Young Earthers, explain this:

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I do have the answers, Kelly, right here in my Astronomy textbook.

Remember, the YEC claim that the universe is 6-10,000 years old is [b]not found in scripture. Tell me, should I really question my Astronomy textbook (when it tells me that some of the oldest objects in space (white dwarfs) are 10 billion years old) based on a number somebody pull ure, I question a particular interpretation of scripture. What's arrogant about that?[/b]

The bible does say how long it took for the creation and then there is a
genealogy after that that accounts for most of the time down to Christ.
There could be a little missing time but nothing on the order of billions
of years. We can account for at least 6,000 years from the biblical
information. But there is nothing there that suggest any time coming
close to a million years. I see nothing that could possibly allow me to
stretch the time out to more than 10 or 11 thousand years even when
taking the most liberal interpretation possible.

P.S. Considering the fact that scientist have been proven wrong on how
long things take to petrify, how long it takes for coal and petroleum to
form, etc., I would not trust their guess at how old stars are either.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The bible does say how long it took for the creation and then there is a
genealogy after that that accounts for most of the time down to Christ.
There could be a little missing time but nothing on the order of billions
of years. We can account for at least 6,000 years from the biblical
information. But there is nothing there that suggest any time comin ...[text shortened]... or coal and petroleum to
form, etc., I would not trust their guess at how old stars are either.

Your mistake is thinking that the Genesis account along with the genealogy of Christ were intended to give you the age of the universe. The fact is -- and you can't deny this -- the Bible nowhere gives a specific age of the universe. You've made a huge assumption without adequate justification. The evidence available to our senses (e.g., the age of white dwarfs determined by spectral analysis of temperature, luminosity and mass) ought to, at the very least, give you a healthy skepticism regarding the plausibility of your interpretation (you could be wrong, after all).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your mistake is thinking that the Genesis account along with the genealogy of Christ were intended to give you the age of the universe. The fact is -- and you can't deny this -- the Bible nowhere gives a specific age of the universe. You've made a huge assumption without adequate justification. The evidence available to our senses (e.g., the ag ...[text shortened]... skepticism regarding the plausibility of your interpretation (you could be wrong, after all).

I know that the Holy Bible does not give a specific age for the universe. That
was the way it was intended so we could discuss the possibilities. I also did
not give a specific age for the Earth because the genealogical information is
not specific enough. However, the creation account along with the other
information provided us is enough for us to rule out a million year or older
Earth. And we have scientific information due to what we have decided are
laws of science that backs up the assuption for a young earth of perhaps
no older than 10 or 11 thousand years in age. I think this is adequate
justification. On the other hand the scientist are the ones making hugh
assumptions in the way they gather their data and completely ignore the
possiblity that anything was created. It just all happened by accident some
billions or trillions of years ago in there way of thinking without adequate
justification. I see no reasonable interpretation that leads me to a slight
possibility that I might be wrong. Therefore, I declare myself and the Holy
Bible right. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I know that the Holy Bible does not give a specific age for the universe. That
was the way it was intended so we could discuss the possibilities. I also did
not give a specific age for the Earth because the genealogical information is
not specific enough. However, the creation account along with the other
information provided us is enough for us to ru ...[text shortened]...
possibility that I might be wrong. Therefore, I declare myself and the Holy
Bible right. 😏

I have a question for you. Given that we know the speed of light and through simple geometry we are able to calculate the distance that a star is from the Earth, how then if the Universe is (in your opinion) no more than 10K years old; how is it possible for us to see the light from a star that is say (just for argument's sake) calculated to be 500K light years away?? Wouldn't that light have to have been emitted at least 500K years ago? Unless you totally disregard the laws of physics regarding the speed of light, that is not possible to explain. And I doubt that we are important enough in the grand scheme of things for a God to intentionally deceive us by disregarding physics.
In my opinion YE'ers are selling God or The Creator (if you happen to believe in such) and his abilities short. I see no reason that a God should not have created the Universe 5, 10 or however many billions of years ago if he wished to do so. That you should insist that the Universe is only as old as the "geneaology" of the Bible says is highly conceited at best. Who is to say that God did not create many other worlds and civilizations when and where He pleased?? Why would God have not "created" evolution?? You do Him a disservice by saving He is not capable of such.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Science is never wrong its a method, people however they can be wrong all
the time.
Kelly

...but are not usually wrong if they use scientific method correctly.

Scientific method has proven the Earth to be millions of years old with a vast mountain of evidence and one would have to have some pretty strong religions reasons to either delude oneself that no such evidence exists or is literally all wrong.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229140825.htm

300+million year old petrified forest, how do you explain this?

The humans lie.

Originally posted by RBHILL
The humans lie.

The reason humans do not tell the truth on this is because of their belief system
in evolution. It is as much a part of their atheistic religion as the resurrection
of Christ is to the Christian religion. But the scientific discoveries in DNA and
RNA are delivering a death blow to the theory of evolution and if accepted will
also give atheism no legs to stand on.

DNA Refutes Evolution

http://www.dnarefutesevolution.com/confessions.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
The reason humans do not tell the truth on this is because of their belief system
in evolution. It is as much a part of their atheistic religion as the resurrection
of Christ is to the Christian religion. But the scientific discoveries in DNA and
RNA are delivering a death blow to the theory of evolution and if accepted will
also give atheism no legs t ...[text shortened]... stand on.

