An embarrassingly large number of people today believe in Bigfoot, Nessie, UFO’s, an alien abductions. Never underestimate what even an advanced civilization might believe to be true.
Yeah, and new age healing crystals…
That’s why i quoted your post. You said 46% believed the earth was between 6,000 & 10,000 years old.
Oh, ok, not to argue with you but if god created man and earth at the same time (more or less) and god created man 10,000 years ago then that means the earth is 10,000 years old.
Not necessarily. I am NOT a creationist, but I do know several who believe that the “days” are significantly longer periods, and not necessarily equal in length, and that the earth is much older than humans. Based on the article’s phrasing of the question, it seems like a bad idea to extrapolate that view from the data provided. There are three options (again, from the article, I have not yet looked at the actual questions) and it seems to exclude "God created man but at some point earlier than 10,000 years. " Some creationists may select the question that reflects ORIGIN not time period.
We are talking about the fundamentalist POV here. For all intents and purposes I consider fundamentalist and literalist and creationist to be more or less the same. Maybe I am wrong about that, it is the impression that I am left with.
A strict biblical literalist will believe:
1- The 6 days in genesis are 24 hour periods. They are not metaphorical or representative for 1 day equals a thousand years. They mean 24 hours.
2- In this narrative the earth is created a day or two before man is created.
3- From Adam, there are, later in the OT, there is a genealogy from Adam to Abraham to Moses and on down the line, so and so begat so and so and that person begat so and so… and so forth.
4- Also, (I think) the ages of these individuals are included.
5- thus it is determined that there were more or less 4,000 years from Adam to Jesus and then 2,00 years to the present date.
6- This was all recorded (I think) to show that Jesus was a direct descendant of working backwards… David to Moses to Abraham to Adam, in other words Jesus was a direct descendant of each of the key figures of the OT. This last piece of trivia I am not 100% sure about, however.
7- Why there are two versions, 6,000 years vs 10,000, I don’t know.
It does appear that there is an option of “other” that a few people did take advantage of, but I still feel the wording of the questions is not ideal. There are two options reflecting evolution, and one reflecting creationism. I can easily imagine people selecting the one that most closely aligns with the view of the origin of man, without regard to the time periods.
It’s entirely possible that many of the slightly more of the 1,000 people sampled do believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, but I don’t know that it can be stated with any certainty. That’s not what the questions were measuring.
On preview:
It seems like a definition is being applied to the results that was not intended. The question did not ask if someone was a literalist – as I said, I know several people who believe in creationism without believing in then earth age of less than 10,000 years old. I believe, from my religions classes, that the bloodline from Adam for Jesus had to be recreated when the records in the Temple were destroyed. I would venture a guess that many creationists are NOT literalists.
Ok but would you agree that a Literalist and a Creationist and Fundamentalist are more closely aligned to one another than they are to an Episcopalian or a Unitarian (both of whom, I think, have very liberal, non literal interpretations of the bible).
Honestly, I don’t know enough to say. As I said, I know religious individuals who believe in creation but are not literalists. I even know some who believe in evolution of some organisms but not Man. In their view Man was created by God, but the earth has been around long enough for other organisms to evolve. I don’t understand that, but it is what they believe. I am not prepared to lump all creationists (defined only as people who believe God created Man) with fundamentalists. Perhaps someone who knows more about the named denominations will weigh in? Either way, it seems a little horrifying that so many Americans apparently reject evolution altogether, and that’s what i think that survey was measuring.
I think we both agree that there are some key differences between the aforementioned groups but being an agnostic/atheist myself, those differences don’t make a large difference to me, though I see they are important distinctions to other people.
Wait a second. The initial bloodlines are in Genesis. Do they claim that Genesis got rewritten? Bloodlines from David say to Jesus were obviously made up, but in any case they aren’t going to affect the age of the earth very much, even if off by 500 years.
if they accept that God created man, why not accept that God created the Earth also. If they take the creation story as metaphorical, then the timelines in the story are of little import, right?
As the White Queen didn’t say, the religious person believes five contradictory things before breakfast.
And, going all the way back to the first post, the OP of this thread…I find it easier, not harder, to respect those who take such intermediate positions, as opposed to the hard-line 6000 year timeline believer. Their very moderation is the reason I respect them: they’re making some accommodation in their faith for observed real-world facts.
Between these three guys…
“My donkey talks to me every day.”
“My donkey talked to me once, but it was a miracle.”
“My donkey has never talked to me”
…I respect the second more than the first. I still think he’s wrong, but he’s aware of the problem with the matter, and has attempted to construct a reason to bridge that problem.
Moderation is nearly always preferable to extremism.
Until such time as I actually deny some factual statement, you would do well to not falsely invent positions for me to hold or assert.
There is nothing “convenient” about it. For a number of reasons, I have always chosen to refrain from proselytization and witnessing on the internet. I also, however, generally refrain from attacking the proselytiztion of others, (as I have refrained from attacking your attempts at proselytization in this and other threads).
However, when you make a flat declaration of error that is not central to your missionary efforts, I am willing to point them out.
It is an interesting supposition that the world was created in six days, considering the sun wasn’t created until the fourth day. How were days being measured before that?
Logical problem with bloodlines from David to Jesus: Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father (the Holy Spirit was, like, I’m my own grandpa) so there could be no bloodline anyway.
Counting heartbeats? Or “absolute time sense,” as in GURPS.
(Presumes God had it all planned out ahead, so he knew how long a day was going to be.)
In allegories.
That one I know about, and it has been discussed here often. I’ve never heard the “records got lost” explanation before.
It says “evening and morning” before the Sun is created also.
God, we shout, how can it be evening and morning with no sun?
“Vat? So it was cloudy already. Such nitpickers.”
Are there any Jesuits in your area? Cuz this would be right up their alley. They LOVE to talk about this kind of thing.