Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christians Divided Over Earth's Age According to ChristiaNet Poll
Christian News Wire ^ | August 14, 2007 | Staff

Posted on 08/14/2007 8:44:03 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

ChristiaNet.com, the world's largest Christian portal with twelve million monthly page loads, conducted a recent poll asking, "Is the Earth billions of years old?" Regardless the selection of "Yes", "No" or "Unsure", these Christian voters agreed that, "In the beginning God created..." "A point of confusion seems to be whether there is a gap of time between the beginning of universe and the creation of Adam", stated Bill Cooper, President of ChristiaNet.

Out of 797 polled, 43% believed the Earth is less than billions of years old. The vast majority of this group felt the Earth is between 6,000 and 12,000 years old. Using the Bible as their reference, many Believers cited the genealogies listed in the Old Testament as evidence. One person said, "The years of generations between Adam and Jesus equal about 4,000." While others pointed out in Genesis that "God created all things in six days" and many believed these days are six literal 24 hour periods. Some took a more scientific approach such as using population growth studies and analyzing Biblical timelines to arrive at an age of less than a billion years.

Thirty percent of the Christians polled answered "Yes" to the survey. Most in this group relied upon the information published by the Science community as evidence for an old Earth such as carbon dating and the fossil records. Some believe in the "Gap Theory" that states there is a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 where God created the heaven and the earth and Genesis 1:3 where the six days of creation begin. Others support this view by interpreting Second Peter 3:8, "one day is like a thousand years with God", as a calculation for billions of years. However, many acknowledged that about 6,000 years have passed between the time of Adam and the present.

The remaining participants, twenty-seven percent, selected "Unsure." This group seems not to have an opinion one way or the other on this topic. Many made comments such as "I'm not sure, but I don't believe in evolution", "Don't know, don't care" or "Only God knows the age of the Earth." Even though some were not sure of the age, their comments reflected the main arguments presented by the "Yes" and "No" groups.


TOPICS: Current Events; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: creation; crevolist; evolution; fsmdidit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: onedoug
Well, it certainly doesn’t make sense to me, but if it happens to make sense to you, then that’s all that matters really....
21 posted on 08/15/2007 11:39:18 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Plate tectonics which recycle.

Hmm,

Why then are there fossils.

Why then is erosion working faster then new ground showing up on some seaboard.

Plate tectonics is a theory that does not fit the observed.
22 posted on 08/15/2007 12:36:02 PM PDT by Creationist ( Evolution is a faith based science with no proof. Scientist are the prophets, teachers the preacher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Christ said, “There will be many who cry, Lord, Lord...” They don’t really know Him. If you don’t believe the Bible in it’s entirety, you don’t believe in God entirely.


23 posted on 08/15/2007 1:25:02 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
Plate tectonics is a theory that does not fit the observed.

You're kidding, right?

Plate tectonics are one of the most large scale observable features on the planet.

Note that I said, we have plate tectonics which recycles our oceanic surface and gives us the means for the chemicals of life.

These oceanic subducting slabs can and have been imaged using seismic tomographic techniques along trench systems around the world, specifcally along the west coast of South America, beneath Japan to Indonesia and even the NW coast of the US in the Cascade chain of volcanoes. One can clearly see in the Hawaiian Island chain it's weathered remnants moving at about an inch or two per year toward eventual subduction beneath the Aleution chain, again giving rise to volcanism along it's arch.

Continenetal material on the other hand is less dense than oceanic crust and tends to resist subduction, and in some cases is added to at its edges by various oceanic material along the coast of California where, although subduction took place in the past, it's been altered by rotation of the western part of the continent giving rise to features such as the San Andreas Transform system which has clearly resulted in uplift exceeding erosion in Southern and Central California.

This would also explain how and why many marine fossils are incorporated onto continental platforms with their terrestrial counterparts.

Some good geology and astronomy courses could very much edify and even enhance your understanding of how God works in creation, as these surely have for me. It makes that pilgrimage all the more exiting in being able to fathom a little of His handiwork.

24 posted on 08/15/2007 2:21:15 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ottofire
"It depends how you translate the Hebrew term ‘yom’ from the original texts. If you think it is literally day and not epoch, then you are a bible believer. If you think it is epoch and not day, then you are a bible believer. As it is not required that you believe either for salvation, it is a moot point."

Yeah, as long as you ignore that 'evening and morning' stuff that goes along w/ 'yom', you're fine.

25 posted on 08/15/2007 3:06:47 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: scripter
"I think it's difficult to use the Bible to determine the age of the earth and as somebody else posted, we don't know how much time passed before the Fall;"

That argument falls apart quickly since Adam's age at death is given. Unless you don't think the time before the fall counts toward that age.

But hey, don't worry about what the Bible says, make it fit what man says. Man is the ultimate authority, after all.

26 posted on 08/15/2007 3:11:48 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marinamuffy
"Whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old has no bearing on my relationship with Christ."

Really?

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them [humans] male and female,'..." (Matt 19:4)

Have humans really been around for billions of years and did Christ just not know what he was talking about? If he was wrong about that, what else was he wrong about?

Romans 3:4 - "Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.""

That's the problem with having man as your ultimate authority.

27 posted on 08/15/2007 3:18:29 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marinamuffy

I agree. Some are so puffed up and try to use their ‘worldly knowledge’ to disprove a supernatural God and His Word. A wise man spends his time in fellowship with his Heavenly Father - where all Truths’ rest.


28 posted on 08/15/2007 3:19:57 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
"Plate tectonics is a theory that does not fit the observed."

As always, when dealing with 'scientific' pronouncements; a huge dose of imagination is required. ;-)

29 posted on 08/15/2007 3:20:10 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Who goes to these sites, anyways?


30 posted on 08/15/2007 3:20:47 PM PDT by x_plus_one (Allah is not Yahweh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Yeah, as long as you ignore that 'evening and morning' stuff that goes along w/ 'yom', you're fine.

Not just that but every occurence of yom with a number.

31 posted on 08/15/2007 4:37:03 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marinamuffy
To me this is the only important part:

these Christian voters agreed that, “In the beginning God created...”

You win.

32 posted on 08/15/2007 4:39:35 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
That argument falls apart quickly since Adam's age at death is given.

Indeed. I've made the same statement to others.

Unless you don't think the time before the fall counts toward that age.

That was the argument I heard in return...it's an argument I don't think has much merit but it's a possibility.

33 posted on 08/15/2007 4:40:31 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: scripter
"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."

I am a spirit who has a soul within a body.
34 posted on 08/15/2007 6:51:16 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Not everyone can homeschool.

Since the evolutionists control most of the science education, wouldn't that lead us to lay more blame at their feet, than, say, at the feet of creationists?
35 posted on 08/15/2007 7:20:54 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
(Note: my post was about the differences between radiocarbon and radiometric dating.)

Not everyone can homeschool.

Since the evolutionists control most of the science education, wouldn't that lead us to lay more blame at their feet, than, say, at the feet of creationists?

Nice try.

The answer is no.

First, many homeschoolers are fundamentalists/creationists, and they certainly are not going to tell the truth about radiocarbon or radiometric dating -- its too threatening to their beliefs, and they probably either never knew the information in the first place, or have suppressed it for being some form of "Darwinism." *

Second, much of education is still controlled by fundamentalists and creationists. There is a major effort on their part to stifle the teaching of evolution in particular and science in general. What do you think led to the Dover case, and that silly sticker on evolution texts in Georgia? Textbooks are written to avoid trouble, and evolution is almost never taught in much of the southern United States. It is probably not taught adequately in 90% of the school systems. You and yours are much of the reason.

You want evidence? Look at the understanding of evolution and science you received as a homeschooler! Your posting history on this website concerning science is enough proof for anybody.

Pretty pathetic: creationists do everything they can to deride science and then you try to blame the school system for not teaching science. What a pathetic joke!


* Darwinism -- a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them.

36 posted on 08/15/2007 7:46:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

#24 re plate tectonics... You too?


37 posted on 08/15/2007 8:00:47 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

I don’t see anything in Scripture or in real life to suggest the lengths of time used to measure days in ancient times are any different than today. Did the earth orbit differently? Was its path slower?


38 posted on 08/15/2007 8:18:21 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
...to measure days in ancient times....

Though consider just the first billion years following the creation event - long before the formation of galaxies - when the universe was solid with light before photons decoupled. To a "hypothetical" observer "outside" that system, time would seem to be moving very slowly indeed.

39 posted on 08/15/2007 9:06:34 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
31% believe in astrology? Yikes. It's worse than I thought.
40 posted on 08/15/2007 11:16:49 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson