Young earth creationism makes up 15% of the population

[ChristineM]

Ahhhhh. I had no idea. Time is a funny thing especially if what is said is repeated over and over and over each generation without realizing its being repeated over and over and over.

My error, copper came before bronze.

 

[David T]

My error, copper came before bronze.

Ahhhhh same thing!!!! It does not change the statement it only changes its clothing. Jung very interesting person. Not perfect. Freud is an is well freud repeating the same thing over and over and over each generation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Copper came after bronze

I do believe it was the other way around. Copper was discovered first then it was found later that adding tin to copper made bronze, a harder and tougher allow.

Chalcolithic - Wikipedia

"The Chalcolithic (English: /ˌkælkəˈlɪθɪk/;[1] Greek: χαλκός khalkós, "copper" and λίθος líthos, "stone")[1] period or Copper Age,[1] also known as the Eneolithic[1] or Æneolithic (from Latin aeneus "of copper"), was a period in the development of human technology, before it was discovered that adding tin to copper formed the harder bronze, leading to the Bronze Age. The Copper Age was originally defined as a transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, but is now usually considered as belonging to the Neolithic."

A rare case of putting the cart before the horse.

 

[ChristineM]

Ahhhhh same thing!!!! It does not change the statement it only changes its clothing. Jung very interesting person. Not perfect. Freud is an is well freud repeating the same thing over and over and over each generation.

Copper clothes for bronze clothes?

 

[ChristineM]

I do believe it was the other way around. Copper was discovered first then it was found later that adding tin to copper made bronze, a harder and tougher allow.

Chalcolithic - Wikipedia

"The Chalcolithic (English: /ˌkælkəˈlɪθɪk/;[1] Greek: χαλκός khalkós, "copper" and λίθος líthos, "stone")[1] period or Copper Age,[1] also known as the Eneolithic[1] or Æneolithic (from Latin aeneus "of copper"), was a period in the development of human technology, before it was discovered that adding tin to copper formed the harder bronze, leading to the Bronze Age. The Copper Age was originally defined as a transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, but is now usually considered as belonging to the Neolithic."

A rare case of putting the cart before the horse.

Correct, i rectified my error.

 

[David T]

Copper clothes for bronze clothes?

LOL are you now ivanka trump!!!!! Hildegard
de bingen said:
"We cannot live in an interpreted world. For an interpreted world is not home."

Does creationism that whole psycho out to lunch thing have anything to do with the above quote? I have a respect for hildegard a deep respect. Creationism disrespect her. So to disrespect hildegard you are talking to the wrong person.. Am I a Catholic? no. But her words are not literally Catholic a something else. She lived 12th century she is 1 of 35 doctors of the church. There is brilliance in the muck. It's hard to see.

 

[ChristineM]

LOL are you now ivanka trump!!!!! Hildegard
de bingen said:
"We cannot live in an interpreted world. For an interpreted world is not home."

Does creationism that whole psycho out to lunch thing have anything to do with the above quote? I have a respect for hildegard a deep respect. Creationism disrespect her. So to disrespect hildegard you are talking to the wrong person.. Am I a Catholic? no. But her words are not literally Catholic a something else. She lived 12th century she is 1 of 35 doctors of the church. There is brilliance in the muck. It's hard to see.

What?

 

[Sanzbir]

Google I think it's slate.. Oh nEver mind. meh lazy low reading comprehension skills meh.

"Lazy" coming from the guy who was too lazy to source his own dang topic. Sure.

Alright, fine. Found the Gallup poll. The population that the poll, which you were too lazy to bother mentioning, is about is America specifically.

And oh look, a laughably poor response rate. Did you bother to read the study methodology?? Or, let me guess, you just read the article and not the study itself. Seems likely to me that someone who doesn't bother to link the subject they bring up probably wouldn't have bothered to do that.

So again, meh.

 

[David T]

"Lazy" coming from the guy who was too lazy to source his own dang topic. Sure.

Alright, fine. Found the Gallup poll. The population that the poll, which you were too lazy to bother mentioning, is about is America specifically.

And oh look, a laughably poor response rate. Did you bother to read the study methodology?? Or, let me guess, you just read the article and not the study itself. Seems likely to me that someone who doesn't bother to link the subject they bring up probably wouldn't have bothered to do that.

So again, meh.

OK apparently nothing registered. So if you had asked send me the link I would have said fine. I tend to rtreat statistics as extremely biased often times I made no unclear statements that this was a unbiased piece on my part but based on my own experiences with oh 10,000 religious folks this topic never came up. Now you. Any had a different experience? Or no experience. Please convey your experiences on this topic. But meh ain't going far with me.

 

[Sanzbir]

Are you illiterate?

Did you read the study??

 

[Milton Platt]

I found a recent release of statistics. Yes I mined the statistics based on a pre disposition to prove a particular point. Which we tend to do. I am aware of most are not.

It was an interesting one in that the number of young earth creationists made up 15% of the population. I had assumed it was a nuanced issue for a long long time. It turns out I was right.

