AGE OF THE EARTH...

[Oroblanco]

Mr. O,
Areas of the earth that have scraped clean automatically means glacier action? Consider that the world flood washed those area's clean of soil. Sort of like a flooding river in the Rockies can wash the bedrock clean of overburden. Also, the destructive action of the oceans on the beaches of the world when a hurricane decides to come calling. Visualize the water action that cleaned out the open pockets of soil and other detrious material, leaving those large potholes in the bedrock we call the Great Lakes.
Don't you find it just a little bit suspicious that the common excuse for saltwater fossils found on the slopes of extremely high mountains is that those seashells were leftover from when the mountains were flatlands covered by the sea?? Were those mountains formed at the same time that those gigantic mountain ranges beneath the oceans were formed? There are undersea mountain ranges that make the Himalayas look like foothills.

HOLA amigo,
I don't see how a water flood could leave behind the type of damage done by those glaciers in northern Canada. There are scratches and gouges which are not like the smooth water-worn evidence you would expect if it were from a water-flood. I have not ever seen the bottoms of the Great Lakes, but can easily accept that a two-mile thick ice sheet could have gouged them out.

I don't see how sedimentary rocks are explained under the Young Earth theory. Not just sandstones but clay-stones too, and limestones; take a look at chalk or diatomaceous earth; you can see the tiny shells under a microscope. Under the Young Earth theory, do we say that the hundreds of feet thick layers of sedimentary rocks, formed in a short period of time, as in NOT over tens of millions of years?

Those fossil sea shells I see as evidence of the great old age of our planet. In fact only recently Mrs O and I have dabbled in fossil hunting as this area where we live is a good one for it, and I don't see how these fossils could have formed in a few thousand years time. These fossil shells we were picking are at an elevation of nearly 4000 feet above sea level, and the "shell" part is long-gone leaving stone fossil prints. Under the Young Earth theory, how were these left here so high above the sea? There are layers of solid sandstone on TOP of the layers with the fossil sea shells too - and not just a few inches but a thick layer.

Just my opinion but to say that the Earth is only a few thousands of years old, is to say that the Creator of them is equally "young" or not that much older, which hardly fits with the name "ancient of days" right?

OK here is yet another problem. What about fresh-water fishes? How did they survive a world-wide flood that would leave sea shells high in the mountains, which would have been SALT water? Wouldn't they have died off, leaving the freshwater lakes and rivers pretty well un-inhabited by fish? What would cause a world-wide flood, if NOT the result of a massive MELTING of those giant ice sheets we had in the Ice Ages?

This Young Earth theory is interesting, but I still have many problems understanding how it would explain things as we see them. Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Shortstack]

Mr. O,
There is an untold number of questions in relation to the differences in the beliefs of Old Earthers and New Earthers. To go over everything is not possible in THIS venue. For every question in support of an earth of 4-5 billion years, there is an equally plausible question in support of an earth of from 6,000 to 50,000 years. My personal belief is that the earth is about 10,000 years. Now, am I trying to convince you (or anyone else) that I am right and you are wrong? NO. absolutely not. You are entitled to your own beliefs and suppositions.
You mentioned diatomacous earth. I believe there are only 3 or 4 places in the entire world where that material is found in any amount approaching commercial mining opportunities. California has one; on the central coast, if I'm not mistaken. Makes me wonder at the possibilities of large eddys in the world flood that made those deposits realities.
You seem impressed with the depth of sandstone formations. They could have been deposited very quickly during a cataclysmic worldwide flood. That cataclysmic flood would be moving and throwing boulders around like marbles; gouging out cuts and cracking base rock like child's play. Haven't you ever seen how raging mountain torrents move large boulders down creek and river beds? Heck, the kind of worldwide flood we're talking about, would produce power levels so high they'd be unmeasureable.
You asked about those sea shells being found 4,000 feet above sea level (and higher). Well, just what do you think would happen to the occupants of the oceans when those oceans and seas were expanded to cover the entire planet?? Do you think they'd stay in their "normal" sea and ocean beds just WAITING for the flood to subside? THINK about the dynamics of that worldwide flood and a lot of your questions will be answered. Look at the damage done in the Phoenix area just a few days ago by flood waters; and in California. Those were NOTHING compared to Noah's flood. Just microscopic examples of a flood's power. Do you remember reading about that flood in, I think, Pennsylvania or West Virginia, about 30 years ago when that dam broke and washed out a gorge for miles; taking everything in it's way as if houses, cars, whole towns, were simply pieces of fluff? Think about a worldwide flood and just what it could do. Everywhere you LOOK reveals what that flood did.

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigo and THANK YOU for taking the time to explain things.

I don't expect you to have all the answers (no one does) of course. As a placer gold prospector I am fairly familiar with the way things get moved around by waters, including flood waters. The biggest difference is the size of the things getting moved around, and the thickness of the layers. In ordinary flows, sands and clay particles get deposited in very thin layers as you would expect. In a big flood, big things get layered in THICK layers, which do not have noticeable "seams" through the whole thickness of that flood deposition layer. The sizes of the particles also do not get well sorted out in a flood, while on the other hand in a normal flow (non-flood) they DO get sorted out by size and weight.

I don't have any pictures handy to illustrate what I am talking about, but if you should take note the next time you go to a dry creekbed or active stream, you can readily tell the difference between the areas that were deposited over a LONG time (well-sorted, even thickness) compared with the results of a flood; in the flood, the rising waters came quickly and went down quickly, leaving thick "lenses" of material where it left anything at all, and in those 'lenses' you find rocks and dirt particles of ALL sizes, NOT sorted very well at all, jumbled with plants, animals, old cars etc anything the flood took in its path. Sandstones as we have been talking about do not exhibit the characteristics of flood-deposited materials; they are formed of well-sorted granules of material, in very regular layers that even I can pick out the "seam".

The world-wide flood you are describing would require incredible amounts of waters to reach altitudes of 4000 feet above sea level, now I don't claim that I know how much water is in the oceans to the gallon but I doubt there is enough water in the whole world to make that much. If you are saying that there used to be that much water but now it is gone, then where has it gone? This part doesn't make sense to me. There is a big difference between saying there was 'world wide flooding' and saying there was a flood that covered the mountain tops. Or are you saying that the lands of the Earth did not reach as high as they are now? If the Earth was all a vast plain without any high plains or mountains, it would take less water - but then how could we explain our high mountains of today? Even in Genesis, it says the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, so there was a fairly high mountain already existing right? Mount Ararat is pretty tall as mountains go - well over 16,000 feet if memory serves. Are we to say that the flood waters rose to over 16,000 feet above the current sea levels?

I am still baffled by the Ice Age question - what evidence is there that no Ice Age ever happened? Why is this crucial to a Young Earth theory? Couldn't there be a Young Earth, which still had an Ice Age? If there was no Ice Age, presuming the polar ice caps were there in the Flood, what happened to all the ice if there was water thousands of feet deep around the globe? I guess I don't understand this part either.

I do appreciate your efforts amigo and am not demanding that you change your mind either; the Young Earth theory makes more sense to you than an Old Earth theory. To my eyes, the Old Earth makes more sense and will "fit" the evidence overall. I just wish to understand the Young Earth theory fully and hear it out. Thanks again,
Oroblanco

 

[mamabear]

My body begs to differ with the "gravity is growing weaker" theory! It seems to be getting stronger every day!!

 

[Shortstack]

mamabear, I know that feeling very well.


Mr. O,
How many miles thick do scientists say the ice cap was during the Ice Age? 2miles? 5 miles? That's about 11,000 feet to more than 25,000 feet. Isn't the ice cap on Annartica supposedly 5 miles thick? Well, that is more than 25,000 feet. REALLY? Shoot, covering a 16,000 foot tall mountain would be included. Now, think about what would be required to freeze water to a thickness of 25,000 feet over an area covering hundreds of thousands of square miles. Or just 2 miles thick, over that same area. Mr. O, too many of those so-called scientists simply do not THINK THROUGH many of their statements. They are too used to having people automatically accept their pronouncements. The world is flat. Really? The universe revolves around the earth. Really? The dust covering the surface of the Moon will be at least 10 feet thick. Really? "There will NEVER be a heavier-than-air vehicle with the ability to sustain flight under it's own power." Really? The city of Troy is just a fairy tale of fiction written as entertainment for the masses. Really? The giant octopus is a figment of old-time sailors' imagination. Really? Sending the human voice through a piece of wire would be witchcraft. Really?

Mr. O, there is a scientist studying Egypt that has put forth his theory that those large blocks of stone used to build the Great Pyramid (and others) were flown into position using kites. One of the cable T.V. channels put together a program with him.(either the Science Channel or the History Channel) To say that is asinine, would be very generous. The pronouncements that those stones were rolled into position on logs, up sand ramps, using ropes pulled by thousands of people are almost as bad. How were those stones moved into position? The heck if I know. But, I surely do not believe those current theories. Remember, a theory is not proven until it is actually accomplished and is repeatable. Contractors today will tell you there is no equipment in the world that could be use to move and place those stones in full-scale copies of the Great Pyramid. And don't even mention the cutting and dressing of the stone, plus transporting it to the construction site.

Concerning the sedimentary deposits that are classified. Please remember that the world flood did not "go away" in hours or even days. It was in place for several weeks, thus providing plenty of time for the sediments to naturally "classify" to the bottom of the water's depth; wherever that bottom was located.........on a mountain side or on the plains of the Dakota's. We demonstrated that principle in Junior High School with the dirty water in quart jars; agitated vigorously, then set aside to "rest".

There is a vast layer of Cretaceous stone covering the entire globe. You can see it in the White Cliffs of Dover, England.

 

[lamar]

Dear group;
There may exist another possibility that the creationists will have to address in the near future, that being whether or not life ever existed on Mars. Less than three months ago, NASA scientists announced that based upon study of several meteorites of Martian origins, that at least one meteorite"contains strong evidence that life may have existed on ancient Mars"[NASA source quote]. NASA also has classified 57 meteorites as having once been a part of Mars and out of the 57 examples, at least 3 of them exhibit signs that life may have once existed on Mars.

It's now a reality that there may have been life on Mars at one time during it's existence and it's something which throw the Creationists theories out the window, as the vast majority of them feel that the Spirit in the Sky (in keeping with the custom of not using the *G* word on this thread) chose Earth over all other planets in the Universe to promote life.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigo,
Shortstack wrote

mamabear, I know that feeling very well.


Mr. O,
How many miles thick do scientists say the ice cap was during the Ice Age? 2miles? 5 miles? That's about 11,000 feet to more than 25,000 feet. Isn't the ice cap on Annartica supposedly 5 miles thick? Well, that is more than 25,000 feet. REALLY? Shoot, covering a 16,000 foot tall mountain would be included. Now, think about what would be required to freeze water to a thickness of 25,000 feet over an area covering hundreds of thousands of square miles. Or just 2 miles thick, over that same area. Mr. O, too many of those so-called scientists simply do not THINK THROUGH many of their statements. They are too used to having people automatically accept their pronouncements. The world is flat. Really? The universe revolves around the earth. Really? The dust covering the surface of the Moon will be at least 10 feet thick. Really? "There will NEVER be a heavier-than-air vehicle with the ability to sustain flight under it's own power." Really? The city of Troy is just a fairy tale of fiction written as entertainment for the masses. Really? The giant octopus is a figment of old-time sailors' imagination. Really? Sending the human voice through a piece of wire would be witchcraft. Really?

