That YEC poll some of us are curious about.

[redsquirrel]

No. I'm not saying anything about the balance of the sides. It doesn't matter to me either way. I'm saying neither is conclusive. I could build up a ton of circumstantial evidence, but that isn't the same as conclusive evidence.

 

eTA: and I don't think religion matters on either side. For me, it's not a religious issue either way.

 

If it isn't a religious issue "either way'  do you think the young earther claim, that the earth is 6,000 years old, to be based on evidence based science? Is the evidence they put up to back up their claims compelling to you on the merits of their science?

 

[.Michelle.]

I did not say that the virgin birth was cloning, although one could hypothesize a cloned birth where environmental effects in utero led to a genotypical female presenting as as phenotypical male. Not likely, but perhaps possible.

 

However, my point is that study of virgin birth would be of interest. Cloning is an example of asexual reproduction, but I did not equivocate between the two.

 

Yes, it would be interesting.  I don't see how it could be studied though.  I'm unaware of any other examples of virgin birth in mammals.

[Professormom]

No, that's not what I meant. I mean that if we're saying that the 7 day creation story comes from an old book written by people who believed that epilepsy was caused by demons, wouldn't we look to the Old Testament for evidence? Those stories aren't particularly relevant to what the human authors of Genesis believed.

Gotcha :thumbsup: Thanks for the clarification.

[albeto.]

This does not address my point.

However, I have had my say and don't find it necessary to discuss it further.

 

I thought it addressed your point directly. YEC is theology wrapped in a veneer of scientific jargon. It not only fails to qualify as science, it qualifies as specifically anti-science in that it directly rejects conventional, standard, accepted scientific standards. 

[Murphy101]

If it isn't a religious issue "either way' do you think the young earther claim, that the earth is 6,000 years old, to be based on evidence based science? Is the evidence they put up to back up their claims compelling to you on the merits of their science?

 

I don't think you understand me. I don't believe in either. There's nothing conclusive on either side, so I don't find either side compelling. I don't see much merit to either.

 

I do get annoyed when people quote bible verses for scientific support in most any topic.

I also get annoyed when people say I can't possibly have an opinion bc I'm catholic even when I am not the one to bring up religion.

[redsquirrel]

I have read Spong and am primarily Anglican in my beliefs. Spong caused a colossal controversy within the church (and I could write pages about the time and context during which his writings took hold) and most of what he wrote were his thoughts on the faith and did not reflect the actual faith, as it stood in tradition and/or practice. I would not go so far to say that he was wrong about everything he wrote, but he used a great deal of circular logic and attack language to make his case.

 

The example that comes to mind is his assertion that everything is relative (there is no Truth) and that the concept of right/wrong is an illusion. Now, he had taken vows to uphold Truth, to seek Truth, and to honor the creator of Truth (in his vows, this would be the Christian God). So, a lot of what he wrote about the Bible being "relative" went directly against the faith he proclaimed as his own (In this case, The Anglican Tradition).

 

Of course the people who disagree with him are wrong and he is right. So, he claims to possess truth, and those that disagree with his version of the truth he labels as fundamentalists, and uses inflammatory language to imply that they are either "intolerant" or "ignorant". He knew very well that he was trying to marginalize a large swath of believers which would actually fall in the category of those who had adhered to church tradition - defined here as the majority of believers in the Anglican faith since its inception - and those prior to that as well. So he is making some big assumptions, as well as contradicting his own theology.

 

I want to be clear that I raise this point, not to say that redsquirrel shouldn't read and/or agree with Spong (because the contents of his book - which are far more than my little post could espouse - would fall more in line with her worldview and I expect any of us will align more with what seems right to us... Human nature and all that), but to let the readers of this post who are genuinely interested in the Christian faith to know that Spong is very fringe and controversial within that faith and is not an accurate reflection of the faith as a whole. It has also not been validated by the theological community at large. So, if you want to use it as a resource, just understand its context with the faith that Spong aligned himself to.

 

 

I don't agree or disagree with Spong. I don't have a dog in this fight. When I posted about it I was discussing a class I took that mainly focused on the historical bible. In that particular book, there were some great chapters on what was known at the time about the authors of the gospels. As someone who didn't even know what a gospel was, those chapters were very helpful. We didn't read the entire book, because that wasn't why we needed it. Now I am sure that someone wants to bemoan the poor theology or whatever I was exposed to, but really don't worry about it. I promise it didn't take.

 

Although I did find one of his main ideas interesting. He says that by creating this idea that in order to be a good christian one must take the bible literally, fundamentalists are driving people away from the christian church. That book in particular was an attempt to prove to those outside the church that the bible is a beautiful book worth studying, and you don't have to leave behind your 21 century mind in order to learn from it.

