• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why do YECs believe the universe is only a few thousand years old?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
It is my understanding that young earth creationists generally think that both time and the universe were begun by God about 6,000 years ago ["the beginning" referred to in Genesis 1:1]. They generally arrive at this figure by adding the years often listed for the persons found in the geneologies of Jesus Christ together to determine the number of years from the creation of Adam to the birth of Jesus. Since it is generally believed that Christ was born slightly over 2000 years ago, those years are added to the equation.

Actually, it is more likely that most have adopted the figures and computations compiled by either John Lightfoot or James Ussher in the mid 1600s (and subsequently used by various followers) or some derivation from their works. Since the Bible tells us that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, some YECs think the universe is about 12,000 years old. And because both Lightfoot and Ussher made a number of assumptions (that are questioned by many Bible scholars) in order to arrive at their calculations, some YECs adopt a somewhat longer period of time (up to about 55,000 years). Nevertheless, all of these are much shorter than the 11-20 billion years claimed by mainstream scientists.

The primary place young earth creationists seem to differ from other persons (primarily Christians, Jews and possibly Moslims) who accept the Genesis account as being true is that the YECs insist that each of the creation days set out in the first chapter of Genesis is a literal 24-hour period of time, and that all of creation took only 144 hours. They explicitly reject any words in--or interpretations of--the original Hebrew that suggest that a different time reference frame would be more accurate. Thus, they insist that the universe is only a few thousand years old.

This thread is addressed to the young earth creationists. I would like to give you a full and fair opportunity to present your side of the story, and to tell everyone precisely WHY you believe the universe is only a few thousand years old. Please observe the following points:

1. This thread deals with the age of the universe--not the age of the earth or life on the earth (or whether evolution occurred).

2. If you think that the weight of scientific evidence requires you to believe the universe is only a few thousand years old, please cite the evidence upon which you are relying.

3. If you think biblical scriptures require you to believe the universe is only a few thousand years old, please cite the scriptural reference. If the reference could be interpreted in a manner other than the way you interpret it, it would probably also help if you state why you think your interpretation is more likely than the other interpretation(s).

4. If the reason you believe the universe is only a few thousand years old is because that is what you read on a website, please cite the website, the author, and what was said there. Similarly, if it is because of a book, please cite the book (and page, if possible). Or if it is because that is what someone you respect told you, please tell who that person is.

Thank you!
 

Dust and Ashes

wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked
May 4, 2004
6,081
337
56
Visit site
✟7,946.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
One reason from scripture is that the Hebrew word used for day can mean any period of time but with adding that each day had an "evening and morning" specifies it as a day and not, say an epoch or even a millennium.

I was actually thinking about something like this last night at work. Karl is posting evolution evidence and I was thinking, why not have a thread where we all post the evidences we feel support what we believe and then everyone can post refutations based on scientific findings.

Of course there would have to be some guidelines but minor modifications to those for this thread would work nicely. I would only add that no ad hominem attacks against posters or sources be tolerated. That kind of behaviour is a fast train to the ignore list.

Of course the credentials of sources are free game, unless of course the evidence itself is clear. I mean if say, Billy Fred Johnson is quoted, "I found this here bone of a genuine dinosaur and it come from the Joorassic peeriod an it's a hunnert and seexty miyyun yeers old." Well, it's obvious he's...not well educated but that doesn't disqualify the information. ;)

Ok, that was kind of silly. I think I'll go to bed now. It's been a long nigh. lol
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
muffler dragon said:

I'm sure the days are literal. However, as I've said before, so was the coin that the woman lost, or the seed the sower sows - within the narrative contexts in which they are presented.

It is not the days of Genesis that are figurative; it is the narrative within which they are presented.

Using this sort of analysis to demonstrate that the days are literal is a little like doing a similar analysis of the Lord of the Rings and concluding it is a history book.
 
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I agree with Karl. The authors intended 6 literal days for theological reasons, but the account is still figurative. The authors wanted a (wholly unnecessary) justification for the observance of the Sabbath, so made creation fit within 6 days so God could rest on the 7th. However, the entire account is theological, not historical, and thus there is no justification for taking the author's theological intent and trying to make it literal history.
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2004
4,273
123
Fortress Kedar
✟28,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
If you assume the authors made up the days for the Sabbath, it violates scripture about the works not coming from the prophets own interpretation. And, if we need humans to justify things in this manner, the Bible is reduced to a literary work and Christianity to rubble.

Heres some thoughts Sanai:

1) Scientists keep moving the date around, because they don't know. If someone says "I am a Chrsitian I believe the date xxxx" ok, but if they place the value of this so called science above scripture, cahnging their doctrine as science changes, no.

2+3) I usually start with citing Genesis, see first paragraph (can PM you if you want with more stuff)

4) I cannot cite the source at this time, bit I have heard from one of my advisors that many of the liquid or gas deposits under the earth's crust are unstable, and would easily collapse within 10,000 years. Also, on our first moon landing, due to the sun's radiation on the moon over the suppsed millions/billions of years, it was assumed that over 1 mile of dust would exist on the moon. Not even an inch, which, if plugged into the formula, would equal about 6,000 years.

