[Athos]

I would be most interested in learning how those who believe in a "Young Earth" (created 6,000 years ago by God) support that position.

It is obviously not a mainstream position, so I am hoping all posters will be open to reading what the proponents will say and refrain from jumping down their throats. Thank you.

[N0help4u]

They go by the fact that if you do a timeline from present day to Adam and Eve and creation it is approximately 6 to 7 thousand years.
I have been trying to explain to Christians about the gap theory and how it makes sense that the earth is older than the 6 day creation.
The Bible says in the beginning but it does not say the beginning of what,
I believe the earth and angels were here before God's creation for us.
The original translation for beginning is even more in context of a reshaping or recreating of the order of things as well as the verse 'without form and void' is stated in Genesis 1:2 BEFORE it goes into the 6 day creation.

[Athos]

Thanks.

I'm mostly interested how they explain the various scientific findings about the age of the earth, the universe, the red shift from galaxies, Carbon-14, fossil records, etc.

[N0help4u]

They say carbon dating is inaccurate. I forget how they say it is inaccurate. One thing is that carbon dating is only effective for 50,000 to 60,000 years not millions

[Athos]

50,000 or 60,000 years is more than 6,000 years. Wouldn't that settle the matter?

[Capuchin]

Thanks.

I'm mostly interested how they explain the various scientific findings about the age of the earth, the universe, the red shift from galaxies, Carbon-14, fossil records, etc.

"God did it."

We have a few Young Earthers on the forums, hopefully they'll come out to chat.

[Tj3]

They say carbon dating is inaccurate. I forget how they say it is inaccurate. One thing is that carbon dating is only effective for 50,000 to 60,000 years not millions

Actually, 50-60k years is the far outside limit that it could be used for. The accuracy even then is fading. Further, there are numerous assumptions that must be made to even accept that data, most of which cannot be validated in the real world.

[Tj3]

Thanks.

I'm mostly interested how they explain the various scientific findings about the age of the earth, the universe, the red shift from galaxies, Carbon-14, fossil records, etc.

Carbon dating was dealt with.

Red shift - even thought about what assumptions are involved here? For example, red shifted from what? Since we cannot see stars and galaxies without that shift, we don't know what the proper colour is. Maybe there is no shift, maybe it is much less than thought - it all depends upon the assumption that one makes regarding the staring point. And, finally, even if there is a red shift, so what? That only means that there is a specific rate of change between us and the other object.

Fossil record - even Darwin said that was his biggest concern and the weakest link in his argument. The fossil record is chock full of problems for evolutionists.

[Athos]

Thank you, TJ3.

Are there any other arguments you would like to make in support of a Young Earth?

[JoeCanada76]

How can Man measure God's existence or creation? Or even time lines?

We can all assume that man made measurements of time and space , etc... are accurate, but how do we truly know? We do not. It is all based on theory and hypothisis.

[NeedKarma]

It is all based on theory and hypothisis.

But it's the same theory and hypothesis that developed the computer you are writing on, interplanetary spacecraft and navigation, the car, medicine, etc...

[Capuchin]

How can Man measure God's existence...?

So you admit that your belief in the existence of God is not based on any observable reality?

[JoeCanada76]

That is your take but not mine. I am not going to get in this argument but I was just sharing my thoughts.

Nighty night.

[N0help4u]

50,000 or 60,000 years is more than 6,000 years. Wouldn't that settle the matter?

As far as the earth being older than 6,000 years maybe BUT I guess that carbon dating can only go back 50, to 60, years and then scientists are trying to use carbon dating to go back further I suppose that to young earthers it only discredits it entirely.

[Tj3]

Thank you, TJ3.

Are there any other arguments you would like to make in support of a Young Earth?

If time permitted, I could post far more than could be posted in this thread. Entire books have been written on the topic. I do not intend to try to post an exhaustive summary for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I have far too many other things which take up my time.

I will however contribute to this thread as time permits.

[Capuchin]

As far as the earth being older than 6,000 years maybe BUT I guess that carbon dating can only go back 50, to 60, years and then scientists are trying to use carbon dating to go back further I suppose that to young earthers it only discredits it entirely.

They're not. They use other radio-dating methods for ages over 60,000 years.

[Tj3]

They're not. They use other radio-dating methods for ages over 60,000 years.

They still suffer from unvalidated assumptions

[Akoue]

They still suffer from unvalidated assumptions

What are some of those unvalidated assumptions?

[Capuchin]

If time permitted, I could post far more than could be posted in this thread. Entire books have been written on the topic. I do not intend to try to post an exhaustive summary for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I have far too many other things which take up my time.

I will however contribute to this thread as time permits.

Any peer reviewed papers?

[Tj3]

Any peer reviewed papers?

Certainly. I do not see scientific papers split into two groups - YEC and OE. All science is a study of God's creation.