Exact Young Earth Age?

[dorsk188]

Everywhere I look for this information, I keep getting "Young Earth Creationists believe the universe to be between 6000 and 10000 years old" but I also know that they get their figure from adding up all the begats, plus a week for creation, and you should get an exact figure, not a range of 4000 years. Are there any YECers or people who have talked to them out there that knows the exact "biblical" date of creation?

On another note, what do YECers say in response to tree rings and ice cores that pre-date their creation? I mean, it's sort of hard to say: "There was a global flood that destroyed all mankind... but the Egyptians didn't notice."

I would look it up at Dr. Dino or something, but I really dislike that guy...

 

[Mister Emu]

I do not believe any human truly knows the age of creation.

 

[michel]

From:-http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm


Conflict between theology and science, and why it is critical:

Back in 1991, scientists made many estimates of the age of the universe, ranging from 7 to 20 billion years. These were based on the crude models then available to scientists. Since then, estimates have been refined; most have grouped around 14 billion years.

Currently, there is a near consensus among earth scientists that the age of "Earth and [the rest of] our solar system is 4.54 billion years, plus or minus 0.02 billions years." 1 This estimate is based on:

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The measured age of the oldest rocks on earth -- small crystals of zircon found in the Jack Hills of Western Australia. [/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The measured age of meteorites which have landed on earth.[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
Both estimates are in conflict with the most common interpretations of the biblical accounts of creation, which are 6,000 to 10,000 years. The difference is factor of about half a million times. As author Henry Morris wrote: "...the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural theology." 2

Many conservative Protestants are keen to prove that the earth is young -- under 10 millennia old:

[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The web site ChristianAnswers.net states: "If Evolution by natural processes from 'amoeba' to man is possible, as Evolutionists maintain, it would undoubtedly require billions of years to accomplish. A younger universe would make Evolution impossible." 1,3[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Author R.L. Wysong wrote: "Both evolutionists and creationists believe evolution is an impossibility if the universe is only a few thousand years old. There probably is no statement that could be made on the topic of origins which would meet with so much agreement from both sides. Setting aside the question of whether vast time is competent to propel evolution, we must query if vast time is indeed available." 3,4 [/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

​

Basis for dating biblical creation

The creation stories in the Bible start at Genesis 1:1. They are undated. To compute a probable date of creation from the biblical record, it is necessary to work backwards from a date that is known from the historical record.

The earliest event in the Bible that can be dated with reasonable certainty is the beginning of Saul's reign as the first king of Israel. It is generally believed to have occurred about 1020 BCE, at a time when Egypt and Assyria were weakened and the Israelites were able to assert domination over their own territory. Many theologians have attempted to compute the date of creation by working back from this or a similar known date, through the various time intervals mentioned in the Bible. For example:

[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Most contemporary historians establish a base date of Saul's accession to the throne of Israel to have happened 1020 BCE. However, Bishop James Ussher, a 17th century Irish archbishop from Armagh, Ireland, estimated this date as 1095 BCE in his work: Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Work backwards through the Book of Judges. Ussher computed 330 years for the duration of the rule of Judges. He based this on the intervals specified in the Hebrew Scriptures. Modern theologians believe that the "Judges" did not rule over all of Israel in a regular sequence. Instead, each Judge controlled separate tribe(s), so that their interval of rule overlapped. A modern estimate for the duration of time covered by the Book of Judges is perhaps 180 years.[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]If Joshua's conquest of Canaan happened, it would have occurred circa in the 13th century BCE which was a time when Egypt's influence over the area was at a low ebb. Bishop Ussher estimated that it began in 1451 BCE; that is unlikely because Egyptian power was at its peak at that time and completely dominated the area. In reality, if it did happen, it probably occurred in about 1237 BCE under Pharaoh Rameses II, a time when Egypt was in steady decline.[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Ussher dated the arrival of Abraham in Canaan to 2126 BCE and the Noahic flood at 2349 BCE. The latter is unlikely, because historical records in China and Egypt continued without disruption through that date, and contain no record of a massive world-wide flood that would have wiped out their civilizations.[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Ussher was able to use the ages of famous pre-flood personages in the Bible to estimate the number of years between creation and the flood. In 1650 CE, he published his book "Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti" ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world.") He calculated that God had created the Earth in 4004 BCE. A decade earlier, Dr. John Lightfoot, (1602 - 1675), an Anglican clergyman, rabbinical scholar, and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge had already arrived at an estimate of 4004-OCT-23 BCE, at 9 AM. (We assume that this was either Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) or Jerusalem time). Unfortunately, Ussher gets most of the credit; Lightfoot's contribution is rarely cited.