Anyways, notice that God created a universe that was made for us. He didn't create it young and unstable, old and with little usable energy, but in just the right time, and he put us just in the right place. So far, besides Genesis, only large amounts of circumstantial evidence exist for both sides.
 
Upvote 0

pressingon

pressingon
May 18, 2004
194
37
Visit site
✟23,082.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Bizzlebin --

Not to attack, but inform... the moon dust argument is one of those explanations young earth creationists should NOT use to defend their position.

All --
Answersingenesis has a wealth of information explaning the YEC viewpoint... the Q&A section is amazingly informative (I'd post links, but the system won't let me yet... I can't stand being a newbie!). Aside from the information on the site, I'd recommend "How Now Shall We Live", by Charles Colson.

A few reasons I believe in a young earth / universe (certainly not all):
1. Biblical history implies it, given a straightforward interpretation.
2. No written history, dated by non-creationists, that dates much further back than Biblical times.
3. Inconsistencies in radiometric dating that may be related to poor assumptions (i.e. -- are decay rates really the same now as they were 5000 years ago?).
4. It makes sense... why would God have waited billions of years to develop creation and mankind when he could simply speak it into existence?
5. The numbers... if we're really in the 10-14 billionth year of universe existence, why are we only present for the last few thousand years?
6. No other explanation has convinced me otherwise (and held me there).

I know... much of that is subjective.
 
Upvote 0

Captain_Jack_Sparrow

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
956
33
60
From Parts Unknown
✟1,283.00
Faith
Anglican
It can only be used incorrectly.

A few reasons I believe in a young earth / universe (certainly not all):
1. Biblical history implies it, given a straightforward interpretation.
2. No written history, dated by non-creationists, that dates much further back than Biblical times.
3. Inconsistencies in radiometric dating that may be related to poor assumptions (i.e. -- are decay rates really the same now as they were 5000 years ago?).
4. It makes sense... why would God have waited billions of years to develop creation and mankind when he could simply speak it into existence?
5. The numbers... if we're really in the 10-14 billionth year of universe existence, why are we only present for the last few thousand years?
6. No other explanation has convinced me otherwise (and held me there).

1) One man's 'straightforward' is another man's 'convoluted'.
2) But it does go back quite a bit earlier.
3) Radiometric dating is very consistent - this is a classic creationist 'urban legend'
4) Mmm - who knows? Maybe God does have limits - how do we know?
5) Maybe God planned it this way - again who knows?
6) Ok - so be it.
 
Upvote 0

Remnant

Humble Servant
Feb 15, 2004
206
5
Clinton, Montana
✟363.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Captain_Jack_Sparrow said:
It can only be used incorretly

And science can’t then, huh?

1) One man's 'straightforward' is another man's 'convoluted'
2) But it does go back quite a bit earlier.
3) Radiometric dating is very consistent - this is a classic creationist 'urban legend'
4) Mmm - who knows? Maybe God does have limits - how do we know?
5) Maybe God planned it this way - again who knows?
6) Ok - so be it.

1) That is certainly done with fossil records and evolution as a whole, not just with scripture. You look at what the ‘experts’ say, and they have different points of view.
2) By whose standards; God or man?
3) So we know for certain that the physical laws have always been the same? Oooohh-k ‘urban legend’ right.
4) Not logical. Then He wouldn’t be God.
5) And then again maybe God planned to make evolutionists look like fools.
6) You don’t hold on to your beliefs as strongly as any of us?
 
Upvote 0

Captain_Jack_Sparrow

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
956
33
60
From Parts Unknown
✟1,283.00
Faith
Anglican
Remnant said:
And science can’t then, huh?



1) That is certainly done with fossil records and evolution as a whole, not just with scripture. You look at what the ‘experts’ say, and they have different points of view.
2) By whose standards; God or man?
3) So we know for certain that the physical laws have always been the same? Oooohh-k ‘urban legend’ right.
4) Not logical. Then He wouldn’t be God.
5) And then again maybe God planned to make evolutionists look like fools.
6) You don’t hold on to your beliefs as strongly as any of us?


1) Probably an inference based upon a layman's inability to parse scientific work

2) By direct eveidence.

3) Yes we do.

4) Not true - God does NOT have to be omnipotent to be God

5) So God is a liar?

6) Huh!
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2004
4,273
123
Fortress Kedar
✟28,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I think you'd understand some of this better Ccaptain_Jack_Sparrow if you believed in the accuracy of the Bible and an all powerful God. I'd start a thread in theology or something and voice your concerns. A lot of people have had the same questions/concerns before.
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2004
4,273
123
Fortress Kedar
✟28,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
If I may say a little about myself, I am one of the highest "rated" scientists on this forum. I run my own laboratory and study the mass and properties of light. Don't assume because something doesn't agree with your views it is wrong or interpreted wrong.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.