Mr. O, there is a scientist studying Egypt that has put forth his theory that those large blocks of stone used to build the Great Pyramid (and others) were flown into position using kites. One of the cable T.V. channels put together a program with him.(either the Science Channel or the History Channel) To say that is asinine, would be very generous. The pronouncements that those stones were rolled into position on logs, up sand ramps, using ropes pulled by thousands of people are almost as bad. How were those stones moved into position? The heck if I know. But, I surely do not believe those current theories. Remember, a theory is not proven until it is actually accomplished and is repeatable. Contractors today will tell you there is no equipment in the world that could be use to move and place those stones in full-scale copies of the Great Pyramid. And don't even mention the cutting and dressing of the stone, plus transporting it to the construction site.

Concerning the sedimentary deposits that are classified. Please remember that the world flood did not "go away" in hours or even days. It was in place for several weeks, thus providing plenty of time for the sediments to naturally "classify" to the bottom of the water's depth; wherever that bottom was located.........on a mountain side or on the plains of the Dakota's. We demonstrated that principle in Junior High School with the dirty water in quart jars; agitated vigorously, then set aside to "rest".

There is a vast layer of Cretaceous stone covering the entire globe. You can see it in the White Cliffs of Dover, England.

What is at the root of the Young Earth theory? Isn't it rooted in an interpretation of the bible, and adding up the years of the patriarchs etc and taking the six "days" of Creation literally? I have read the bible and nowhere does it say exactly how old the Earth is. What I do see is that some important passages get ignored in order to come up with a young age for Earth, one of which was mentioned earlier, specifically Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, and like a watch in the night and 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ig-norant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

A Rabbi calculated the true age of the Universe in the 13th century and came up with a figure that pretty well agrees with what science calculates. quote

In the 13th century, Rabbi Isaac of Akko made the insight that, since Sabbatical cycles existed before man was created, time before Adam and Eve must be measured in divine years, not human years. Psalm 90:4 says, "For a thousand years in thy sight are but like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night." Rabbi Isaac of Akko - who held like Livnat Ha-Sapir, that we are in the seventh Sabbatical cycle - therefore took the above figure of 42,000 years and multiplied it by 365,250 (he was using a 365.25-day year) to get 15,340,500,000 years for the age of the universe when Adam was created. This is roughly in line with what modern science is saying (15 billion years, give or take a couple billion), and Rabbi Isaac of Akko came up with it in the 13th century. (Today we know that there are 365.242199 days in a year. Thus, on the secular calendar, the leap year is withheld in years ending in 00, unless the year is also divisible by 400. Rabbi Isaac of Akko's calculation is thus refined to 15,340,172,358 years.)



...then there is a whole 'nother' issue, that of Cosmic time. Here too, the bible scripture does agree, quote

Most difficult for most non-scientists to grasp is relative time-passage, that length-of-time is not a constant at different places. In contrast - flat versus spherical earth - through education and the commonplace of air travel in our daily lives, western adults easily accept a ball-shaped Earth rather than flatness - what our eyes see.

To self-educate on time-passage-differences, some gradual acclimatization can assist: Einsteinian time-dilation (proven by aircraft flight comparisons) establishes that time slows as the gravity field-force and travel speeds increase;


Earth-time is based on Earth's gravity (average man weighs about 170 lbs.) and Earth-surface speed (about 220 miles-per-second: Earth orbit of Sun; our solar system movement in our galaxy; etc.);.
At the Big Bang, the gravity field was so great that a tiny dust mite (that we might see floating in a ray of sunlight in our living room) might weigh millions of tons; the speed of travel would approach that of light; thus (per our smartest Cosmologists) - at the spot where future Earth would be located in the expanding Cosmos - "Day 1 of Cosmic time" (24 hour equivalent day) would be about seven billion years of present Earth-time; Day 2 (expanding Universe), about half that;
Thus, it turns out that 13.7 billion years (Earth time) is equivalent to only about six days of Cosmic time, and our Earth (per science), which is dated to about four billion years of age, was formed (from the swirling mass of material which became our galaxy and solar system) at about the beginning of Cosmic Day 3.
Interesting aspects of time relativity are: a cross-country aircraft traveler gains perhaps one forty-billionth of a second, compared to stay-at-homes; and an astronaut on the moon "ages" a similar, unnoticeable amount of time relative to earthlings.