So based on that I am curious as to the curiosity by some in regards to creationism? It's a non starter actually as a topic. But I am curious why so many think it's more than it is? I agree creationism should not be taught in schools. I agree as most agree in this. ID should not be taught in schools. although I strongly strongly disagree that professors cannot offer alternatives to evolution in groups independent of accedemic classes. That's what happened at ball state interestingly. Free thinking isn't allowed apparently past certain doctrines in science sometimes.


Anyway I can post the article but this topic creationism, meh really has zero to do with much its silly nonsense. although it certainly entertaining.

It makes up 15% of what population?

 

[Milton Platt]

Excuse me for perhaps insulting a lot of people, but between the flatters, the chaos god worshipers who believed all things make themselves, the YECs, and all the other religions, especially the capitalists who worship mammon above even human life - I frankly don't care if people worship a toad as long as I can have my coffee, my books, my chocolate, my ice cream, and my daily food in a place I can sleep in without being kicked out the door.

How do atheists, don't know if you are one, or, agnostic, etc., reconcile the ancient structures that cannot even be built with today's technology with their beliefs? Just curious, since the YEC I find ridiculous already, therefore, I would like an answer to another riddle of ridiculousness in the world.

Obviously they could be built without today's technology, because they were.

 

[Grandliseur]

Why would it specifically be nigh impossible today?

Instead of being nigh impossible because we have lost the knowledge?

I'm pretty sure some people don't know how to operate a VHS player without instructions. It's the same thing.

That is not the point. The point is that today's world ignores that there was high technology in some past cultures spread around the globe which is not recognized in the teachings presently given.
Instead, we see this nonsense about how we slowly went from the use of stone tools, to copper, iron, and then the steam age, or something of that order. That is not the image we find truly when looking at the past.

 

[Grandliseur]

Doesn't sound very biblical to me. You've got your own story here. Does it include Noah and an ark?

The lunar calendar needs no explaining. The moon's monthly cycle is a natural way to keep track of time, just like the daily day-night cycle due to the earth's rotation about its axis and the annual cycle of the seasons due to a tilted earth's revolution the sun.

How about some calendar fun:

Spoiler

The problem for calendar makers is that none of these cycles can be defined by the others in round or even rational numbers. A year is neither a round number of days nor months. And getting the year right was important given the requirements for planting and harvesting and the annual migrations of the beasts.

Defining years in terms of months can be done, but is unnecessarily complex and even then still not very accurate. One needs to add leap months from time to time since a year is between 12 and 13 lunar cycles long. This is much clumsier than adding leap days. Presently, we add 97 leap days every 400 years (Gregorian calendar), which gives us a 365.2425 day year on average, very close to the 365.242199 days for the tropical year.

How are you going to do that with a lunar calendar?

Are you aware that the date for Easter is based on the lunar cycle? Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox, which comes about March 21st. This results in Easter varying from March 22th to April 25th. Some years, the full moon appears on a Saturday just after the vernal equinox, and Easter is the next day. Some years, the full moon occurs just before before the equinox, and 29+ days, a lunar cycle, must pass before the next full moon occurs, which might be a Monday, meaning Easter is still 6 days away.

Imagine trying to plant the fields using such a method.

Incidentally, even if the year were 360 days, which I presume you got from the Bible, we'd have a similar problem using a lunar cycle to keep track of the year. The time from full moon to full moon (or new moon to new moon) is a little over 29.53 days (approximately 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 3 seconds). After 12 of these cycles, only about 354⅓ days would have passed - about 5⅔ days short of a year, an error that would accumulate rapidly without some leap month protocol, meaning that a lunar calendar would be no more useful for measuring out a 360-day year than a 365.242199 day (or 365.2425 day) year.

Someone asked me for specifics, and I only provided my own ideas on this. That was what I was asked for.

I once created two navigation programs for computers (obviously). These were verified by a Canadian government organization. So, I have dabbled in all the above data, including the moon. This was what I thought was fun before I got too old and ran into life at this age.

I have no reason to explain exactly what my beliefs are on the above on this site. However, it should be obvious to all, except those who don't want to see anything, that ancient technology on par or better than ours in some areas did exist with high technology societies and that we find this kind of technology around the globe from that time period. This is not taken into account it seems when trying to explain mankind's history.

 

[Milton Platt]

Building with stones the size of those found in Baalbek is not even possible today: (The Forgotten Stones of Baalbek, Lebanon)

‘The Stone of the South’ at Baalbek, Lebanon is the largest worked monolith on Earth, weighing in at a staggering 1242 tons. It is even heavier than the ‘Stone of the Pregnant Woman’ which weighs an estimated 1000 tons, that sits on the other side of the road in the quarry. Neither of these stones made it to the main ‘Temple of Jupiter’, some 900 metres to the northeast, but some 400-ton and 800-ton stones did make their way to the temple, were raised 20 feet in to the air and were placed with machine-like precision into the foundations of this mighty ancient complex. Last week, Janine Abdel Massih and her team uncovered a further monolith that sits virtually underneath ‘The Stone of the Pregnant Woman’ that was once destined for the main Temple site (see featured image). Until recently, it was buried under a few feet of dirt, and has been measured at 19.6 metres long, 6 metres wide and 5.5 metres thick. " Because we have not yet reached the bottom of the rock to be completely cleared ,” Janine Abdel Massih said, “we have no idea of the volume or complete dimension of this ancient stone."​

I am not going to do this work for you, but the way the pyramids were built, the accuracy, the things in America, South America, much is of a sort we could not replicate presently. There is even signs in the technology used that crosses continents in an age where this presently is not part of the dogma of higher-learning (ha ha ha ha - higher learning! )

Regardless of the size, we only find certain kinds of tools when we do archaeological digs, not tools of "modern technology". and we only find buildings made by stacking stones....no steel, no glass, etc.

I believe you are wrong in asserting that we cannot build with large stones today. That is essentially an argument from personal incredulity. It is simply too costly and unnecessary, since we have developed better materials and skills. That does not make it impossible, simply wasteful and unnecessary.

 

[Milton Platt]

I suggest you try again, thousand and 1500 ton blocks we do not have the way of building with. We do not move that kind of stone in one go. We do things by dividing and conquering, not with this kind of megaliths.
Show me any crane or manner of moving this kind of material. We might have ships that can take the load, but getting this kind of load going from a to b on land is simply not done. Once we have ships built they are put in water, and there they might move, but on land or in the air, this kind of tonnage is not moved.

Moving a 1000 ton load
How on Earth Could Trucks Move This 1,000-Ton Load?
You're welcome....

 

[Grandliseur]

and we only find buildings made by stacking stones....no steel, no glass, etc.

And therein lies the problem. One engineer on Youtube, a Mister Dun perhaps, demonstrated in past videos a few years ago, that do not seem to exist any longer, how tool marks, and tools had to be employed in some of these finds. They found that the cutting had been done with tools they could tell were used. These tools were not what you just mentioned.

Thus, there is a problem in artifacts that do exist which were made with tools that cannot be found. Nonetheless, the artifacts speak for themselves, tools notwithstanding.
Just as the anchor stones found near what some believe is the ark of Noah, these huge stones contain holes bored for the anchor ropes. But, as the scientist who explained this, these wholes are bored in a manner that we do not know how to do today. (Don't get too confused with this last comment. I am just saying that artifacts carry marks that demonstrate at times what tools were used or what techniques were used that could not have been done with the tools you mention.)
----
Edit: the lies of evolution:
Quoting:

This hand is fossiled in rock that is supposed to be millions of years older than even the alledged human ancestors. Something is obviously wrong with the geological dating system.​

Look at picture:

 

[Grandliseur]

Moving a 1000 ton load
How on Earth Could Trucks Move This 1,000-Ton Load?
You're welcome....

At least you showed an example, but when we then know that some of the stones quarried weigh up to 1600 tons, we really do come to a place where our technology is at its limits, especially if this need to go up and down hills. Besides these stones, we had the accuracy of the pyramids, etc. demonstrating what I am saying next.

This is not really the point with the stones of Baalbek though. The whole point is that in the past we had high technology that clearly was on par with or surpassed or present day technology, and that this is not officially included in mankind's history. This includes how mega-stones were moved from quarries in the mountains of South America without roads from mountain to mountain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the point. The point is that today's world ignores that there was high technology in some past cultures spread around the globe which is not recognized in the teachings presently given.
Instead, we see this nonsense about how we slowly went from the use of stone tools, to copper, iron, and then the steam age, or something of that order. That is not the image we find truly when looking at the past.

There is no indication of high technology. All that you have are some technologies that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And therein lies the problem. One engineer on Youtube, a Mister Dun perhaps, demonstrated in past videos a few years ago, that do not seem to exist any longer, how tool marks, and tools had to be employed in some of these finds. They found that the cutting had been done with tools they could tell were used. These tools were not what you just mentioned.

Thus, there is a problem in artifacts that do exist which were made with tools that cannot be found. Nonetheless, the artifacts speak for themselves, tools notwithstanding.
Just as the anchor stones found near what some believe is the ark of Noah, these huge stones contain holes bored for the anchor ropes. But, as the scientist who explained this, these wholes are bored in a manner that we do not know how to do today. (Don't get too confused with this last comment. I am just saying that artifacts carry marks that demonstrate at times what tools were used or what techniques were used that could not have been done with the tools you mention.)
----
Edit: the lies of evolution:
Quoting:

This hand is fossiled in rock that is supposed to be millions of years older than even the alledged human ancestors. Something is obviously wrong with the geological dating system.​

Look at picture:

When you make claims like this you need to link to a valid source. The picture without any substantiation is worthless. That means you need to find the original peer reviewed article where that fossil was supposedly dated.