We easily get the 4,000BC estimate from the genealogies found in Genesis. You then just count back
That's exactly what I was talking about. You
, a person who is not a Bible writer, have to do this counting back. That's an interpretation that relies on uniformitarian assumptions, as I will show in a bit.
and since we have firm established dates it is easy to do so.
Using YEC standards, no, you do not have "firm established dates". At some point, you have to assume
things, even though when non-creationists tackle these matters, zero "assumptions" are allowed except for "The Bible is correct in all particulars."
Just one assumption YEC makes is that none of Jesus's ancestors lived for a hundred thousand years. Where does the Bible dispute that, except by omission? Another is that relativity doesn't create numerous portals between different places in spacetime, which, if it occurred, would naturally wreak havoc for both creationist and non-creationist chronologies, without their even knowing it. Why don't you or they consider that
possibility, apart from plain old bias against it?
(The reason my examples are so absurd is to parallel the YEC claims of accelerated light, accelerated decay, massive loss by almost every single culture of writing and all the other remnants of the Golden Age of All Humanity, etc.)
Why is it acceptable for people like Bishop Ussher to make educated guesses about people's lifetimes wherever the Bible fails to give any number whatsoever
, basing these assumptions on how long people are known to liveÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ but not
okay for archaeologists to assume that the physics of carbon decay worked the same way in the past as they do now? Or to assume the moderate reliability of various historical accounts? Or to calibrate their findings with the findings of astronomers, geologists, historical climatologists, etc? The YEC chronology calibrates with things like the known reign of Herod in order to work out Jesus's birth, etc. It does not merely
go by the witness of Scripture.
Babel is found mentioned in hundreds of classical sources outside of the Bible. I don't think ancient history is an area you have studied before?
I absolutely stand corrected. I just looked it up, and yes, as with the deluge motif, there are Babel-type stories in a fair number of cultures, especially those in and near the Middle East. My bad.
That said, the notion that all languages were "created" at once is still in total contrast to what comparative linguistics (which, I am sure, is yet another
field whose primary motivation is debunking the Tanakh) has to say.
What you are attempting to do is attack/discredit creationism by dishonestly implying it has no academic support, when in actual fact there are thousands of scholars and professors who believe in YEC. How do i know? I meet some of them in my university. Yep, we are in universities.Ã‚Â Looks like you've been reading too much evolutionist propaganda that portrays creationists as dumb hicks.
The number of accredited experts in relevant fields who are also YECists is so low it may as well be ignored completely, like the number of accredited doctors who accept homeopathy. Creationism does not inform any scholarship, and does not remotely mesh with other scholarly findings Ã¢â‚¬â€ instead, almost every single other
academic field must be squished and stretched beyond the breaking point in order for YEC to work. In addition, no correct specific predictions have been made from a creationist model, unlike with actual cosmology, physics, geology, biology, archaeology, anthropology, and history (or as creationists prefer to collectively label them, "evolutionism"). So I'm going to stick with this distinction.
No, creationists are not "dumb", they are just as intelligent as everyone else. Which makes me sad.
Edited by Catterling, 25 September 2010 - 11:09 AM.