Of great interest to religious believers is that Cosmic time, seems to agree in all respects with Bible time. Events both in the Cosmos and on Earth - as astronomy and Earth sciences establish them - seem to concur with the biblical events. Comparisons show remarkable correlations to Genesis, day by day: the formation of galaxies; formation of solar system; Earth, water, vegetation appears; aquatic and flying creatures, mammals and humankind appear - different words but not a single non-conformity! Extremely noteworthy is that the studies of Astronomy and Earth sciences have been under development only in the past few centuries, whereas, the matching words of the Bible have been around for millennia.



So in a sense, the folks who are saying that the Earth is young, 10,000 or 50,000 years old, are not just disagreeing with science, they are in disagreement with scripture.

There is one more issue too - the ancient Hebrews, Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians and several other cultures had a "Great Year" which was about 26,000 years, representing one cycle of the precession of the Earth in its orbit. How would these ancient peoples have figured this out, if the Earth was less than one Great Year old?

Thank you again for a fascinating discussion amigo, and I can't prove the Earth is a certain age, for (despite the ugly rumors) I wasn't around to watch it being made and surely won't be here to see how long it takes before it ends.

Lamar - have you heard about the detection of methane in the Martian atmosphere? As there are two logical origins, active volcanoes or organic, and there are NO active volcanoes, isn't that a good clue that life may yet persist on Mars? I read a recent NASA article in which they stated that until proven otherwise, we now have to presume that some form of life probably does exist there.

One look at the cosmos and knowing that nature abhors a vacuum sure suggests there are probably other life forms out there somewhere, otherwise it is a tremendous waste of materials.
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

mamabear, I know that feeling very well.


Mr. O,
How many miles thick do scientists say the ice cap was during the Ice Age? 2miles? 5 miles? That's about 11,000 feet to more than 25,000 feet. Isn't the ice cap on Annartica supposedly 5 miles thick? Well, that is more than 25,000 feet. REALLY? Shoot, covering a 16,000 foot tall mountain would be included. Now, think about what would be required to freeze water to a thickness of 25,000 feet over an area covering hundreds of thousands of square miles. Or just 2 miles thick, over that same area. Mr. O, too many of those so-called scientists simply do not THINK THROUGH many of their statements. They are too used to having people automatically accept their pronouncements. The world is flat. Really? The universe revolves around the earth. Really? The dust covering the surface of the Moon will be at least 10 feet thick. Really? "There will NEVER be a heavier-than-air vehicle with the ability to sustain flight under it's own power." Really? The city of Troy is just a fairy tale of fiction written as entertainment for the masses. Really? The giant octopus is a figment of old-time sailors' imagination. Really? Sending the human voice through a piece of wire would be witchcraft. Really?

Mr. O, there is a scientist studying Egypt that has put forth his theory that those large blocks of stone used to build the Great Pyramid (and others) were flown into position using kites. One of the cable T.V. channels put together a program with him.(either the Science Channel or the History Channel) To say that is asinine, would be very generous. The pronouncements that those stones were rolled into position on logs, up sand ramps, using ropes pulled by thousands of people are almost as bad. How were those stones moved into position? The heck if I know. But, I surely do not believe those current theories. Remember, a theory is not proven until it is actually accomplished and is repeatable. Contractors today will tell you there is no equipment in the world that could be use to move and place those stones in full-scale copies of the Great Pyramid. And don't even mention the cutting and dressing of the stone, plus transporting it to the construction site.

