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

[webboffin]

We do have some uptight folks here Science v Religion again.
I myself, and I think a lot of Christians do not believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Some take the Bible far too literal in this sense.
But if some do want to believe in that then, hey no problem.
I think the Earth is much older than that.
But I don't want to bleat science, science, science like it's some religion in itself either.
I rather go for historical documentation v Bible and you will get more truths that way as many tie in with each other.
It is unimportant to the Bible how old a rock is. God knows (literally ) but scriptures and history are well linked.
Christians and the Bible's main concern for Earth shoulb be in mankind, past and present (even future) that's what it is mostly about.
Let science deal with issues it wants for itself and Bible believers just worry about mankind and the LORD's word

Is that too simple?

 

[Homie]

by Seesaw

Well it must not be any real evidence or any good evidence if it was good enough evidence there would be news on all the science sites and mags saying evolution wrong Earth is young or something. So until then don't get your hopes Up lol.

This is where you are wrong seesaw.

IF IT WAS TRUE THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL FLOOD AND THAT THE EARTH IS YOUNG YOU WOULD SEE SCIENCE SITES WITH BIG WORDS "GLOBAL FLOOD HAPPENED" OR "EVOLUTION IS WRONG THE EARTH IS REALLY YOUNG".

Oh, and here

No science isn't like that if there is a theory that has good evidence backing it up the science community would accept it.

...and here.

Notto, I can understand your doubt and sceptism about the russian scientist. I mean, how would this formula look? Can you even make such a formula, I doubt it. What was great about the story was that a scientist under the Soviet rule (which wasn't very christianity friendly) came to believe in christ .

 

[Homie]

by webboffin

Let science deal with issues it wants for itself and Bible believers just worry about mankind and the LORD's word

So true. But these things can be fun to discuss

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Homie
by Seesaw

This is where you are wrong seesaw.

Oh, and here

...and here.

Notto, I can understand your doubt and sceptism about the russian scientist. I mean, how would this formula look? Can you even make such a formula, I doubt it. What was great about the story was that a scientist under the Soviet rule (which wasn't very christianity friendly) came to believe in christ .

No I am not wrong everything I said is true. Homie if there was real and good evidence for global flood and Young Earth it would be everywhere on on major news chans and major science news sites. It would be every where. And as of now there hasn't been any evidence backing up the theory.

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by Homie
by webboffin

So true. But these things can be fun to discuss

Yep debate is not that simple okay gimme the facts  

 

Glad you have the TRUE facts, seesaw. Please tell the science community what you know I am sure they need enlightening

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by webboffin
Yep debate is not that simple okay gimme the facts  

 

Glad you have the TRUE facts, seesaw. Please tell the science community what you know I am sure they need enlightening

True facts? I never said true facts I said if there was good enough evidence it would be what is in science books, and that it would be on all science mag and sites. ANd you know this.

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by seesaw
No I am not wrong everything I said is true. 

First you say you are telling the truth then you say you are not claiming the truth but only have a bunch of evidence that there is no evidence. I'm confused  

However, I was recently watching a documentry on channel 4 about some scientists claiming to had found maybe evidence of the great flood while they were digging around some place looking at silt and dead organic remains. I hardly remember all the details as I was only half watching it while busy on the computer. So that leaves me with the impression that all science has not yet concluded on the subject.

 

 

[webboffin]

Heaven forbid if it was not in a science book

Did you look?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by webboffin
First you say you are telling the truth then you say you are not claiming the truth but only have a bunch of evidence that there is no evidence. I'm confused  

However, I was recently watching a documentry on channel 4 about some scientists claiming to had found maybe evidence of the great flood while they were digging around some place looking at silt and dead organic remains. I hardly remember all the details as I was only half watching it while busy on the computer. So that leaves me with the impression that all science has not yet concluded on the subject.

 

First I never said I have evidence why don't you start reading my posts before you post. There will always be people trying to proof the flood but yet they havn't came up with any good evidence to change anything. And yeah it is the truth it they did find really good evidence backing up the flood it would be on all the science mags and site.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by webboffin
Heaven forbid if it was not in a science book

Did you look?

DUh!!! Heaven will never be in a science book there is no evidence backing it up just like the global flood. Why don't you do some real reading.

 

[webboffin]

http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ednks004.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/13/tech/main232898.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/wgrtfld.htm
http://www.dangoor.com/73page29.html
http://www.historyuniverse.com/bookstore2/0684810522AMUS138314.shtml

It didn't take long to look some things up But I looked for evidence. That makes a good scientist to get all the facts not just assumptions.

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by seesaw
First I never said I have evidence why don't you start reading my posts before you post.

But you contradict yourself in meaning

There will always be people trying to proof the flood but yet they havn't came up with any good evidence to change anything. And yeah it is the truth it they did find really good evidence backing up the flood it would be on all the science mags and site. [/B]

 

 

[lithium.]

http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/

Well science has known about a big LOCAL flood in the black sea. That doesn't proof anything for global flood.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ednks004.html

CrackPOT lol you have to love it. There is no evidence at all backing this up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/13/tech/main232898.shtml

Another site that talks about the black sea flood we known there was a big local flood there. Doesn't proof big flood at all.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/wgrtfld.htm

More black sea flood stuff We all ready know about a local flood in the black sea No evidence backing up a global flood.

http://www.dangoor.com/73page29.html

More talk about the black sea flood which we know was local.

http://www.historyuniverse.com/bookstore2/0684810522AMUS138314.shtml

Another dang black sea flood site we know about this. Yet still no evidence backing up a global flood.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by webboffin
But you contradict yourself in meaning



 

no I didn't,

 

[webboffin]

Oh right - You asked for evidence! It was scientific studies! Worked on by people in science. I tried to fit your own set criteria.
Ah I see now, you like to choose your evidence to fit how you yourself want to see the world and universe regardless of what study has been done. So if the great flood had not been in the bible already then those scientific evidences would appeal to you more.
I rest my case

 

[webboffin]

Bible goes into good detail about it. I cannot say it didn't happen.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by webboffin
Oh right - You asked for evidence! It was scientific studies! Worked on by people in science. I tried to fit your own set criteria.
Ah I see now, you like to choose your evidence to fit how you yourself want to see the world and universe regardless of what study has been done. So if the great flood had not been in the bible already then those scientific evidences would appeal to you more.
I rest my case

What are you talking about? LOL I don't choose evidence to fit my world or universe. No if the the global flood wasn't in the bible I still wouldn't accept the links you gave there isn't any evidence pointing toa global flood. Well you can rest your czse but it doesn't make any difference or proof anything.

There is no evidence at all for a global flood.

As I said if there was GOOD evidence backing up a global flood it would be on all the major science mags and sites.

The black sea flood was big but not global we know this now.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by webboffin
P.S. I found those sites in less than 2 mins of searching. At least I bothered to look

HAHA don't think you know what I have done. I have read all about this and all good evidence points to a local flood, and not global flood.

 

[lithium.]

This is going no where. You will probably always believe that the global flood happened. And I will not believe it happened. So I am not going to talk about it again this is crazy.

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by seesaw
And as of now there hasn't been any evidence backing up the theory.

Found a maybe. And it makes good scientific reading. but it was a huuuuuge flood anyhow where biblical events happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/923400.stm found another one (oh okay black sea) by BBC.