Not too surprising, given that Jericho is even older, c. 9000 BC.

Still, I think ancient sites are always interesting.

Sounds like a job for the Holy Time Team. They can accomplish more in three days than Christ!

Sweet.

I wish I had some permanent habitation but I was hiking across the mountain and got stuck in a snowdrift.

- Otzi

2000 years before the Earth was created!

Says who?

Says who?

Since there are only 3 options in that poll, let's say that only half of the people that chose option 3 are truly young earth creationists. That still makes almost 1 in 4 people Americans abso-fucking-lutely retarded. Such rampant stupidity brings a tear of joy to your eye, doesn't it, Vermin?

"Says who?

#5 | Posted by vernon at 2010-01-11 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag: TAIWANESE CALCULATOR MANUFACTURER

#6 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-11 11:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks. I'm surprised it's that high. Of course, the questions are biased: For example, there is plenty of evidence of homo sapiens dating back more than 1 million years.

The questions obviously require people to either accept Darwinian evolution as fact (whether God had a hand or not) or the only other option is #4.

And you continue to be a prick

#8 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2010-01-12 12:25 AM | Reply | Flag: STILL SMARTING FROM THE LAST FIVE TIMES VERNON JAP-SLAPPED HIM

It is funny to me that Kliff made the comment about the building being built 8000 years ago, ans stating that it was build 2000 years before creation, "must have been put there to test my faith,"

Then, Zombie backs him up on it, with a poll that shows that 44% thought that the earth was !0,000 or so years old.

If we can do simp0le math in this thread, that will make kliff and those who backed him up look a little foolish as, it would be built 2,000 or so years after the creation account, as we all know that 10,000 - 8,000 = 2,000 years.

It was a nice try to marginalize a different point of view, albeit only one of the many thoughts on timing of creation, although even this small attempt was thwarted by the ones attacking it.

I know what you were trying to get at, beating a dead horse and all, but it makes you guys look a little foolish numerically with the different numbers you posted to support each others cliche attacks.

If we can do simp0le math in this thread, that will make kliff and those who backed him up look a little foolish as, it would be built 2,000 or so years after the creation account, as we all know that 10,000 - 8,000 = 2,000 years.

Are you really going to split that hair? The most infamous sect of the young earth creationists will give you a precise date for the creation of the earth about 6000 years ago. Who cares if they say the earth is 10000 years old, though? They would not have to deny this discovery, but they're still several orders of magnitude off of the actual age of the earth. People who are that fantastically wrong deserve to be ridiculed.

For example, there is plenty of evidence of homo sapiens dating back more than 1 million years.

Don't you know, it was all put here by Satan to test your faith...

Yes but Zombie most of the age estimation in that group is from 6 - 10,000 years because of the way the lineage was recorded.

You are the one that mentioned 10,000 years not me. Kliff is the one that mentioned 8,000 being 2,000 years before the earth was created, let alone before humans existing.

You are both making the old tired claim of the "test faith..." meme.

Sometimes the ridicule of the accuser turns them on their head. This is one of those times. There are times when you are very funny with your ridicule, however this time you and kliff made an error that makes your ridicule look less glimmering and more condemning to you two as the one ridiculing others as fools.

Not to say you are fools, but your attempts here have not painted you in a very proficient comical light.

sorry, placing authority of reality on a fairy tale in the face of tons of facts makes you the fool.

most of the age estimation in that group is from 6 - 10,000 years

By far the most comical are the creationists who swear up and down that some code in the bible reveals the earth to have been created around 4000 BCE. Ussher said it was 4004 BCE, Bede said it was 3952 BCE, Scaliger said it was 3949 BCE, Johannes Kepler said it was 3992 BCE, and Sir Isaac Newton put it around 4000 BCE. So yes, an 8000 year old archaeological site would have existed 2000 years before the world was created according to these people (and more importantly, the people who still believe this stuff now despite having ample reasons not to).

These "estimates" were born more out of ignorance than fanaticism. There was no way to date the earth or universe in the Medieval period. The people who cling to this conjecture, however, are first-rate idiots. Like I said, so what if they go soft and say the world is *gasp* almost 10000 years old? They're still missing a few zeroes.

You are both making the old tired claim of the "test faith..." meme.

It's too hilarious to go old. Particularly when there are people that actually believe it. It's the same reason that I will stop making Xenu jokes when there aren't any more Scientologists around. Get it?

you and kliff made an error

Yeah, sure we did. Of the 44% of the US population that agrees with the statement "the earth was created within the last 10000 years," there are many who also believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old. There is overlap between the groups. This is not a difficult concept. You just can't bring yourself to condemn idiots that share in your supertitions, and as a result are shooting wildly at the messenger. Get over yourself.

Thanks for the input there truth, however, I am not arguing from an age of the earth from the Bible, Torah, Quaran etc. standpoint. I am simply pointing out the misunderstanding of the ridiculousness attempting to be ridiculed.

You seem to have a one track mind however and cannot discern that from what I posted. You talk about truth hurting but it seems you are incapable of seeing the truth when it is front of your faith. I was simply approaching what was said in an objective sense, you however seem not to be doing that.

I would not consider objectively looking at what zombie and kliff said, also understanding and agreeing with what they were trying to say, but yet pointing out the objective failure in their reasoning, as foolishly defending a 10,000 or 6,000 or 4 billion year old earth. When it comes down to it, none of us know how old the earth or the universe really is. Our best guess is somewhere around 4-6 billion for the earth, and say 15 - 25 billion for the universe. And the universe changes depending on how it was formulated. Big Bang estimates it at the 15-20 billion years old, other theories say timeless as in this universe always being present, others say timeless in that an alternative universe in another dimension, and not always necessarily this universe existing.

I get what is being argued. I am not sure if you do.

The questions obviously require people to either accept Darwinian evolution as fact (whether God had a hand or not)

So you're saying there should have been an option 4 that involves an old earth but no darwinian evolution? Okay. More opportunities for people to reveal their stupidity. I don't think it would have changed the less-than-uplifting outcome of this poll. You would still look at it and think, "damn, almost half of America is batfuck insane."

I think those that believe that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old are foolish and unwilling to understand that if there is a God, science must match up with creation, if the God that may be there did create this universe let alone this galaxy earth sun planetary/solar system that we live in.

I have no problem with that. If you are going to propose faith, it must also be founded in reason, it must have accuracy scientifically not only spiritually or philosophically.

However today it is very hard to distinguish things, as there are many opinions taken as authorities over many things. It is almost impossible to distinguish the truth in the human understand at this day in age with the availability and diversity of information and data.

Our best guess is somewhere around 4-6 billion for the earth, and say 15 - 25 billion for the universe.

Um, hate to break it to you but the error bars have come way down on those figures. 13.73 +/- 0.12 billion years for the age of the universe, and 4.5 billion years +/- 45 million years for the age of the earth.

All I am saying is that your poll numbers cancel out kiliffs claim that they were put there by faith, and then your backing of his supposition included you in his error.

I understand what you mean, Great joke. However you has a "poor choice of words". I understand people seem to be having that happen to them a lot lately. Especially when deriding others.

I have no problem with that. If you are going to propose faith, it must also be founded in reason, it must have accuracy scientifically not only spiritually or philosophically.

Sounds great to me.

dude its a joke.

my friend's dad believes the earth is 6000 years old and really really believes that dinosaur fossils were put here to test our faith.

he's also a minister at a church in lousiana.

i'm just saying its funny and i was laughing.

obviously i'm not calling a blatant mockery against all christians and never would.

i'm mocking that few, that minority, that believe this... and there is at least one retort fella i know for sure that believes the earth is 6000 years old.

there might be more in the closet.

your poll numbers cancel out kiliffs claim that they were put there by faith

Hardly. You have no grounds to make the point and have entirely misinterpreted the poll. Possibly deliberately. I have to wonder about your motivations for doing so.

Like I said before, "Of the 44% of the US population that agrees with the statement 'the earth was created within the last 10000 years,' there are many who also believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old."

that at least one retorter also believes fossils of prehistoric beasts are put here to test our faith.

my "claim" is not cancelled out.

i never claimed that it was anything more then a fringer group that believed this.

but its a growing fringer group, and they need to be openly mocked for their stupidity to prevent the spread of such blatant stupidity

there is at least one retort fella i know for sure that believes the earth is 6000 years old

Takitez?

Excellent. I am glad to hear that they are bringing the ranges down in certain groups. That is fascinating. It does not bother me that the information in their understanding changes.

I was generalizing for this truth hurts fella here, and in general response to your post. Excuse me for being too genera in one and overestimating the age of the universe according to Big Bang in another.

zombie.. i don't know.. this guy is named after a religious building.

i think he's on one of tossers dump vacations

or maybe we mocked him away.

I am fine with what you two are posting. Just pointing out that you are saying a consensus, then saying fringe, saying that the building was 2,000 years too early for creation, and the other potentially 2,000 years after.

Just looking at the facts here. I understand what you are saying, and you are right, however you didn't say it in the most consistent manners.

