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

[R-W-H]

So if science has shown the 'notion' of a global flood to be false, how come we find secular scolars reporting of very rapid sedimentation and periods of large ammounts of carbonite deposition in earths sedimentary layers. To be found on every continent in the same time frame. No matter how you rate your timeframe. And if your answer to that is these layers have built up over millions of years, the evidence of human footprints, hand prints and tools within the geologic column layers. For example, a hammer in cretaceous rock, a human sandle print with trilobite in cambrian rock, human footprints and a hand print in cretaceous rock, all pointing to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occured at the same time in the recent past.

 

[chickenman]

references please

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas II
I'm still waiting to see a four-legged insect.

Right here:

http://gojistomp.org/gfacts/megalon.html

 

[notto]

Originally posted by R-W-H
a human sandle print with trilobite in cambrian rock, human footprints and a hand print in cretaceous rock, all pointing to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occured at the same time in the recent past.

How did footprints get laid down during a flood and between the layers of sediment?

 

[lithium.]

WHY IS THERE SO MUCH CRACKPOT STUFF IN THE WORLD. WHY WHY WHY...

 

[Baptistgal]

Mechanical Bliss.....the BIble nowhere claims that the solar system is geocentric. Some people who claimed to also believe the Bible held to the geocentric view simply because that was the accepted "scientific" model of their time. They were unwilling to even consider that their scientific model might be wrong...unwilling to rework their ideas based on the facts being shown them.
You asked "like what". Well, the Bible says the earth is a circle....not flat like the people at one time thought. The Bible says life comes from life, everything reproduces after its own kind....people used to believe that flies came from rotten meat...etc. The Bible says "the life is in the blood" and yet doctors once believed that bloodletting was a good idea.
And, by the way, there is much evidence for a global flood. That has in no way been disproven. Look at the petrified trees found standing straight up through several of the geologic layers. While the next thing isn't necessarily proof it is interesting to note that in almost every culture in the world there is a legend of a cataclysmic flood that destroyed everything...only a few people and the animals were saved by building some kind of watercraft. One account even has the man's name as Noh.

Doubting Thomas.....you yourself said that any papers published in accepted scientific journals must also jibe with today's accepted models of the world. Thus how can any Creation scientists get anything published since thier views don't "jibe"?
By the way, Baptists are not a cult and we believe in a young earth. Most people who believe in creation also believe in a young earth, the two tend to go hand in hand.....that is not indoctrination into a cult.

I believe in a young earth (between 10,000 and 6,000 yrs approximately) based on both theology and science. My "far less time" for the cave formations is several hundred years, rather than millions or billions.

 

[Homie]

by Smilin

Good luck Sinai...I've tried to flush out the YEC's to defend their movement within Christianity. I know the ones who subscribe to it...yet they wouldn't debate it with me either...(if you remember my last thread on the topic)

Maybe it is because of your negative and disrespectful attitude. Your username sure is misleading.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Baptistgal
I believe in a young earth (between 10,000 and 6,000 yrs approximately) based on both theology and science.

Then what scientific evidence supports your belief? Science is unanimous in its conclusion that the earth is billions of years old.

My "far less time" for the cave formations is several hundred years, rather than millions or billions.

How was the limestone formed that caves develop in? Limestone is composed of the skeletons of billions of tiny marine animals. How long did it take for that for form?

 

[Homie]

Have you ever paused to wonder why it is that YECs who publish never (let me repeat that, NEVER) publish their "work" in professional, peer-reviewed scientific journals but instead target their books and papers at scientific illiterates in the general public? Let me give you a clue. It starts with a "p" and ends in "olitics".

Because their works would never be accepted. Most of the scientific community would have shunned them, just like they shunned Galileo and Copernicus (who said that earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa). Don't say that scientists are so much more open-minded than anybody else, they aren't.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

No, Homie, the answer to my rhetorical question, which you quoted, is found in the preceding paragraph. The reason creationists' works aren't published in the professional journals is that they utterly fail to fulfill any of the criteria of real science. Open-mindedness isn't the issue; scientific integrity is. "And then God said the word and *poof*!" simply isn't science. Neither are misquotations, misrepresentations of others' legitimate work, or any of the myriad other strategies creationists use to cast doubt on science. When creationists themselves raise the bar on their writings above the gutter-level established by such leading lights as Duane Gish, et al, and start actually doing science, they might get published by someone more scientifically reputable than some church-based outfit.

Baptistgal, if you are going to paraphrase a sentence, you might want to paraphrase the entire sentence. YEC isn't rejected merely because it doesn't conform to prevailing models (all truly revolutionary work butts up against prevailing models), but because it offers nothing that wasn't done away with over 150 years ago (by predominately Christian scientists, I might add) and therefore presents no serious challenge that might require the revision or replacement of existing models. We know beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is considerably older than merely thousands of years. Until YEC can adequately account for and explain away the numerous independent lines of evidence that strongly indicate an age in the billions of years, it has no standing and deserves the lack of respect it receives among scientists.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by Baptistgal
Mechanical Bliss.....the BIble nowhere claims that the solar system is geocentric.

This is debatable depending on whether the interpretation is literal or figurative. It is also a debate I do not wish to engage in.

And, by the way, there is much evidence for a global flood. That has in no way been disproven.

...and yet in reality there is zero scientific evidence for a global flood.

 

Look at the petrified trees found standing straight up through several of the geologic layers.

...but those "geologic" layers are not of oddly different ages.

While the next thing isn't necessarily proof it is interesting to note that in almost every culture in the world there is a legend of a cataclysmic flood that destroyed everything...only a few people and the animals were saved by building some kind of watercraft. One account even has the man's name as Noh.

