point to a very old earth, if there's anything we can rule out it's a 10,000 year old earth or 10,000 year old created mankind.

The point I was trying to make is that even though the information seems more credible coming from a Scientist backed by scientific data, we still cannot trust that the information is truthful. There is no way for us to directly confirm whether life existed beyond the point we can remember existing.

Sounds like you subscribe to this theory:

Last Thursdayism (sometimes Last Tuesdayism or Last Wednesdayism) refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. People's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth. It forms both a philosophical point about how our observations may not match with "reality" and a reductio ad absurdum of some young-Earth creationist ideas; if the world was created 6000 years ago with the appearance of being made billions of years ago, what stops us simply claiming it was made last Thursday in the same manner?
The "Last Thursday" variety is a parody of the omphalos hypothesis, and a relative of Bertrand Russell's equally parodic five minutes ago hypothesis.

a reply to: Xtrozero

There's been more than one skull found (again, Google is your friend) and that alone refutes the idea that humans have not been around for more than 10,000 years. Heck, we've found human settlements waaaay older than that. More to the point, the poll question is "God created human being pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years". Your attempts to bend and twist this to mean anything else is rather silly indeed.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Woodcarver

I tested out of all the science in college, so I guess you are right that I was not formally trained in it.

In your lengthy post there is so much inaccurate or wrong or odd, I don't even know where to start.

First, I am sure there are more ways to date bones BUT radio carbon dating. For instance, one can establish the age of a geological layer..say this layer was land 60M years ago. Then you dig in this layer and find fossils of animals which lived exactly at that time, obviously. Just one example.

If there was a large debate whether radio carbon works and can actually be used for dating dinosaur bones etc..I am sure most scientists would know about it and would not make relatively certain announcements of the age of bones IF THERE WAS A HUGE MARGIN OF ERROR that the method of dating is not accurate. I am not aware there is even such a debate going on, UNLESS of course amongst creationists who seem wanting to pick and fetch straws from very, very far.

Your repeated statement how it's not important to know the age of bones or when dinosaurs walked the earth, I cannot follow.

Yes, uhn, science discovered a lot about Black Holes and the sun "in recent years", for instance Hawkings theorized that BHs indeed send out some form of radiation, something which was inconceivable some decades ago.

NEVERTHELESS, the basics of what the sun is or what a BH is still stand. None of those findings invalidated basic "truths", the sun has not become something else and Black Holes are STILL black holes. The rest the job of scientists to figure out details, how EXACTLY things work. EXAMPLE....some few years ago we didn't know about the many habitable planets, we also didn't know that galaxies and solar system had been FULLY FORMED very early on "right after" the supposed Big Bang...but that's also what we found. STILL, this does neither invalidate science, in fact IT IS science to ponder things and find out new things.

"We make theories on assumptions with no real evidence to back it" ---- is simply and entirely not true. Show me the scientists who have a theory "without evidence" supporting the theory...and show me how they manage to get into scientific journals let alone that their theories to become accepted. WITHOUT EVIDENCE which according to you happens so often. It's simply not true.

>>
So this takes us back to the Poll, what is modern human? The poll never defines it and left it up to the person being polled to define.
>>

You're over-thinking and I think you know that. Looked at, the question in the poll is relatively simple. Doesn't leave much room for different interpretation. "Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"

We know that hardcore creationists do not believe in evolution, so a "complete" (modern) human must have been created by a god. And this must have happened rather recently, because this is what most hardcore creationists believe. There is NOT ONE single element that would cause confusion looking at the question.