 

I think, as this plays out years later he might have a point. Even on this thread people have expressed frustration with this notion that one must leave science behind in order to be a 'real' christian. People on this thread have claimed that the bible is the most historically accurate book ever written and if you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus then you aren't a christian.  The louder people like that talk, the more some people try to force others to leave behind science and reason in order to also follow the teachings of Jesus, the more people leave the church.

[Joanne]

While I am enjoying a good old fashioned YEC argument what I am NOT interested in debating on a public message board among strangers is whether or not any of the Bible is real and the exact composition in precise percentages of the sun.

 

It's one thing to argue about dinosaurs but this is turning into something else entirely. 

 

We don't sit around arguing about whether or not any other faiths have any sort of validity.

 

I do believe in angels, I do believe in demons, I do believe in God. I don't have to give a reason for that. The date Mark was written doesn't impact my faith anymore than the existence of pterodactyls. No one is all, "Hey Buddhists, explain EXACTLY how you know where the next Dalai Lama is coming from because that sounds like a lot of hooey to me."

 

 

 

 

*I am really sorry Buddhists, I am just using you as an example, I don't believe your faith is hooey.

 

 

Tibetan Buddhists are not trying to co-opt science, not trying to build and market  a science around reincarnation and the finding/discovery of the new Dalai Lama.

 

YEC are.

[albeto.]

Sources?  This flies in the face of all the information I've seen on the authorship of the New Testament books.  The canon was written by 8 authors, 6 of whom were apostles, with the remaining 2 being close disciples of apostles.  

 

I would really enjoy this as a thread topic if it's own, if you would be so kind to start it. While I do enjoy bunny trails immensely and have no personal reason to curtail them as they sprout up, I think this topic is really much different and much larger than a bunny trail can serve.

 

In the mean time, consider two things.

 

• What are the sources you have for the existence of Jesus? Not hearsay (I hear Matthew knew him), but actual sources (not that you've laid your eyes on, but we know to exist)
• Regardless, no religion is a source for scientific data. Scientific data requires certain elements, such as objective observation, data collection, and a whole lot more. This is impossible with regards to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) as the data is understood to be divinely revealed and thus outside the scope of objective observation, data collection and a whole lot more. 

[albeto.]

There are a number of out-of-date assumptions about the historicity of Jesus, most dating from the 19th century.  Almost always when you hear people on various atheist websites and such, making the claim that Jesus didn't exist, they are directly or indirectly drawing on those kinds of older arguments.

 

From a historican's perspective, the information is considered to be pretty good, with the Gospels being written close to Jesus lifetime, as well as other non-canonical texts by people who were students of or knew the apostles.  This is better than what we have for a great many other historical figures - Socrates, as mentioned, or Hannibal is another example.  Historical records just aren't as complete as many people seem to think.

 

The fact is, within the field of ancient history, the "jesus myth" position isn't just a minority view, it's a fringe view that is considered to be a kind of conspiracy theory.  Taking that position would be pretty much a guarntee that you would not get a position in ancient history in a university.

 

 

I do hope someone will start a new thread just for this topic. 

 

:)

[redsquirrel]

I don't think you understand me. I don't believe in either. There's nothing conclusive on either side, so I don't find either side compelling. I don't see much merit to either.

 

I do get annoyed when people quote bible verses for scientific support in most any topic.

I also get annoyed when people say I can't possibly have an opinion bc I'm catholic even when I am not the one to bring up religion.

 

Well, I don't agree with you that there is nothing 'conclusive' on either side. I find radiometric dating, carbon dating, and the speed of light all fairly conclusive, but I guess you don't.

 

And I certainly hope that you know that I didn't say you shouldn't have an opinion because you are catholic. I didn't know and I certainly did not and would not ask.

[.Michelle.]

 

I would really enjoy this as a thread topic if it's own, if you would be so kind to start it. While I do enjoy bunny trails immensely and have no personal reason to curtail them as they sprout up, I think this topic is really much different and much larger than a bunny trail can serve.

 

In the mean time, consider two things.

 

• What are the sources you have for the existence of Jesus? Not hearsay (I hear Matthew knew him), but actual sources (not that you've laid your eyes on, but we know to exist)
• Regardless, no religion is a source for scientific data. Scientific data requires certain elements, such as objective observation, data collection, and a whole lot more. This is impossible with regards to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) as the data is understood to be divinely revealed and thus outside the scope of objective observation, data collection and a whole lot more. 

 

You're welcome to start a new topic, but I don't think I'll participate.  I've referenced my beliefs concerning the Church in this thread already, in regards to your first bullet point.  As for your second, I am in perfect agreement with you.

[albeto.]

Which would be valid if there were conclusive proof that there's no way YEC is possible. We have that for a flat earth. We do not have any definitive theory for how old the earth is or how old it is.

 

We have this body of persuasive theories vs this body of persuasive theories. Not the same as conclusive evidence.

 

Again. My frustration with either side is the refusal to admit they just don't know. We don't know IS a valid scientific response. And it's a response that does not inhibit scientific discussion or exploration on the topic.

 

Sure we know. In science, a theory is understood to be an explanation of an observable phenomenon. A theory is considered fact precisely because it is based on conclusive evidence gathered over time, tested, falsified, and modified as new information comes in. These modifications speak to the details, not the general knowledge. 

 

The entire scientific field of geology addresses this. 

[wendyroo]

No one is all, "Hey Buddhists, explain EXACTLY how you know where the next Dalai Lama is coming from because that sounds like a lot of hooey to me."

 

*I am really sorry Buddhists, I am just using you as an example, I don't believe your faith is hooey.

 

I'll say that.

 

Buddhists, personally I think reincarnation and the idea that you could search an entire country and recognize the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama are hooey.  I would never encroach on your right to personally believe in that or anything else that I view as wackadoodle nonsense, HOWEVER, I will strongly oppose any attempts to pass American public policy based on or informed by your unscientific, faith-based conjectures.

 

Respectfully,

Wendy

[Murphy101]

Well, I don't agree with you that there is nothing 'conclusive' on either side. I find radiometric dating, carbon dating, and the speed of light all fairly conclusive, but I guess you don't.

 

And I certainly hope that you know that I didn't say you shouldn't have an opinion because you are catholic. I didn't know and I certainly did not and would not ask.

Ugh. Stupid internet ate my post again.

 

Briefly, I find radio metric dating more persuasive than the others.

Carbon dating presumes the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant.

Speed of light presumes the speed in space doesn't vary.

Rate of universe expansion also presumed the rate is constant and there's some evidence that it is actually picking up speed.

 

Presumptions are always hairy in science imo. That doesn't mean the theories have no merit or use. Just that we need to know more about it.

[Professormom]

I don't agree or disagree with Spong. I don't have a dog in this fight. When I posted about it I was discussing a class I took that mainly focused on the historical bible. In that particular book, there were some great chapters on what was known at the time about the authors of the gospels. As someone who didn't even know what a gospel was, those chapters were very helpful. We didn't read the entire book, because that wasn't why we needed it. Now I am sure that someone wants to bemoan the poor theology or whatever I was exposed to, but really don't worry about it. I promise it didn't take..

That wasn't where I was going with that. Because you had a link to the book, I wanted to just tack on for the benefit of others that this particular book isn't your standard "intro to theology" tome.

 

This...

 

Even on this thread people have expressed frustration with this notion that one must leave science behind in order to be a 'real' christian....The louder people like that talk, the more some people try to force others to leave behind science and reason in order to also follow the teachings of Jesus, the more people leave the church.

 

I agree with you on. I think there are a lot of reasons that people leave the church, but I think this is absolutely a big one.

[albeto.]

We don't sit around arguing about whether or not any other faiths have any sort of validity.

 

When faith-claims are used to rationalize personal behavior and/or public policy, we do sit around and argue about their validity. For example, for some time in 1692, inhabitants of Salem Massachusetts began in earnest to embrace the right to rid their community of witches. When all was said and done, more than 50 people were accused and imprisoned, 14 women and five men were hanged and one man was pressed to death. The evidence was based purely on belief. Consider the words of William Blackstone, English jurist, judge and Tory politician of the eighteenth century. He is most noted for writing the Commentaries on the Laws of England:

 

“To deny the possibility, nay, the actual existence of witchcraft and sorcery, is at once flatly to contradict the revealed word of God in various passages both of the Old and New Testament, and the thing itself is a Truth to which every nation in the world hath, in its turn, borne testimony, by either example seemingly well attested or by prohibitory laws, which at least suppose the possibility of a commerce with evil spirits.†

 

 

Regardless of the general respect given the faith, due to these events in Salem, "spectral evidence" was declared inadmissible in court. Instead, evidence was expected to be objective in nature. People had been tortured, imprisoned and killed as a direct result of superstition and sincere religious belief, but modifications to the justice system were made precisely because people sat around arguing about whether or not that faith had any sort of validity. 

 

Parenthetically, to commemorate this move from superstition to reason, "Freethought Day" is celebrated on October 12, to honor the end of the Salem Witch Trials, the last time faith was used as a legal form of evidence. 

 

The debate has never ended, and a look into the historical record will show the Salem Witch Trials weren't the beginning. The fact is, so long as faith is used to justify actions that unjustly create harm against others, it will be challenged. It always has been, it always will be. YEC is just a part of this greater trend in human history. This isn't about Christianity. No religion is impervious to scrutiny and skepticism. Even brave souls in the most oppressive societies dare challenge the validity of faith, even if it costs 1000 lashes on the back or loss of life. 

