Why do YECs believe the universe is only about 6000 years old?

Caedmon · Nov 8, 2002

Originally posted by JohnR7
The creation of the "heaven and the earth" was a totally seperate 6000 year period of time.  "The days of old" could have been a actualy 6000 years, or it could have been 16 billion years.  But as I have tried many times to show you, it was most likely both, depending on where you put your clock.

One example is if your clock were traveling at the speed of light or pure energy, then it took 0 years to create the universe. Because it has been shown at the speed of light time does not pass at all.  If you go by the spindown rate of the earth, then one day is equal to 4.32 billion years.

Uuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Homie · Nov 9, 2002

Hey, I got nothing against science, sure researching and testing have brought great advances to the world. But sometimes it seems that all it takes is a man in a white robe telling you "that this is a fact" and that is enough to believe it is. More sceptism is needed for theories that claim to know what happened millions of years ago, and other theories that try to establish something as a fact when they really can not say it for certain. Although a theory is logical/plausible does not mean that it has to be true, there may be another answear that is just as logical but just hasn't been tought of yet.

An example of someone needing a bit of sceptism:

We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen W. Hawking

Hehe . Since when did humans understand the universe? In only the last 20 years scientists have changed their minds on Universe matters:

worm holes is ridiculuos - Worm holes is a fact

the universe expands and will ultimately pull back and implode on itself - There is an anti-gravity force that pushes material apart and so the universe will not implode on itself. (And this theory also questions if the whole Big Bang theory is true)

Light consists of particles - it consists of waves - it consists of both particles and waves.

Oh Yes, we completely understand the Universe (irony). In the words of a science buff (which is not meant insulting, it just means you really like/depend on science), todays theory has been proven by "evidence" and so is a fact and the absolute truth, well at least until new evidence is found that proves the other theory false, then the new theory is a fact and the absolute truth.

LiveFreeOrDie · Nov 9, 2002

Brilliant logic cuts both ways...

But sometimes it seems that all it takes is a man in a priest's robes telling you "that this is a fact" and that is enough to believe it is. More skepticism is needed for religions that claim to know what happened thousands of years ago, and other religions that try to establish something as a fact when they really can not say it for certain. Although a religion is comforting does not mean that it has to be true, there may be another answer that is just as logical but just hasn't been thought of yet.

Homie · Nov 9, 2002

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Brilliant logic cuts both ways...

But sometimes it seems that all it takes is a man in a priest's robes telling you "that this is a fact" and that is enough to believe it is. More skepticism is needed for religions that claim to know what happened thousands of years ago, and other religions that try to establish something as a fact when they really can not say it for certain. Although a religion is comforting does not mean that it has to be true, there may be another answer that is just as logical but just hasn't been thought of yet.

Touchè. But the difference is that the Bible and what happens in it (the history) has never been proved wrong. In fact, several archealogist dig-ups and studying written ducuments that is not the Bible only confirms the Bible. The dead-sea scrolls is amazing scientific evidence. So the christian absolute truth is consistent (there lies an importent difference), it doesn't change with the times, and therefore IMO is more trustworthy. And I am always scpetic about what priests say, I don't just take their word and interpretation for it, so that argument doesn't fly with me (of course I cannot speak for all christians when I say I am always sceptic of the priests, so your argument may apply for some.)

PS: I edited my above post in case you haven't read it.

edgeo · Nov 9, 2002

Originally posted by Homie
An example of someone needing a bit of sceptism:

(Hawkings quote)

Hehe . Since when did humans understand the universe? ....

Oh Yes, we completely understand the Universe (irony). ...

You misrepresent Hawkings' statement.  He said we can understand the universe.  He did not say that we do understand the universe. 

Homie · Nov 9, 2002

You misrepresent Hawkings' statement. He said we can understand the universe. He did not say that we do understand the universe.

Are you sure? You might be right, in that case My Bad.

LiveFreeOrDie · Nov 9, 2002

Originally posted by Homie
Touchè. But the difference is that the Bible and what happens in it (the history) has never been proved wrong.

Perhaps an introduction to Biblical errancy is in order:

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

In fact, several archealogist dig-ups and studying written ducuments that is not the Bible only confirms the Bible.

Really? Where is the historical evidence that David, king of Judea, actually existed?

The dead-sea scrolls is amazing scientific evidence. So the christian absolute truth is consistent (there lies an importent difference), it doesn't change with the times, and therefore IMO is more trustworthy.

The dead sea scrolls are particularly problematic to this point of view:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/4/4jerem90.html

And I am always scpetic about what priests say,

Fooled me.

Homie · Nov 9, 2002

Would you please post the exact link to where he (the guy in your link) disproves any biblical historic event, I would be happy to read it.

Really? Where is the historical evidence that David, king of Judea, actually existed?

Since I only ask that you disprove ANY historical biblical event I will try to find proof of to back up ANY biblical historical event (but I don't have any at hand so it will take some time to find), do you seriously doubt that David existed (as an historical figure)?.

I will check out your link on the dead sea scrolls, but its dinner time, I'll check back later, keep this thread on e-mail notification as I'm rather busy tomorrow and it might take me some time to reply, good day and God bless you my good man.

Homie · Nov 9, 2002

Interesting article about the dead sea scrolls. As I gather from the article, the Septuagint is the right version because that is the one quoted by the NT writers, but some christians have thought of the Masoretic version as the true one.

But when I view the source I get a bit sceptic. A community whose purpose is to break down christianity (I know it doesn't say that in the introduction but I can read between the lines). That many people find it hard to believe I fully understand, but trying to break down a religion whose 2nd commandment is to "love our next" I will never understand.

Sinai · Nov 19, 2002

Originally posted by Homie
First of all I have to commend and thank you Sinai for conducting yourself in a professional and friendly manner, not bashing the YECs but asking them to explain themselves so that you understand (or understand why they think so).

Now on to why YECs believe what they do:

It is all about priorities, should they believe the scientists that constantley prove themselves wrong, disagree widely and often have vague theories, or the Bible inspired by God and have stood the test of time and is IMO logical. Of course they would believe the latter (as do I and any christian), and if you read the Bible literally, earth was created in 6 days and man was created not long after (or so is how most people understand it, although JohnR7 mentions something about a gap), and then you just sum up the years of the generations to get a cr. number of years since creation. It is as easy as that I guess.

Thanks for responding, Homie. I was beginning to despair of ever getting a response from any young earth creationist regarding these questions.

Although you did not list your scriptural sources, I presume from the reference to "6 days" that you are relying on a literal reading of most English translations of the first chapter of Genesis to establish the time line from the creation of the universe to the creation of man as being six days. Is that a correct assumption?

As for the time since Adam, you said "you just sum up the years of the generations to get a cr. number of years since creation." Have you added up those geneological records, or do you accept the work of someone else? If it is the latter, do you know who added up the geneological years?

Is there anything else besides the first chapter of Genesis and the summary of geneological years that someone provided that causes you to believe that the universe is only about 6,000 years old? If so, what other evidence, scriptures, or data do you rely upon?

Again, thank you for responding.

Homie · Nov 20, 2002

As I said earlier in my 1st post on this thread,

I haven't taken a stance to being a YEC or thinking that the earth is billions of years old which is the popular belief, it doesn't really matter, what can we do about it?. I used to believe whatever they told me in school and papers about science, fortunately I know better now. Well actually that is not fortunate because it is easier to follow the crowd than to think for yourself and stand by it. Anyway, I will explain why I think YECs believe that Earth is about 6000 years old, here goes...but first I feel there are a few arguments that I should rebute....

so I'm sorry but I don't call myself YEC, I am not sure what is right: symbolic or literal? I was just explaining how I assumed YEC's came around to the conclusion that earth is no more than 6000 years old.

by Sinai
Thanks for responding, Homie. I was beginning to despair of ever getting a response from any young earth creationist regarding these questions.

JohnR7 replied to this thread and explained his views and he is YEC isn't he?

by Homie
Would you please post the exact link to where he (the guy in your link) disproves any biblical historic event, I would be happy to read it.

LiveFreeOrDie, you have yet to comply to my request.

Sinai · Nov 20, 2002

Originally posted by Homie

JohnR7 replied to this thread and explained his views and he is YEC isn't he?

I'm not sure that he is a YECie; JohnR7's view is:

The question is the universe 13 days old or 15 billion years old: The answer is both. They're both happening at the same time. That's the legacy of Albert Einstein. It so happens there literally billions of locations in the universe, where if you could put a clock at that location, it would tick so slowly, that from our perspective (if we could last that long) 15 billion years would go by... but the clock at that remote location would tick out six days. Nobody disputes this data.

His view appears to be somewhat similar to the position taken by physicist and Hebrew scholar Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder, who postulates that the six days are in fact six consecutive 24-hour periods of time measured at the speed of outward thrust using Einstein's theory (or law) of relativity and a universal time-clock based on cosmic background radiation and the wavelength of light beginning about the time God initiated creation (what science now calls the Big Bang). Because of time dilation, 144 hours measured at a speed calculated by using such a universal time-clock would be equal to about 15.75 billion Earth-years looking back toward the time of creation.

Although it is likely that such a view would be consistent with the beliefs and rationale of young earth creationists, it is not what they claim and might be opposed by them, since it would agree with mainstream scientific estimates of a universe that is about 16 billion years old and an earth that is over 4 billion years old. While this interpretation is consistent with the scriptural basis relied upon by young earth creationists, some might oppose it because it tends to agree with mainstream science--and much of the young earth creationist comments I've read seems to be convinced that there has to be disagreement between the Bible and science.

Homie · Nov 20, 2002

Somewhere in the Bible it says(Im not good at knowing/remembering scriptual references):"A day to God is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day to God", or something like this. I think this passage describes that time does not matter to God, he is above time. So if you look at it that way, 6 days could be anything. However the Bible was written for weak-minded beings, like us humans, so I would assume that 6 days actually means 6 days. But that doesn't change how long human beings have been around, 6000 years or longer?

lithium. · Nov 21, 2002

hmm...

Sinai · Nov 21, 2002

Originally posted by Homie:
Somewhere in the Bible it says(Im not good at knowing/remembering scriptual references):"A day to God is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day to God", or something like this. I think this passage describes that time does not matter to God, he is above time. So if you look at it that way, 6 days could be anything. However the Bible was written for weak-minded beings, like us humans, so I would assume that 6 days actually means 6 days. But that doesn't change how long human beings have been around, 6000 years or longer?

You are probably thinking of either Psalm 90:4 [written by Moses] or 2 Peter 3:8, both of which point out that God's days are not our days, just as Isaiah (in 55:9) pointed out that God's ways are not our ways. A close examination of the Hebrew text in the first two chapters of Genesis show that although Adam and Eve were the first humans to have a soul, they are not necessarily the first people. Thus, humans without a soul could have easily been around more than about 6,000 years without contradicting the Bible.

doone128 · Nov 22, 2002

Originally posted by seesaw
But all I am trying to say is that all I have learned in school is that there is real evidence that supports the cave paintings being 35-40,000 years old. And that we did evolve from Neanderthals.

Do you believe everything you are told?

chickenman · Nov 22, 2002

do you believe everything you read?

doone128 · Nov 22, 2002

I believe the bible, the word of God if that's what you mean. I was taught evolution at school and really went off the rails because I thought I was just an evolved animal so I didn't care who I hurt or what I did. If I was just an animal, what did it matter? But in the back of my mind, it never made any sense as it didn't ring true to the things I could see around me.
The bible on the other hand gives an historical account of the things we see around us today and I am glad that I was shown the truth earlier this year, before I ended up killing myself.

cleon · Nov 22, 2002

Should not the question be asked, rather, Why to "Gap Theorists", "Thiestic Evolutionists", and "Day-Age Theorists", not believe God's Word. These are the "scoffers" mentioned of in 2 Peter 3:3-8.

LiveFreeOrDie · Nov 22, 2002

Originally posted by cleon
Should not the question be asked, rather, Why to "Gap Theorists", "Thiestic Evolutionists", and "Day-Age Theorists", not believe God's Word.

I dunno. Why don't YE creationists believe God's Work is as old as it looks?

These are the "scoffers" mentioned of in 2 Peter 3:3-8.

Are you sure?

Why do YECs believe the universe is only about 6000 years old?

kawaii

Gods servant

Science Officer

Gods servant

Active Member

Gods servant

Science Officer

Gods servant

Gods servant

Well-Known Member

Gods servant

Well-Known Member

Gods servant

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

evil unamerican

Member

Active Member

Science Officer

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency