Survey: Young Earth or Old Earth?

Reality is so annoying. Can't we just vote it out of existence?

 

hyo-
we could write a book saying it doesn't exist and get millions (billions?) of people to believe if they don't believe in it they will endure eternal torture after death...

h34r:

 

Here's one thing I hate about religion -- why does everybody seem to care so much how we came into being or where they're going after they're dead? IMO, Jesus seemed so much more concerned with the here and now -- how we treat each others, how we spend our money, etc.

I just think arguing about evolution vs. creation or heaven just gives people an excuse to ignore the real teachings of Jesus. It's not that I don't have my opinions about the beginning and end of the world, I do. And I do enjoy discussing/debating these issues. But sometimes, it seems to me that some of the meanest, most hateful responses in this discussion are those most certain in their Christian faith. Just my opinion ...

Peace --

 

When it comes to religion, I'm always reminded of Plato's republic. People seem to "need" these things. Personally, I'm constantly amazed and sickened at what people do and have done in the name of religion. This kind of reminds me of an old Tom Lehrer song called "national brotherhood week". He introduces the song by saying that every year we have this week where everyone is supposed to love one another. He knows that there are people out there who don't love one another...and he hates people like that! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Apr 24 2006, 04:07 PM) [snapback]244428[/snapback]</div>

"Jesus seemed so much more concerned with the here and now -- how we treat each others, how we spend our money, etc."

I fully concord with all the posters so far, as well as your comment about Jesus.

Studying the behavioral aspects of the 'Ruling Class' through mankind's history despite of it's ideological, nationalistic, religious or economic representation, there was always a notion of formulating preoccupancy tasks for the underclass, either by instigating patriotic virtues, ethics in hard labor, strict religious beliefs, etc anything that will take anyone's reexamination of reality that may infringe on the hierarchy of the 'Ruling Class' and their control.

Diverting like you said ones perception from the core issues includes religions that always acted in conformance with the Ruling Class. It's about power and control and exploitation. Their benefits are always greater when the masses are preoccupied with whatever there might be, 500 TV channels, sensationalism etc.

Hey, Stalin once said, give'em all cheap vodka, let them rejoice the misery. All we need is a stupid mob full of obedience and cannon fodder when necessary to prop up our clique. There weren't to many real idealists in a politburo, true idealists were eliminated.

Such is the unfortunate story of mankind's affair so far.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 24 2006, 02:22 PM) [snapback]244405[/snapback]</div>

It's not that easy to destroy the earth.

How to Destroy the Earth

 

I grew up with such beliefs as the creation in 7 days, etc. When I went to college, one of the topics I studied was evolution. It seemed to have a few holes, but it also made some sense. I had been wondering by that time how the first day (24hours) was determined since there was no sun and moon...

Anyway, I believe that the earth came into being several millions of years ago. Not that God couldn't have created things to make them look like they were old, but after consulting with others about an alternative interpretation to the word 'day' in the Genesis account, it seems to me that the earth is quite old. Might I be wrong? Sure, after all, I wasn't there to witness the beginning, nor was anybody else.

That puts me into a minority of Christians who are indeed called 'old earthers'.

 

I am a "young earth" person. How that should bother anyone...I don't know.

 

I think the ID people are almost all "old earth" people, and some Creationists are.

But as I've said before, they approach the issue from a philosophical standpoint, not a scientific one. They are, in a sense, speaking in an entirely different language about a different subject entirely.

 

Good poll, daniel. Looks like you'll get another 150-post thread as a bonus, too.

 

I too am a "young earth" person. when christians die we go to heven, when everyone else dies they come back as Chickens.

As someone said to me, this is another evolution/creation thread just worded differently.......... Hey bubba I shot the horse you git to clean it..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 25 2006, 06:11 AM) [snapback]244775[/snapback]</div>

No, actually, I'd be interested in seeing what happens if the people who AREN'T christians just stay out. I'll not kick the horse if you won't

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Apr 24 2006, 01:07 PM) [snapback]244428[/snapback]</div>

I haven't see this at all in fact quite the opposite. Please give me an example. I'm not saying there are none just that the majority are non-believers disparaging believers.

My 2 cents.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 24 2006, 09:37 PM) [snapback]244703[/snapback]</div>

Actually, by 'several millions' I meant old, as up in to the billions. There seem to be two camps: Us old earthers believe that the earth is very, very old. Current science upholds this. I have no problems with billions of years. The other camp holds that the earth is some 10,000 years old. This is all based on the interpretation of the word 'day' in the text. Some believe that the word 'day' means a 24 hour day. Fine. Others, such as myself, believe that the word 'day' means a period of time, which could be 24 hours or a few hundred thousand years or more.

Seems to me that in order to have a day, one would have to have a sun and an earth. But the sun is not created until the fourth day...

 

I'm a young earther. . .

Headlines in several newspapers around the world have publicized a paper in Nature by a team of scientists (including the famous physicist Paul Davies) who (according to these reports) claim that ‘light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe’.1
In view of the potential significance of the whole ‘light slowing down’ issue to creationists, it is worth reviewing it briefly here.
Well over a decade ago, AiG’s Creation magazine published very supportive articles concerning a theory by South Australian creationist Barry Setterfield, that the speed of light (‘c’) had slowed down or ‘decayed’ progressively since creation.
In one fell swoop, this theory, called ‘c decay’2 (CDK) had the potential to supply two profound answers vitally important for a Biblical worldview.
The distant starlight problem
One was, if stars are really well over 6000 light years away, how could light have had time to travel from them to Earth? Two logically possible answers have serious problems:
1. God created the starlight on its way: this suffers grievously from the fact that starlight also carries information about distant cosmic events. The created-in-transit theory means that the information would be ‘phony’, recording events which never happened, hence deceptive.
2. The distances are deceptive: but despite some anomalies in redshift/distance correlations (see Galaxy-Quasar ‘Connection’ Defies Explanation), it’s just not possible for all stars and galaxies to be within a 6000-light-year radius—we would all fry!
But if light were billions of times faster at the beginning, and slowed down in transit, there would be no more problem.
Radiometric dates
Since most nuclear processes are mathematically related to the speed of light, a faster ‘c’ might well mean a faster rate of radioactive decay, thus explaining much of the evidence used to justify the billions of years of geological hypothesizing. In fact, top-flight creationist researchers involved with the RATE (Radioactive Isotopes and the Age of the Earth) project have found powerful evidence of speeded-up decay in the past (see their book (right). CDK might offer a mechanism.

Wildkow

 

:arn me for not staying out!::

For what it's worth, Wildkow, the 'CDK' movement is not really something you want to base your beliefs on. That article you copied and pasted (funnily enough, google only finds it on creationist websites and pasted in forum entries) was from 2002 by an Austrailian creationist author and speaker, not anyone trained in physics or astronomy. It's referenced by (he even makes references to) Barry Setterfield, whose techniques for his original research were shoddy and just not solid science - that original research was really just an embarassment to the young earth cause.