[Hannahs4]

Has there ever been a scientist who, through science NOT faith, came to believe in a young earth? Again, with no faith involved?

 

Yes, one that comes to mind is Jay Wile. He has a blog.

[.Michelle.]

 

The debate has never ended, and a look into the historical record will show the Salem Witch Trials weren't the beginning. The fact is, so long as faith is used to justify actions that unjustly create harm against others, it will be challenged. It always has been, it always will be. YEC is just a part of this greater trend in human history. This isn't about Christianity. No religion is impervious to scrutiny and skepticism. Even brave souls in the most oppressive societies dare challenge the validity of faith, even if it costs 1000 lashes on the back or loss of life. 

 

I agree, but I would have to say that no philosophy, religious or secular, is impervious to scrutiny and skepticism.  Many ideas are used to justify actions that unjustly create harm against others.  Many other ideas are used to defend the defenseless and the vulnerable.

[albeto.]

I agree, but I would have to say that no philosophy, religious or secular, is impervious to scrutiny and skepticism.  Many ideas are used to justify actions that unjustly create harm against others.  Many other ideas are used to defend the defenseless and the vulnerable.

 

Amen!

[Aelwydd]

 

I also get annoyed when people say I can't possibly have an opinion bc I'm catholic even when I am not the one to bring up religion.

Someone said this to you??

[zoobie]

Yes, one that comes to mind is Jay Wile. He has a blog.

He's an ultra-conservative Christian.

[redsquirrel]

I'll say that.

 

Buddhists, personally I think reincarnation and the idea that you could search an entire country and recognize the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama are hooey.  I would never encroach on your right to personally believe in that or anything else that I view as wackadoodle nonsense, HOWEVER, I will strongly oppose any attempts to pass American public policy based on or informed by your unscientific, faith-based conjectures.

 

Respectfully,

Wendy

 

:iagree:

[HRAAB]

Yes, one that comes to mind is Jay Wile. He has a blog.

 

Not because of faith was one of the requirements.  

[Daria]

Ugh. Stupid internet ate my post again.

 

Briefly, I find radio metric dating more persuasive than the others.

Carbon dating presumes the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant.

Speed of light presumes the speed in space doesn't vary.

Rate of universe expansion also presumed the rate is constant and there's some evidence that it is actually picking up speed.

 

Presumptions are always hairy in science imo. That doesn't mean the theories have no merit or use. Just that we need to know more about it.

 

 

Are you saying that you think that the level of carbon-14 and the speed of light in space both vary so much as to account for a 10^⁶ difference in the age of the university?  I think it's quite possible that scientists are off in their calculation, but I can't wrap my mind around believing that they're off by a factor of one million.  That's an enormous difference.  

[Hannahs4]

He's an ultra-conservative Christian.

But he was an atheist scientist who began to disagree with with old earth because of science, and then became a Christian. Did you mean someone who is YE and doesn't belive in God? I did read a book by journalist who questioned Darwin, and super old earth, but was not a Christian and definitely not 6000 years old type YE.

[zoobie]

But he was an atheist scientist who began to disagree with with old earth because of science, and then became a Christian. Did you mean someone who is YE and doesn't belive in God? I did read a book by journalist who questioned Darwin, and super old earth, but was not a Christian and definitely not 6000 years old type YE.

He was raised Christian, then he says decided to be an atheist in part of high school because he thought he had to be one to be a scientist (from his blog). He became (recommitted?) Christian in high school after he met a physicist who was Christian and discovered he could be a scientist and a Christian. He never was a scholar in evolutionary biology or related fields. That tag-line is somewhat misleading. His PhD, obtained while practicing as a Christian in a YEC denomination as it seems from his bio, is in nuclear chemistry. He claims to have researched evolution and rejected it as implausible when he was a freshman in high school during his atheist period.

 

Is there an actual evolutionary biologist who is not trying to push religious doctrine who believes in the YEC timeline?

[table4five]

.

[Pen]

I don't think you understand me. I don't believe in either. There's nothing conclusive on either side, so I don't find either side compelling. I don't see much merit to either.

 

 

 

That you do not personally see either side as compelling does not mean that it is not scientifically established that the Earth is billions of years old. The radiometric dating IS compelling as a scientific matter, just as there was compelling evidence that earth was spheroid even before it had been circumnavigated. I accept that it is not personally compelling to you, however.

 

That, however, then takes me once again back to my dilemma with regard to the poll, between thinking that it is clear that the earth is not in the neighborhood of 6-10,000 years old, but to each his own, versus that people should  have the scientific literacy to understand why/how it has been determined to be billions of years old, and how compelling that is.

