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

I think the Bible is probably a historical book with some myths mixed into it. Let me give you an example, the Chinese have a novel called Romance of the Three Kingdoms that is written based on historical facts. The characters in them, however, are fictitious, as writing history as they literal occurred would be too boring. The key I think is figuring out which parts of the Bible are true and which are false. Here's what I wrote in the theology forum:

As I was looking into how languages spreaded and how different tribes could have come up with all the words for each object, and tell other tribal members about it, it seems to be an almost impossible task, and I happened to come acrross this map:

Now a first look at this map suggests that we did come from Africa, however, a close examination shows that C, D had to get through several bodies of water, and CR through F a small body of water(the Red Sea, you can see that the edges don't really fit, plus continental drift only move a few centimeters per year). I'm pretty sure that humans didn't have boats back then(it's postulated that North America was occupied because the Ice Age happened where the Bering Strait was shallow enough to cross, but this, to me, is also false, as the Bering Strait is 49 m deep, and if you look at the dates, C3 happened way before the last Ice Age). To me, the only way to get to D's destination is through E, then K. C cannot have happened unless through boats, or literally through acts of God(how did the Ainu get to Japan, 65,000 years ago? You can see that the inhabited areas of Japan are well-separated from any mainland.)

Now if you were to look at the map, you will see a point F where there are many divergents. This happens to be the location of the Towel of Babel(Iraq/northeastern Syria). I had to ask, did F go into A, or A into F? Looking at the date, it suggests that A went into F, however, what happens is that they took the DNA of current people, then compared this with fossil evidence(which are extremely rare for humans, basically, you can't track DNA migration like this with fossils) and "project" this is how old we are, this to me is very very disingenious. Not only can't we be sure that the dates of the fossils are correct in this order, we can't even be sure that they are 50,000, as opposed to 5,000. We can be sure that the Earth is 5 billion years instead of 5000, only after multiple methods of dating, yet how can we be sure of the age of certain human fossils, especially when the difference is small? One thing we can be sure of, however, is that the Y-DNA evidence is correct, as it's taken from current people and the sample size is large enough.

To me, it looks more like F went into A, and Iraqi people become Black only AFTER they moved into Africa(or perhaps there were multiple races at the towel of Babel and God just spreaded them out). Now this doesn't mean that the entire Bible is correct(in fact, if you've heard this argument anywhere, it started by me, quite an ingenious argument as it bypasses the Age of the Earth problem), however, it suggests that the story of the Towel of Bible at least has some merits to it, and IMO, the story of creation probably refers to the beginning of civilization(the Sumerians, which were also located in Iraq).

I just have to add.

Has anybody tried to Google any information about evolution?

Tge pages are inundated with religious groups just piling on the bs and trying to debunk evolution.

It is ridiculous to even try to get any sound articles without all the religous jargon.

This is a contributing factor in this debacle.

Religous fundamentalists attack science. Science does not attack religion.

Just because someone disagrees with A mainstream Christian ideal does not mean they are attacking the religion. All I hear anymore is how Christians are being attacked for everything but people seem to forgot history like the dark ages when Christians attacked everyone and raped and murdered in the name of Christ.

Until the sky opens up and god says he it's me guys nobody knows we can beileve bnobody knows for sure so let's all just get along and respect each other and stop whinning about how everything is against my religion and everyone hates us

a reply to: SonoftheSun
Did they actually tell you that the 4 polled who believe this nonsense are 4th graders who just recently learned a few new fairytales ?

Maybe God created the world by mashing all the matter in the universe together till it exploded in a big bang, and he found some planet with the right conditions for his project. Breathed life upon it, and monitored the progress & guided evolution throughout. Took a liking to the hairless apes & glazed over the details ( if he ever really told them how they got there) of creation. Maybe it only seemed like 6 days to him.

Just my opinion, but the Bible is far more than a book of fairy tales, it is filled with mysteries (hybrids, accurate descriptions of Earth, "Synagogue of Satan" etc.) It's not the word of God, but it's more than the word of man. I don't believe Jesus ever existed (he's a metaphor for the sun), but I will defend Christianity, because it is the basis of our Constitution. If you take God away, then men weren't born with "inalienable rights", men's rights are given to them by the State, and if that's the case then the State can take them away. This is why the globalists have made it a concerted effort to stamp out God.

a reply to: SonoftheSun

Sadly we can convince 4 of 10 americans anything we want. Nothing surprises me anymore ive met some incridibly stupid people. Its getting to the point we need to put IQ points on their licences . Speaking of that had a police officer in florida i showed him my license from North Dakota before i moved. His response ah i see you're visiting from Canada. When i pointed out its in the US he asked me where? To which i replied south of canada.

a reply to: dragonridr

I used to work in electronics. One day, when DVD players came out, a friend co-worker of mine asked me if she had to rewind the DVD before bringing it back to the rental store. I kid you not.