Concerning the sedimentary deposits that are classified. Please remember that the world flood did not "go away" in hours or even days. It was in place for several weeks, thus providing plenty of time for the sediments to naturally "classify" to the bottom of the water's depth; wherever that bottom was located.........on a mountain side or on the plains of the Dakota's. We demonstrated that principle in Junior High School with the dirty water in quart jars; agitated vigorously, then set aside to "rest".

There is a vast layer of Cretaceous stone covering the entire globe. You can see it in the White Cliffs of Dover, England.

Dear Shortstack;
I would like to refute your statement that:
too many of those so-called scientists simply do not THINK THROUGH many of their statements. They are too used to having people automatically accept their pronouncements. The world is flat. Really? The universe revolves around the earth. Really? The dust covering the surface of the Moon will be at least 10 feet thick. Really? "There will NEVER be a heavier-than-air vehicle with the ability to sustain flight under it's own power." Really? The city of Troy is just a fairy tale of fiction written as entertainment for the masses. Really? The giant octopus is a figment of old-time sailors' imagination. Really? Sending the human voice through a piece of wire would be witchcraft. Really?

First, it's NOT the scientific community which makes statements such as the examples which you've provided, rather it's the RELIGIOUS community which makes those statements, my friend. Please do not take statements or hypothesis out of context, my friend. True, there were a FEW astro-physicists who THEORIZED that the surface of the moon MAY been covered in dust up to 10 feet thick, but no one ever once stated that it WAS, merely that it was a POSSIBILITY.

Also, early astronomers proposed that the Earth revolved around the Sun instead and it was the theologians who proclaimed the opposite. Science explores possibilities using specified methods and criteria. Science does not engage in *what if* possibilities which cannot be repeated. Science opens doors to the future.

I think you have science and the scientific method confused with theology and theocratic system, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

I do not understand how a "young earth" theoryist can explain - satisfactorily, things like:

1) Carbon dating of things older than the supposed age of the earth

2) radiometric dating of rocks, which include rocks that date to 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago, including some sedimentary rocks and minerals which date even older (radiometrically) to 4.2+ billion years.

3) Dating does not tell exact age - but MINIMUM age - in other words - it at least XX years old.

4) The dating done on the three isotopes of lead - we know that some of these decay, and leave it its wake, end-products of uranium decay, which causes certain "points of reference". (this is the most direct way - by comparison of these elements from earth and meteorites, of determining a lower limit on age).

I know "young earthers" have a problem with some of these tests (and other similar tests), but the very fact that they lead to actual CONSISTENT data, upends that idea.

In another point - where did the ice man mummy come from, and how was he so well preserved for 5300+ years in the ice, if there was no ice age?

There is a ice core test (which you can count layers of ice, like rings on a tree) that was taken in Antartica, which went back 420,000 years.

Speaking of trees, there is a tree is Sweden that is almost 10,000 years old - that, in itself is 2,000 years older that some "anti-bangers" claim the earth is.

B

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblanco;
Yes, my friend, the discovery of methane in Mars atomosphere offers VERY tantalizing possibilities! Methane is a very unstable gas which means that it tends to dissipate rapidly, therefore Mars needs to produce an estimated 260-280 tons of methane gas annually in order for it to be detected on Earth.

Since we can tell that Mars is not volcanically active, where does the methane gas originate from? That is the 64,000$ question that everyone is asking, my friend! All known possible sources have been ruled out, including ateroid impacts and deep sub-strate chemical reactions. This only leaves us with one known possible solution, that being the presence of methanogens.

For those unaware of what methanogens are, they are any one of over fifty different micro-organisms which excrete methane gas. It is now believed that methanogens are responsible for Mars methane gas and as such, if THEY exist, then what is to preclude the existence of OTHER life forms on the planet as well All in all, it's a VERY exciting possibility!
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

I do not understand how a "young earth" theoryist can explain - satisfactorily, things like:

1) Carbon dating of things older than the supposed age of the earth

2) radiometric dating of rocks, which include rocks that date to 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago, including some sedimentary rocks and minerals which date even older (radiometrically) to 4.2+ billion years.

