6,000 Years?

[BNR32FAN]

What are your resources to study all of this? Because I mostly find material that is old earth creation oriented, or sites I distrust like Answers in Genesis or CMI.

Yeah pretty much any Christian site that is advocating young earth is going to be biased so I’d avoid sites like that. I typically use Wikipedia, Britannica, YouTube has a lot of videos on radiometric dating from people who actually do it for a living. Kent Hovind videos on YouTube are helpful to because he’s actually debating against scientists so you can learn a lot by listening to how the scientists argue their side of the debate. And on a lot of topics they get forced into answering questions that they don’t want to answer and reluctantly have to admit certain things that discredit their position. Like the fact that there is no geological column and that radiometric dating isn’t 100% reliable. They offer evidence but it’s not conclusive evidence.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Does anybody have proof that the earth and the entire universe really is 6,000 - ish years old beyond the usual arguments that science has debunked over and over again? Arguments like the rocks in the Grand Canyon or some other such weak examples? I’m looking for reputable scientists who’ve written peer reviewed papers on the subject and gained the support of other reputable scientists?

I haven't even read the proof that the earth is 4 and a half billion years old - nor have i read the theory of evolution properly, nor seen the evidence, nor been trained in examining the evidence ... ... ... but by golly - if that's what we're all believin, then im believin it too !!!

I have tried to read stuff like that, but i need someone to explain it to me - even then, if the wrong person explained it to me, i'd sit there like a lemon - drooling.

Sometimes - if people believe stuff - i just let them have their bone. It's not why im at church anyway.

 

[trophy33]

I haven't even read the proof that the earth is 4 and a half billion years old

This comes from radiometric dating.

However, we see how the world evolved through history - geologically, fauna, flora, humans, human civilizations. Even without the radiometric dating, we know that the Earth is not thousands of years old, there would be no time for everything we see in the past to happen.

Even if we did not have the precise measurement of the speed of light, we would still be certain it is faster than 1km per hour, just from what we observe.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

This comes from radiometric dating.

However, we see how the world evolved through history - geologically, fauna, flora. Even without the radiometric dating, we know that the Earth is not thousands of years old, there would be no time for everything we see in the past to happen.

I haven't read the papers recording the observations. nor do i know about the technology that makes the instruments. I dont know how they work.

Even if i had read the evidence - i doubt i'd understand it, i'd probably need help having it explained to me.

even then - if i was convinced one way or another - a lot of times, if someone else isn't going to hear it - i just let them have their bone (heh heh heh bad joke)

 

[trophy33]

I haven't read the papers recording the observations. nor do i know about the technology that makes the instruments. I dont know how they work.

Even if i had read the evidence - i doubt i'd understand it, i'd probably need help having it explained to me.

even then - if i was convinced one way or another - a lot of times, if someone else isn't going to hear it - i just let them have their bone (heh heh heh bad joke)

AI can answer any question you may have.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

AI can answer any question you may have.

how would i know??

maybe it's hallucinating??

 

[trophy33]

how would i know??

maybe it's hallucinating??

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

you want to argue about this stuff???

prepare to be bible verse cut/pasted !!!

 

[trophy33]

you want to argue about this stuff???

prepare to be bible verse cut/pasted !!!

View attachment 365033

Ask sensible questions and you will get sensible answers. If not, ask differently, use a different AI or divide your broad questions into smaller, more specific ones.

Simply, be clever. It is a tool, so use it properly.

 

[FaithT]

Yeah pretty much any Christian site that is advocating young earth is going to be biased so I’d avoid sites like that. I typically use Wikipedia, Britannica, YouTube has a lot of videos on radiometric dating from people who actually do it for a living. Kent Hovind videos on YouTube are helpful to because he’s actually debating against scientists so you can learn a lot by listening to how the scientists argue their side of the debate. And on a lot of topics they get forced into answering questions that they don’t want to answer and reluctantly have to admit certain things that discredit their position. Like the fact that there is no geological column and that radiometric dating isn’t 100% reliable. They offer evidence but it’s not conclusive evidence.

Isn’t Kent Hovind very controversial?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Isn’t Kent Hovind very controversial?

I dunno, controversial can mean a lot of things. It’s not Kent that I listen to, it’s his opponents who actually present the best information.

 

[FaithT]

I dunno, controversial can mean a lot of things. It’s not Kent that I listen to, it’s his opponents who actually present the best information.

He’s a convicted tax evader. Plus other things, I think.

 

[FaithT]

Kent Hovind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You’d better read this because mentioning Kent Hovind’s name weakens your argument even if you primarily watch his videos for his opponents.

 

[Job 33:6]

There’s no “Ha” in Beyovm which means in the day and if you look at all the usages of Reshiyth you’ll see a common theme in all 51 usages of the word in the Old Testament. It’s used to indicate the start or something that is first or foremost. Hence the translation of the word to first, first fruits, chief, and beginning which all have a common meaning. The word “when” doesn’t fit that common theme amongst the rest of the usages in the OT.

Yes. The start of something. And yes, they all have something in common, that they're in construct form. "The beginning of". Which in English is properly translated as "when".

You wouldn't say "in the beginning of - God created the earth". In English it is "in the beginning when God created" or simply "when God began to create" that's why half a dozen Bible translations say it this way.

Rather than saying, "in the beginning of jehoiakim reigned", you would say, "in the beginning when jahoiakim reigned" or when Jahoiakim began to reign".

 

[BNR32FAN]

Kent Hovind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You’d better read this because mentioning Kent Hovind’s name weakens your argument even if you primarily watch his videos for his opponents.

Are you paying attention to anything I said? I specifically said that I don’t pay any attention to what Kent says because he’s biased, I pay attention to what the scientists he’s debating against say when they’re forced to answer certain questions they don’t like to answer.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes. The start of something. And yes, they all have something in common, that they're in construct form. "The beginning of". Which in English is properly translated as "when".

You wouldn't say "in the beginning of - God created the earth". In English it is "in the beginning when God created" or simply "when God began to create" that's why half a dozen Bible translations say it this way.

Rather than saying, "in the beginning of jehoiakim reigned", you would say, "in the beginning when jahoiakim reigned" or when Jahoiakim began to reign".

Yes I apologize I replied to that post without watching the video because I had already watched it about a year ago and I mistakenly thought he said “When God created” instead of “When God began to create”. So the way he worded it in the video could be grammatically correct. Although theologically it still contradicts Genesis 2:2-4 and Exodus 20:11.

 

[The Barbarian]

The only way the earth is "young" (6000-ish) is that God created it in a manner to make it "look" older. The universe looks billions of years old, and the Earth is also several billion years old. Of course, God could do that. He could have created the world 6000 years ago and made it look old. It's kind of like "antiquing" it. Some suggest that He may have created it looking ancient just to test the faithful and expect them to maintain it is only 6000 years old, despite it looking billions of years old. So, He tricked us? Being the perfect God that He is, nobody could resist His trickery, and we have all been understandably deceived by His Omni deception.

One ingenious way to argue that approach, without accusing God of dishonesty, is Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history." He believes that creation is sort of a story created by God. The real creation is just a few thousand years old, but all the evidence showing a much older Earth is a sort of "backstory."

Ingenious, but wrong IMO.

 

[FaithT]

Are you paying attention to anything I said? I specifically said that I don’t pay any attention to what Kent says because he’s biased, I pay attention to what the scientists he’s debating against say when they’re forced to answer certain questions they don’t like to answer.

Are you paying any attention to what I said?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Are you paying any attention to what I said?

Yeah so explain how Kent Hovind’s past has any influence on what his opponents are saying in their debate.

 

[FaithT]

Yeah so explain how Kent Hovind’s past has any influence on what his opponents are saying in their debate.

I’m just saying that mentioning his name isn’t good.