Young Earth or Old Earth Poll

[albeto]

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power....the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease."

 

 

I'm a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Daisy]

NT

[WIS0320]

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power....the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease."

 

 

I'm a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

Obnoxious. :001_rolleyes:

[albeto]

Obnoxious. :001_rolleyes:

 

More or less obnoxious than teaching children the idea of a universe created after, say, the domestication of dogs? More or less obnoxious than the idea of an education system that advocates a child can't really trust what they see because reason is conditioned with disloyalty to a God who could, and really ought to, smite us for being...wrong...but doesn't because he's good so don't ask questions and maybe he won't get mad again? More or less obnoxious than the idea that one fabrication of belief ought to be respected but another is assumed to be a joke?

[Ginevra]

I am Christian. I was raised with YE people and point-of-view. I thought I was YE also, until (ironically) I started researching YE "evidence." I am OE now, but it's also not a study I care about desperately.

[Word Nerd]

Old earth, but I don't believe anyone knows the exact age of the earth.

[Jennifer3141]

More or less obnoxious than teaching children the idea of a universe created after, say, the domestication of dogs? More or less obnoxious than the idea of an education system that advocates a child can't really trust what they see because reason is conditioned with disloyalty to a God who could, and really ought to, smite us for being...wrong...but doesn't because he's good so don't ask questions and maybe he won't get mad again? More or less obnoxious than the idea that one fabrication of belief ought to be respected but another is assumed to be a joke?

 

It's obnoxious because the OP asked for this not to turn into a debate and although there's no "CC" covering the thread title, it's clearly Christian. Now I happen to agree with you so don't feel you're alone on this board but being obnoxoious isn't going to pull anyone toward reason either. Let it go an move onto threads that pertain to you.

[albeto]

It's obnoxious because the OP asked for this not to turn into a debate and although there's no "CC" covering the thread title, it's clearly Christian. Now I happen to agree with you so don't feel you're alone on this board but being obnoxoious isn't going to pull anyone toward reason either. Let it go an move onto threads that pertain to you.

 

What does "CC" refer to?

 

Thanks for the heads-up.

[Audrey]

It's obnoxious because the OP asked for this not to turn into a debate and although there's no "CC" covering the thread title, it's clearly Christian. Now I happen to agree with you so don't feel you're alone on this board but being obnoxoious isn't going to pull anyone toward reason either. Let it go an move onto threads that pertain to you.

 

 

I agree that the OP asked for no debate, so the above poster could have left the joke for another thread, but I was not under the impression it was a Christian only thread.

 

If I am wrong, I apologize and will delete my previous post if the OP prefers. I can't delete my vote, though, but since you can see where I voted, just subtract one from that column.

[Jennifer3141]

What does "CC" refer to?

 

Thanks for the heads-up.

 

"Christian Content"

[Audrey]

What does "CC" refer to?

 

Thanks for the heads-up.

 

 

CC is this board's acronym for "Christian Content." It is sometimes used in a thread title to indicate that the post is addressing a Christian issue or asking for Christian input.

 

It is not meant as a divisive acronym, although some newer people sometimes interpret it as such. It goes back to the original incarnation of this board, which had a format that made for clunky reading at the best of times, and was originally used so that if you were not a Christian, you could easily skip over those threads to streamline your reading of the board.

[Jennifer3141]

I agree that the OP asked for no debate, so the above poster could have left the joke for another thread, but I was not under the impression it was a Christian only thread.

 

If I am wrong, I apologize and will delete my previous post if the OP prefers. I can't delete my vote, though, but since you can see where I voted, just subtract one from that column.

 

Audrey, I don't know if this is a "Christian only" thread but the very idea of a YE pagan makes me laugh. :D

[Ginevra]

Audrey, I don't know if this is a "Christian only" thread but the very idea of a YE pagan makes me laugh. :D

 

:lol: Well, maybe she is a YE pagan and she wants to start a thread that she feels like such a misfit, because she's too Christianized for the other pagans and she's too pagan for the YE Christians. :lol:

[Audrey]

Audrey, I don't know if this is a "Christian only" thread but the very idea of a YE pagan makes me laugh. :D

 

 

Well, that would certainly be a new one to me, too!

[Jennifer3141]

:lol: Well, maybe she is a YE pagan and she wants to start a thread that she feels like such a misfit, because she's too Christianized for the other pagans and she's too pagan for the YE Christians. :lol:

 

Stop it. You're making me spit my soup out. :lol:

A young earth pagan... :D:D:D:D

[Audrey]

:lol: Well, maybe she is a YE pagan and she wants to start a thread that she feels like such a misfit, because she's too Christianized for the other pagans and she's too pagan for the YE Christians. :lol:

 

:lol: You have a lovely sense of humour! :001_smile:

[Jennifer3141]

Well, that would certainly be a new one to me, too!

 

We need to start a movement.

[6packofun]

LOL Issues much?

[ChrissySC]

I have to ask, does it really matter? I mean seriously. Does it make a difference? The Bible does not say how old either. We can guess or try and figure, but really ... how long did Adam and Eve live inthe Garden of Eden before the Bible begins to really account for time?

 

Things that make you go hmmmmm.......

[8circles]

Although in a recent thread, I classed myself as "Old Earth", in reality I do not have an opinion because I do not think the question matters. I am a staunch Eastern Orthodox Christian, who understands that everything was created by God, that people are "special creation" (thus are not animals), and that the claims of macro-evolution are false. How long it took Him to create the universe is, frankly, irrelevant to, and vastly less important to my soul, than my hope of salvation being granted at the end of my life.

 

The Church teaches that Adam named the animals (species, not pet names), before the expulsion from Paradise. So they [animals] existed. Thought I would add that, in case anyone found it interesting about our faith. I realize that this is not part of the worldview for Protestant Christian groups; I don't know what Catholics teach regarding the point.

:confused: Which part? I agree with your opinion %100. Protestant w/ protestant worldview.

 

Au contraire mon cheri. :001_smile: I am in complete agreement with your statement, except I am a Protestant...albeit a rather dissatisfied one.

:iagree:except I'm a satisfied protestant.

 

ETA: I voted OE but I have to admit that I don't really care one way or the other. It isn't something I'd ever argue with fellow Christians about.

Edited July 2, 2011 by momoflaw

[asta]

It's obnoxious because the OP asked for this not to turn into a debate and although there's no "CC" covering the thread title, it's clearly Christian. Now I happen to agree with you so don't feel you're alone on this board but being obnoxoious isn't going to pull anyone toward reason either. Let it go an move onto threads that pertain to you.

 

This is what I love the most about the WTM board!

 

The honest, true, walk-in-Jesus' shoes Christian love for others.

 

 

asta

[Aelwydd]

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power....the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease."

 

 

I'm a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

I love the GFSM! Every time I go to that site, I can't help LOL. Freakin' brilliant parody.

 

I'm a liberal Christian, so it doesn't offend me at all. Honestly, atheists and agnostics have a very good point, when they talk about the totally subjective nature of faith and religious beliefs.

[WishboneDawn]

I have to ask, does it really matter? I mean seriously. Does it make a difference? The Bible does not say how old either. We can guess or try and figure, but really ... how long did Adam and Eve live inthe Garden of Eden before the Bible begins to really account for time?

 

Things that make you go hmmmmm.......

 

I think it matters a lot. Not to the question of whether I'm Christian or not but what I get out of my religion and how I view science and reason.

 

Protestant Christian here. I firmly accept the idea of a universe that's almost 14 billion years old, an earth that's 4.5 billion years old and the Theory of Natural Selection.

[WishboneDawn]

I love the GFSM! Every time I go to that site, I can't help LOL. Freakin' brilliant parody.

 

I'm a liberal Christian, so it doesn't offend me at all. Honestly, atheists and agnostics have a very good point, when they talk about the totally subjective nature of faith and religious beliefs.

 

:iagree:

 

Thank you. I honestly wish Christians would spend less time being offended at the ideas of atheists and agnostics and more time engaging those ideas. We do generally have working intellects don't we? Why not use those?

[unsinkable]

Why is there a concern about this poll being public, not private?