3) Dating does not tell exact age - but MINIMUM age - in other words - it at least XX years old.

4) The dating done on the three isotopes of lead - we know that some of these decay, and leave it its wake, end-products of uranium decay, which causes certain "points of reference". (this is the most direct way - by comparison of these elements from earth and meteorites, of determining a lower limit on age).

I know "young earthers" have a problem with some of these tests (and other similar tests), but the very fact that they lead to actual CONSISTENT data, upends that idea.

In another point - where did the ice man mummy come from, and how was he so well preserved for 5300+ years in the ice, if there was no ice age?

There is a ice core test (which you can count layers of ice, like rings on a tree) that was taken in Antartica, which went back 420,000 years.

Speaking of trees, there is a tree is Sweden that is almost 10,000 years old - that, in itself is 2,000 years older that some "anti-bangers" claim the earth is.

B

Dear Oroblanco;
The plain and simple truth of the matter is that the creationists are needing to grasp ever smaller straws as the years pass, my friend. Their body of evidence, woefully small in the first place, shrinks annually as technology advances. Of course, if there is life on Mars, most Creationists will be quick to state that since it does not have arms, legs, ears, etc., that it's not REAL life, but merely bacteria, which is not life at all. Someone will find some really umbigious passage tucked away in the *book* somewhere and misinterpret the passage in order to justify whatever needs justification. It always seems to work that way, doesn't it?
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Saturna]

It always seems to work that way, doesn't it?
Your friend;
LAMAR

Yes it does. The bottom line is that if someone has a pre-determined need/want to believe in something, then all evidence will be interpereted to suit that need.

Tests will be discredited if they don't support it, and science will be 'bent' to prove it.


.... and I suspect that our young Earther has such a pre-determined belief.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Aka SELECTIVE READING, SELECTIVE HISTORY; sometimes...
PRE- SELECTIVE "this & that"; even I do it.

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Lamar,

Just wanted to tell you - that was me, not Mr. O who posted about the trees, etc.

Of course, there are some questions in the post that I'd still like to see "anti-bangers" answer (my new word)

B

 

[gallileo60]

This discussion has become ridicules, of course there was an ice age, several actually..

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

What are the various evidences for an OLD Earth, well we have listed a number of them; if to accept a Young Earth theory we must dismiss or ignore all of the evidences of an Old Earth, then it is not a logical approach.

I don't see how the thick beds of sedimentary rock can be explained under a Young Earth theory; sandstones take a very long time and lots of pressure to solidify, and in the Grand Canyon we can see numerous layers of sedimentary rocks. If these were supposed to be formed in a very short time due to a massive flood event, would they even be solidified today? What about coal and oil? These deposits are found DEEP underground in many cases, and are apparently made from biological remains; to my mind, this very much points to a terrific span of TIME for these minerals to have been deposited, buried, aged, etc to form coal and oil.

I am aware that diamonds have been made in the lab in a very short time span; however as far as I know, no lab has successfully created coal. The fossil sea shells found far inland and quite high altitudes above sea levels we have touched on too - if they were simply tossed there by the massive flood event, how is it that there are layers of sedimentary rock on TOP of them, which is also well hardened? Was this big flood a series of big floods, so that one threw sea shells and left them, then another threw fifty feet of sands on top if it, without disturbing the shells? These fossil beds look very like they were deposited under quite calm conditions, you don't find big boulders mixed in with the shells, and the layers of rock on top are likewise very regular in thickness and uniform in particle size - just as you would expect to have been left by a long, gradual process of deposition, not a mass event of epic, global proportions.

