YECs: What scriptures say the universe is only a few thousands of years old?

[Raydar]

i believe (not entirely sure) that it comes from someone's attempt to add up all of the ages of the men in genesis.

Yes, this is how I understand it was compulated. I have seen chronilogical charts that show this and I will admitt not all creationists agree on a specific date.

 

[futantbirth]

so what is your take on this?

it would be safe to assume then since there is no date specified... then there is a period of time missing? it wouldnt happen perhaps to be a few billion years would it be?

 

[Arikay]

Yeah.

to copy a post I made earlier,

It does not seem to bother AIG that, Usshers calculations, put the end of the flood at around 1491 BC when AIG, using the same scripture puts the flood around 2304 BC.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

Then again, the also dont seem to have a problem with with changing their date in another article (that I looked into because I refuted it)
In the article, the tested sample was supposed to be altered by the flood, and they say,
"the real age is probably less than four thousand years."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1141.asp

However, AIG also says the flood is 4307 years old. As is noted.

So, what do you believe?

•AIGs interpretation of the chronology
•Usshers interpretation of the chronology
or
•AIGs interpretation of data.

As they all differ.

Yes, this is how I understand it was compulated. I have seen chronilogical charts that show this and I will admitt not all creationists agree on a specific date.

 

[Raydar]

That depends if you buy into the gap therory or not. Creationist that believe in the gap could say billions of years. Those like myself who don't are disputing 100's of years.

 

[futantbirth]

dinosaurs

 

[Raydar]

Got to go now, choir rehersal at 7:00pm cst

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I stated "before the flood"

Like maybe 300 million years before the flood. Have you any idea of the energy that would be required to thrust mountains the size of the Himalays up during a flood year? Do you think anything on earth could survive?

I do read what I can grasp in the articles FB posts and can honestly say that a lot of belief has got to go into the things that people call facts. Who was there recording these events that are given to have occurred 100's of millions of years ago. And most evolutionist can fit there belief in an occurrance given enough time for that occurrance to happen.

There are facts that we can observe and logical conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. Observations of facts about the world's geology led Bible believing creationist geologists of the late 18th and early 19th centuries to conclude that the world was far older than an analysis of Biblical geneologies accounted for and that the flood of Noah was not a worldwide event. Getting to the point of this thread, they came to realize that their is nowhere in the Bible that it specifically says that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

I consider myself a scientist and not necessarily an evolutionist, however long study of facts has led me to conclude that the 18th and 19th century geologists were correct, especially since all of the data collected since then validates their conclusions. I have also concluded that evolution is the best current explanation for the diversity of life on earth. There is no reasonable doubt that evolution has occured but there are many arguments about mechanisms.

There are many threads on this board falsifying young earth creationism with its 6000 or so year old earth and worldwide flood. Young Earth Creationists can never answer these falsfications. The apparent answers they put in their books and website always leave out a lot of facts, usually distort others and in some cases contain outright falsehoods. They have no hope of convincing anyone who knows the science involved and especially who takes the time to get and read the papers they misquote and analyse the errors in their work. Their hope, which is well justified, is that there are many faithful people who will believe as they do and will think that there is some scientific justification for YEC without looking into it to carefully and will not allow their belief to be swayed by facts that contradict it. Ignorance of science and Morton's demon are their best friends.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

The links to Glenn's Home page don't work, here is the new one

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

His story of why he left YEC after he collected facts that showed it to be false, even while believing it is quite interesting.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[futantbirth]

but FB! what about polystrate trees!!!

*dances around like a fool*

 

[Arikay]

Um, what about them?

 

[futantbirth]

im just joking around.

 

[Arikay]

Lol, ok.

 

[Sinai]

It does not seem to bother AIG that, Usshers calculations, put the end of the flood at around 1491 BC when AIG, using the same scripture puts the flood around 2304 BC.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

Then again, the also dont seem to have a problem with with changing their date in another article (that I looked into because I refuted it)
In the article, the tested sample was supposed to be altered by the flood, and they say,
"the real age is probably less than four thousand years."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1141.asp

However, AIG also says the flood is 4307 years old. As is noted.

So, what do you believe?

•AIGs interpretation of the chronology
•Usshers interpretation of the chronology
or
•AIGs interpretation of data.

As they all differ.

Which is one of the reasons the challenge I posted in my OP merely referred to "thousands of years" without specifying whether the YEC thinks the universe is about 6000--or 12,000--or 13,500--or 24,000--or even 50,000--years old (measured in Earth years looking back toward the time of creation): None of those figures will be anywhere near the 11-20 billion years suggested by various modern scientific data.

In order to believe the universe is only a few thousand years old, the critical point is not the geneologies (or whether Ussher or Lightfoot used proper scholarship or accounted for "missing generations" or other such adjustments); the critical point will be how the young earth creationists interpret the yoms of the first chapter of Genesis--and just why do they think they must interpret it the way they do (despite overwhelming evidence--both scientific and biblical--to the contrary) and yet proclaim that their interpretation is the only correct one. And that is something that none of the 70+ posts thus far on this thread have addressed......yet.....

 

[Raydar]

So I guess it comes down to what you believe and what you believe in, Gods word or mans wisdom.

 

[Arikay]

Unfortunatly I dont think you will get a straight answer to your question.

My guess would be, part of the reason is because YEC creationist groups often say that Evolution needs "time" to work. Thus, take away time, and evolution falls apart. Believing what Hovind has said, "Times is the evolutionists god" (or something like that). So by trying to limit the age of the earth, they think they are making a blow against evolution, kinda like and attempt to take out evolutions Legs. They then seem to falsely think that if they limit time for evolution, that the only possible choice for everything is creationism.
Its also a way to keep their followers away from "secular science." The farther they can keep them away from real science, the easier it is to feed them creationist data. By trying to show we have dated the earth wrong, they are trying to show that science should never be trusted. If they were to concede to science, I think they fear a slippery slope (which they are on anyway, they just dont realize it), where one might say "well, if science can date the earth correctly, maybe there is some truth to this Evolution thing."

But thats just a guess.

Which is one of the reasons the challenge I posted in my OP merely referred to "thousands of years" without specifying whether the YEC thinks the universe is about 6000--or 12,000--or 13,500--or 24,000--or even 50,000--years old (measured in Earth years looking back toward the time of creation): None of those figures will be anywhere near the 11-20 billion years suggested by various modern scientific data.

In order to believe the universe is only a few thousand years old, the critical point is not the geneologies (or whether Ussher or Lightfoot used proper scholarship or accounted for "missing generations" or other such adjustments); the critical point will be how the young earth creationists interpret the yoms of the first chapter of Genesis--and just why do they think they must interpret it the way they do (despite overwhelming evidence--both scientific and biblical--to the contrary) and yet proclaim that their interpretation is the only correct one. And that is something that none of the 70+ posts thus far on this thread have addressed......yet.....

 

[Raydar]

Unfortunatly I dont think you will get a straight answer to your question.

My guess would be, part of the reason is because YEC creationist groups often say that Evolution needs "time" to work. Thus, take away time, and evolution falls apart. Believing what Hovind has said, "Times is the evolutionists god" (or something like that). So by trying to limit the age of the earth, they think they are making a blow against evolution, kinda like and attempt to take out evolutions Legs. They then seem to falsely think that if they limit time for evolution, that the only possible choice for everything is creationism.
Its also a way to keep their followers away from "secular science." The farther they can keep them away from real science, the easier it is to feed them creationist data. By trying to show we have dated the earth wrong, they are trying to show that science should never be trusted. If they were to concede to science, I think they fear a slippery slope (which they are on anyway, they just dont realize it), where one might say "well, if science can date the earth correctly, maybe there is some truth to this Evolution thing."

But thats just a guess.

I do not think YEC's are "trying to show that science should not be trusted." I think that they are trying to say that science is man breathed and is open to debate and discussion.

 

[Vance]

I do not think YEC's are "trying to show that science should not be trusted." I think that they are trying to say that science is man breathed and is open to debate and discussion.

Yes, it is the product of fallible man studying God's Creation.

Just like YEC'ism is the product of fallible man interpreting God's Word.

The problem is that the YEC's don't want to acknowledge that there are truly honest differences in this interpretation even among Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians.

 

[Jet Black]

I do not think YEC's are "trying to show that science should not be trusted." I think that they are trying to say that science is man breathed and is open to debate and discussion.

to some degree, however the scientific mthod is independent of the scientist. An individual scientist may falsify or make an error, but because of the way it works, this error will no doubt get hunted down and scrubbed out (possibly along with the career of the scientist), continually "purifying" the science from misinterpretations. The model models the facts, the facts are true, the facts if you like, are God breathed.

 

[Raydar]

The s the facts, the facts are true, the facts if you like, are God breathed.

Only if they can be backed up by scripture, His word.

 

[Raydar]

Yes, it is the product of fallible man studying God's Creation.

Just like YEC'ism is the product of fallible man interpreting God's Word.

The problem is that the YEC's don't want to acknowledge that there are truly honest differences in this interpretation even among Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians.

Yes, and thats the core of the problem. That is why there is so many denominations in the Church following different doctrine through each of their own interpitations of Scirture

 

[Arikay]

But by what interpretation of the scripture?

A Literal interpretation of the scripture backs up a Flat Earth.

So, lets say you interpret the bible to say the earth is flat.
Then you find out the earth definatly isn't flat, nor does it follow the description in the bible.

What do you do?

1) Believe your interpretation Must be correct, and that Gods creation, or your science is wrong and that the earth really is flat.

2) Believe that you could have interpretated the text wrong, and that the earth could be spherical and not flat because Gods creation does not lie.


Creationist organizations often take the equivilant of option 1. Believing their personal interpretation, over gods creation. Never the best way to do things I wouldn't think.

Only if they can be backed up by scripture, His word.