Jump to content


Photo

I Have A Question...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
24 replies to this topic

#1 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 19 January 2010 - 07:38 PM

So there is a fun thread on this board that discusses the ice age, and how only the Bible can explain it. In it Jason777 uses an argument that involves an Earth that is over 10,000 years old...by quite a few thousand years of age. I had nothing against the post itself, but my main question of it needed a thread.

Now this thread is not meant to call Jason out, but I just want to get some insight from other members of the forum.

post in question

So here are my questions:

1. What is the maximum accepted age of Everything of YECs?

2. How do you react when another YEC posts information that suggests an older earth then what you accept as the maximum age?

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:14 AM

I just scanned the thread and I believe that there is a common problem when people hear others quote scientific speculators about these things. When I quote somebody that says something profound, it's because what they say carries important implications not necessarily because what they say is 100% accurate. Let's face it, there are plenty of things said by Intelligent Design proponents that are stated in the context of billions of years yet their statements carry profound enough implications that they merit consideration for any number of reasons.

Getting hung up on exact ages in a speculative arena, like ice core dating and radiocarbon dating, or whatever, is a bit futile in my book. However, when I disclose that my faith is in the truth of scripture and that it is truly God's narrative of the creation, condition and purpose of it all than all the speculative ponderings get narrowed to receive His Word as true. Therefore this evidence, accepted literally not figuratively, tells us that the earth is around 6,000 years old.

If people want to speculate different age, that's fine. Based on paradigm shifts we can get into interesting dialogues. As we do here.

#3 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 January 2010 - 11:19 AM

I always had an Idea that using the Creation story, that the earth could be at around 10,000 years old. But I started reading the geneology of the people, and it placed the time around 6,000 years.

Now, I don't know, but do we really know how much time it took from the Old Testament, to the New Testament. Like from Malachi, to Matthew. Was it only about a 200 year difference. I don't know I'm just asking.

#4 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2010 - 12:45 PM

Interesting question, Javabean. I have often wondered why some YECs quote a 10 thousand year old Earth and some a 6000 year old world.

#5 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:40 PM

Interesting question, Javabean.  I have often wondered why some YECs quote a 10 thousand year old Earth and some a 6000 year old world.

View Post



Thank you, its been something I've wanted to ask for a while. I really don't see any debates about it, but when you compare 6000 - 10000 years to the current scientifically established date either would be thought of as 'Young'.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:46 PM

I thought it was clear that Professor Borisov is not a YEC.If not,now you know.We accept the same evidence,but not the timeframe.

#7 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:52 PM

I just scanned the thread and I believe that there is a common problem when people hear others quote scientific speculators about these things. When I quote somebody that says something profound, it's because what they say carries important implications not necessarily because what they say is 100% accurate. Let's face it, there are plenty of things said by Intelligent Design proponents that are stated in the context of billions of years yet their statements carry profound enough implications that they merit consideration for any number of reasons.


Exactly and I wasn't discounting what was said because of the age, or that it wasn't 100% accurate. I guess my main contention with the use of information that accounts for an age that your belief does not allow, such as anything over 10,000 years, seems a little disingenuous.

If you doubt any age greater than your accepted age of the universe, then how can you confidently use any scientific argument that uses older ages? How can you think it carries any weight?

Getting hung up on exact ages in a speculative arena, like ice core dating and radiocarbon dating, or whatever, is a bit futile in my book. However, when I disclose that my faith is in the truth of scripture and that it is truly God's narrative of the creation, condition and purpose of it all than all the speculative ponderings get narrowed to receive His Word as true. Therefore this evidence, accepted literally not figuratively, tells us that the earth is around 6,000 years old.


Without studying ice core data I cannot say how speculative it is. Something tells me that if ice core data gave ages in your accepted age of the universe you would not be calling it speculative.

If people want to speculate different age, that's fine. Based on paradigm shifts we can get into interesting dialogues. As we do here.

View Post


Personally I don't even think the bible supports any actual age of the universe. I think people are taking the 1 day = 1000 years out of context when they apply it to the creation account. The context that this formula is used in is talking about how patient God is.

The bible talks about how long mankind has been around due to counting back the generations to Adam. But anything past that cannot be determined.

#8 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 20 January 2010 - 06:11 PM

Exactly and I wasn't discounting what was said because of the age, or that it wasn't 100% accurate.  I guess my main contention with the use of information that accounts for an age that your belief does not allow, such as anything over 10,000 years, seems a little disingenuous. 

