Sea grass found that is older than the earth

[_bcspace]

These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.”

So is 200,000 years (or 4 billion years) a period of time or is it of eternal length?

Something to notice here is that the physical creation of the earth is doctrinally placed where (and LDS) one traditionally thinks of the spiritual creation. So perhaps the words "temporal" and "Time" have a context which is merely that which spans the Lord's dealings with humanity on earth that is relevant to us; Adam to the present.

Seems to me the quote is saying exactly the opposite of what you want it to say. "Eternity" does not have duration. 200,000 years is by definition a duration of time. Therefore 200,000 years is not eternal, merely a long duration. Therefore you are wrong.

Considering the context, it doesn't appear that I am wrong (perhaps you meant that the doctrine is wrong?). Whether I am wrong or not, it doesn't change the fact that the OP is wrong, because the doctrine on D&C 77 is clear that the dispensations do not cover the entire length of the earth's physical existence.

[_bcspace]

The apologetic response IS claptrap. The passage clearly says that the temporal, ie physical age is 7000 years. If they want to argue that the earth was around for longer as a "spirit planet" before that, that's fine, but it makes no difference here.

Here again, you missed the context of the doctrine I quoted which places the physical creation outside what is considered the "Time" of the Lord's dealing with man.

The Book of Abraham creation account even has the physical creation as watching the elements "until they obeyed". Very good stuff for Big Bang/Evolution.

Also, in additional answer to Samantabhadra's "Eternity" does not have duration" statement. We already have a scriptural precedent in LDS theology where such DOES have a finite duration (D&C 19:6-12). And then there is the mathematical concept of larger and smaller infinities, etc.

[_Buffalo]

The apologetic response IS claptrap. The passage clearly says that the temporal, ie physical age is 7000 years. If they want to argue that the earth was around for longer as a "spirit planet" before that, that's fine, but it makes no difference here.

Here again, you missed the context of the doctrine I quoted which places the physical creation outside what is considered the "Time" of the Lord's dealing with man.

The Book of Abraham creation account even has the physical creation as watching the elements "until they obeyed". Very good stuff for Big Bang/Evolution.

Also, in additional answer to Samantabhadra's "Eternity" does not have duration" statement. We already have a scriptural precedent in LDS theology where such DOES have a finite duration (D&C 19:6-12). And then there is the mathematical concept of larger and smaller infinities, etc.

Sorry bcspace, in LDS terminology, temporal = pertaining to the physical state. What does temporal death mean?

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/tg/tempor ... g&letter=t

Also, please detail for us, in scientific terms, how the concept of elemental obedience has anything to do with either big bang or evolution.

As usual, you're out of harmony with both scripture and science. The lukewarm will be spewed.

[_GR33N]

"They cannot move. The outlook is very bad."

Ha Ha Ha, scientists make me laugh. Especially the way the decide how old something is by carbon dating. I was watching a show on Public Television about dinosaur bones found in Colorado and they carbon dated the dirt around the site because the carbon dating of the bones itself didn't reveal "the right age"!

So the policy of Scientist is to figure out how old the dirt is that the Dinosaur was buried in to find out how long it has been dead.

[_Quasimodo]

Ha Ha Ha, scientists make me laugh. Especially the way the decide how old something is by carbon dating. I was watching a show on Public Television about dinosaur bones found in Colorado and they carbon dated the dirt around the site because the carbon dating of the bones itself didn't reveal "the right age"!

So the policy of Scientist is to figure out how old the dirt is that the Dinosaur was buried in to find out how long it has been dead.

I'm sure that you would make scientists laugh.

This wasn't determined by carbon dating. DNA. Read through the thread.

You must have fallen asleep during the program you were watching and just dreamed about the carbon dating around dinosaur bones. Carbon dating only works to about 40,000 years ago. Dinosaurs lived between sixty million and two hundred million years ago.

You need to brush up a little if you're going to try to discuss this stuff.

