• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence for and against young earth creationism.

Brian Schuh

Well-Known Member
When asked, why was there no rainbow before the end of Noah's flood, the orthodox answer is that God changed the laws of nature at that time. So if you assume uniformitarianism, one can "prove" the universe is so many trillions of years old. But considering that God created the laws of nature, He can change them at anytime. So considering that premise, one can assume uniformitarianism only back to the Flood.

One must prove that Noah's Flood could not have happened, before one could ever disprove Creation. I am waiting for some answers. Typical answers are that no ark could have carried all land dwelling vertebrates, or that fresh water fish could not have survived if the flood waters were salt water. I am surprised that those who don't believe in the Flood haven't stated the obvious objections.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Doesn't the 40,000 year mark some quote here as the oldest evidence , tie in with Biblical calculations for the age of humanity? I thought it was pretty close
No.

If you were to calculate the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, and count all the years, in reigns and generations, the timeline of the bible will only date the creation to less than 6000 years or 4000 BCE.

The bible timeline don't even come close to 40,000 years.

Why? Who are your sources for biblical timeline being 40,000 years?

Or did you make a mistake, adding one too many zero?
 

Brian Schuh

Well-Known Member
No.

If you were to calculate the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, and count all the years, in reigns and generations, the timeline of the bible will only date the creation to less than 6000 years or 4000 BCE.

The bible timeline don't even come close to 40,000 years.

Why? Who are your sources for biblical timeline being 40,000 years?

Or did you make a mistake, adding one too many zero?
The Hebrew year count is 5777 years now since God created Adam and Eve. But that is if the fall of Jerusalem was in 421 BCE. Also the reigns of some of the kings of Israel and Judah overlapped as a father and son would sometimes reign at the same time. The Talmud says only a fool would doubt the Hebrew year count. So count me a fool, I have always doubted it. But for the record the count is 5777 years as of Rosh HaShanah this year.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The Hebrew year count is 5777 years now since God created Adam and Eve. But that is if the fall of Jerusalem was in 421 BCE. Also the reigns of some of the kings of Israel and Judah overlapped as a father and son would sometimes reign at the same time. The Talmud says only a fool would doubt the Hebrew year count. So count me a fool, I have always doubted it. But for the record the count is 5777 years as of Rosh HaShanah this year.
Yes, I know.

5777 AM is the official date of the current Jewish calendar.

I had originally used 5766 as my basis, to calculate the timeline for Genesis, in 2006. But had recently changed it 5966 AM, because in my original calculations, the fall of Jerusalem was too late, because it would be too late for Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.
 

Brian Schuh

Well-Known Member
Yes, I know.

5777 AM is the official date of the current Jewish calendar.

I had originally used 5766 as my basis, to calculate the timeline for Genesis, in 2006. But had recently changed it 5966 AM, because in my original calculations, the fall of Jerusalem was too late, because it would be too late for Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.
I would like to start a new thread on the points the Hebrew year count is in question. You sound like you could contribute to a thread like that. I have at least 2-3 points where the year count could be questioned. The important point is that the Moshiach must come by the year 6000. That's the deadline. So if the year count is too short, that means the Moshicah is closer than we thought. Let's start the thread, you ready?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I would like to start a new thread on the points the Hebrew year count is in question. You sound like you could contribute to a thread like that. I have at least 2-3 points where the year count could be questioned. The important point is that the Moshiach must come by the year 6000. That's the deadline. So if the year count is too short, that means the Moshicah is closer than we thought. Let's start the thread, you ready?

I may not believe or worship in any deity, or follow any religion, but I am always interested in storytelling, myths and folklore, the history of scriptures. So I am willing to take part in such topic.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
When asked, why was there no rainbow before the end of Noah's flood, the orthodox answer is that God changed the laws of nature at that time. So if you assume uniformitarianism, one can "prove" the universe is so many trillions of years old. But considering that God created the laws of nature, He can change them at anytime. So considering that premise, one can assume uniformitarianism only back to the Flood.

