There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism

Responses: >> "The resolution States "There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism". You are redefining again. Tsk Tsk." Redefining how? Use of conflicting and incomplete evidence does not "justify the date of the creation of the earth" in any way. >> "If you had spent more than an hour reading the source you would have seen that Normal cataloged knowledge of History takes over after the Exodus." Does history meet the criteria for "Biblical Support" ? Obviously not. However, I will accept ACTUAL HISTORY to fill gaps. Conjecture does not meet this requirement at all. >> ""There are no ages given for people/childbirth in the following Genealogies:" That is irrelavent to the resolution All of the genealogies used by the source include timeframes, historical records and historical catalogs within the Bible. The resolution has been met." This is a laughable reply. Without any information as to how long people lived before they bore children, how can one have any idea how accurate the timeline is?!?!?! >> As stated above all timelines are given. The conjecture is irrelevant to the dates. It is only for Historical placement of the events in the Bible next to Egyptian history. The count still stands and contained within the Bible, the resolution is met. Again - laughable - you really assert that a valid timeline is created by the author's unresearched conjecture that certain historical characters are who the Bible is referring to?? >> "Genesis 6:3 Wow, Shocking. You took it out of context again. You are so "want" to do that. The 120 years was the decree from God's pronouncement to the flooding of the earth, not how old men should live. Did you actually read the account?" Well that's interesting, considering that Noah was 500 years old when he had his sons in Genesis 5:32. Then LATER, God states that man has 120 years to live, yet according to Genesis 7:6, Noah was 600 years old when the floods came. Thus, the flood came in LESS THAN 100 YEARS of when God decreed. So the 120 year span cannot reference the time to the flood. The use of flesh (or mortal) in the verse suggests that God was referring to the lifespan of man, not the length of time till the flood. Also, the fact that man is clearly still around today AND that God did not intend to kill all of mankind suggests that "man" refers to man in the individual sense, not mankind writ large. Even if you accept 6:3 as referring to the time until the Flood, it STILL does not agree with Psalms 90:10. >> """An appeal to the lunar Hebrew year is ineffective""- If you use a different calendar type year you wind up with a small numerical discrepancy that equates to a couple of decades." I mean this in the sense that there have been people who attempt to reconcile the ages of Biblical characters by stating that the measure of years is really lunar months, making Noah only 76... >> "You said there was NO Biblical support for YEC, not whether you see another apparent inconsistency in a geneology." Hello? Inconsistency in a source makes it invalid. It's like if I told you that the book was on the table and as my evidence for this told you that the book was on the table and that the book was on the chair. The two statements are inconsistent, making the validity of either claim suspect. And even if one of them IS right, the genealogy still lacks ages for the people. >> "The source ignores 2 Peter 3:8 – Ok, that was….just… sad. Peter was describing God's patience not a system of counting. Actually, it references 3:4 where people are asking when the Second Coming will be. But I assume you read that. If a day to God is really like 1000 years, then how does one not know that the inspired word of God doesn't take this into account for the creation stories?? It makes MUCH more sense to view creation as having happened over 6000 years than 6 days. >> "First No it did not." [relies on the ages and reigns of Pharaohs combined with the writer's conjecture that these MAY be the proper persons matched to the proper times.] Let me quote your source to you again: "I BELIEVE this new pharaoh is Ahmose I." "Merytamun, his daughter was wife of Amenhotep I and is POSSIBLY the one who saved Moses from the Nile." "I BELIEVE the Pharaoh of the Exodus is Tuthmose III." "It is BELIEVED that Eden is buried under the waters of the Persian Gulf." " Is it POSSIBLE that the Pre-Flood Age represents Atlantis referred to by Plato.." "...this is POSSIBLY when the seven continents were created." " It is POSSIBLE that Cush was born to Ham shortly after the Flood. Nimrod was PROBABLY Cush's last son." Need I go on? ************************************ If we accept my opponent's contention that history is a valid way to fill gaps, I submit that the OVERWHELMING amount of historical evidence that shows that the lifespan of man is more like Psalms' account (70 years) than Genesis' accounts of 500+ year lives. Furthermore, without evidence concerning the ages of people when their offspring was born, genealogies CANNOT be admissible evidence. If there are people supposedly living 137 years, there could be a 100 year difference PER PERSON in the age of their offspring and the age reported by my opponent's "source." Appealing to these incomplete genealogies is like stating, "I know that the Titanic sank in 1912 because there were 3 generations between me and when it sank." That's obviously not a justification for the date of 1912. My opponent has utterly failed to answer these objections: 1) There are no birth ages for many people in the genealogies (dismissed as irrelevant) 2) The genealogies rely on historical conjecture, possibilities, and probabilities (dismissed as irrelevant) 3) If we accept history as a valid gap-filler, history is in conflict with the ridiculous ages of Biblical Characters. NEGATED.