I know about Takitez, I have gone to some of his "I spent 30 minutes in Hell and now I'm back to warn you" videos. They are funny things. Some people post absurd things with no reasons for their absurdity, others like Bob present absurdity with at least absurd reasons for their absurdity.

I see where you two are going. I have no problem.

well i never claimed a percentage, if you look at all my posts.

so if you have an argument of the numbers with zombie thats fine...

but again, i never gave any indication at all to how many people believe this...

i just know people do.

i hope its a minority.

zombie tends to think the numbers are higher then i...

most likely its somewhere in the middle of that.

I have gone to some of his "I spent 30 minutes in Hell and now I'm back to warn you" videos.

Lol, I found a parody of those videos on youtube that was something to the effect of "I spent 30 minutes in Jersey and now I'm back to warn you". I can't remember the title, but it was pretty good.

Those old texts speak of several "creations" and destructions of the earth. The 6,000 figure has to do with genealogies.

The writer of Genesis, btw, had words for both "plenish" and "replenish", and according to the story, ADM, (which is a different word than "man", btw) and Eve were told to "replenish" the earth.

Visions recorded by later prophets pictured cites and civilizations on earth prior to the creation in Genesis.

The article story is interesting in that it dates Jerusalem back to the time it was built, by Shem the builder, most likely.

The more we learn about ancient times, the more we find that at least some people were more intelligent and cultured than we ever thought, and the more I think devolution has played as prominent a role in history as evolution.

zombie tends to think the numbers are higher then i...

Klifferd, I sincerely hope the poll I posted is dead wrong.

"The more we learn about ancient times, the more we find that at least some people were more intelligent and cultured than we ever thought, and the more I think devolution has played as prominent a role in history as evolution."

oh yea.

well have you read the hindu texts

they are like what 5 or 6000 years old.

they have some seriously abstract modern thought in them.

people definately were way more advanced then we give them credit for, and civilization probably goes back farther then we think.

"Klifferd, I sincerely hope the poll I posted is dead wrong."

:) thats why we mock them... so their numbers dwindle.

just as we mock the jihadists and we mock any other extreme element.

"Young Earth Creationists, which compose about 44% of the US population"

I don't know where Gallup was polling but I've lived more than "three score and ten" and I've never met anyone who believes the Earth is only eight or ten thousand years old. I'm sure there are some...but 44%? I don't buy it.

Most people in America have no consistent beliefs. That is shown in polls all the time. They say they believe one thing, but also believe another contradictory things. I also think polls are in need of deep skepticism as well. We need to get out of this "statistical justification" mindset we are in. Too many opposing statistics out there, too readily available to justify someones position of which many will believe without researching themselves.

this is how we get in many of the predicaments that we do.

Much of what we do involves philosophy, wishing and faith. Upon those things we continue to shape our conclusions eventually coming to a more reasoned conclusion of our original opinions, philosophy, faith, or wishes.

I wish everybody would simply admit that they go by faith first, reason second.

One things I have noticed is that non theists and I guess scientists have a big problem with the word faith and refuse to use, which makes me think of the ridiculous fight over words in terms of marriage. Why is marriage such an important word to fight over many say, well, why is faith such a terrible word to admit to I say?

Reason informs faith, which informs more reason. That is how I see it, which all starts on faith, for a reason.

One things I have noticed is that non theists and I guess scientists have a big problem with the word faith and refuse to use

Faith is something that everyone has to some degree - even the most staunch atheist imaginable. You have faith in a person close to you, or you put faith in the hydraulic lines of your car's braking system (which depending on what you drive may be more faith than is required to be religious). In all those cases, there are very concrete things you're putting faith in.

With religion, it's a little different. You don't know anything about the deity that you're putting faith in other than what you've read or been told. There is no way to check the fluid or change the pads in the braking system that is purportedly halting your runaway descent into the fires of hell. It's a different kind of faith, and not all of us have it (or want to have it). Whether you are or are not a person of this kind of faith doesn't really mean much, though. Faith or lack thereof shouldn't be used to fault someone in the absence of other things. What you do with your life and how you treat others is much more significant.

Reason informs faith, which informs more reason.

In most cases, yes. That's why religion hasn't destroyed society and is actually capable of being a powerful force for good. An impressive amount of stupidity originates from the cases where faith is less-than-informed, though. I'm thankful that those sorts are a minority in my life, and I'm hopeful that they are a diminishing minority everywhere.