This would make the time interval between the creation of the world and a common estimate of the birth of Christ at precisely 4000 years. Some people believe that Ussher fudged the data to make it come out this neatly. This date found general acceptance among many Christians; "...his dates were inserted in the margins of the authorized version of the English Bible and were soon practically regarded as equally inspired with the sacred text itself..." 5[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
There are two inherent and unavoidable sources of error that are often overlooked in these calculations:

[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The calculation must rely on numerous passages which state that a person was born when his father was of a certain age. But if a 30 year-old man has a son, the birth might have occurred at any time between the father's 30th birthday, and one day before his 31st birthday. Thus, on average, an error of six months is introduced with each father-son passage.[/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Some theologians have pointed out that there may be missing generations in Bible chronologies. The entire family tree may not be fully listed. Some "sons" are actually grandsons. "In Exodus 6:16-20, we find only four generations listed between Levi and Moses. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: 'It seems quite clear that some generations were omitted in the compilation' (rev. ed., s.v. 'Genealogy'). In Matthew 1:1-17, the Gospel writer deliberately omits three kings to illustrate the theological point he is making, a point that depends upon a generational pattern." 6[/font]
I hope that helps...........

 

[dorsk188]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica][/font] I hope that helps...........

It certainly helps solidify my assessment that the whole situation was hopelessly befuddled... Thanks for the info.

 

[joeboonda]

There are some excellent books written by creation scientists that may help, perhaps try your local christian bookstore? For years I never understood creation vs evolution, but, after some research, I was blown away to see the evidence for creation far outwaying the evolution theory. And yes, I know others are convinced the other way, lol, and I dont wanna debate, just sharing what I think is true.

 

[greatcalgarian]

The Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam to Noah to Abraham, with the ages at which they had the next in line and the ages at which they died. According to the account, God sent a global flood 1656 years after Adam. Young Earth Creationists assert that the Flood was a combination of radical geological activity (the opening of the "fountains of the great deep") and extreme rainfall (from "windows in the firmament of heaven"). They claim that the land before the flood lay much lower than it does now, but that extreme geological action during the Flood raised mountains to new heights and dropped the sea-bed, so that the water that had covered the land flowed into the sea. Young Earth Creationists sometimes refer to a loosely codified idea called "Flood geology" to argue that the vast majority of present-day geological features are the result of the Great Flood.

After the flood, Genesis reports increasingly short lifespans dropping quickly from an average of 900 years at the time of Noah to an average of 100 by the time of Abraham. Young Earth Creationists have suggested that this is due to effects associated with inbreeding that took place after the flood, as only eight people remained.[2] YECs also assert that all modern species of land vertebrates are descended from those original animals on the ark. Most YECs believe that the Ark kinds diversified as they subsequently adapted to their environments by the process of variation and natural selection. Many YECs assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a net loss of genetic information.

From Wilkepedai, you can find some interesting reading. YEC suggested inbreeding of 8 left over human resulted in a drop in life span from 900 to 100. Wonder how did non-inbreeding occurred from Adam and Eve?

Pick your choice on the date of creation from the list below:

Some scholars have gone further, and have attempted to tie in this Biblical chronology with that of recorded history, thus establishing a date for the Creation in a modern calendar. Since there are periods in the Biblical story where dates are not given, the chronology has been subject to interpretation in many different ways, resulting in a variety of estimates of the date of Creation.

Two dominant dates for Biblical Creation using such models exist, about 5500 BC and about 4000 BC. These were calculated from the genealogies in two versions of the Bible, with most of the difference arising from two versions of Genesis. The oldest was translated into Greek from the Hebrew Torah during the third century BC as the first book of the Septuagint. It was used by Jews until about 100, then by all Christians until 405, then by the Byzantines until 1453, and is still used by the various Orthodox churches. The newest was due to a revision of the Torah by Jews about 100, which was slightly modified about 900 (though not affecting this genealogy), and is still used by all Jews. Jerome translated it into Latin as the first book of the Vulgate in 405, then it was used by all Western Christians, who split into Roman Catholics and Protestants beginning in 1517. Basically, the patriarchs from Adam to the father of Abraham were often 100 years older when they begat their named son in the Septuagint than they were in the Vulgate (Genesis 5, 11). The net difference between the two genealogies was 1466 years (ignoring the "second year after the flood" ambiguity), which is virtually all of the 1500-year difference between 5500 BC and 4000 BC.

Jewish scholars subscribing to similar interpretations give two dates for Creation according to the Talmud. They state that the first day of Creation week was either Elul 25, AM 1 or Adar 25, AM 1, almost twelve or six months, respectively, after the modern epoch of the Hebrew calendar. Most prefer Elul 25 whereas a few prefer Adar 25. These place the sixth day of Creation week, when Adam was created, on the first day of the following month, either Tishri or Nisan, the first month of either the civil or biblical year, respectively. In both cases, the epoch of the modern calendar was called the molad tohu or mean new moon of chaos, because it occurred before Creation. This epoch was Tishri 1, AM 1 or October 7, 3761 BC, the latter being the corresponding tabular date (same daylight period) in the proleptic Julian calendar.

According to the Eastern Orthodox Church calendar, the world was created on September 1, 5509 BC.

One of the most well known estimates in modern times is that of Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656), who proposed a date of Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the Julian calendar. He placed the beginning of this first day of Creation, and hence the exact time of Creation, at the previous nightfall. See the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar.

 

[greatcalgarian]

There are some excellent books written by creation scientists that may help, perhaps try your local christian bookstore? For years I never understood creation vs evolution, but, after some research, I was blown away to see the evidence for creation far outwaying the evolution theory. And yes, I know others are convinced the other way, lol, and I dont wanna debate, just sharing what I think is true.

You may be walking the opposite direction of the path taken by Edward T. Babinski. The more he learned about evolution, the further he walked away from his original YEC.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/yec.html

I was still a young-earther after I graduated from college with a B.S. in biology, after which a moderate/liberal Christian friend (he was moderate but grew more liberal over time) lent me Bernard Ramm's book on The Harmony of Science and Scripture to read, and also lent me the special "Noah's Ark" issue of Creation/Evolution journal (I think that the National Center for Science Education on the web still has copies of them for sale)..............................

Do not carry out any more research.....Be happy with what you know now. Knowledge could be dangerous.

 

[James the Persian]

Can I just point out that whilst the Orthodox Church used to use a calendar that started with a day of creation in 5509 BC, we no longer do so. We use the BC/AD system like everyone else and therefore had great celebrations in 2000/2001 (the real millennium, there being no year 0). You do still sometimes see the old dates (the date on my son's patron saint's tomb, for instance, is about 7000) but these are only on old inscriptions. We are not young earthers as the posted quote above would seem to imply. Just thought I should clear that up.

James

 

[dorsk188]

Great posts thusfar. If I may ask those who assert that the world is in the neighborhood of 6009-7514 years old, then how do you reconcile this with well documented record of tree rings.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_ring:

Simply stated, many trees in temperate zones grow one growth ring each year. For the entire period of a tree's life, a year-by-year record or ring pattern is formed that in some way reflects the climatic conditions in which the tree grew. Adequate moisture and a long growing season results in a wide ring. A drought year may result in a very narrow one. Trees from the same region will tend to develop the same patterns of width for a given period. These patterns can be compared and matched ring for ring with trees growing in the same geographical zone and under similar climatic conditions. Following these tree-ring patterns from living trees back through time, chronologies can be built up. We can thus compare wood from old or ancient structures to our known chronologies, match the ring patterns (a technique called cross-dating), and determine precisely the age of the wood used by the ancient builder.

They can cross-date the trees and logs as far back as 10,000 years. YEC try their best to dismiss radiocarbon dating or the geologic column, but how could anyone argue that dendrochronology isn't reliable? Unlike radiometric dating, this isn't at all complicated. My mother, a YEC, actually scoffed at radiometric dating: "Have you ever SEEN a neutron?"

And I admit, that the geologic column does require a bit of leap of faith that it is at all accurate. It's concievable that something could exist that makes the layers SEEM to be chronological (not likely, but concievable). But there is no leap of faith here. Trees make rings every year. We can trace the years back to before the supposed creation of the universe. Doesn't that mean that the creation date you have is wrong?

 

[Ulver]

The fact that the light from stars takes light years to reach us I would think would prove at least that the universe is much older then a few thousand years. The notion of the young earth theory to me sounds like people trying to make it sound like the world is flat and you'll fall off if you go too far. Guess what people, the Church can be wrong! It thought the world was flat and then said "oops, we're sorry for persecuting all you heretics... turns out the world is round. sorry".

Glad to hear the orthodox church no longer holds the young earth theory, and I think catholics don't (at least most). This concept seems to be most pushed by the southern baptists and other "right wing" churches in the American Bible Belt.

np: Skinny Puppy- Icebreaker

 

[James the Persian]

The fact that the light from stars takes light years to reach us I would think would prove at least that the universe is much older then a few thousand years. The notion of the young earth theory to me sounds like people trying to make it sound like the world is flat and you'll fall off if you go too far. Guess what people, the Church can be wrong! It thought the world was flat and then said "oops, we're sorry for persecuting all you heretics... turns out the world is round. sorry".

Glad to hear the orthodox church no longer holds the young earth theory, and I think catholics don't (at least most). This concept seems to be most pushed by the southern baptists and other "right wing" churches in the American Bible Belt.

np: Skinny Puppy- Icebreaker

Well, actually, I don't think we ever really did hold to a young earth theory. Some, at least, of the Church Fathers understood Genesis in a less than literal manner and, if memory serves, the date previously used by the Church began at the creation of Adam rather than the world, with that obviously leaving in question exactly how long prior events had taken to occur. You will find some Orthodox people who believe in Young Earth creationism, but it is not Orthodox doctrine (we call a personal, acceptable, but non-required belief a theologoumenon and it would be considered such). I agree that it is generally a fundamentalist Protestant belief.

Incidentally, I can't speak for the RCC, but the Orthodox Church never taught that the earth was flat. It would have seemed pretty daft to do so, given that many Church Fathers were familiar with Greek science and philosophy and they knew the earth was a globe long before Christ. In any case, we have never held the details of how creation is to be dogma and nobody has ever been persecuted by us for a 'heresy' of scientific knowledge.

James

 

[Fade]

There are some excellent books written by creation scientists that may help, perhaps try your local christian bookstore? For years I never understood creation vs evolution, but, after some research, I was blown away to see the evidence for creation far outwaying the evolution theory. And yes, I know others are convinced the other way, lol, and I dont wanna debate, just sharing what I think is true.

Creation Scientist?? OMFGROFLMAO!!! :biglaugh:

 

[painted wolf]

I have to say I've never heard any convincing SCIENTIFIC evidence for a young earth.

The idea of pinning anything that happined that long ago down to an exact time is IMHO lucicrus.

wa:do

 

[Fade]

The universe/earth was created on the 11th of Febraury 1980 at around 7ish in the morning. It was a monday morning which explains why everyone is so depressed

 

[michel]

The universe/earth was created on the 11th of Febraury 1980 at around 7ish in the morning. It was a monday morning which explains why everyone is so depressed

Oh but I am quick today - I looked up your profile.

Are you a solipsist by any chance?

 

[Fade]

Oh but I am quick today - I looked up your profile.

Are you a solipsist by any chance?

I wouldn't be averse to the label

 

[panjan4]

Evolution has never been proven as fact... Creation on the other had is all around us..
As astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”:clap The evidence to prove that life came about by creation is overwhelming... A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.”
Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”

Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.”

 

[goodjewishboy]

http://www.aish.com/societywork/sci...he_Universe.asp

The above article tackles the issues I think rather well. In a nutshell the article describes how, since the Big Bang, time has been decelerating as the universe expands and becomes less dense. In Genesis, G-d does not create the sun and moon until the fourth day. Only on the fourth day do we have a day that we can understand. Since they are not defined, the first three 'days' of Creation could be billions of earth years. Essentialy if you were to stand with G-d on day one with your current perception of time things would be going really, really fast. From our point of view, looking back, the universe is tens of billions of years old and that is correct. Maybe from G-d's point of view we're still sittin' in Day Seven.

That point brings me to evolution. Evolution is observeable, fossil record has traced birds back to dinosaurs. We can see the changes in species millions of years back. We can even look up at the stars and calculate how old they are based on distance and the speed of light.

G-d would not create physcial laws and natural systems if He weren't going to use them. It is my belief that evolution is the tool of creation. Perhaps we are evolved from lower primates and perhaps what we see as Evolution is Creation. We could have been guided to what we are over the course of millions of years, during that time in the Bible before Adam (humanity) was self aware.

Just something to think about.

 

[painted wolf]

Sorry Panjan but I don't let astronomers and jurnalists tell me what to think of BIOLOGY any more than I would let a Dentist or a musician take out my appendix.

Now as to the subject of an exact creation date for the Earth....NOT evolution.

Rock carvings and paintings in the Sahara, indicating that it was once a much wetter place, have been dated at having been made during a period between 35,000 and 8,000 years ago.

Ice cores, which form much like tree rings have been dated back as far as 750,000 years in one continuous piece. The oldest ice core found in the tropics is from a glacier surviving in the Bolivian Andies that dates back to 25,000 years.

So where does this young earth age come from?

wa:do

 

[michel]

Evolution has never been proven as fact... Creation on the other had is all around us..
As astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”:clap The evidence to prove that life came about by creation is overwhelming... A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.”
Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”

Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.”

I tend to agree with you, Panjan, but as my young and immensly intelligent colleague Painted Wolf (with whom I never argue - *whispers*her bite is worse than her bark!!)
syas, there is so much evidence here and there, some of it conflicting (just for fun) that I honestly haven't a clue as to the date of Birth of the Earth, and to be frank, I am not that terribly interested - what's a few thousand years, amongst friends ?

I agree with you that creation is all around us, as a Christian, I believe in Creation, but I see no reason to doubt evolution - even if it was not because of the insurmountable evidence that is all around us, every day.

But Creation is something else - I know it will be seen by many as rather puerile, but i only need to look at the leaves on trees, flower, the birds - well, I could rant all day - but I had better not do so. I guess I am incredibly fortunate that I vcan feel such joy and pleasure from the most common of things, no matter how small, how old...