Why a time gap?

[shernren]

I feel like I'm in the enemy's camp every time I post here XD but I have a few curious questions to ask:

1. What do creationists think about Ussher's chronology? Was he a responsible scholar or did he make too many assumptions?

2. Why do creationists feel that they need to postulate "time gaps" that are not indicated in scripture? After all, there really isn't any way to insert 5 billion years into 6,000 years, in any case, without making a big mess or becoming something other than a YEC. Does adding or minusing a few thousand years make YEC theory easier?

I promise that I'm not asking to start arguments, I honestly want to know. As a YEC I used to assume that yes, we would have the same kind of accuracy that we need if we play around with a few thousand years on top of the Bible's given dates but now as a TE I realise that I never really understood why I could assume that if there are any arguments I will take them to Origins.

 

[keyarch]

I feel like I'm in the enemy's camp every time I post here XD but I have a few curious questions to ask:

1. What do creationists think about Ussher's chronology? Was he a responsible scholar or did he make too many assumptions?

He may not be 100% accurate, but I think he was on the right track. Names were left out of the genealogies, but the ages were given for each generation at the birth of the next, so it really doesn’t matter.

2. Why do creationists feel that they need to postulate "time gaps" that are not indicated in scripture? After all, there really isn't any way to insert 5 billion years into 6,000 years, in any case, without making a big mess or becoming something other than a YEC. Does adding or minusing a few thousand years make YEC theory easier?

You don’t have to be a “Young Earth” creationist to be a creationist. And, there doesn’t have to be a “Time Gap” either. I consider time to have been from “the Beginning” and nobody will ever know when that was. The “Creation Week” in Genesis starts with “light” in Genesis 1:3 (the unfinished earth existed) and proceeds with events to make earth habitable and then life itself, and based on chronologies like Ussher’s puts it some 6118 years ago. It’s very simple when you realize that the upper heaven and stars already existed as God’s prior creation. [YEC doesn’t hold this view due (in my view) to mistranslations and/or interpretations of scripture, i.e. Gen. 1:16, Ex. 20:11, Mk 10:6, 13:19.]

I promise that I'm not asking to start arguments, I honestly want to know. As a YEC I used to assume that yes, we would have the same kind of accuracy that we need if we play around with a few thousand years on top of the Bible's given dates but now as a TE I realize that I never really understood why I could assume that if there are any arguments I will take them to Origins.

How does time, real or not, turn you into an evolutionist? Evolution is an entirely separate issue. For something to evolve, there has to be replicating life already existing (which is EXTREMELY complex and for which science has no real answer for its origins). Time alone is no solution for the origin of life.

 

[shernren]

Well, to be honest I'm not so much concerned with the evolution part of old-earth theory as with the cosmological and geological implications. I'm not too well versed in biology but I'm quite solid with my physics and it is in the physics that I see (and understand!) the most problems for YEC theory. And a few thousand years of plus/minus isn't going to change the physics significantly in their favour. Does it?

 

[keyarch]

And a few thousand years of plus/minus isn't going to change the physics significantly in their favour. Does it?

Not at all. And that's where the idea of apparent age comes in, which I don't accept as part of God's intent for general revelation. The original biology was obviously created with some maturity or it wouldn't be able to survive. But that doesn’t infer that the universe was created with apparent age and that all the stars and galaxies that are beyond 10,000 light years away are actually an illusion.

 

[Critias]

I feel like I'm in the enemy's camp every time I post here XD but I have a few curious questions to ask:

Is that how you feel towards all YECs, enemies?

 

[mark kennedy]

I feel like I'm in the enemy's camp every time I post here XD but I have a few curious questions to ask:

What do you mean by XD?

1. What do creationists think about Ussher's chronology? Was he a responsible scholar or did he make too many assumptions?

What would anyone think of Ussher's chronology? He added up the begats.

2. Why do creationists feel that they need to postulate "time gaps" that are not indicated in scripture? After all, there really isn't any way to insert 5 billion years into 6,000 years, in any case, without making a big mess or becoming something other than a YEC. Does adding or minusing a few thousand years make YEC theory easier?

Time is not the primary consideration in the begats, nor is it a problem for YEC theology. What is more there is no such thing as a YEC who tries to fit 5 billion years into the begats. I personally could care less about how old the earth is, it make no difference. And no, if makes no difference if you add a few thousand years because there is no way of reconciling Darwinism to creationism on that basis.

I promise that I'm not asking to start arguments, I honestly want to know. As a YEC I used to assume that yes, we would have the same kind of accuracy that we need if we play around with a few thousand years on top of the Bible's given dates but now as a TE I realise that I never really understood why I could assume that if there are any arguments I will take them to Origins.

I appreciate the fact that you are not trying to start arguments, I realize that there are questions. I strongly recommend that you ask your questions and take note of the answers you encounter here. You are quite welcome to ask them in the spirit of fellowship but mind you, I won't tolerate this turning into a TE/creation debate.

I have an opinion obviously, but I just wanted to remind you that you are a guest of the members and the forum. Honest questions are welcome, thank you for you participation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

XD is a smiley. Look sideways. Well yes, I do get the point. It's just that I'm more into the physics of the earth and the universe's age, rather than the biology of it - I agree that Darwinism can seem holey at times and in places, but not so with standard candles and the size of the universe. So the whole "age" thing is quite important for me. It was the main reason I changed over to TEism, instead of the biological aspect of evolution.

 

[Grengor]

EDIT: nvm