You left something out of your post.

Sure, but that's why we have confidence intervals. I mean, the error may be high, but given the independent surveys all ending up in the ~40% range (and given the level of creationist rhetoric that hits the stage of national politics), I think the result is pretty credible.

Even if they're off by 14%, which is WAY outside their error margin, and 30% of American are YECs, then it is still quite scary.

Alright.

I don't know why I keep assuming the general population's smarter than it actually is. Optimism perhaps.

i do not see why it is scary to you

Scary is the wrong word. Depressing maybe?

It means that a large portion of the population believes in things that are utterly ridiculous.

the general population is fairly dumb. but it has nothing to do with this. science has been wrong about many things, why not this?

for a long time scientists said that the universe was eternal and had no beginning. they now do not believe that.

again, i am not defending YEC, but i do not see how it has anything to do with intelligence.

if you actually did a poll of the general public on what they believed, both theists and non, you would find out that this is not the silliest thing. the general population, i feel, believes in all sorts of ridiculous things for no reason other than they do not care enough to investigate.

Evidence.

They lacked evidence.

They're ignorant of evidence or refuse to believe in it. The first is excusable, who knows what American kids learn in school these days. The second stretches intelligent people's credulity.

Please don't defend YEC. You'll just get buried by archaeological evidence.

they didnt believe that at the time.

in no way have i defended it. i do not believe it myself. what i am defending is that people that believe it can still be intelligent people.

Dont throw your toys out of the pram. I'm not calling them stupid because we disagree about something but becuase as a group they corrolate with other measures of low intelligence.

I may claim the test is barely necessary for people who believe quite such stupid things as the young earth creationists do but I'd have to concede a problem if they corrolated with high or even average IQ (but they don't).

Yes, but they're less likely to be. What chez said basically.

proof?

You just keep the limey talk over there with your lifts and your tellies, ok, gov'na?

This:http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm


Its important to note that if religious there are only 2 choices, #'s 1 and 3. To choose #2 is to deny their consideration of G-d no matter how knowledgeable they are in religious or scientific respects.

Now, to pick #3 over #1 is difficult for from what I see many on this forum( atheists and religious) also only relate to man only as existing in his present form even if in some way he believes in evolution from the antelope. Adding the 10,000 years to #3 is poor for it is the only choice that many can relate to if they do not believe that they have developed from lower forms. Old story, not even a new hat, Mr. Scopes rears his ugly head.

This is not stupidity except on the part of the stats guys( with a certain amount of ill will) who give new meaning to a lack of understanding of basic science and religion.

Origin of Human Life

Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2008. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.


.

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? (1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. (2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. (3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Options rotated 1-3, 3-1


.
Guided
By God God Had
No Part God Created in
Present Form Other/
Unsure
% % % %
5/8-11/08 36 14 44 5
5/10-13/07 38 14 43 4
5/8-11/06 36 13 46 5
11/04 38 13 45 4
2/01 37 12 45 5
8/99 40 9 47 4
11/97 39 10 44 7
6/93 35 11 47 7
1982 38 9 44 9

I don't know anyone who claims there is no room for interpretation. Certainly no major theologians do so. If you think the Bible might be true then your interest should be in determining that rather than what one group of people thinks. As to your list of errors they all have reasonable answers. The issue of the global flood, for instance, and many of the difficulties with Noah are easily solved if the flood was local, and that it was is a reasonable interpretation of the text. I don't understand the attitude of people who attack the Bible and have done nothing to research the issue, especially today with such huge resources available at their fingertips. Not that long ago I wanted to take a look at Mormonism. I didn't go on some website and post how stupid they are. I spent about 5 seconds entering a google search, which brought up enough reading material to last several weeks. Why not do a little research to push back the frontiers of ignorance instead of spewing that ignorance all over creation for no purpose?

Very good point. I rarely look at polls like this so I didn't realize how idiotic it is. I couldn't choose any of those options myself. My position is God created all life but I don't know how. I currently accept special creation for man [Edit: but am pretty sure the range of dates is 50k - 100k ya] but don't discount the possibility of an evolutionary process of some kind, though probably not Darwinism. Don't see that option in the poll.

Just to be clear:

1) I don't know how old the Earth actually is. Nobody really knows. It is also worthy to note that; time as we finite humans know it has absolutely no affect whatsover on Yahweh who is infinite. One day to Yahweh is as 10,000 days to us finite human beings.
2) I don't claim to exactly know for sure when it was that dinosaurs walked the earth, but to blindly accept the number "billions or millions' of years ago just because so called 'scientists' say so is a leap of ''blind evolutionary faith'' for sure.
3) What fossil records do you speak of? If you speak of dinosaur fossils, yes. If you speak of fake fossil records such as 'piltdown man' then no.
4) I believe that Yahweh (God) can make the universe appear as He sees fit to make it appear. As far as testing our faith, He will test our faith whenever he wants to. Who are we to argue with our Creator?

*The ship was far too big to last for two weeks in the middle of a stormy ocean with rain pouring down incessantly. It would have suffered from leaking and warping among other things.
*There is no way the Ark could have held every single species of the animal kingdom.
*How were all the animals gathered anyway, or did they travel on their own?
*Once the flood ended, how did the animals return to their natural habitats, given that the earth was barren and ravaged by the flood?
*What could the animals eat during the flood and after its conclusion? Surely not each other, but yet carnivores can only eat other animals.


For one, perhaps they tire of pedants, down through the centuries, proclaiming the impossibility of things which subsequently are. That sort of unwarranted dogmatism will cost you considerable credibility with people, the sage and scholar alike.

1. Boats are generally designed primarily to deal with the problem of water. It's what makes them boats.

2. Was never asserted

3. He was told to go get them

4. Drain a lake, bust a dam, ect. How long does it take for the formally submerged areas to become inhabited?

5. Have you ever owned a dog or cat?

Talk about silly.

.

why do you not believe the evidence shown by radiocarbon dating? why do you question the motives/credentials of scientists? do you not think that the top scientists constitute some of the most intelligent people on the planet? if not why do you question their intelligence despite the fact that they have shown such an unbelievably capacity for knowledge and innovation?

If someone believes the earth is less than 10000 years old claiming that they are either dumb, mentally disturbed or uneducated is not an insult.

isnt faith a beautiful thing?

What are you talking about? You're telling me you believe human beings were created exactly as they are today but more than 10,000 years ago? Please explain.
Your second statements indicates you think human beings may have evolved in some way other than Darwinism, which is clearly choice 1.

I see nothing wrong with the poll. You either believe humans beings developed through natural process or due to the design of God. Creatonists do not believe in any type of development since they take the bible literally, and hence human beings and the Earth would be created within the last 10,000 years. I can't imagine a Christian having any other view.

Only when they are true...so no.