 

My gut reaction to this is still more of a well, if you wish to believe in whatever you wish to believe, fine.  I don't know you and it doesn't seem to matter much probably what you do or don't find compelling. I guess.

 

But I am still feeling like I am shifting now into the other position, that it is a problem that people don't have the scientific literacy needed to determine that there is any difference in how compelling the two sides are. 

 

My heart still wants to accept that all the different beliefs are fine and make for a good eclectic, colorful, multi-cultural world. My head is saying otherwise. I found Bill/Spycar's short early post that the idea of accepting that anything goes would hardly make sense if this were about a flat earth, and the science is clear for the age of earth, not to an exact day or even thousand years, but that it is not in a YEC range of possibility at all.

[Dicentra]

Are you saying that you think that the level of carbon-14 and the speed of light in space both vary so much as to account for a 10^⁶ difference in the age of the university?  I think it's quite possible that scientists are off in their calculation, but I can't wrap my mind around believing that they're off by a factor of one million.  That's an enormous difference.  

 

Agreeing with you, Daria, about the issue of magnitude here.  I do want to mention, though, to anyone reading or responding that the age of the Earth is not calculated using C-14 dating.  C-14 dating can only be used to date things that were once alive and can't be used to date rocks.  Dating of rocks would be done with potassium-argon dating or uranium-lead dating.  The constant or non-constant amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has no bearing on dates obtained using these methods.  The only reason I wanted to clarify this is because I often see the constant/non-constant atmospheric C-14 business given as a reason that we can't believe the data that shows that we have rocks on earth that are millions or billions of years old.  It's an untruth that seems to keep coming up in some discussions of a young earth vs. an old earth (not necessarily in this thread but in other young earth resources).

 

Radioactive decay is one of the most steady, constant processes we know of.  It's so constant that it's used as the basis of the clock that all official times are set to. :)

 

Note:  Just to clarify, Daria, I didn't write this out because I thought that you were arguing for C-14 used to date the Earth. :)  I just used your post as a jumping-off point.  I hope that's OK. :)

 

(Edited because I noticed I said "...basic of the clock..." instead of "...basis of the clock..." but now redsquirrel quoted me so my typo is forever recorded. ;) )

[redsquirrel]

Agreeing with you, Daria, about the issue of magnitude here.  I do want to mention, though, to anyone reading or responding that the age of the Earth is not calculated using C-14 dating.  C-14 dating can only be used to date things that were once alive and can't be used to date rocks.  Dating of rocks would be done with potassium-argon dating or uranium-lead dating.  The constant or non-constant amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has no bearing on dates obtained using these methods.  The only reason I wanted to clarify this is because I often see the constant/non-constant atmospheric C-14 business given as a reason that we can't believe the data that shows that we have rocks on earth that are millions or billions of years old.  It's an untruth that seems to keep coming up in some discussions of a young earth vs. an old earth (not necessarily in this thread but in other young earth resources).

 

Radioactive decay is one of the most steady, constant processes we know of.  It's so constant that it's used as the basic of the clock that all official times are set to. :)

 

Note:  Just to clarify, Daria, I didn't write this out because I thought that you were arguing for C-14 used to date the Earth. :)  I just used your post as a jumping-off point.  I hope that's OK. :)

 

Wow. You're sexy :001_tt1:

 

But, really, I was thinking c-14 in terms of dinosaur bones being older than 6,000 years, not the actual earth/rocks/etc.

 

But, really, you are sexy.

 

 

[Dicentra]

Might it be helpful to separate the issue into two different-but-related issues?  Arguing for a young earth vs. an old earth and arguing for creation vs. evolution are two different issues, albeit related.  The data and evidence used to support an old earth come mostly from the realms of physics and nuclear chemistry.  The data and evidence used to support evolution come primarily from the realms of biology, archaeology, and molecular biology.  I think it gets confusing when folks are using evidence for an old earth to support evolution or evidence for evolution to support an old earth, etc.  The fact that potassium-argon dating or uranium-lead dating gives us dates of rocks that are billions of years old isn't really evidence for the theory of evolution.  It certainly gives an appropriate time frame for evolution to occur but it doesn't directly support the theory.  Finding fossil sequences that clearly show an evolutionary progress doesn't automatically give evidence for an old earth, just evidence for evolution.  Again, the two issues are most definitely related but I see a lot of misunderstandings when both issues are mashed together into one issue and evidence is used improperly.  I firmly accept the fact that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old and that life evolved by the process of evolution but if someone tried to tell me that evolution was true because we've dated rocks that are 2.2 billion years old, for example, I'd tell that person that he/she was full of it. :)  If someone tried to tell me that the earth was young because we can't find convincing evidence for evolution (even assuming that I would accept that statement), he/she is full of it as well.  :) (Purported) lack of evidence for evolution is NOT evidence for a young earth.  Old rocks are NOT evidence for evolution.  I just think it might be easier if we separate out the young earth/old earth issue from the creation/evolution issue and make sure that any evidence we give actually speaks to the specific issue we're attempting to discuss.

