Age and origins theology

[bdfoster]

Age of the person, not the earth, universe etc. I used to post here ocasionally. I stopped abruptly sometime in 2005 because my employer started blocking this forum. As an employee of the State of California, I had nothing better to do than surf the internet and post to forums like this. So when suddenly I was forced to do this on my own time, I ... fell away. But now I'm retired so we'll try it again! But I doubt if I'll post much more than I did back then. Time is like money, you tend to use what you have. I have less spare time now than I did when I was working!

Now that I'm retired I find myself hanging out more with the retired folks at church who tend to be an older crowd. In fact one of my best friends at church is an older lady of about 70 who acts 20 or 30 years younger. One thing the retired/senior group is planning is a trip to the Grand Canyon (North Rim) and stops at a dinosaur museum in St. George, UT. But there is no "creationist" agenda or purpose behind stopping there. The trip leader just thinks it sounds interesting. In fact, as a group these older folks seem to be very open and accepting of modern science. It seems to me that the more committed YE-creationists tend to be younger. Of course there are exceptions and there is no reason this has to be. But I think it tends to be true because of the resurgence of modern creationism and success of organizations like ICR. The older folks weren't exposed to that and lived in an era of rapidly changing science.

BTW I seem to remember the TE and Creationism sub-forums were mainly for the people who held those veiws and not for heated arguments. But I don't see anything explicitly stating that. Is that the case?

 

[Dark_Lite]

The subforums are supposed to be like that, yes. However, the rules are a bit loosely interpreted by some people when it comes to debating in those forums.

 

[mark kennedy]

Age of the person, not the earth, universe etc. I used to post here ocasionally. I stopped abruptly sometime in 2005 because my employer started blocking this forum. As an employee of the State of California, I had nothing better to do than surf the internet and post to forums like this. So when suddenly I was forced to do this on my own time, I ... fell away. But now I'm retired so we'll try it again! But I doubt if I'll post much more than I did back then. Time is like money, you tend to use what you have. I have less spare time now than I did when I was working!

Welcome back, you'll probably find the same lines of discussion as when you left. Enjoy!

Now that I'm retired I find myself hanging out more with the retired folks at church who tend to be an older crowd. In fact one of my best friends at church is an older lady of about 70 who acts 20 or 30 years younger. One thing the retired/senior group is planning is a trip to the Grand Canyon (North Rim) and stops at a dinosaur museum in St. George, UT. But there is no "creationist" agenda or purpose behind stopping there. The trip leader just thinks it sounds interesting. In fact, as a group these older folks seem to be very open and accepting of modern science. It seems to me that the more committed YE-creationists tend to be younger. Of course there are exceptions and there is no reason this has to be. But I think it tends to be true because of the resurgence of modern creationism and success of organizations like ICR. The older folks weren't exposed to that and lived in an era of rapidly changing science.

Actually, I think people mellow out when they get older. The creationist thing is nothing new but whenever a religious concept gets trumpeted as a legal issue it will mobilize Christian groups. I think people now have ways of looking for alternatives to Darwinism that earlier generations didn't really have or need.

Fossils are cool though, I think you guys will enjoy it with no need for some silly debate on how they changed into birds.

BTW I seem to remember the TE and Creationism sub-forums were mainly for the people who held those veiws and not for heated arguments. But I don't see anything explicitly stating that. Is that the case?

That was ended on 7-7-7 when Erwin simply opened the flood gates and anyone could post anywhere. Since then the moderators have at least adopted a restriction for 'Christians only' but with a Christian icon you can post anywhere you like and no one can question your faith.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Age of the person, not the earth, universe etc. I used to post here ocasionally. I stopped abruptly sometime in 2005 because my employer started blocking this forum. As an employee of the State of California, I had nothing better to do than surf the internet and post to forums like this. So when suddenly I was forced to do this on my own time, I ... fell away. But now I'm retired so we'll try it again! But I doubt if I'll post much more than I did back then. Time is like money, you tend to use what you have. I have less spare time now than I did when I was working!

It is amazing. And the government is expanding !? No wonder CA is in big trouble.

 

[bdfoster]

Fossils are cool though, I think you guys will enjoy it with no need for some silly debate on how they changed into birds.

Yes indeed! That's what I'm hoping for.

 

[gluadys]

Age of the person, not the earth, universe etc. I used to post here ocasionally. I stopped abruptly sometime in 2005 because my employer started blocking this forum. As an employee of the State of California, I had nothing better to do than surf the internet and post to forums like this. So when suddenly I was forced to do this on my own time, I ... fell away. But now I'm retired so we'll try it again! But I doubt if I'll post much more than I did back then. Time is like money, you tend to use what you have. I have less spare time now than I did when I was working!

You got to retire at 49? That's neat.

As for having less spare time than when you were working---welcome to retirement. I don't know any retired person, including myself, who doesn't experience the same thing.

Nice thing, though, is that you can be busy at what you choose to be busy at.

 

[bdfoster]

You got to retire at 49? That's neat.

As for having less spare time than when you were working---welcome to retirement. I don't know any retired person, including myself, who doesn't experience the same thing.

Nice thing, though, is that you can be busy at what you choose to be busy at.

Yes it's too young to retire, but I'm too old to work my life away (aren't we all). Actually it was a disability retirement. I'm not rich! Fortunately I was able to buy a house a few years ago so I was able to make it work financially.

 

[Papias]

bd wrote:

In fact, as a group these older folks seem to be very open and accepting of modern science. It seems to me that the more committed YE-creationists tend to be younger.

Remember that anectodal evidence ( which is evidence from our experiences of people we knew or talked with) isn't worth the paper it's (not) printed on. Actual controlled data is always much more likely to be accurate, even though we each naturally think what we've seen is how the world is. That's because we only know or have talked to a tiny, and very often non-representative, sample of the whole population.

Why would we "naturally" think that? Because during the time when our brains did most of their evolving, that's all the evidence there was. There were no USA today polls in the Pliestocene, so of course our minds have evolved to look for what we've seen and heard as a way to estimate things like public opinion (which back then consisted of the 58 people in your tribe, not the 300,000,000 people in today's United States).

Luckily, on your question, we have actual data from Gallup.

That data is clear that the previous generation is more likely to be creationist than the younger generation, which more strongly supports evolution. Specifically, those 18-34 support evolution by a 49%-18% margin, while those over 55 are evenly split at 31%-30%.

On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution (page down about half way)

They summarize it:
Younger Americans, who are less likely to be religious than those who are older, are also more likely to believe in evolution

Have a fun day-

Papias

 

[bdfoster]

bd wrote:



Remember that anectodal evidence ( which is evidence from our experiences of people we knew or talked with) isn't worth the paper it's (not) printed on. Actual controlled data is always much more likely to be accurate, even though we each naturally think what we've seen is how the world is. That's because we only know or have talked to a tiny, and very often non-representative, sample of the whole population.

Why would we "naturally" think that? Because during the time when our brains did most of their evolving, that's all the evidence there was. There were no USA today polls in the Pliestocene, so of course our minds have evolved to look for what we've seen and heard as a way to estimate things like public opinion (which back then consisted of the 58 people in your tribe, not the 300,000,000 people in today's United States).

Luckily, on your question, we have actual data from Gallup.

That data is clear that the previous generation is more likely to be creationist than the younger generation, which more strongly supports evolution. Specifically, those 18-34 support evolution by a 49%-18% margin, while those over 55 are evenly split at 31%-30%.

On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution (page down about half way)

They summarize it:
Younger Americans, who are less likely to be religious than those who are older, are also more likely to believe in evolution

Have a fun day-

Papias

Hi Papias
Yes anecdotal evidence is not something to support any kind of rigorous argument. It's even worse than opinion polls! Of course depending on the methods used opinion polls can range from a fair representation, to deliberately misleading and utterly useless. But Gallup has a good reputation and the poll you posted looks very interesting. The data indeed show what you summarized and I have no doubt they are accurate. My comments were intended to apply to people who go to church, a decidedly non-representative lot! The next generation of youngsters in the population at large indeed seems to be more accepting of evolution (anecdotal again). And that is probably because of the trend away from religion. I think a poll of people in typical protestant churches would show very few kids who plan to study science in college. This seems to reflect a deep mistrust in science they probably pick up from their parents. Their grandparents grew up in a time when chemistry and physics textbooks were constantly changing and accommodation was much more acceptable. Things may be different in the church than in the population at large. Unfortunately I think the anti-science folks (YEC, IDers) are taking over in churches, and I think the next generation of church going kids is more likely to be creationist. It would be interesting to see a well-done poll of church members. I hope I'm wrong. This could worsen an unfortunate division between church members and the population at large.