The Age of the Universe--and Days of Creation

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sinai

"Young earth" creationists arrive at that figure by adding up the ages of the people listed in Jesus's geneologies,

How on earth do they manage that?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


How on earth do they manage that?

Simple Nick, you take the ages the bible states for everyone in Jesus's liniage and you add. But "obviously" for you the ages of all those people are not ment to be taken literaly. Only Gen 1 and 2 are literal, isn't that "obvious"?

Age of the Earth as implied by the Bible, not to be taken literaly.

Six day creation to be taken litraly.

Yup that's obvious to me.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

Simple Nick, you take the ages the bible states for everyone in Jesus's liniage and you add.

And where do you get the ages for everyone in Jesus' lineage?

(Not to mention that if I add my age to my father's age, that doesn't produce the number of years that have passed, but that's just a trivial detail, I assume.)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Nick have you ever bothered to even read the OT? It gives the age at birth of most of the key people in Jesus's liniage. You average out the rest and you come to somewhere around 6000 years, some have streached it to 10000, but that's about all you can get out of it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Nick have you ever bothered to even read the OT? It gives the age at birth of most of the key people in Jesus's liniage. You average out the rest and you come to somewhere around 6000 years, some have streached it to 10000, but that's about all you can get out of it.

Most of the KEY people in Jesus' lineage? So it won't do any harm to your figures to leave out the non-key people?

And you say the dates for MOST of the key people in Jesus' lineage are in there? Can you provide us with that chart of dates/ages, please? I'm sure we'd all find your data fascinating.

And, by the way, where did anyone say anything about averaging out the rest? I don't recall seeing anything in there about averaging until you mentioned it.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Just go to Answers in Genesis web site, I'm sure they will be happy to tell you exactly where the bible supports a 6000 year old earth

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Just go to Answers in Genesis web site, I'm sure they will be happy to tell you exactly where the bible supports a 6000 year old earth

Yeah, but what if they don't follow your rules of calculating the undocumented ages and dates of key people in Jesus' lineage? I was kinda hoping you'd share what part of your imagination you used to pull those numbers out of thin air.

 

[Morat]

I'd imagine that Lewis doesn't care. It's not his age of the Earth. It's the one espoused by the YECs.

Why should Lewis defend their commonly given date? Go ask them. They're the ones who claim it's less than 10,000 years old.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
Why should Lewis defend their commonly given date? Go ask them. They're the ones who claim it's less than 10,000 years old.

I'm not asking Lewis to defend the date. I'm asking him to defend his (and Sinai's) claims about the methodology people used to arrive at that date.

 

[Morat]

You mean besides the fact that it's the same one used by Usher?

Sure. here. Answer's in Genesis claims:

AiG takes the stand that the creation is thousands of years old, based on straight-forward acceptance of the chronology in Genesis.
...
The following comes from Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, first published in 1879. Under ‘Creation’, Young listed dates of Creation compiled by a Dr William Hales in 1830, who was an expert in chronology, from varied sources. None of them give a date of Creation of more than 9,000 years ago. Note that dates of Creation from various non-Christian / non-Jewish sources (India, Egypt, China, pre-Christian Greece, Babylonia, etc.) all testify to an age of thousands of years. Furthermore, both Catholic and Protestant scholars agreed on this issue. It seems that no serious chronologist believed in an old Earth.
...
‘Dr Hales, in his work entitled, “A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy,” (vol. 1, p. 210 [published in 1830]), remarks: “In every system of chronology, sacred and profane, the two grand eras — of the Creation of the World, and of the Nativity of Christ — have been usually adopted as standards, by reference to which all subordinate epochs, eras and periods have been adjusted.” He gives a list of 120 dates, commencing B.C. 6984, and terminating BC 3616, to which this event has been assigned by different authorities, and he admits that it might be swelled to 300. He places it at BC 5411. The date commonly adopted is BC 4004; being that of Ussher, Spanheim, Calmet, Blair, etc., and the one used in the English Bible [KJV].'

Enjoy.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


I'm not asking Lewis to defend the date. I'm asking him to defend his (and Sinai's) claims about the methodology people used to arrive at that date.

In keeping with my new policy:

kause i shur as heck donet won't to fess up to whut I thank uhbowt the aig of the urth.

 

[Wookie]

Now I'm not going to confess my thoughts on the age of the earth - I really don't want to get into a slanging match - that's not by ball game - but has anyone spotted the fact that a 'considered maximum' of - what was it - about 9000ish years ago (6900BC) isn't that far away from the theorised end of the last ice age.