Isaac Newton was a young earth creationist, but he's the kind of person who didn't have enough information available to inform his faith like a person in the 21st century. He was a far cry from some people today, and like I said I really hope (and suspect to a degree) the young earth creationists are a smaller minority than some people say. I imagine that some of that 44% misunderstood the pollsters when they used the term "Darwinian Evolution" and thought it referred to abiogenesis as well. Who knows.

I'm sure there are some...but 44%? I don't buy it.

Yeah, it seems too ridiculous to be true but I've heard this statistic tossed around a lot, and on the site it shows that there have been multiple polls over the last couple decades all showing the same thing. You're right, there are ways of explaining away the high number or flaws that could be present in the polls (especially the wording of the questions and their interpretation by respondees). Still it makes me wonder.

I, too, rarely encounter young earth creationists. I also don't encounter a representative cross-section of the American population in my day-to-day activities. My personal experiences may not be accurate. Who knows. I guess you, Klifferd, and even I have a little faith in America not being overwhelmingly retarded.

With religions it tends to be different, however it is not supposed to be different. I know most religious texts calls the individual to base their faith on some kind of knowledge, or some kind of subject of faith.

I.e. "Christianity" states that the object of faith is Jesus the Christ. If Jesus rose from the dead, there is reason for faith. If he did not, there is no reason for faith. Now in between that we have a duality of faiths playing out. There are three groups. One group thinks that no matter what, if Christ is found resurrected or not, they will still have their faith. They are foolish because their faith has no subject or reason of faith.

The second group is the group that has the simple faith that he must have resurrected because they want to believe that he resurrected, so they have a faith on a subject but still questionable reason, just taking it that the resurrection occurred.

The third group will hold onto faith in Christ as resurrected by reading or hearing it, but also by experiencing something that gives them more reason to believe that, or by looking into the evidences in the argument and being convinced that he has resurrected based on what they find. They would have faith that he was resurrected, and then faith because he was resurrected..

Religious faith is not supposed to be different than the faith that each person has in something unknown or unsure..

Camden NJ was put here to test our faith.

also by experiencing something that gives them more reason to believe

That's what it hinges on. I find my personal experiences are better explained by naturalistic mechanisms.

If ingestion of a few milligrams of psilocybin can radically alter my perception of the universe, impression of my place in it, and concept of my own existence, it is reasonable to expect that other "altered states" are the result of nothing more magical than altered neurochemistry. Then again, Klifferd and several Christians I know are familiar with the effects I'm describing and hold entirely different opinions.

Then again, Klifferd and several Christians I know are familiar with the effects I'm describing and hold entirely different opinions.

Posted by ZombieHunter

nutmeg can work wonders, too...ask nutcuse!

also by experiencing something that gives them more reason to believe

That's what it hinges on. I find my personal experiences are better explained by naturalistic mechanisms.

If ingestion of a few milligrams of psilocybin can radically alter my perception of the universe, impression of my place in it, and concept of my own existence, it is reasonable to expect that other "altered states" are the result of nothing more magical than altered neurochemistry. Then again, Klifferd and several Christians I know are familiar with the effects I'm describing and hold entirely different opinions.

#43 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-12 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is true, but all things hinge to this degree at some point. You must make a decision with the information gathered. You need something to move you to make that decision. Again, faith of one of the three sorts comes into play here, even in science, as nothing is every 100%.

You look at two plausible, or possible solutions to a long term and indefinite problem, or situation, similar to aging the earth and the beginning of the universe and you must make a decision. If they are close, your decision is partially if not highly based on faith that the position you chose was more clear, however there are people choosing the other position with just as much faith based certainty.

All things come down to choose and belief. You have to want to believe something, however just because you believe something and it is backed by what looked like science or facts does not make it true. This is most definite when it comes to problems far off like universal age and other concepts. We must act, as humans, on faith in many situations due to the smallness of our own being.

"Then again, Klifferd and several Christians I know are familiar with the effects I'm describing and hold entirely different opinions."

what?? i love psylocybin!

i agree with your assessment.

what?? i love psylocybin!

Lol I know, I think I came across the wrong way. I was saying that it didn't cause you to question the "authenticity" or whatever of the religious experience whereas I came to the opposite conclusion.

nutmeg can work wonders, too

Yes, if you want to consume grams of it and fry your liver.

Yes, if you want to consume grams of it and fry your liver.
#48 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-12 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL I had a roommate in college who thought Kava Kava root and ginger(?) were pretty good too. I always wondered why he didn't just buy a gram of pot - better return from what I hear!

there is plenty of evidence of homo sapiens dating back more than 1 million years.

#9 | Posted by vernon at 2010-01-12 07:27 AM | Reply | Flag

LOL---Link?