If you doubt any age greater than your accepted age of the universe, then how can you confidently use any scientific argument that uses older ages?  How can you think it carries any weight?
Without studying ice core data I cannot say how speculative it is.  Something tells me that if ice core data gave ages in your accepted age of the universe you would not be calling it speculative. 
Personally I don't even think the bible supports any actual age of the universe.  I think people are taking the 1 day = 1000 years out of context when they apply it to the creation account.  The context that this formula is used in is talking about how patient God is. 

The bible talks about how long mankind has been around due to counting back the generations to Adam.  But anything past that cannot be determined.

View Post

There is also the gap theory which I know some old earth non-evolutionists believe. A gap of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. If you read it in that light the earth was "without form and void" before God said "Let there be light." They use other scriptures to make the case that Lucifer once ruled the planet and that when he fell, the earth was destroyed and made "without form and void."

Maybe some believe in a mini gap theory of 4000 years. (?)

#9 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 21 January 2010 - 07:59 AM

I thought it was clear that Professor Borisov is not a YEC.If not,now you know.We accept the same evidence,but not the timeframe.

View Post



Sorry Jason I didn't mean to imply the Professor was a YEC. Not that there is anything wrong with the stance of YEC. ( I know I didn't need to defend myself, but I felt a Seinfeld moment when I said that :) )

And believe it or not I do understand that Evolutionists and Creationists use the same evidence. Its a matter of perspective how you view it. And also unfortunately neither side will agree with the other, with a few exceptions(theistic evolutionists).

Actually I wonder if this forum has the population %'s here. I wonder what the break down is of the different beliefs.

#10 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 21 January 2010 - 08:12 AM

Sorry Jason I didn't mean to imply the Professor was a YEC.  Not that there is anything wrong with the stance of YEC.  ( I know I didn't need to defend myself, but I felt a Seinfeld moment when I said that :)

And believe it or not I do understand that Evolutionists and Creationists use the same evidence.  Its a matter of perspective how you view it.  And also unfortunately neither side will agree with the other, with a few exceptions(theistic evolutionists).

Actually I wonder if this forum has the population %'s here.  I wonder what the break down is of the different beliefs.

View Post

I keep reading this---we all have the same evidence, it is the viewpoint that counts.

Nonsense. The evidence is clear, the earth is old. Living things have evolved. To think otherwise is mind boggling if you have any education in science at all. If you do not have the education then get some.

I might as well spout off about the Koran, which I know only from the popular press.

#11 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 21 January 2010 - 06:05 PM

I keep reading this---we all have the same evidence, it is the viewpoint that counts.

Nonsense.  The evidence is clear, the earth is old.  Living things have evolved.  To think otherwise is mind boggling if you have any education in science at all.  If you do not have the education then get some.

I might as well spout off about the Koran, which I know only from the popular press.

View Post


The evidence is not exactly clear that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Even if you've taken the science courses, which I've taken. The evidence given is not enough, because the compromising evidence still exist.

It is only your viewpoint that the Earth is old. Your opinion. Now, I'm not much for opinions, and I like to base my beliefs on solid ground rather than opinions that just blow in the wind. (like the assumption of evolution)

Sure the earth is old, but 6,000 years is a long time, and it doesn't take long to fossilize fossils. Maybe like less than a years time to produce fossils. It certainly doesn't take millions of unwitnessed, no evidence for, millions of years. Why do I say this, because we have witnessed, verification of the fossilization process. Not just simple textbook assumptions that prove nothing.

#12 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 22 January 2010 - 08:43 AM

I keep reading this---we all have the same evidence, it is the viewpoint that counts.

Nonsense.  The evidence is clear, the earth is old.  Living things have evolved.  To think otherwise is mind boggling if you have any education in science at all.  If you do not have the education then get some.


I guess the point I have come to is that I do not know enough about the sciences to actually convince anyone of my personal feelings. Do I think the universe is old? Yes I do. But could I convince a YEC about it? No.

From what I've gathered here at this site is that YECs are not creating their own evidence for a young earth/universe. Its how they are interpolating the evidence that they are perceiving.

The challenge here is being able to show how the science behind and old earth/universe is sound, and to be able to point out where the flaws exist in the YEC logic.

I might as well spout off about the Koran, which I know only from the popular press.

View Post


Personally I don't hold any religion in any light. I'm of the belief that if you decide to worship any, then you have to accept that all others are possibly right also.

#13 pauliexcluded

pauliexcluded

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Arkansas

Posted 24 January 2010 - 10:42 AM

The evidence is not exactly clear that the earth is older than 6,000 years.  Even if you've taken the science courses, which I've taken.  The evidence given is not enough, because the compromising evidence still exist.


This is just a ridiculous assertion. Though it is POSSIBLE that our conclusions regarding the age of the earth are in error, the likely hood of us being in error to such an insane degree are quite infinitesimal. You are making an assertion here that you need to provide evidence for. We are all aware of the methods by which we have arrived at the general scientific consensus regarding the age of the earth. This evidence is, collectively, quite overwhelming. I am not aware of ANY evidence that points toward a 6,000 year old earth nor any way of "interpreting" any evidence to arrive at such a conclusion. Here is what I want from you Scott.

1) What "compromising evidence" exist that suggest the earth is 6,000 years old? And how does this evidence account for radiometric decay among other observed phenomenon that certainly seem to clearly point toward an ancient earth.
2) What issue do you have with radiometric dating methods? There are many of them and they all point unequivocally toward an ancient earth.
3) Don't give me H*vind material please. I will respond respectfully however I just don't know if my mind can handle his myopic discordance with reality.

I look forward to hearing from you and I hope I can be helpful.

kevin

#14 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 January 2010 - 10:06 PM

This is just a ridiculous assertion.  Though it is POSSIBLE that our conclusions regarding the age of the earth are in error, the likely hood of us being in error to such an insane degree are quite infinitesimal.  You are making an assertion here that you need to provide evidence for.  We are all aware of the methods by which we have arrived at the general scientific consensus regarding the age of the earth.  This evidence is, collectively, quite overwhelming.  I am not aware of ANY evidence that points toward a 6,000 year old earth nor any way of "interpreting" any evidence to arrive at such a conclusion.  Here is what I want from you Scott.

1)  What "compromising evidence" exist that suggest the earth is 6,000 years old?  And how does this evidence account for radiometric decay among other observed phenomenon that certainly seem to clearly point toward an ancient earth.
2)  What issue do you have with radiometric dating methods?  There are many of them and they all point unequivocally toward an ancient earth.
3)  Don't give me H*vind material please.  I will respond respectfully however I just don't know if my mind can handle his myopic discordance with reality.

I look forward to hearing from you and I hope I can be helpful.

kevin

View Post


The questions you ask have already been answered. go look in my threads, and make your questions there in the appropriate thread... AFTER you have read my evidence. The evidence includes fossils, geological formations, and evidence that shows that the geological time column is merely one huge assumption neatly colored and printed in the textbooks... but isn't actually touchable, or seeable in real life.

Also this thread is about Creationist believing that the age of the earth goes past 6,000 years according to the Bible. According to the Bible, using it's dates we can estimate that the Earth is around 6,000 years.

#15 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 07 July 2010 - 05:07 AM

What if we had an annual process that has been observed to produce a definite observeable difference, so that annually we can see that something changes.

A bit like tree rings. Imagine if we had a single tree that had 30,000 tree rings. That would invalidate the 10,000 years for the Earth (plus the possibility of a flood), wouldn't it?

#16 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:50 AM

Imagine if we had a single tree that had 30,000 tree rings.  That would invalidate the 10,000 years for the Earth (plus the possibility of a flood), wouldn't it?

View Post

Not to creationist thinking. How do you know that each ring has always represented one year? You weren't there 30,000 rings ago, so it's just an assumption.

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:53 AM

What if we had an annual process that has been observed to produce a definite observeable difference, so that annually we can see that something changes.

A bit like tree rings.  Imagine if we had a single tree that had 30,000 tree rings.  That would invalidate the 10,000 years for the Earth (plus the possibility of a flood), wouldn't it?

View Post


Actually, because we have no idea what conditions existed in pre-recorded history, and it possible for trees to have multiple ring years, and multiple year rings, that hypothesis is rendered as inaccurate.


http://library.think...tree_rings.html

http://en.wikipedia....endrochronology


http://creation.com/...istlecone-pines

http://www.icr.org/article/5339/

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:54 AM

2.  How do you react when another YEC posts information that suggests an older earth then what you accept as the maximum age?

View Post


It wouldn't bother me at all, because it's all speculation at best.... ALL of it :lol:

#19 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 July 2010 - 01:32 PM

I would have thought that the Earth must be an order of magnitude larger than the currently accepted YEC value just due to Genesis 2:19 - 20. It must have taken Adam a very long time to name all those different animals.

#20 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 07 July 2010 - 02:41 PM

I'm not talking about tree rings, using that as a hypothetical example. What if we had an annual process that could be physically counted to 30,000 years?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users