What is a YOUNG earth?

[juvenissun]

I am very sick of this misconception. So, this thread serves as a vent for my anger of people's ignorance. Yes, it includes YOU!

If the earth is not 6000 years old, nor 10,000 years old, nor 50,000 years old, could the earth still be a young earth?

If the earth is 2 million years old, is it a young earth?

If the earth is 60 million years old, is it still a young earth?

If you think the earth must be 4500 m.y. old, then why do you use the 6000 years number as the argument to against the young earth? Why not use 45 m.y. years in your argument?

If you can not make a good argument, then, please DON'T.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am very sick of this misconception. So, this thread serves as a vent for my anger of people's ignorance. Yes, it includes YOU!

If the earth is not 6000 years old, nor 10,000 years old, nor 50,000 years old, could the earth still be a young earth?

If the earth is 2 million years old, is it a young earth?

If the earth is 60 million years old, is it still a young earth?

If you think the earth must be 4500 m.y. old, then why do you use the 6000 years number as the argument to against the young earth? Why not use 45 m.y. years in your argument?

Because that is the most common age asserted by those who believe the Earth to be substantially younger than the scientific consensus says it is. Of those Creationists we debate, they almost always assert the Earth to be 5000-15,000 years old, with a heavy preference for 6000 years (i.e., a creation date of 4004 BCE).

 

[AV1611VET]

I am very sick of this misconception. So, this thread serves as a vent for my anger of people's ignorance. Yes, it includes YOU!

... Are you talking to me, bro?

If the earth is not 6000 years old, nor 10,000 years old, nor 50,000 years old, could the earth still be a young earth?

No.

If the earth is 2 million years old, is it a young earth?

No.

If the earth is 60 million years old, is it still a young earth?

No.

If you think the earth must be 4500 m.y. old, then why do you use the 6000 years number as the argument to against the young earth? Why not use 45 m.y. years in your argument?

The 4.57 billion year-old earth has only been in existence for just over 6000 years.

The earth itself is old, but its time-in-existence is young.

If you can not make a good argument, then, please DON'T.

I agree with you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of those Creationists we debate, they almost always assert the Earth to be 5000-15,000 years old, with a heavy preference for 6000 years (i.e., a creation date of 4004 BCE).

I somehow don't see creationists using the term "BCE," but then, I don't get around as much as I used to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If AVET agrees with you, especially as heavily as he did here, you know that you are wrong.

A young Earth is as Wiccan Child said, anything significantly less than the scientific age without a valid scientific reason.

It is clear that AVET is a YEC. If you believe like he does you are a YEC too.

 

[KWCrazy]

If you think the earth must be 4500 m.y. old, then why do you use the 6000 years number as the argument to against the young earth? Why not use 45 m.y. years in your argument?

I think there are really three school's of thought; that God created the universe as He detailed in Genesis and the Bible is factual; that there is no God and everythiing happened by natural processes over billions of years; and for those in the middle without enoough faith in either, a compromise. Maybe God used evolution and then lied about it.

Evidence for the young earth is presented primarily in the Bible through the genealogies which ar chronicled from Adam to Noah, to Abraham, to David, and finally to Jesus. We see how long people lived before giving birth and we see how old they were when they died.

Matthew 1:
17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

Prior to that there were 10 generations from Adam to Noah and 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. That makes 63 generation in all. We are about 2013 years beyond the death of Jesus, and we presume that He was about 33 when he died. It's not hard to calculate the approximate age given those numbers. To claim an older eath and still believe in SOME of the Bible you have to assume that man was created billions of years after everything else instead of on the sixth day. You also have to deny the Great Flood. The fact is, you can't believe in old earth or evolution without completely denying that the great Flood ever happened.

The Great Flood is affirmed throughout the Bible. To get a good summary of the case for the flood, you could look here. However, I would encourage you to be proactive and actually look up the verses mentioned. Taking verses out of context and twisting their meaning is a favorite trick of those who do not believe the Bible to be true.

Beyond that, those who believe that natrual forces, not God, created everything always use the 6,000 year old earth as a pajoritive to portray those who believe that the Bible is the inerrrant word of God as simplistic rubes who just don't understand science. For whatever reason, they can't comprehend that it is not that we don't UNDERSTAND, but that we simply reject the notion that the universe created itself and that God is a bit player at most.

 

[AV1611VET]

If AVET agrees with you, especially as heavily as he did here, you know that you are wrong.

A young Earth is as Wiccan Child said, anything significantly less than the scientific age without a valid scientific reason.

It is clear that AVET is a YEC. If you believe like he does you are a YEC too.

Hey, newbie, I say the earth is 4.57 billion years old? what say you?

(Assuming you have the guts to answer this. After all, AVET might be agreeing with you, eh? )

 

[Subduction Zone]

KWCrazy the only people who believe in a lying God are fundamentalists like you and AVET.

The Christians who believe the theory of evolution are those that do not believe in a lying God. The Bible is not "God's Word" no matter how many times you claim that. Since it is obviously flawed to call it "God's Word" is to claim that God is a liar since there are verses that directly contradict other verses.

Christians who believe in the spirit of the Bible, not the self contradicting text believe in an honest God. Plus, there God does not lie by creating false evidence that the World and the Solar System, the Milky Way and the very universe itself are billions upon billions of years old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey, newbie, I say the earth is 4.57 billion years old? what say you?

(Assuming you have the guts to answer this. After all, AVET might be agreeing with you, eh? )

Now you do, but earlier you said the opposite. Your inconsistency and dishonesty are well known. You might agree with me temporarily, but we know it will not last. You are only making the claim now because you hate the term YEC.

