Age of the Universe/Earth

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, it was the 19th century when evidence for just about -anything- we now know started piling up - but that's not when the creationism your friend is involved with was born. It wasn't born with magic book, or with christianity, either.

It's from 1998.

[Nay_Sayer]

Ferri, Friendly advice: Avoid Drich's videos and treat his posts as an abstract art piece. That is to say, it doesn't actually make any sense but it's fun to look at sideways.

I've already fully explained with bulletproof maths the earth is 10 years old going by the normal calendar and 50,000 durums by the Pastafarian calendar.

RAmen

[Anomalocaris]

here is a video I made on the subject it answers this very question in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ_oSjTIPRk
This number as per my video is a correct number based on the geneologies from christ back to adam. But you have to realise at this point Adam and eve were not having children till after the exile from the garden.(Chapter 3 was the exile)

which again from the genealogies this is about 6000 years ago.

Here's the thing. there is no time line between the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3. Chapter 2 says the garden and everything in it was produced by Christ day 3 apart from the rest of creation. From the end of chapter two there is still 4 more day of the chapter one seven day creation.

IE there is no indication how long Adam and Eve where in the garden. could have been a week or a million years or 100 bazillion years. the point is the came out of the garden 6000 years ago.


Also mentioned in the video.

Chapter 1 is a overall 'terraforming of the whole planet/seeding of the world.'

Chapter 2 is garden only narrative. in the garden everything was made in it's evolved form as it would have appeared 6000 years ago. As this was the world Adam had to be compatible with.

Between chapter two and chapter three all of evolution could have happened.

Is shoehorn the right word for inserting a ostentatiously large hard covered book into an orifice designed, by a creator no doubt, to be sodomized by much smaller objects, such as bananas?

[brewer]

Is shoehorn the right word for inserting a ostentatiously large hard covered book into an orifice designed, by a creator no doubt, to be sodomized by much smaller objects, such as bananas?

It's my easier softer reference to a lobotomy orbitoclast.

[Ferrocyanide]

Sure, it was the 19th century when evidence for just about -anything- we now know started piling up - but that's not when the creationism your friend is involved with was born.  It wasn't born with magic book, or with christianity, either.

It's from 1998.

Can you provide more details?
I thought that old earth creationism started in the 19th century when the christian scientists were discovering multiple lines of evidence that pointed to a multmillion year old Earth. So I assume, the first converters from YEC to OEC were those scientists since they were no willing to let go of their ancestrial religion/customs.
(Note: yes, I understand that there are 3 or 4 version sof OEC).

[Mister Agenda]

For Drich, even wanting to reconcile scientific evidence with the creation account in Genesis is a big step forward, given his body of work here. Cherry-picking is unavoidable in extensive religious texts like the Bible, and cherry-picking to accommodate the old earth all the physical evidence points to beats cherry-picking to try to say it ain't so. Much is made of believers cherry-picking the good parts of their scriptures, but it's far preferable to them cherry-picking the bad parts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In other words, they ignore what they don't like. But the Babble is the Word of God.

[Mister Agenda]

They ignore what they don't like, but what they don't like says a lot about them. It would be better if they could free themselves from a priori commitment to the text being true; but baby steps.

[JackRussell]

Post hoc rationalisations have always been just that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, it was the 19th century when evidence for just about -anything- we now know started piling up - but that's not when the creationism your friend is involved with was born.  It wasn't born with magic book, or with christianity, either.

It's from 1998.

Can you provide more details?
I thought that old earth creationism started in the 19th century when the christian scientists were discovering multiple lines of evidence that pointed to a multmillion year old Earth. So I assume, the first converters from YEC to OEC were those scientists since they were no willing to let go of their ancestrial religion/customs.
(Note: yes, I understand that there are 3 or 4 version sof OEC).

Negatron.  As another poster already mentioned, yec as we know it originated with james ussher.  He had his detractors in his own time, and his calculations were not traditional to christianity then or since.  Sure, it was clear by the 1900's that the earth was phenomenally old and by extension that any notions of a young earth were doa, but that posed no difficulty to christians of the time.  No more than to christians of usshers time, in fact.  It was already acceptable to believe in an old earth, and had been for longer than usshers chronology had been around.

The reason that usshers chronology gets such a big mention in the subject, is because his methods were pretty damned good - but no yec -or- oec would accept them today.  They've both stepped out of that stream.  The oec and yec of today has it's origins in a political strategy, the wedge strategy, to use peoples beliefs as a social lever.  This, to....

defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies