I am a YEC and I take the Bible literally. But, the Bible does not give the 6000 years figure. Also, the Y in YEC is relative. As long as the earth is not billion years old, it could be called YOUNG. In fact, I do not know how old is the earth. But I think the billion years figure is not real. I know exactly how are those numbers obtained. I personally created a couple hundreds of them. I don't like what I did.
Help me out here... if you take the bible literally... doesn't that mean the whole of existence came into being within 6 days?
So then how do you explain the following:
-Big Bang Theory puts the age of the universe at around 13.73 Billion years ago.
-The formation of our own solar system occured around 4.6 Billion years ago.
-Radiometric dating of terrestrial and lunar samples and meteorites puts the age of the Earth at around 4.54 Billion years ago.
-Depending on how far back you are willing to accept the
timeline, life on Earth began as much as 3.8 Billion years ago.
-Mammals appeared roughly 200 Million years ago
-Humans didn't resemble their current forms until about 200,000 years ago.
Now here's what I don't get... all of these findings are not based on a single piece of research. This wasn't just a few guys that got together and decided to arrange this data in such a way as to deceive everyone. So, as I see it... if you believe in god AND think the bible is the literal truth... you must either believe:
1) Every single piece of this data is wrong, or
2) God intentionally and specifically designed the whole of creation to be deceiving.
I don't think either option is particularly good. So how do you justify it?
There are, in fact, many. Just name one or two: When you count the amount of water on the earth and the amount of land above the oceanic floor, the water is enough to cover the entire land many times. Yes, the problem is that the land mass is all piled up together, so even its volume is small, it built up and ended up being higher than the sealevel. However, we do know the land mass was not like today in the earlier time. The volume of land was much smaller and the elevation of land in relative to the ocean is much lower (i.e. the earth was much flatter).
I don't know if you get the picture. But this is an important clue to me that a global flood did happen. A related thought is that if this type of flood happened, it most likely only happened once and would not have chance to happen again. This is exactly what the Bible says.
I'm starting to understand where you're coming from, even though I still disagree.
First, there is not enough water on the planet to cover all of the land on Earth, at the same time, as the Earth currently exists.
So, the only way you could believe the flood could cover all of the land is if you thought the earth was "more flat" when the flood occurred... and then everything rose up into place afterward.
Here's the problem...
-The "younger" portions of the rocky mountains uplifted over 65 million years ago... the older portions uplifted during the precambrian! (up to 3.9 billion years ago)
- The himalayas are some of the "youngest" mountains on the planet... and their formation began 50-70 million years ago (date range only due to different definitions of when a mountain is a mountain).
There simply is no physical way that the Earth could have been flat enough to be covered in water during the time that the story of Noah correlates to (roughly 5,000 years ago) and then suddenly bulge up to it's current state.
Furthermore, you have only presented information that, you say, leads you to believe a global flood COULD happen. I asked you for the facts that make you believe it is more probable than not that a global flood DID happen. They are two very different questions.
Yes, the significant point in your argument is "having more time to contribute to the society". And this is also exactly my argument. We did have millions and millions of hours of good work contributed to our society in the history. However, our society DOES NOT become better except the technology. The technology is really a cosmetic smoke screen. It covers the original ugliness of the society which did not advance a single inch no matter how much hours people have contributed to it. Technology gives us TV, but it also gives us bomb. I rather not have the TV but still fight with a sword. Technology prolonged our life a little bit. But the consequence is a huge global problem we are facing now. More people died in 20th Century than any time in our history. Why should anyone live longer to make more useless contribution to the society?
What "huge global problem" are you referring to? I'm sorry, but you're kinda sounding like someone who is just ranting against technology in general.... ironic since you are doing so on a computer, across distances and on a medium that would not be possible if it weren't for technology.
He always disagrees with me no matter what I said. If necessary, he will simply insult me to save his failing argument.
Just take what I explained to you on the global flood as an example. When I said I see some facts of a global flood earlier, instead of saying: "back up your statement", you asked me what are the facts. That is how the conversation here should be. I am not obligated to back up anything I said here. If you have problem with what I said, then simply raise up the question and we will talk about it. My principle on this is: I do not bother to back up what I said unless there is an argument directly against it, or there is a sincere request for explanation. Those who do not like me may quote the red text out of context to against me. But, hey, why should I care? They have said much worse things about me.
Ok, well I presented you with facts that contradict what you said... so I'm anxious to see how you decide to respond.