Ignorance isn't a factor of being a Christian or not, a religious person or not. I wouldn't be surprised that she knew that cop you're talking about lol...

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: SonoftheSun

Those 4 in 10 Americans are retarded.

Agreed. I know people that think like this. They are retarded.

I was raised in the Jehovah's witness cult. They believe in the young earth myth. 6-10k years old.
Not to say there aren't other people in the south that believe that. (I'm from Louisiana)

God with a white beard did some magic and sent his demi god Jesus down a few thousand years later. Also, there's 144'000 chosen people that get to rule like GOD in heaven at some point in the future. They have to die first tho. Oh I almost forgot, they also keep postponing the end of the world. Just JW's are about 1.2 Million members in the U.S.

a reply to: movingmyeye

Right, see the thing is, back in the day before the internet, most people were sort of silo'ed if you will into whatever religion you were brought up to believe and you had to venture out or find about your friends different religions IE go to their place of worship etc, then with the advent of the internet and the ability to cruise around and listen to different religious opinions and sort out what those people's faith is, just a you mention yours, things start to get so blurred and distorted pretty coming from the same book and interpretation of it, you start wondering what is truth and what is fiction, the conclusion that I have is we know very little of truth when it comes to this subject.

The God and Goddess belief system that tribes and klans built from was finally usurped by the people that wanted to be Gods, the Kings, Queens, High Priests, completely hijacked what people defined their personal faith in and then somehow transferred all faith to themselves or attempted to do so, thus operating as proxy Gods.

originally posted by: Logan123



Just because someone disagrees with A mainstream Christian ideal does not mean they are attacking the religion. All I hear anymore is how Christians are being attacked for everything but people seem to forgot history like the dark ages when Christians attacked everyone and raped and murdered in the name of Christ.

Well last time I looked it isn't the dark ages anymore, and everyone in the dark ages would be evil by today's standards.

First, this view is not mainstream, very few Christians truly believe this. Also, I do not think anyone has ever raped in the name of Christ, people rape period. People also go to war for all kinds of things too. Even when the motivator is religion, politics is the true reason on the end.

Second, it is attacking the religion. How many posts over the years have people posted about creationism? Over and over, and all those posts boil down to everyone patting each other on the back on how smart they are because they believe the earth is 4.7 billion years old.

This is coming from a guy who is not religious.

Where are the posts about all the people who thought Obama would buy them a house for their vote.

I guess my point is just because these people have faith in something that we view as rather ignorant it doesn't mean they are ignorant in EVERYTHING as it seems most here want to suggest.

You want to see ignorance? Go to some of our inner cities and you will get the whole 360 degrees of ignorance.

So I think I can overlook something that really means little in the big game of life compared to true ignorance out there in a very large percentage of our population.

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

This thread should be removed.

Why? Because it doesn't conform with your opinion of what a thread should be?

I don't see it as a Christian bashing thread but I understand why you would think so. As your first word in your list of Christian description is from me (Medieval), I will only say that the thinking behind an idea that says that Earth and humans are 10,000 years old or less is, in fact, Medieval. For me, it's like thinking that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that the Earth is flat (which wasn't said in this poll just to avoid more polemic). It reflects the same ignorance for me. Christian or not.

If there is anything I see attacked in this thread, and Beezzer warned it earlier in the thread, it's intelligence.

Questions for you who say that this poll and this thread is Christian bashing:

Would it be the different if the poll was based on Atheists giving those answers instead of Christians?

I doubt it. Ignorance is a lack of information. That is what that poll represents.

Read the first page, and check all of the insulting comments. Claiming that one can't be Christian and intelligent is indeed an insult, and also utter BS. Claiming that it's "ignorance" to question unproven and controversial theories is simply arrogant. The vast majority of posts on the first page were not posts about the theories from your OP, but were opinions about anyone who thought a certain way. That isn't debating a topic; it's attacking those on one side of the debate.

As for a "lack of information", perhaps you should more thoroughly examine the theories you defend so rigorously. There are many problems with those theories, which is why many scientists are looking for other possibilities. Even many evolutionists don't really think it's all that viable a theory:

"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." -
Niles Eldredge - Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History. "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," (1995), phoenix: London, 1996, p. 95.

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." - Ernst Mayr - Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University, "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp. 529-530.


"It looks to me as if Darwinians are like someone who, having observed that tugboats sometimes maneuver ocean liners in tight places by directing high-pressure streams of water at them, concludes that he has discovered the method by which the liners cross the Atlantic." - Peter Van Inwagen - Professor of Philosophy, Notre Dame University, "Doubts About Darwinism," in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?" Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p. 186.


"We believe that Darwinism has an identity within the area of biological systematics, that it has a history within that discipline, that it is, in short, a theory that has been put to the test and found false." - Gareth Nelson and Norman Platnick - Systematics and evolution. In Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An introduction to the new evolutionary paradigm. Edited by Mae-wan Ho and Peter D. Saunders. London: Academic Press. p. 143.


"The only illustration Darwin published in On the Origin of Species was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin's theory of evolution, it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species into another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fossils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which, in turn, demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms." - Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p. 3.

"The bony-finned coelacanth, thought to be long extinct but rediscovered in 1938, has been approximately static some 450 million years (Avers 1989, 317). ... The nearly timeless species are not exempt from the changes of proteins that go on in all living beings, and they could surely vary in many ways without loss of adaptiveness, but their patterns have become somehow frozen. ... From the point of view of conventional evolutionary theory long-term stasis is hard to explain. Rapid evolution is comprehensive as species adapt to new conditions or opportunities but it is incongruous that species remain unchanged through changing conditions over many million years (Sheldon 1990, 114)." - Wesson, Robert G. - Political scientist, "Beyond Natural Selection," 1991, MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, pp. 207-208.

The dating methods are easily refuted as well, and far from reliable.

If you want to talk about ignorance, address all the ignorance on your side first. Then, address those who, instead of debating the issue, attack the opposition. Failing to do so gives the strong appearance that you support the attacks.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

medieval, ignorant, idiots, retarded, stupid, dumb, complainers, zealotry, fundamentalist, extremely dangerous and should be monitored, psychologically unhealthy, uneducated, incapable of critical thinking

Perfect descriptions of a religious person, so what is the problem.

If you believe in the invisible man in the sky, why not the Easter bunny, Santa Claus..etc..they are about as plausible as any religions God.

Especially if you use that belief to judge others.

To think there are world leaders out there with this belief system and we wonder why the world is F'd up.

I pity North America if religion ever gets it's power back...just look at the Middle East and what having religion in charge does over there.

Abolish religion and let us get out of the medieval ages.

Perfect examples of insulting the competition because you don't have any valid argument with which to refute their opinion, you mean. Perfect examples of behavior that is against the TOS of the site. From the "About AboveTopSecret.com" page - here - About AboveTopSecret.com -

And above all, we are well-renowned for operating the most professionally managed discussion board environment that inspires intelligent contributions and meaningful debate.
* We refuse to allow short "drive-by" posting that add nothing to the thread.
* We refuse to allow insults and mayhem that you'll see on many other boards.
* We refuse to allow spam and hate speech.
* We promote intelligent posting.
* We promote productive debate and collaborative discussion.
* We promote the examination of any topic as long as manners are maintained.
* We respect the content of other sites and encourage linking.
*We respect our members' content and defend its credibility and their rights.

The things posted just on page one are clear violations. They are insults, and hate speech, and add nothing to the thread.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Thank you for a well written reply. I still disagree with most of your points though.

Read the first page, and check all of the insulting comments. Claiming that one can't be Christian and intelligent is indeed an insult, and also utter BS.

I see them as opinions. ATS is a discussion board, and this is the Evolution Forum, not the debate Forum. It isn't my role, or yours for that matter, to moderate the opinions, whether I agree with them or not. It is the Moderator's role.

Claiming that it's "ignorance" to question unproven and controversial theories is simply arrogant.

Please, LadyGreenEyes, with all due respect, one out of four thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth. To call it out as ignorance might sound arrogant, I agree and it has nothing to do with being a Christian or not, but a lack of information that actually, the Earth revolves around the Sun. No controversial theory here. It's a fact.

The vast majority of posts on the first page were not posts about the theories from your OP, but were opinions about anyone who thought a certain way.

Opinions, yes. I agree.

That isn't debating a topic; it's attacking those on one side of the debate.

We're in a discussion board, not in the Debate Forum.

The dating methods are easily refuted as well, and far from reliable.

I agree. Maybe the dating is screwed up. Maybe the Earth is 1 Billion years old. Or perhaps a few millions of years old. But 10,000 years or less? I seriously don't think so.

If you want to talk about ignorance, address all the ignorance on your side first. Then, address those who, instead of debating the issue, attack the opposition.

No one has all the answers, LadyGreenEyes. But we do have some of them. And those who believe that the Earth is 10,000 or less years old, that the Sun revolves around the Earth are just wrong. Period. Why debate a non issue?

Failing to do so gives the strong appearance that you support the attacks.

I don't agree with some opinions on this thread, from both sides. But I respect all opinions. And I don't mind discussing any of them as this is why I posted this thread. All opinions are welcome.

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Thank you for a well written reply. I still disagree with most of your points though.

Read the first page, and check all of the insulting comments. Claiming that one can't be Christian and intelligent is indeed an insult, and also utter BS.

I see them as opinions. ATS is a discussion board, and this is the Evolution Forum, not the debate Forum. It isn't my role, or yours for that matter, to moderate the opinions, whether I agree with them or not. It is the Moderator's role.

They are not opinions on the topic itself, but on the people. They are insulting, deliberately so by those that posted them. According to the guidelines, attacks on a person or a group of people are not allowed, but the entire first page is filled with exactly that. I did report this as well through the alert feature.

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Claiming that it's "ignorance" to question unproven and controversial theories is simply arrogant.

Please, LadyGreenEyes, with all due respect, one out of four thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth. To call it out as ignorance might sound arrogant, I agree and it has nothing to do with being a Christian or not, but a lack of information that actually, the Earth revolves around the Sun. No controversial theory here. It's a fact.

I flat out don't believe that one out of four Christians thinks any such thing. A young earth, maybe, but that? Simply not true, or even close to true. Most of the people I know are Christians, and NOT ONE thinks any such thing. Never met one that did, either. Many I know are in fact college professors. Some believe in Creationism, and some in evolution. Most seem to have the opinion that the two can somehow work together. Four out of ten do NOT believe that the sun revolves around the earth, however. That wasn't the focus of your OP, either; a young earth was. Why try and deflect with that now?

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
That isn't debating a topic; it's attacking those on one side of the debate.

We're in a discussion board, not in the Debate Forum.

Proper debate does not involve insulting the opposing side.

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
The dating methods are easily refuted as well, and far from reliable.

I agree. Maybe the dating is screwed up. Maybe the Earth is 1 Billion years old. Or perhaps a few millions of years old. But 10,000 years or less? I seriously don't think so.

The dating is definitely screwed up, badly enough that literally nothing is certain at all. The simple fact is that the supposed age of the earth has been adjusted further and further back in time in an attempt to make evolution seem more possible. There is no real evidence of any such great age. The geological column is dated by the fossils, and the fossils by the column. That's circular reasoning. Having doubts about the accuracy of such claims is simply logical, and far from uneducated or ignorant, or even "medieval". I attended public school, and got all the same stuff you surely did. I simply asked more questions than most do, and came to realize that they really don't know squat. If the accepted claims aren't supported by any real evidence, it's reasonable to look at other possibilities, including a much younger earth. At this point, the simple fact is that no one from either side can prove their claimed age for the planet. Thus, debate is reasonable. Neither side has proof, and neither side is, from a purely scientific point of view, any more or less valid than the other.

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
If you want to talk about ignorance, address all the ignorance on your side first. Then, address those who, instead of debating the issue, attack the opposition.

No one has all the answers, LadyGreenEyes. But we do have some of them. And those who believe that the Earth is 10,000 or less years old, that the Sun revolves around the Earth are just wrong. Period. Why debate a non issue?

No one on the old earth side has any real answers, either. There are opinions. Guesses.

Your comment about people believing the sun revolves around the earth isn't from the same article, and is about Americans in general, NOT only Christians. link Using that to further slander Christians isn't being honest. That's a failure of the public education system, a d has nothing to do with religion.

www.livescience.com...
Failing to do so gives the strong appearance that you support the attacks.

I don't agree with some opinions on this thread, from both sides. But I respect all opinions. And I don't mind discussing any of them as this is why I posted this thread. All opinions are welcome.

Opinions are one thing. Insults are another. I can respect differing opinions, but I have zero respect for those that resort to name-calling in an attempt to make themselves sound clever, or gain stars.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: GetHyped

Yes. Staring with the title. "4 in 10 Americans Believe God Created Earth 10,000 Years Ago"

The poll asked nothing about the creation of earth only the origins of man.

I too find the whole OP rather dishonest for it seems the actual results were not about earth but about man.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.

Do any of you care to start over?