[_beefcalf]

"They cannot move. The outlook is very bad."

Ha Ha Ha, scientists make me laugh. Especially the way the decide how old something is by carbon dating. I was watching a show on Public Television about dinosaur bones found in Colorado and they carbon dated the dirt around the site because the carbon dating of the bones itself didn't reveal "the right age"!

So the policy of Scientist is to figure out how old the dirt is that the Dinosaur was buried in to find out how long it has been dead.

It is not possible to carbon-date a dinosaur bone. In fact, radiometric dating cannot be used on sedimentary or metamorphic rock, only igneous rock. Which means that when you find a layer of shale or sandstone which contains a fossil you want to date, you must find a higher AND lower layer of basalt or some other igneous rock and date those. Of course, c14 cannot be used for any nonbiological material, nor any biological material older than around 50k years, but many other radiometric clocks have sufficiently long half-lives to allow accurate dating.

[_Quasimodo]

It is not possible to carbon-date a dinosaur bone. In fact, radiometric dating cannot be used on sedimentary or metamorphic rock, only igneous rock. Which means that when you find a layer of shale or sandstone which contains a fossil you want to date, you must find a higher AND lower layer of basalt or some other igneous rock and date those. Of course, c14 cannot be used for any nonbiological material, nor any biological material older than around 50k years, but many other radiometric clocks have sufficiently long half-lives to allow accurate dating.

Sorry beefcalf, you better recheck.

[_beefcalf]

Sorry beefcalf, you better recheck.

I'm on I-10 between Quartzite and Phoenix, trying to post from my iPad. Not too easy...

So, quasi, teach me. I'm here to learn.

[_Drifting]

"They cannot move. The outlook is very bad."

Ha Ha Ha, scientists make me laugh. Especially the way the decide how old something is by carbon dating. I was watching a show on Public Television about dinosaur bones found in Colorado and they carbon dated the dirt around the site because the carbon dating of the bones itself didn't reveal "the right age"!

So the policy of Scientist is to figure out how old the dirt is that the Dinosaur was buried in to find out how long it has been dead.

But the dirt was older than the LDS version of the age of the Earth...right?

[_beefcalf]

It is not possible to carbon-date a dinosaur bone. In fact, radiometric dating cannot be used on sedimentary or metamorphic rock, only igneous rock. Which means that when you find a layer of shale or sandstone which contains a fossil you want to date, you must find a higher AND lower layer of basalt or some other igneous rock and date those. Of course, c14 cannot be used for any nonbiological material, nor any biological material older than around 50k years, but many other radiometric clocks have sufficiently long half-lives to allow accurate dating.

Sorry beefcalf, you better recheck.

Hey, Quasimodo, just a quick update...

Your reply got me wondering, but because of intermittent 3G along Interstate 10, and the lateness of the hour, I didn't have a chance to recheck until this morning (and since I'm getting old, there was a distinct chance my memory might have failed me).

I'm not certain what it was you were disagreeing with, but after digging through all the references I could find online, I'm pretty comfortable with my original assessment. I would probably note that I was light on some details, so that may be where the disconnect is.

I should add at this point that the process of bracketing, that is, finding igneous rock layers higher and lower and dating those, is not typically done for each fossil, but is done to identify the age of each rock layer. Since rock layers are much like tree rings, once you've identified a sequence in the rock strata, and you've radiometrically dated them, you don't necessarily need to repeat that dating process when you find that same rock layer hundreds or thousands of miles away. One well-known rock layer that has been dated is the K-T boundary. If you find a fossil immediately above or below the K-T boundary, you don't have to go to the expense of radiometrically dating the rock layers because you already know that hundreds of previous tests have shown it to be ~65 million years old.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

ETA: One more correction: where I said that only igneous rocks can be dated, I need to be clear that layers of volcanic ash are also suitable for the same purpose.

I found this source some years ago: Radiometric Dating and, more generally: Talk Origins FAQs