# Where do people get the idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007 "2014-07-13T18:30:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/41 "2014-07-17T01:21:41Z")
> [@umyes](#): > > Its because some feel they know it all so they know how old the world is! Okay, I’ll bite. Who is “they” ? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/42 "2014-07-17T02:23:13Z")
Well, me, for instance. I know the world is old. Really fucking old. I could give you an exact age, but that would change before I finished typing it, so let’s stick with “really fucking old.” ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/43 "2014-07-17T04:37:21Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Scientists don’t claim to have any real idea where the very first living things came from. Maybe God made them. Maybe aliens came and put them on Earth. Maybe they drifted across space all by themselves and landed on Earth. Maybe they–by some as yet unknown process–spontaneously developed from non-living chemicals. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And I wonder in your case, biologists do work with evolution, but they do no work in abiogenesis or it is not relevant: > > [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html) _Au contraire_ gentlemen, A.I. Oparin’s _The Origins of Life_ (1936) provides the basic understanding of Evolution. George Wald’s article in the August 1954 issue of _Scientific American_ gives an excellent overview with enough detail to make a very good case. Boils down to “once is enough”, and that’s the Theory of Evolution in a nutshell. Read the article, it’s important to understand Oparin’s work in the field. I think the two quotes above illustrate my point, if you think scientists believe life started by magic, you shouldn’t be debating evolution … and if you think an average Christian cares how old the Earth is, you’d be wrong. The correct answer makes no difference at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/44 "2014-07-17T04:58:10Z")
Well, heck, the “average” person has no real need to care about lots of stuff - what atoms do, how electricity works, how an internal combustion engine works, how the economy works… their knowledge is not necessary to benefit from applications of any of these. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/45 "2014-07-17T05:16:09Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > Archbishop Ussher’s chronology dated the act of creation to the night before October 25th, 4004 BC. It was thought to be a considerable feat of scholarship at the time. It’s still a considerable feat of scholarship. It’s _wrong_, because the data he used was wrong, but if you take the Bible as literal, explicit, inerrant truth, his methodology and conclusions are impressive work. There’s room for argument on some of the “guesses,” but his answer is right–or nearly so–given the axioms he started with. It’s like those derivations they always like to show in logic classes, where you can validly derive nonsensical statements as long as you start with false axioms. The difference between _correct_ and _valid._ ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/46 "2014-07-17T05:20:41Z")
It also like someone painstakingly reading every Superman comic in order to draw up a detailed floorplan of the Daily Planet building. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/47 "2014-07-17T06:40:34Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > _Au contraire_ gentlemen, A.I. Oparin’s _The Origins of Life_ (1936) provides the basic understanding of Evolution. George Wald’s article in the August 1954 issue of _Scientific American_ gives an excellent overview with enough detail to make a very good case. Boils down to “once is enough”, and that’s the Theory of Evolution in a nutshell. Read the article, it’s important to understand Oparin’s work in the field. > > I think the two quotes above illustrate my point, if you think scientists believe life started by magic, you shouldn’t be debating evolution … and if you think an average Christian cares how old the Earth is, you’d be wrong. The correct answer makes no difference at all. 1936? Long before DNA was understood? I assume that you are still using evolution incorrectly when you mean abiogenesis. Scientists speculate on all kinds of things long before there is evidence about what really happens. Big deal. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/48 "2014-07-17T07:22:04Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Do they get it from the pulpit or is it just a general impression? > > Data from Gallup: [Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends](http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx) > > 31 + 19 = 50 percent believe in evolution, possibly with God’s guidance. 42% believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form with the last 10,000 years or so. > Specific wording: > > Which of the following statements comes closest to yoru views on the origin and development of human beings - > > (human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, > > human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part of this process (or) > > God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so)? > > . Actually, the last option isn’t really Young Earth Creationism. It says nothing about how old the Earth or the Universe is, but how old Humanity is. One could affirm the last option & believe the Earth is 4.5 BY, and even that God used evolution to create all the other animals, but that humans are His unique & special creation. Old Earth Creationists may stretch the 10000 years a bit more or even accept the scientific consensus on the emergence of Humanity. From Hugh Ross’ Reasons to Believe site (probably the best known of Old Earth Creation groups): When did Adam and Eve live? The Bible gives some parameters but leaves the question open. Three different lines of scientific evidence (albeit imprecise) help provide an answer. First, the oldest archeological evidence of humanity (tools, religious artifacts, etc.) dates back around 80,000 years ago. Second scientists have found fossilized human remains with ages in the 100,000-year range. Third, genetic dating using molecular clock analysis of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam yield dates between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. The consistency of these three independent lines of evidence instills some confidence that Adam and Eve lived somewhere between 50,000 and 150,000 years ago. This date fits within the Biblical framework and strongly argues for a recent origin of humanity. [http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/ageofadam](http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/ageofadam) ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/49 "2014-07-17T08:09:20Z")
I’m gonna use this as a catch-all for several of the Qs above. Have I ever heard a sermon against Evolution? Not an entire Sunday sermon against it. Mostly anti-Evolution comments inside sermons about God as Creator. Once, we had a Wednesday night special guest who had taken on anti-Evolution as a special emphasis. BUT in my 40 year experience in two Evangelical churches (10 years Christian & Missionary Alliance and 30 years The Assemblies of God), there was never an insistence of Young Earth Creationism. I was surprise a decade ago when an intensive look through the AOG website revealed that YEC was its official position (policy has since been revised to reflect my experience that YEC & OEC were both considered acceptable). Over the four decades, I have heard lots of references to both Day-Age & Ruin-Restoration Creationism in both churches. (RRC is the idea that an original BY-old prehistoric Creation which included dinosaurs & possibly even a form of humanity was destroyed in the Fall of Lucifer, and that the Six Days were God’s Re-Ordering of Earth & Re-Creating of Animals & Humans.) Now to the JW teaching on the 144,000… The numbers come from Revelation Chapter 7: the Remnant of Israel, consisting of 12,000 from each of the Twelve Tribes, for a total of 144,000, and Rev Ch 14 in which the 144,000 are seen with Jesus (The Lamb), having either been raptured or martyred. JW’s believe that the 144,000 is an elect group of Christians out of the past almost 2000 years who will reign with Christ from Heaven for Eternity, while the rest of Redeemed Humanity (the Great Multitude in Rev 7) will live forever on Paradise Earth. The unrepentantly wicked will be destroyed, not suffer forever, in Gehenna, the Lake of Fire. They emphatically do NOT believe that only 144,000 have Eternal Life. And while they believe that Adam was created about 6000 years ago, they may believe that each Day of Creation was actually 7000 years, so that the Solar System/Earth may be 48,000 years old (we still have 1000 years of the Seventh Day to go). Now, some JWs may not be as articulate as others & able to explain the nuances. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/50 "2014-07-17T09:30:17Z")
Just read a book about an unrelated subject which mentions, in passing, that the idea that the world began in “1404 B.C.” was “standardly accepted” throughout Europe for much of the 17th century. Is this incorrect? Was Ussher’s date (4004 B.C.) the more common one? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/51 "2014-07-17T13:29:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 1936? Long before DNA was understood? Issac Newton’s _Principia_ was published in 1726 and the information contained therein is still widely taught in freshman physics classes. If you’ve read Wade’s article and disagree, please state why. Your argument that it’s just “20th century material” fails, unless you also reject 18th century material, or the 16th century’s heliocentric solar system model just because Copernicus predicted circular orbits. > [@Voyager](#): > > I assume that you are still using evolution incorrectly when you mean abiogenesis. Citation? Do I use the word physics incorrectly when I mean fluid mechanics? > [@Voyager](#): > > Scientists speculate on all kinds of things long before there is evidence about what really happens. Big deal. I’m assuming you’re speaking about the Darwin/Wallace principles. Yes, I agree, there are speculative aspects about Evolution. “Why” is a rather big unanswered question, and although knowing the “how” is a big help that still doesn’t say why. Creationism has the opposite problem; it’s very clear on why, the how is a little sketchy (and I nominate that as understatement of the year). _God made mud_, move on will ya? Do you think Charles Darwin “discovered” evolution? Any dirt farmers for the past 10 millennia knows to save the seed for next year’s planting from the plants that best “fulfill their reproductive capacity”. Unless you can state a more credible theory on exactly how the agricultural revolution was done, then it’s fair to make that statement. * * * Perhaps something of a hijack here, but I’m curious: Those that decry the power-base of the priesthood would offer Evolution, but that just shifts the power-base to biologists. So, how is this any different for the below average intelligent? The finest Christian I’ve ever met was a woman with Down’s Syndrome. God gives her “suffer not the little children to come unto me” whereas evolution would make her dinner. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/52 "2014-07-17T15:50:38Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > Just read a book about an unrelated subject which mentions, in passing, that the idea that the world began in “1404 B.C.” was “standardly accepted” throughout Europe for much of the 17th century. > > Is this incorrect? Was Ussher’s date (4004 B.C.) the more common one? Seems like somebody misheard “forty-oh-four” as “fourteen-oh-four” during the book’s writing, editing or typesetting process. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/53 "2014-07-17T16:04:08Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Recall that Gallup provided an _explicit_ opt-out: “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”. The Catholic church doesn’t have a problem with evolution, and one can even give an evolutionary spin to the first page of the Bible. > Let me take the OP from another angle. Has anybody ever witnessed an in-church sermon where the preacher attacked evolution? Yep. Multiple times in my birth family’s denomination, the Church of God in Christ. My father’s former pastor used to inveigh loudly, passionately, and stupidly against science and rationality in general; he specifically said that logic was a tool of the devil. He also once, in a rant against sexual immorality, referred to homosexual women as Lebanese. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/54 "2014-07-17T19:17:26Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > Just read a book about an unrelated subject which mentions, in passing, that the idea that the world began in “1404 B.C.” was “standardly accepted” throughout Europe for much of the 17th century. > > Is this incorrect? Was Ussher’s date (4004 B.C.) the more common one? I think that book must have had a misprint. Biblical chronology at that time may have placed Moses around the 1400s B.C. . ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/55 "2014-07-17T20:14:31Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Issac Newton’s _Principia_ was published in 1726 and the information contained therein is still widely taught in freshman physics classes. If you’ve read Wade’s article and disagree, please state why. Your argument that it’s just “20th century material” fails, unless you also reject 18th century material, or the 16th century’s heliocentric solar system model just because Copernicus predicted circular orbits. Got a link to this book? What does he say? The point is, since he didn’t understand the basics of how reproduction works, he can’t be right except by chance. That’s not a criticism of him - I’d suspect he was doing the best he could with the data he had available. If you taught freshman physics students that Newton’s laws apply at relativistic velocities, you’d be wrong. If you taught it 150 years ago you’d still be wrong but you’d be teaching it as science then understood it. Hell Darwin was wrong about how inheritance worked. The wonder of it is that the real story supports him more than what he proposed. That’s the 1936 reference. As for Wald, [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4-2.html) is the talk.origins article on it. Now, I don’t know how much the importance of the DNA finding was appreciated by Wald - but once is enough could be true, but it is also likely that it happened often. > [@](#): > > Citation? Do I use the word physics incorrectly when I mean fluid mechanics? Evolution, as Darwin used it, means descent with modifications. Descent implies reproduction. The change from molecules which do not replicate themselves to those which do is not a product of evolution - it just starts evolution. > [@](#): > > I’m assuming you’re speaking about the Darwin/Wallace principles. Yes, I agree, there are speculative aspects about Evolution. “Why” is a rather big unanswered question, and although knowing the “how” is a big help that still doesn’t say why. Creationism has the opposite problem; it’s very clear on why, the how is a little sketchy (and I nominate that as understatement of the year). _God made mud_, move on will ya? No, scientists throughout history speculate. The tend not to do so in peer reviewed papers, though. Sure there are details we don’t understand, but they are fewer and less fundamental than they used to be. And why why? Once you get a molecule which can imperfectly replicate in an environment that rewards some changes and punishes others, the rest is paperwork. No why required. > [@](#): > > Do you think Charles Darwin “discovered” evolution? Any dirt farmers for the past 10 millennia knows to save the seed for next year’s planting from the plants that best “fulfill their reproductive capacity”. Unless you can state a more credible theory on exactly how the agricultural revolution was done, then it’s fair to make that statement. I assume you have never read Darwin, since he writes extensively of animal husbandry and plant breeding, and did much of it himself. His contribution was showing how this happens in nature. > [@](#): > > Perhaps something of a hijack here, but I’m curious: Those that decry the power-base of the priesthood would offer Evolution, but that just shifts the power-base to biologists. So, how is this any different for the below average intelligent? The finest Christian I’ve ever met was a woman with Down’s Syndrome. God gives her “suffer not the little children to come unto me” whereas evolution would make her dinner. I don’t understand what power base you are talking about. Like in any field, understanding evolution deeply requires a lot of work. But the basic principle is very simple, and can be explained to almost anyone. I think most people who don’t accept evolution have never had it explained simply, or had people lie to them about what it says (like a cat giving birth to a dog.) Or they are told it goes against God’s law, and if you accept it you must give up the religion they depend on. Evolution is descent with modifications and natural selection. Couldn’t be simpler. It gets complicated when you study how it works. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/56 "2014-07-17T20:51:05Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Perhaps something of a hijack here, but I’m curious: Those that decry the power-base of the priesthood would offer Evolution, but that just shifts the power-base to biologists. So, how is this any different for the below average intelligent? The finest Christian I’ve ever met was a woman with Down’s Syndrome. God gives her “suffer not the little children to come unto me” whereas evolution would make her dinner. Wait, what? Are you saying that I only believe in evolution because I don’t like Christians running things? That using our minds to figure out whether the evidence suggests the world is really really old, or only 6000 years old isn’t the point, the point is to get even with Christians? And that if people believed evolution was true, they’d stuff your friend into the gas chambers? The name for your argument is “sophistry”. To you it doesn’t matter whether evolution is true or not, you’re only concerned with your projections of the political and social consequences of people believing or not believing in evolution. If people believe in Jesus we get love and brotherhood. If people believe in evolution, we get gas chambers. Therefore we should teach against evolution whether it is true or not. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/57 "2014-07-18T00:49:54Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > _Au contraire_ gentlemen, A.I. Oparin’s _The Origins of Life_ (1936) provides the basic understanding of Evolution. George Wald’s article in the August 1954 issue of _Scientific American_ gives an excellent overview with enough detail to make a very good case. Boils down to “once is enough”, and that’s the Theory of Evolution in a nutshell. Read the article, it’s important to understand Oparin’s work in the field. > > I think the two quotes above illustrate my point, if you think scientists believe life started by magic, you shouldn’t be debating evolution … and if you think an average Christian cares how old the Earth is, you’d be wrong. The correct answer makes no difference at all. It is clear that you think we believe that magic did, but you are wrong, and the point stands, it is an irrelevant point as far as evolution is concerned, the whole quote from [Talkorigins.org](http://Talkorigins.org) includes this: [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html) > [@](#): > > Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/58 "2014-07-18T02:16:55Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Perhaps something of a hijack here, but I’m curious: Those that decry the power-base of the priesthood would offer Evolution, but that just shifts the power-base to biologists. So, how is this any different for the below average intelligent? The finest Christian I’ve ever met was a woman with Down’s Syndrome. God gives her “suffer not the little children to come unto me” whereas evolution would make her dinner. It is all fun and games until Kansas passes a law banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/59 "2014-07-18T02:24:10Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Perhaps something of a hijack here, but I’m curious: Those that decry the power-base of the priesthood would offer Evolution, but that just shifts the power-base to biologists. So, how is this any different for the below average intelligent? The finest Christian I’ve ever met was a woman with Down’s Syndrome. God gives her “suffer not the little children to come unto me” whereas evolution would make her dinner. Science says what happens and has happened. It doesn’t say what should happen; that isn’t a scientific question. Saying what should happen is the job of God and simple decency. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007/60 "2014-07-18T03:10:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > . . . Hell Darwin was wrong about how inheritance worked. The wonder of it is that the real story supports him more than what he proposed. . . . Actually, Darwin was remarkably correct. For instance, he figured out that the material – whatever it was – of heritability had to be discrete. Granular. He deduced this from statistical observation in the breeding of pigeons and other animals. He indirectly inferred what we know today as chromosomes. And he was right. Yes, most certainly, there was much he didn’t know. DNA wasn’t discovered until well within the lifetime of many who are posting on these boards today. But don’t go pushing the “Darwin was wrong” button, because, frankly, it exposes you to being corrected by those who know slightly better. You might as well say that “Newton was wrong” because of Relativity and QM. Maybe true in the strictest sense…but it was Newton, not Einstein, who got us to the Moon and back. Save “wrong” for exploded theories entirely. Phlogiston, Larmarckism, the Steady-State theory of the cosmos…and Creationism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-people-get-the-idea-that-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old/693007.md?page=4)