One must prove that Noah's Flood could not have happened, before one could ever disprove Creation. I am waiting for some answers. Typical answers are that no ark could have carried all land dwelling vertebrates, or that fresh water fish could not have survived if the flood waters were salt water. I am surprised that those who don't believe in the Flood haven't stated the obvious objections.
What evidence is there available to indicate that the laws of nature have been changed at any time, let alone by some god, let alone by the specific god you worship?

Nobody has to disprove Noah's flood. That is something that needs to be demonstrated. You don't get to just make claims without backing them up then demand that others disprove them.
 
Okay. October 2nd at sundown, I begin to celebrate Rosh HaShanah. Humankind will be 5777 years old. 1656 years after Adam and Eve were created, the Flood happened. So 4121 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a Flood.

This is not an argument about creation versus evolution. This is an argument for and against a young earth. I opened up my mind a little and researched evidence of civilizations older than 4121 years, and even older than 5777 years.

I accept that a proper understanding of Genesis 1 doesn't preclude a lengthy period of time for creation. That the 6 days prior to Adam being created time didn't pass at the same rate it does now.

So what I'm saying is, produce for me evidence that can't be denied, that if there was a global flood, that it was significantly longer than 4121 years ago. Or produce for me evidence that can't be denied that civilizations existed prior to 5777 years ago.

Again, this is not an argument about evolution versus creation, but rather an argument about how old is human civilization.


**************


 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The evidence against young earth creationism is the people who invest their lives finding out about natural history, such as the Anthropologists. Like anyone else they would not waste their time if they did not see reason in it. It would be like an army of chefs wanting to make bad tasting food.
 

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
The evidence against young earth creationism is the people who invest their lives finding out about natural history, such as the Anthropologists. Like anyone else they would not waste their time if they did not see reason in it. It would be like an army of chefs wanting to make bad tasting food.

It could be that anthropologists are seeking to get grant money so they can make a living. There is no grant money in young Earth creationism, since not many anthropologists accept it. So it could be that they do what they have to do to earn a living.

Anthropologists can't prove anything that supports macro-evolution, all they do is dig up bones and fossils and play their guessing games with them.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
When asked, why was there no rainbow before the end of Noah's flood, the orthodox answer is that God changed the laws of nature at that time. So if you assume uniformitarianism, one can "prove" the universe is so many trillions of years old. But considering that God created the laws of nature, He can change them at anytime. So considering that premise, one can assume uniformitarianism only back to the Flood.

One must prove that Noah's Flood could not have happened, before one could ever disprove Creation. I am waiting for some answers. Typical answers are that no ark could have carried all land dwelling vertebrates, or that fresh water fish could not have survived if the flood waters were salt water. I am surprised that those who don't believe in the Flood haven't stated the obvious objections.

Your point is complete arbitrary as is your standard which stops right at the nonsensical story you just happen to believe
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It could be that anthropologists are seeking to get grant money so they can make a living. There is no grant money in young Earth creationism, since not many anthropologists accept it. So it could be that they do what they have to do to earn a living.

Anthropologists can't prove anything that supports macro-evolution, all they do is dig up bones and fossils and play their guessing games with them.
Anthropologists aren't bank robbers. They work for a living.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Note that I didn't say they didn't work for a living. I did say they "could be" trying to pull the wool over our eyes, I did not say they are doing so.
We are talking about many people with mad skills that could be making money all sorts of other ways. They would not waste their time pursuing grants in a field that they did not believe in, so their occupation weights against young earth.
 

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
We are talking about many people with mad skills that could be making money all sorts of other ways. They would not waste their time pursuing grants in a field that they did not believe in, so their occupation weights against young earth.

Probably. But possibly not, with some of them.
 

Brian Schuh

Well-Known Member
Your point is complete arbitrary as is your standard which stops right at the nonsensical story you just happen to believe
How is that nonsensical? If God is the ultimate Law Giver, then how is it difficult to believe that He can change His own laws? Once you accept the fact that there is only one God. . . all truth follows from that.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
How is that nonsensical? If God is the ultimate Law Giver, then how is it difficult to believe that He can change His own laws? Once you accept the fact that there is only one God. . . all truth follows from that.
So god is fickle...?

...or is he a trickster or con-artist?

Either way, you are not painting good picture of God.
 
Top