 

My 5 cents (because Canada no longer has pennies and the smallest currency we have is the nickel) - YMMV. :)

[Dicentra]

Wow. You're sexy :001_tt1:

 

But, really, I was thinking c-14 in terms of dinosaur bones being older than 6,000 years, not the actual earth/rocks/etc.

 

But, really, you are sexy.

 

:D  I'm an introvert who's socially awkward.  I'm not entirely sure what the appropriate response is here so you'll have to imagine my nervous, blushing smile with me slowly retreating to the corner and hoping I can blend into the wallpaper once more... 

 

But thanks. ;)

[Hannahs4]

He was raised Christian, then he says decided to be an atheist in part of high school because he thought he had to be one to be a scientist (from his blog). He became (recommitted?) Christian in high school after he met a physicist who was Christian and discovered he could be a scientist annd a Christian. He never was a scholar in evolutionary biology or related fields. That tag-line is somewhat misleading. His PhD, obtained while practicing as a Christian in a YEC denomination as it seems from his bio, is in nuclear chemistry. He claims to have researched evolution and rejected it as implausible when he was a freshman in high school during his atheist period.

 

Is there an actual evolutionary biologist who is not trying to push religious doctrine who believes in the YEC timeline?

Okay, got it. I see your point. I have no idea, and would like to know also. My guess is if they adopted YE, they now belive in God.

[Vera]

Is anyone else surprised at the poll results ? It looks like 1 out of every 5 WTM'ers who voted is YEC. i would have assumed a much smaller percentage, maybe 1 out of 15 or so...

Me too because I have never actually met anyone who believes in YEC. That is why I find these threads so incredibly interesting. They give me a peek into a world that I would never get to see IRL.

[*Lulu*]

I wonder though, if people who aren't YEC weren't as motivated to vote, and the YEC's are over-represented in the poll as a result.

 

That 20% of us believe in a young earth seems way too high to me ( could be the bias, like you say, of not knowing anyone IRL with those views ).

Those numbers sound right.

 

I know plenty of IRL Christians who are YEC.

 

ETA- I think if we Venn diagramed the issue we'd find a large overlap in Christians who homeschool and are YEC. That would make the percentage of YEC-ers on this board higher than the percentage in the general population.

[Vera]

I wonder though, if people who aren't YEC weren't as motivated to vote, and the YEC's are over-represented in the poll as a result.

 

That 20% of us believe in a young earth seems way too high to me ( could be the bias, like you say, of not knowing anyone IRL with those views ).

I hope so.

[Free]

Which would be valid if there were conclusive proof that there's no way YEC is possible. We haves  that for a flat earth. We do not have any definitive theory for how old the earth is or how old it is.

 

We have this body of persuasive theories vs this body of persuasive theories. Not the same as conclusive evidence.

 

Again. My frustration with either side is the refusal to admit they just don't know. We don't know IS a valid scientific response. And it's a response that does not inhibit scientific discussion or exploration on the topic.

 

With all due respect, what you have said in this post is almost entirely erroneous.

 

For one, even if all the science related to the age of the earth done in the past 200 odd years turns out to be wrong, it would still not pull YEC out of quackery status. There is no "body of persuasive theories" there.

 

Secondly, there is conclusive evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that all life on earth evolved from simple single celled organisms to the large variety of complex forms seen today. In fact there is so much evidence for these two concepts that we can spend a lifetime sifting through it and not be able to cover all of it. 

 

Yes it is possible that new evidence is uncovered which forces a revision of the age of the earth by a few million years, but the likelihood of the age being revised to 10,000 years, or 100,000 years, or even 1000,000 years is practically impossible. 

 

And while there may be thousands of unanswered questions about how individual organisms evolved, there is so much overwhelming evidence to show that all life forms have evolved from a universal common ancestor, that this is also practically a fact.

 

And finally I agree with Pen that anybody who equates YEC with established scientific theories displays a concerning lack of scientific literacy.

[Catwoman]

Is there an actual evolutionary biologist who is not trying to push religious doctrine who believes in the YEC timeline?

I'm guessing that we may never know, because unless people are trying to sell something or run for office, they don't generally go around shouting their beliefs from the rooftops.

 

I don't think I know anyone in the YEC camp in my real life, but maybe I do and they have simply never mentioned it. It has certainly never occurred to me to ask anyone about it, either.

[Matryoshka]

  I just think it might be easier if we separate out the young earth/old earth issue from the creation/evolution issue and make sure that any evidence we give actually speaks to the specific issue we're attempting to discuss.

 

 

While we're sussing out issues that are conflated when talking about these things...

 

creation/evolution is no kind of dichotomy at all, as evolution says nothing about how the earth, plants, animals, or anything else came to be in the first place, only what happened once the first organism came about.

 

The only thing science tells us about origins/creation is that the earth did not form at the same time as the rest of the universe, and that the first life came about sometime much after the formation of the earth itself.  It doesn't say what happened before the universe was created, or how all that stuff got crammed into the big bang in the first place.  But, exactly none of that science is encompassed by the theory of evolution.  Maybe the creationists should be arguing the Big Bang, not evolution. 

 

Honestly, if you're going to believe in divine creation, the Big Bang seems a much more plausible model than that God decide to create every grain of sand and blade of grass and star in the heaven separately but all at the same time.  Way more efficient.  Let there be Bang, then sit back and watch it go. :)

 

Unless, of course the new hypothetical mathematical model that says there may have been no Big Bang at all and the universe is eternal ends up holding water... oops, maybe the Hindus are right... (or is that the Buddhists - or both?)

[Dicentra]

While we're sussing out issues that are conflated when talking about these things...

 

creation/evolution is no kind of dichotomy at all, as evolution says nothing about how the earth, plants, animals, or anything else came to be in the first place, only what happened once the first organism came about.

 

The only thing science tells us about origins/creation is that the earth did not form at the same time as the rest of the universe, and that the first life came about sometime much after the formation of the earth itself.  It doesn't say what happened before the universe was created, or how all that stuff got crammed into the big bang in the first place.

 

Honestly, if you're going to believe in divine creation, the Big Bang seems a much more plausible model than that God decide to create every grain of sand and blade of grass and star in the heaven separately but all at the same time.  Way more efficient.  Let there be Bang, then sit back and watch it go. :)

 

Unless, of course the new hypothetical mathematical model that says there may have been no Big Bang at all and the universe is eternal ends up holding water... oops, maybe the Hindus are right... (or is that the Buddhists - or both?)

 

You are absolutely correct, Matryoshka. :)  I used the term "creation" but I probably meant more...  non-evolution, maybe?  The idea that living things were created in kinds and have only changed within the boundaries of those kinds.  I'm not sure what to call it, though.

[Pen]

Is anyone else surprised at the poll results ? It looks like 1 out of every 5 WTM'ers who voted is YEC. i would have assumed a much smaller percentage, maybe 1 out of 15 or so...

 

 

I'm not sure if it represents WTM as a whole as compared to who looked at and voted in this thread.

 

OTOH, in my area I'd say the majority of home schoolers are from YEC families--so more than 50%, not just around 20%. Often they are staying away from public school so that their children will not be taught or even hear about evolution and geology and so on. Is it different in your country?

 

That is one reason the issue of whether it is important what other people think is hard for me. It is easier to deal with YEC homeschoolers IRL if I ignore the YECness and focus on some common interest the kids have.  Or at least, I think so. Since I moved over from the "to each his own" category to the "it matters" category, I guess I will see how it does affect things IRL, if it does.

[Catwoman]

It wouldn't be his or her beliefs, it would be his or her peer reviewed papers that would let us know they had 'evidence' for a YE. I can imagine someone fudging their religious status to make the 'science' seem more sciencey - but the nature of being an scientist is that you do research and people read it.

 

I will eat my hat if there is a mainstream peer-reviewed, mainstream published biologist who has come up with YE evidence and who has zero religious affinities.

 

I don't believe there is any such person.

Not all biologists are publishing papers. I thought Zoobie was asking about biologists' personal opinions, not whether or not they had published papers on the topic. I apologize if I was mistaken about that.

 

I have no particular interest in YEC, so I have never looked for any publications about it, so I couldn't answer a question about the research being done on that topic. I was simply suggesting that I'm sure many of us have no clue about our friends' and acquaintances' views are about YEC because it probably isn't something that pops up in our everyday conversations -- or at least it isn't a common topic where I live. Maybe it's different in other places.

[Pen]

Me too because I have never actually met anyone who believes in YEC. That is why I find these threads so incredibly interesting. They give me a peek into a world that I would never get to see IRL.

 

 

Interesting.  May I ask where you are located?  Where I am now, it is very prevalent, though I had known nothing about it when I lived in Los Angeles and New York City.

[OneStepAtATime]

I'm not sure if it represents WTM as a whole as compared to who looked at and voted in this thread.

 

OTOH, in my area I'd say the majority of home schoolers are from YEC families--so more than 50%, not just around 20%. Often they are staying away from public school so that their children will not be taught or even hear about evolution and geology and so on. Is it different in your country?