[twoforjoy]

I think it matters a lot. Not to the question of whether I'm Christian or not but what I get out of my religion and how I view science and reason.

 

Yes. Honestly, I'm a bit baffled by this "It doesn't matter" or "I wasn't there, so I can't know and have no opinion" stance many are taking.

 

Does it matter in theological terms? IMO, no. Does it matter for how most of us live our lives? Probably not. But, does it matter? Of course, especially if we're talking about how we educate our children. It matters a lot in science, for instance. If the earth actually was only 6,000 years old or so, then pretty much everything we know about science would be wrong. It would discredit the entire field. This isn't just a "You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to" issue; if the earth really is young, then the scientific method, and science as we know it, is entirely useless and unreliable. That matters.

 

And, there are many, many things we weren't around for that people don't remain agnostic on. I don't suppose anybody here was around in 30 A.D., but many probably have pretty strong beliefs about the resurrection. Why not just say, "Well, I wasn't there, so I can't know"? Why teach our kids about history at all if we're going to assume that, because we weren't there, we can't come to some valid conclusions about what happened?

[WishboneDawn]

And, there are many, many things we weren't around for that people don't remain agnostic on. I don't suppose anybody here was around in 30 A.D., but many probably have pretty strong beliefs about the resurrection. Why not just say, "Well, I wasn't there, so I can't know"? Why teach our kids about history at all if we're going to assume that, because we weren't there, we can't come to some valid conclusions about what happened?

 

That's brilliant. :D

[Jennifer3141]

That's brilliant. :D

 

:iagree:

[*~Tina~*]

Being that there is no credible evidence to support a 6000 year old earth, and scads of credible evidence to prove a 4.5 billion year old earth, I voted "Old Earth." I am non-deist.

 

I have to ask, does it really matter? I mean seriously. Does it make a difference? The Bible does not say how old either. We can guess or try and figure, but really ... how long did Adam and Eve live inthe Garden of Eden before the Bible begins to really account for time?

 

Things that make you go hmmmmm.......

 

Yes. Honestly, I'm a bit baffled by this "It doesn't matter" or "I wasn't there, so I can't know and have no opinion" stance many are taking.

 

Does it matter in theological terms? IMO, no. Does it matter for how most of us live our lives? Probably not. But, does it matter? Of course, especially if we're talking about how we educate our children. It matters a lot in science, for instance. If the earth actually was only 6,000 years old or so, then pretty much everything we know about science would be wrong. It would discredit the entire field. This isn't just a "You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to" issue; if the earth really is young, then the scientific method, and science as we know it, is entirely useless and unreliable. That matters.

 

And, there are many, many things we weren't around for that people don't remain agnostic on. I don't suppose anybody here was around in 30 A.D., but many probably have pretty strong beliefs about the resurrection. Why not just say, "Well, I wasn't there, so I can't know"? Why teach our kids about history at all if we're going to assume that, because we weren't there, we can't come to some valid conclusions about what happened?

 

Right, no one was here to know for sure. You have to base your opinion of what you've been taught and/or what you choose to believe. "Evidence" is interpreted by humans - fallible humans. When you have a theory in any realm of science being passed down generation after generation, then what comes of that is bias in research. If you're out to prove a particular theory, you're going to view things through that lens - likewise on individual stance. That's particularly true when it comes to the age of the earth. Salvation-wise, don't think God is impressed by the debate either way. He was here, He knows ;) and I count it all joy just to spend a few years here taking in His creation :D

[*~Tina~*]

If the earth actually was only 6,000 years old or so, then pretty much everything we know about science would be wrong. It would discredit the entire field. This isn't just a "You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to" issue; if the earth really is young, then the scientific method, and science as we know it, is entirely useless and unreliable.

 

Not everything would be wrong, but quite a bit would need to be reconsidered. While science is about questioning, examining, hypothesizing and testing, there is still potential for error - always has been, always will be. There's a lot we can know and learn with certainty and there is much that we will never know and understand to that degree. I like the sense of wonder.

[WishboneDawn]

Right, no one was here to know for sure. You have to base your opinion of what you've been taught and/or what you choose to believe. "Evidence" is interpreted by humans - fallible humans. When you have a theory in any realm of science being passed down generation after generation, then what comes of that is bias in research. If you're out to prove a particular theory, you're going to view things through that lens - likewise on individual stance.