[b]DNA Refutes Evolution

http://www.dnarefutesevolution.com/confessions.html[/b]

hohoo. quote mine central. let's take one example:

from the site:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS. (Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, Vol.271, October 1994, p. 78)

note which parts they stressed. they really should have stressed "at first glance, one might have to conclude..."

but what does our esteemed orgel go on to say on the topic? we shall not know from this site of creationist frauds. they don't bother to tell us the rest.

but the rest is available.

dr. orgel goes on to explain how the process happens.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105b/1425chap10.htm

you should be a shamed of yourself for posting such fraudulent claims without checking the sources.

bad ronny.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The reason humans do not tell the truth on this is because of their belief system
in evolution. It is as much a part of their atheistic religion as the resurrection
of Christ is to the Christian religion. But the scientific discoveries in DNA and
RNA are delivering a death blow to the theory of evolution and if accepted will
also give atheism no legs t ...[text shortened]... stand on.

[b]DNA Refutes Evolution

http://www.dnarefutesevolution.com/confessions.html[/b]

You have avoided answering why (see earlier post) we can see stars that emitted their light millions of year ago??

Originally posted by Bebop5
You have avoided answering why (see earlier post) we can see stars that emitted their light millions of year ago??

Don't confuse him with facts, his mind is made up. I think its a mind anyway.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The bible does say how long it took for the creation and then there is a
genealogy after that that accounts for most of the time down to Christ.
There could be a little missing time but nothing on the order of billions
of years. We can account for at least 6,000 years from the biblical
information. But there is nothing there that suggest any time comin ...[text shortened]... or coal and petroleum to
form, etc., I would not trust their guess at how old stars are either.

Then you tell us how a star can come about in a few thousand years. For instance, we (mankind) have been watching the stars for about 5000 years and we notice no huge changes in any of them outside of a few nova's and such. If the Earth and the whole universe was say 10,000 years old, how do you explain the lack of change noted by earth bound visual (no telescope) astronomy over a time period at least half of what you pretend to be the age of the Earth and presumably the universe. Plus you have not answered how we can tell how fast light goes and we see stars millions of light years away, which is a time machine really, we are seeing stars as they were millions of years ago. Explain that one.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your mistake is thinking that the Genesis account along with the genealogy of Christ were intended to give you the age of the universe. The fact is -- and you can't deny this -- the Bible nowhere gives a specific age of the universe. You've made a huge assumption without adequate justification. The evidence available to our senses (e.g., the ag ...[text shortened]... skepticism regarding the plausibility of your interpretation (you could be wrong, after all).

One would have thought a theist would have seen curiosity, powers of deduction, intellect, science, learning, etc., as capacities granted by God rather than things to be sidelined and even scorned in the process of asserting "faith", no?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I know that the Holy Bible does not give a specific age for the universe. That
was the way it was intended so we could discuss the possibilities. I also did
not give a specific age for the Earth because the genealogical information is
not specific enough. However, the creation account along with the other
information provided us is enough for us to ru ...[text shortened]...
possibility that I might be wrong. Therefore, I declare myself and the Holy
Bible right. 😏

I believe in a young earth; however, as I have pointed out before there are
more than a few people who believe between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be any
lenght of time. This I actually am not a fan of, but I have to acknowledge it
as a possiblity.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bebop5
I have a question for you. Given that we know the speed of light and through simple geometry we are able to calculate the distance that a star is from the Earth, how then if the Universe is (in your opinion) no more than 10K years old; how is it possible for us to see the light from a star that is say (just for argument's sake) calculated to be 500K light yea ...[text shortened]... ve not "created" evolution?? You do Him a disservice by saving He is not capable of such.

I have no problem with the science of approximate light speed and distances
of stars from the earth. But according to my understanding of God's word in
the Holy Bible the stars were not that far away from the earth at creation.
The stars have been moving away from the earth at varing speeds from
creation until this day. And today some scientists that know such things say
some of the stars are moving away from the earth faster than the speed of
light. This is probably because the earth is move in the opposite direction.
None of the scientist know how things were in the beginning when God put
the laws of science into place. It is possible we are seeing optical illusions in
some cases. Who really knows for sure? I think only the Creator knows. It
is making a hugh assumption to think everything was in the same location
now and base the age of the universe on that. Even if we did not have the
Holy Bible to tell us, we have enough evidence to know that. If God leaves
a written record of basically what He did, I don't see how we can claim He
is trying to deceive us. If we ignore His word, then I think we would be
deceiving ourselves.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe in a young earth; however, as I have pointed out before there are
more than a few people who believe between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 could be any
lenght of time. This I actually am not a fan of, but I have to acknowledge it
as a possiblity.
Kelly

I don't think we should be filling in the blanks with our own imaginations.
I would need more than the possibility to add to the word of God. I will wait
until someone shows me that possibility by two witnesses in the Holly Bible
before I will consider it. Until then, I accept the Biblical account that it
happened in six days of evening and morning just as we have today and a
7th Sabbath day just as we have today.