Don't get me wrong - I mean I probably am - but as far as I am aware, the last ice age is concidered to have ended about 10,000 years ago (might be BC - in which case I am 2000 years out), so doesn't it seem plausible that written records and knowledge have only survived since that rather drastic event.

Just my 2 pennies worth - I'm no expert - just looking for opinions - that's all.

And before anyone slates me - my learning and research is happening here - you lot are my source - I'm after your ideas - no one elses.... ta for listening..

TTFN
Wookie

PS. FYI my philosophy is NONE of us are right - we are human therefore being 'right' is almost impossible (unless you're REALY lucky)- therefore keep an open mind to other interpretations.

 

[kevinb]

I belive there were 6 literal 24hr days the same kind of days that we have today. By the way nobody has ever proved any fossil to be millions or billions of years old. They say the appear to be that old.

 

[RufusAtticus]

No one has proved that I am over twenty years old. They just say that I appear to be. My birth certificate says I am, but it could be wrong or faked.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by npetreley


I'm not asking Lewis to defend the date. I'm asking him to defend his (and Sinai's) claims about the methodology people used to arrive at that date.

If you're really interested in how the 6,000-10,000 year claims of the "young earth" folks developed, you might wish to read the writings of John Lightfoot and James Ussher, who apparently are the ones who worked out the calculations. In 1642, Lightfoot published his calculations that claimed that God commenced creation of the universe on September 17, 3928 BC. Eight years later Ussher published his "correction" of Lightfoot's date for creation, which he said was actually October 3, 4004 BC. Lightfoot later made his own corrections and concluded that all creation took place during the week of October 18-24, 4004 BC (Adam was allegedly created at 9:00 a.m. on October 23, 45th meridian time).

From the early portion of the eighteenth century onward, editions of the King James Version of the Bible have tended to incorporate Ussher's chronology as margin notes or sometimes as headings in the text, which has probably caused some folks to think that such calculations are part of the Bible and are inspired text.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sinai

If you're really interested in how the 6,000-10,000 year claims of the "young earth" folks developed, you might wish to read the writings of John Lightfoot and James Ussher, who apparently are the ones who worked out the calculations. In 1642, Lightfoot published his calculations that claimed that God commenced creation of the universe on September 17, 3928 BC. Eight years later Ussher published his "correction" of Lightfoot's date for creation, which he said was actually October 3, 4004 BC. Lightfoot later made his own corrections and concluded that all creation took place during the week of October 18-24, 4004 BC (Adam was allegedly created at 9:00 a.m. on October 23, 45th meridian time).

From the early portion of the eighteenth century onward, editions of the King James Version of the Bible have tended to incorporate Ussher's chronology as margin notes or sometimes as headings in the text, which has probably caused some folks to think that such calculations are part of the Bible and are inspired text.

I'm familiar with that info. I was not asking about their methodology, but about the methodology you had cited in an earlier post, which was -- well -- wacky.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by npetreley


I'm familiar with that info. I was not asking about their methodology, but about the methodology you had cited in an earlier post, which was -- well -- wacky.

I also have some problems with the calculations and conclusions of Lightfoot, Ussher, and some of the others who come to similar conclusions, though I have never called them wacky.  They are entitled to their opinions, as you and I are to ours.....

 

[Ambrosia416]

Sinai,

I don't mean to be chasing you around the forum, but you never did give me info about Kent Hovind. I would really appreciate what you know about him.

Thanks,

Ambrosia

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Ambrosia416
Sinai,

I don't mean to be chasing you around the forum, but you never did give me info about Kent Hovind. I would really appreciate what you know about him.

Thanks,

Ambrosia

Ambrosia, I suggest that you take a look at the various threads on this Science, Creation & Evolution messageboard.  I counted seven separate threads that refer to Kent Hovind in the title, and I suspect that there are quite a few more that mention him somewhere in one or more of the posts (you could probably find out by doing a search).  Many of them have links to sites that give much of the information for which you are asking. 

Again, I dislike making critical or derogatory comments about someone unless absolutely necessary, but many others on these boards apparently have no such reservation.  In any event, after reading the various threads you should see why I suggested that relying on Hovind as your sole authority would probably cause many on these boards to dismiss what you have to say as lacking credibility--even though much of your argument was good and could be supported quite nicely from more credible sources.

 

[Ambrosia416]

Sinai,

Thanks for at least giving me somewhere to start. Last night I read a couple of websites written by those disappointed in Kent Hovind's lack of scientific credibility. To be truthful I have been finding no reason to believe him myself since no one who supports him has bothered to answer a question that I e-mailed to him.

Thanks again,

Ambrosia