 

That is one reason the issue of whether it is important what other people think is hard for me. It is easier to deal with YEC homeschoolers IRL if I ignore the YECness and focus on some common interest the kids have.  Or at least, I think so. Since I moved over from the "to each his own" category to the "it matters" category, I guess I will see how it does affect things IRL, if it does.

 

 

Wow. Yes, it is different here. 

 

Different, here, too.  Until just extremely recently YEC was not even mentioned at all in this area, even in our church.  I didn't even know this was considered a possibility, much less believed to be scientifically sound or even included as proven fact in some educational books.  I was, I admit, completely ignorant and did not know what YEC or YE was referring to on these boards when I first started reading posts here.  I am a Christian.  I was never taught this viewpoint.  I have lived many places.  I never heard this viewpoint until just recently.  I doubt, if I did a survey, that this would be a commonly held view in the area I currently live...but again, I have not done that survey.  I have no idea.  I do know it is becoming more common in my area now, including in my church because I have started to hear it mentioned.  This is a very recent phenomenon though, and I am unclear where or when this change occurred.

[Carol in Cal.]

None of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about him?  

Yes, they did.  Matthew and John were among his disciples and knew him personally.

They wrote several of the books that are in the modern Bible.

Mark is a nephew of the disciple Peter, so one step removed (not far)

And Luke consulted many of those who knew Jesus personally in compiling his biography.  He is the author of the books of Luke and Acts.  One step removed.  (not far)

[Pen]

 

 

I will eat my hat if there is a mainstream peer-reviewed, mainstream published biologist who has come up with YE evidence  and who has zero religious affinities.

 

 

 

 

How would there be biological evidence for age of Earth?  

 

ETA: And what would be the likelihood of a biologist also having sufficient training in physics, geology, spectroscopy etc. to be able to do work in the area of Earth dating?

[Mergath]

Yes, they did.  Matthew and John were among his disciples and knew him personally.

They wrote several of the books that are in the modern Bible.

Mark is a nephew of the disciple Peter, so one step removed (not far)

And Luke consulted many of those who knew Jesus personally in compiling his biography.  He is the author of the books of Luke and Acts.  One step removed.  (not far)

 

You are aware that most biblical scholars don't believe this to be true, right?

 

ETA: If you're referring to the Gospels, that is.

[mamaraby]

OTOH, in my area I'd say the majority of home schoolers are from YEC families--so more than 50%, not just around 20%. Often they are staying away from public school so that their children will not be taught or even hear about evolution and geology and so on.

I would agree. If I were to judge it by the classes taught at coops and the posts that go up on our inclusive support group's website, I'd say it's very likely greater than 50% and I'm not living in the Bible Belt.

[Carol in Cal.]

You are aware that most biblical scholars don't believe this to be true, right?

 

ETA: If you're referring to the Gospels, that is.

Actually there are a lot of Biblical scholars who do believe this to be true.

 

And every archeological discovery around the NT seems to push the authorship date back closer to Jesus' time.

[Pen]

Different, here, too.  Until just extremely recently YEC was not even mentioned at all in this area, even in our church.  I didn't even know this was considered a possibility, much less believed to be scientifically sound or even included as proven fact in some educational books.  I was, I admit, completely ignorant and did not know what YEC or YE was referring to on these boards when I first started reading posts here.  I am a Christian.  I was never taught this viewpoint.  I have lived many places.  I never heard this viewpoint until just recently.  I doubt, if I did a survey, that this would be a commonly held view in the area I currently live...but again, I have not done that survey.  I have no idea.  I do know it is becoming more common in my area now, including in my church because I have started to hear it mentioned.  This is a very recent phenomenon though, and I am unclear where or when this change occurred.

 

 

Interesting. I wonder if more people are becoming YEC or if more are talking about it openly.

 

I've not done an official "survey" but for my extended neighborhood including some people who have moved away, there have been 3 homeschool families (including mine) who believe in an ~4.5 billion year old earth, each with an only child--one of those children is now an adult, in fact a professor of biology.   There have been 7 homeschool families who are YEC and have a total of ...pause while I tally this up ... 18 children, 15 of whom are now college age or older  (1 of whom I believe has renounced his former faith and YEC views, another of whom has not and is now a school principal in a Christian school)-- there is now a second generation of  YEC family (that is, where I knew the now parents when they were kids, not actually living here and thus not in my count of 18, but who used to participate in group homeschooling with older members of the 18) across the street with 2 children not yet old enough to be schooling.  This is in a rural valley about 2 miles long...some of the homes have no children, and some are public schoolers in which case I don't know anything about their families' views on earth age one way or the other.  Wait, let me be honest that in one case of one family I am guessing that they are YEC due to the curriculum they are using--Apologia.  It is possible that one family should come off the YEC 7 family tally and 3 kids off the kid tally.  The rest I know for sure from direct discussions.