No, that's not proof. It's not even evidence. It's nothing at all. So what? First of all, the flood myths were different for different cultures. Second, many cultures had flood myths because many cultures arose near river valleys which were (surprisingly enough) prone to flooding.

Nope, no evidence of a global flood or a young earth.

 

[R-W-H]

Evolution is dependent on a very very old age for the earth in order to allow enough time for species to change into one another. Aside from never finding any fossle evidence for transitional species, new scientific findings concur with the Bible on the relatively young age of the earth.

Dr. Carl Baugh, founder and director of the Creative Evidence Museum, related a phone conversation he had with Dr. David Ottway Wray, formerly, the Senior Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. Dr. Wray is a proficient in a discipline called Quantum Algebra. (According to Dr. Wray , there are only a handful of scientists who are proficient in the subject.)
Dr. Wray told Dr. Baugh that he took on the project of proving that there was no God. He reduced the concept to a formula and then worked that formula. After some time, he was disturbed at the outcome and so he submitted it to his collegues for a double check. After several scientists had spent some time working and reworking his figures they told Dr. Wray that they didn't like it! They could find nothing wrong with his data, but they did not like the implications of the only possible conclusion.

The conclusion of these impeccable calculations showed that :

1- the universe is deteriorating because the futher back he went, the more refined the universe was.

2- The earth, according to his formula, was no older than 10,000 and no younger than 6,000 years of age.

The conlucison that nobody in the former Soviet Union liked was that the earth had to be designed and created. Dr. Wray continued his search and reduced the content of the worlds religious books to a quantum algebraic formula. He further concluded that the only one which was academically credible was the Holy Bible.
(He has since accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior.)

 

[R-W-H]

bibleanswers.org/Dialog60.html

 

[Homie]

That is an incredible story R-W-H . Too bad these stories get no attention in the media, the media is very hush hush when it comes to positive events revolving christianity, but if there is some negative news (i.e. the catholic priests that committed fornication with children) they are all over it.

 

[R-W-H]

I agree Homie, however when you look at a passage like Romans 1v18 saying that God has been revealed to all men, since the birth of creation through what has been made (the whole of creation, proving His own existance), you can understand that the devil would seek to divert mens attention away from the evidence of God through His creation, and encourage us to try and explain away the evidence for God some other way.

However i do believe that over the last few years the tide has begun to change, but there is still a long way to go.

Even Steven Hawkin said once that there was a force far greater than the universe beyond the universe that enabled the universe to run. (That is in my words and i am sure that someone can quote exactly.) Now he stopped far short of explaining this force as God but its an interesting observation none the less!

Holy Bible New International Version
Romans 1:18 (NIV)
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Homie
That is an incredible story R-W-H . Too bad these stories get no attention in the media, the media is very hush hush when it comes to positive events revolving christianity, but if there is some negative news (i.e. the catholic priests that committed fornication with children) they are all over it.

Yeah, thats a great story alright. Too bad this illusive formula isn't available for review. Too bad that there aren't any published accounts of Dr. Wray's work. Too bad that Dr. Wray doesn't seem to have any published works at all that are available for review. Too bad there aren't any accounts of Dr. Wray in anything other than Baughs video.

It is interesting that the well respected Creation Ministry site Answers in Genesis has a special section in their "Arguments we think Creationists should not use" dedicated to Baugh.

"Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter (ed. note: see our Maintaining Creationist Integrity, our response to Hovind’s reply to this article)."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

I think I will take their advise unless you can show some corroborating evidence for Dr. Baughs claims. I would accept any reference to Dr. Wray that does not come from Carl Baugh. A reference to ANYTHING attributed to this illusive Russian scientist. If he is as prominent as Baugh makes him out to be, it shouldn't be difficult (unless the great conspiracy now has control of the internet).

 

[lithium.]

Evolution is dependent on a very very old age for the earth in order to allow enough time for species to change into one another. Aside from never finding any fossle evidence for transitional species, new scientific findings concur with the Bible on the relatively young age of the earth.

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.

 

[lithium.]

Just cause you or the bible don't agree with the facts don't make them facts. And the fact is that the world is really old.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Baptistgal
Mechanical Bliss.....the BIble nowhere claims that the solar system is geocentric. Some people who claimed to also believe the Bible held to the geocentric view simply because that was the accepted "scientific" model of their time. They were unwilling to even consider that their scientific model might be wrong...unwilling to rework their ideas based on the facts being shown them.
You asked "like what". Well, the Bible says the earth is a circle....not flat like the people at one time thought. The Bible says life comes from life, everything reproduces after its own kind....people used to believe that flies came from rotten meat...etc. The Bible says "the life is in the blood" and yet doctors once believed that bloodletting was a good idea.
And, by the way, there is much evidence for a global flood. That has in no way been disproven. Look at the petrified trees found standing straight up through several of the geologic layers. While the next thing isn't necessarily proof it is interesting to note that in almost every culture in the world there is a legend of a cataclysmic flood that destroyed everything...only a few people and the animals were saved by building some kind of watercraft. One account even has the man's name as Noh.

Doubting Thomas.....you yourself said that any papers published in accepted scientific journals must also jibe with today's accepted models of the world. Thus how can any Creation scientists get anything published since thier views don't "jibe"?
By the way, Baptists are not a cult and we believe in a young earth. Most people who believe in creation also believe in a young earth, the two tend to go hand in hand.....that is not indoctrination into a cult.

I believe in a young earth (between 10,000 and 6,000 yrs approximately) based on both theology and science. My "far less time" for the cave formations is several hundred years, rather than millions or billions.

WHEN WILL PEOPLE EVER LEARN. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL OF A GLOBAL FLOOD OR THAT THE EARTH IS YOUNG.

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".

Dang people the human race is going crazy.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Homie
Because their works would never be accepted. Most of the scientific community would have shunned them,

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