Then if we have to say there was NO Ice Age, I am really at a loss. The evidence left by glaciers is clear and widespread; the rough gouges and scratches do not resemble water-worn erosion as suggested for the alternate (young-flood) explanation. The amount of water needed to have a water depth of 16000 feet above current sea level is astonishing, more than in all the oceans and lakes of the world, and to say it is tied up in the polar ice caps is to ignore the fact that water expands when it freezes, not contracts. If all the ice in the world melted, it would actually take up less space as water than it does as ice.

I am not trying to throw stones at anyone, and to the people who accept the Young Earth theory it must make better sense than the Old Earth theory. I suspect the root of the Young Earth theory lies in a misinterpretation in scripture, which as posted earlier is clearly an error due to not taking into account the "1000 years as a day" factor or that scripture was written by shepherd folks. What was their largest number, for instance, but "myriads" (10,000) so how would you explain a billion in those terms; the limits of their language had to be observed.

I'm sure that atheists would take issue with my posts here and claim that it is selective cherry-picking of words to support my position, but it works and is not a case of taking words out of context. My point is that one need not suspend your religious beliefs in order to accept science and vice-versa; they are not truly at odds whatsoever - only when we try to interpret scripture in some literal term that conflicts with science do we find contradictions.

Good luck and good hunting to you all, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

PS - I keep forgetting to add, concerning sedimentary rocks; that in order for these types of rocks to form at all, the particles they are made up of had to be eroded out of other rocks - this in itself points to a terrific span of time. The original rock had to be formed, eroded and broken down, carried by waters or winds and reduced in size and shape, then deposited etc it is a very LONG process that is hard to accept in terms of even a few tens of thousands of years.
R

 

[Zincoln Miner]

10,000 years..........t/y Shortstack

I recommend "Fingerprints of the gods" by Graham Hancock for everyone to read.

 

[Shortstack]

Funny you should bring up the pre-determination idea, Mr. Saturna. I've been thinking the samething. You see, that description covers all. As I wrote before, I believe what I believe and have no intentions of trying to convert anyone else. The statements made on this thread have fairly well covered all areas and have returned to covering topics already covered. So, rehashing them will not change the status quo.

I do find it amusing that you folks are quoting the Bible so emphatically. The next question is, do you BELIEVE it? Or, are you still picking and choosing what you will and what you won't? Cherry picking verses because they seem to support your argument. Apparently, you believe the verses purporting that the earth took billions of years to get to were we are today. You know, 1000 years to God is as 1 day to man. Well, now, Do you believe that a man died, and three days later, arose from the dead? Talk is cheap.

In your researching the Bible to buttruss your arguments for "old earth", did you by chance notice any of the scientific statements strewn within? Such as, "the earth is as a sphere hanging in nothingness." Or the mention of "stars that sing". How about Jonah's report that there are "mountains beneath the sea".

Lastly, I have access to surveillance photos showing artificial structures on Mars, as well as the Moon.

 

[lamar]

Funny you should bring up the pre-determination idea, Mr. Saturna. I've been thinking the samething. You see, that description covers all. As I wrote before, I believe what I believe and have no intentions of trying to convert anyone else. The statements made on this thread have fairly well covered all areas and have returned to covering topics already covered. So, rehashing them will not change the status quo.

I do find it amusing that you folks are quoting the Bible so emphatically. The next question is, do you BELIEVE it? Or, are you still picking and choosing what you will and what you won't? Cherry picking verses because they seem to support your argument. Apparently, you believe the verses purporting that the earth took billions of years to get to were we are today. You know, 1000 years to God is as 1 day to man. Well, now, Do you believe that a man died, and three days later, arose from the dead? Talk is cheap.

In your researching the Bible to buttruss your arguments for "old earth", did you by chance notice any of the scientific statements strewn within? Such as, "the earth is as a sphere hanging in nothingness." Or the mention of "stars that sing". How about Jonah's report that there are "mountains beneath the sea".

Lastly, I have access to surveillance photos showing artificial structures on Mars, as well as the Moon.

Dear Shortstack;
There exists no evidence of artificial structures on either the moon or mars, except for what we've recently put there, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR