[metmom]

I don’t know. I think it’s older than 6,000 years, but am not sure that it’s the billions that scientists say.

They have rightly pointed out that if a change in conditions occurred like is mentioned in Genesis, then it would mess up their calculations and make them meaningless.

There is also this:
The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts

and the indication from Scripture that God created the universe pretty much as is so that it would be inhabitable.

[Bosh Flimshaw]

So do you think the modern cosmology is as erroneous as modern biology?

[fproy2222]

I don’t know. I think it’s older than 6,000 years, but am not sure that it’s the billions that scientists say.

++

I thought the 6000 years was just the part of the earth’s age since Adam and Eve left the garden.

[alstewartfan]

Metmom, to me, the age of the universe is not particularly relevant b/c God has existed *forever* in the past. Darwinists enjoy tripping up creationists with endless questions about age. It's as though they think that if “young earth” creationism can be discredited, people will then give credibility to their nonsense about how single-celled organisms awakened to consciousness through billions of “dumb luck” mutations.

[Cvengr]

The more I consider the young earth theory, and how consistent it is with Scripture, the more I find the dual of the young earth theory to manifest profound weaknesses.

5700+ to 6000 yrs actually isn’t as absurd, IMHO, as those who propose billions of years in age with absolute conviction.