 

[juvenissun]

Because that is the most common age asserted by those who believe the Earth to be substantially younger than the scientific consensus says it is. Of those Creationists we debate, they almost always assert the Earth to be 5000-15,000 years old, with a heavy preference for 6000 years (i.e., a creation date of 4004 BCE).

You did not answer my questions in the OP.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Now you do, but earlier you said the opposite. Your inconsistency and dishonesty are well known. You might agree with me temporarily, but we know it will not last. You are only making the claim now because you hate the term YEC.

To be fair, he is consistent.

 

[juvenissun]

... Are you talking to me, bro?

No.

No.

No.

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

KWCrazy the only people who believe in a lying God are fundamentalists like you and AVET.

The Christians who believe the theory of evolution are those that do not believe in a lying God.

This is just what we need.

An atheist who inserts adjectives before God, the Object of our belief; and does it, based on what we believe.

I'm sure the 'Christians who believe the theory of evolution' need you, an atheist, to differentiate between a 'lying' God and a 'truthful' God.

 

[juvenissun]

If AVET agrees with you, especially as heavily as he did here, you know that you are wrong.

A young Earth is as Wiccan Child said, anything significantly less than the scientific age without a valid scientific reason.

It is clear that AVET is a YEC. If you believe like he does you are a YEC too.

If so, you may use 60 m.y. years, instead of 6000 years in your future argument and see how would it go.

 

[Split Rock]

If you think the earth must be 4500 m.y. old, then why do you use the 6000 years number as the argument to against the young earth? Why not use 45 m.y. years in your argument?

Because that is the most common age asserted by those who believe the Earth to be substantially younger than the scientific consensus says it is. Of those Creationists we debate, they almost always assert the Earth to be 5000-15,000 years old, with a heavy preference for 6000 years (i.e., a creation date of 4004 BCE).

You did not answer my questions in the OP.

Yes he did.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes she did.

Ha ha, that is new. I never noticed.

 

[Tomk80]

You asked this question:
"If you think the earth must be 4500 m.y. old, then why do you use the 6000 years number as the argument to against the young earth? "

The answer was given to you: because an age between 10,000 and 6,000 years is the age generally provided by creationists arguing for a young earth. I have never seen a young earth creationist provide an age of 50,000, let alone 2 million or more years old. There is no reason to argue against a position that no one actually holds. If you can provide evidence of a young earth creationist actually arguing in favor of an earth aged 50,000 years or older, I'll be happy to reconsider of course. Can you?

Of course, the evidence that asserts the earth is 4.5 billion years old remains the same, so it does not actually matter much. 50 thousand, 2 million, 40 million, we know all of these ages are wrong because we know the correct answer is 4.5 billion.

 

[Split Rock]

I think there are really three school's of thought; that God created the universe as He detailed in Genesis and the Bible is factual; that there is no God and everythiing happened by natural processes over billions of years; and for those in the middle without enoough faith in either, a compromise. Maybe God used evolution and then lied about it.

That is not what TEs think at all. They think you are misinterpreting scripture, just as the Church did when it condemned the heliocentric model. You guys really hate TEs, don't you?

Evidence for the young earth is presented primarily in the Bible through the genealogies which ar chronicled from Adam to Noah, to Abraham, to David, and finally to Jesus. We see how long people lived before giving birth and we see how old they were when they died.

According to the geneologies and assuming they are accurate and complete.

Prior to that there were 10 generations from Adam to Noah and 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. That makes 63 generation in all. We are about 2013 years beyond the death of Jesus, and we presume that He was about 33 when he died. It's not hard to calculate the approximate age given those numbers. To claim an older eath and still believe in SOME of the Bible you have to assume that man was created billions of years after everything else instead of on the sixth day. You also have to deny the Great Flood. The fact is, you can't believe in old earth or evolution without completely denying that the great Flood ever happened.

Most of us who accept an old earth and evolution do indeed deny the grat Flood ever happened.

The Great Flood is affirmed throughout the Bible. To get a good summary of the case for the flood, you could look here. However, I would encourage you to be proactive and actually look up the verses mentioned. Taking verses out of context and twisting their meaning is a favorite trick of those who do not believe the Bible to be true.

Verysincere has explained here over and over that it is only an assumption that the flood story refered to a global flood. In addition, there are those of us who believe it was never intended as a literal history in the first place.

Beyond that, those who believe that natrual forces, not God, created everything always use the 6,000 year old earth as a pajoritive to portray those who believe that the Bible is the inerrrant word of God as simplistic rubes who just don't understand science. For whatever reason, they can't comprehend that it is not that we don't UNDERSTAND, but that we simply reject the notion that the universe created itself and that God is a bit player at most.

I do understand that you guys reject what conflicts with your theology. That rejection, however, is not based on understanding the evidence that supports the conclusion of common descent and an old earth. In fact, we see here time and again that most creationists do not understand that evidence, or how science works. They also don't care what that evidence is either, even if they sometimes claim otherwise. Finally, I believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing god would be able to create a universe that would unfold by itself the way he/she/it wanted it to, without the need to tinker with it like a human engineer would.

 

[Split Rock]

Ha ha, that is new. I never noticed.

corrected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If so, you may use 60 m.y. years, instead of 6000 years in your future argument and see how would it go.

Any ridiculous age that is too small would make someone a YEC. Sixty million years is doubly ridiculous. It has neither scientific nor biblical support.