 

No. I really don't accept that at all. It's almost an anti-intellectual view. What's the point of teaching science to our kids, fostering a sense of logic and reason if, when it all comes down to it, it's all just opinion anyway?

Why bother with observation and experiments if we can't come out with some reasonable trustworthy results? Why should we be bothering covering science with the kids at all if we're going to demean it and the pursuit of knowledge in this way?

 

There is no doubt that we all have our biases and lenses. The thing is, we know this and we generally build the institutions and systems we use to pursue knowledge to have some general corrections for this. It's why science requires measurable evidence, why experiments must be replicated by different people, why all results must face peer review and why hoaxes and deceptions in science generally don't last very long.

[WishboneDawn]

Not everything would be wrong, but quite a bit would need to be reconsidered. While science is about questioning, examining, hypothesizing and testing, there is still potential for error - always has been, always will be. There's a lot we can know and learn with certainty and there is much that we will never know and understand to that degree. I like the sense of wonder.

 

I like wonder too. Most people I've known who've been passionate about science have a deep and extraordinary sense of wonder. I think it's because they've realized a basic truth about science...The more explore and the more you know, the more you realize there is to learn.

 

I agree that wonder comes from a sense of not knowing and I think you can sit in a room and have a sense of wonder about what's beyond the room but you can also open the door, walk out and have a sense of wonder about what's beyond the hallway, outside the house, beyond the horizon, etc. Wonder and questions don't have limits. You don't need to impose limits in order to experience wonder.

[Skadi]

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."- Charles Darwin

 

I'm always a little dismayed when I hear someone claiming that science is not science-y enough to know this or that answer...but they expect people to take their assertions about the nature of the world on faith (literally).

[Koerarmoca]

I voted YE I feel its closer to 6,000 than 4.5 Billion. I am a Conservative Baptist and also Torah Observant..hard to explain that one :lol:

[missiemick]

I voted YE. I'm Messianic.

[*~Tina~*]

No. I really don't accept that at all. It's almost an anti-intellectual view. What's the point of teaching science to our kids, fostering a sense of logic and reason if, when it all comes down to it, it's all just opinion anyway?

Why bother with observation and experiments if we can't come out with some reasonable trustworthy results? Why should we be bothering covering science with the kids at all if we're going to demean it and the pursuit of knowledge in this way?

 

There is no doubt that we all have our biases and lenses. The thing is, we know this and we generally build the institutions and systems we use to pursue knowledge to have some general corrections for this. It's why science requires measurable evidence, why experiments must be replicated by different people, why all results must face peer review and why hoaxes and deceptions in science generally don't last very long.

 

Anti-intellectual in what way? I didn't say it's all just about opinion, but I believe there is room for error. "Scientific" research contradicts itself all the time. New evidence emerges, new technology emerges, scientific thought changes - as it should. I think of the book title "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict". If it wasn't possible to come to different conclusion via science and the evidence then there would be no debate.

 

The methods of dating were created by humans - infallible humans. Science and it's processes are not without potential for error. And while I make sure my children are aware of all the different theories out there, I'd feel mendacious teaching them they evolved from ape over millions of years.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Why is there a concern about this poll being public, not private?

 

Because people in co-ops have used this issue to decide if someone is a "good Christian". And because people here, even in this thread, have used this issue to determine if someone is "intellectually logical" or "Biblical" or other moral criteria for judging those with views on both sides. I find that sort of thing ugly and will not willingly put myself in a situation where I am being judged for something outside of my character, even if ultimately I don't care what others think.

[creekland]

What's the point of teaching science to our kids, fostering a sense of logic and reason if, when it all comes down to it, it's all just opinion anyway?

Why bother with observation and experiments if we can't come out with some reasonable trustworthy results? Why should we be bothering covering science with the kids at all if we're going to demean it and the pursuit of knowledge in this way?

 

There is no doubt that we all have our biases and lenses. The thing is, we know this and we generally build the institutions and systems we use to pursue knowledge to have some general corrections for this. It's why science requires measurable evidence, why experiments must be replicated by different people, why all results must face peer review and why hoaxes and deceptions in science generally don't last very long.

 

99% of science doesn't depend upon the age of the earth. It depends on the here and now and what we see in our experiments - what results we get - and how those results change as time moves on. Extrapolation can be done to history or the future, but extrapolation is risky to base "definite" results on. (It does make science fun though - and extrapolation to the future has given us nice advances today.)

 

I'm a science lover, science educated (secular school and Uni), and likely sending two of my boys into science related degrees and fields. I've taught them both theories - both ways the historical evidence is commonly explained/interpreted (whatever word one wants to use) and the implications of modern science from each. To me, whichever theory one wants to go with is fine - sort of akin to theories about Atlantis or the Nazca lines (which we also study). It's an interesting sort of side to science, but it's a side - not the main foundation of science. It just isn't. Not in reality. It only is to those who vehemently support one side or the other. Most of us are in the middle (at least in my circle of science folks - which includes believers of both sides).

 

I don't particularly care which way my boys believe, but I have made sure that they know to toe just one line in secular schools. By knowing the support, etc, for both sides they can be involved with intelligent discussions in any realm.

[raceNzanesmom]

I believe in the literal translation of the Bible. That would make the earth around 6000 years old.

[Mommy2BeautifulGirls]

 

The Church teaches that Adam named the animals (species, not pet names), before the expulsion from Paradise. So they [animals] existed. Thought I would add that, in case anyone found it interesting about our faith. I realize that this is not part of the worldview for Protestant Christian groups; I don't know what Catholics teach regarding the point.

 

I believe that is a Bible teaching, not specific to just your church, although I have never heard a sermon on the topic.

 

I am non-denom Protestant.

[littlebug42]

As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that we are created in the image and likeness of a loving God. As a somewhat scientifically minded person with a degree in Biology, I know that we are also the product of millions of years of evolution. The two are not in conflict, as far as I'm concerned, though many people on both "sides" seem to feel otherwise.

 

:iagree:

[*~Tina~*]

I like wonder too. Most people I've known who've been passionate about science have a deep and extraordinary sense of wonder. I think it's because they've realized a basic truth about science...The more explore and the more you know, the more you realize there is to learn.

 

I agree that wonder comes from a sense of not knowing and I think you can sit in a room and have a sense of wonder about what's beyond the room but you can also open the door, walk out and have a sense of wonder about what's beyond the hallway, outside the house, beyond the horizon, etc. Wonder and questions don't have limits. You don't need to impose limits in order to experience wonder.

 

:iagree:

[twoforjoy]

Right, no one was here to know for sure. You have to base your opinion of what you've been taught and/or what you choose to believe. "Evidence" is interpreted by humans - fallible humans.

 

Absolutely. Science is not infallible, and there is absolutely bias within it. But, that doesn't mean that it doesn't lead to better conclusions that pure speculation. The only way to conclude that the earth is less than 10,000 years old--the absolutely only way--is to begin with the presuppositions that 1) the Bible is true in an absolute, literal sense on every matter, including science, 2) an interpretation of the Bible rooted in that sort of inerrancy is to be privileged above any other means of acquiring knowledge, and 3) reading the Bible in that way leads to the conclusion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Then, you interpret your data based on that. Nobody starts with the data and then concludes from there that the earth is young without holding those presuppositions.

 

Scientists were NOT starting from the conclusion that the earth was 4.5 billion years old, and then interpreting data from that; they came to that conclusion because of the data. And, scientists from a wide variety of religious backgrounds share that same conclusion: believing that the earth is ancient does not require that one have any specific set of religious presuppositions they are bringing to the table. Christian (of all types--Catholic, mainline Protestant, evangelical, Orthodox), Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, pagan scientists, provided they aren't starting from the assumption that anything that doesn't accord with a certain way of interpreting their sacred texts must be rejected, all come to the same conclusion.

 

So, sure, it might be wrong that the earth is 4.5 billions years old. That doesn't mean, though, that it's just as likely that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, at all. I mean, by that logic, why not say it's just as likely that the earth was created yesterday, with the "appearance of age"? Because, there's just as much evidence for that as there is for an earth that's 6,000 years old. Just because science is fallible doesn't mean that it doesn't provide us with more objective and accurate information about the natural world than other realms of inquiry.

[*~Tina~*]

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."- Charles Darwin

 

I'm always a little dismayed when I hear someone claiming that science is not science-y enough to know this or that answer...but they expect people to take their assertions about the nature of the world on faith (literally).

 

Insult by quote. :001_huh: That's a new one for me :D

 

Hey, does anyone remember Pluto? (The ole' Planet that was recently demoted) :D Just sayin'

Edited July 2, 2011 by *~Tina~*

[WishboneDawn]

99% of science doesn't depend upon the age of the earth.

 

That a red herring.

 

Science isn't an upside down pyramid with the age of the earth being the inverted point, true. But it is an interconnected web where if you pluck out one bit then the integrity of the whole is suspect.

 

So it doesn't matter. So you (general you) can assert the earth is 6000 years old and claims it's okay because the rest of science doesn't depend on that. Except what do you do when confronted with evidence that clearly points to that? What we know of geology for instance? Of the decay of isotopes? Of stars and the speed of light? Does it ALL not matter? It is ALL little stuff that 99% of science doesn't depend on? Is science just a whole bunch of unrelated, isolated information whose bits we can ignore at our leisure?

 

I suppose you can stop just short of any conclusion that bothers you. Go right up to the door and refuse to walk through. But that's not science. Maybe it's faith, but leave science out of the justifications.

[twoforjoy]

99% of science doesn't depend upon the age of the earth. It depends on the here and now and what we see in our experiments - what results we get - and how those results change as time moves on.

 

It's not that science depends upon the age of the earth, it's that the tools of science are what lead scientists to the conclusion that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. If we decide that we think that our interpretation of the Bible is a better way to attain knowledge about the age of the earth than the tools of science, then the idea is that we cannot trust the tools of science to provide us with at least somewhat-reliable information about the natural world and its processes. Once you decide that, then science really ceases to matter at all.

 

I certainly believe there are questions that are outside the realm of science or are not best answered by science. I'm not going to turn to science for answers about ethics or beauty or the nature of God. But, when we're talking about attaining factual information about the natural world, then science, while certainly not perfect, is the best means we have. Deciding that we will only turn to science for information on the natural world when its conclusions conform to our theological presuppositions doesn't work.

Edited July 2, 2011 by twoforjoy

[annandatje]

I don't want to start a fight, I am just interested in what the breakdown is in homeschooling families! I would love to hear your religion also, if you want to share.

 

No religion here.

[Guest momk2000]

And, there are many, many things we weren't around for that people don't remain agnostic on. I don't suppose anybody here was around in 30 A.D., but many probably have pretty strong beliefs about the resurrection. Why not just say, "Well, I wasn't there, so I can't know"? Why teach our kids about history at all if we're going to assume that, because we weren't there, we can't come to some valid conclusions about what happened?

 

Others were thereto witness the resurrection and it is recorded history. We know when it happened.

[Aquinas Academy]

Yes. Honestly, I'm a bit baffled by this "It doesn't matter" or "I wasn't there, so I can't know and have no opinion" stance many are taking.

 

Does it matter in theological terms? IMO, no. Does it matter for how most of us live our lives? Probably not. But, does it matter? Of course, especially if we're talking about how we educate our children. It matters a lot in science, for instance. If the earth actually was only 6,000 years old or so, then pretty much everything we know about science would be wrong. It would discredit the entire field. This isn't just a "You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to" issue; if the earth really is young, then the scientific method, and science as we know it, is entirely useless and unreliable. That matters.

 

And, there are many, many things we weren't around for that people don't remain agnostic on. I don't suppose anybody here was around in 30 A.D., but many probably have pretty strong beliefs about the resurrection. Why not just say, "Well, I wasn't there, so I can't know"? Why teach our kids about history at all if we're going to assume that, because we weren't there, we can't come to some valid conclusions about what happened?

:iagree:I am an old earth, theistic evolutionist Catholic.

[jentancalann]

young earth baptist here.