Young Earth Frustration

[_Morley]

....

If you're interested in history (real history) may I suggest you visit:

http://www.archaeologica.org/NewsPage.htm

It's a site that I go to daily. It lists most of the current news about archaeology on a daily basis and might help you to put things into perspective.

I have fossils on my desk that alone are enough to refute the idea that the earth is very young.

Great link, Quasi. Thanks.

[_Nightlion]

Maybe the problem is associating the young earth theory and the creation event together. Can they not be separate?

So the question is, can creation, biblical history (young earth theory), and old earth theory all be true at the same time. I believe they can.

Explain.

Allow me, if you please.

Christians have a lazy eye when it comes to reading scripture. They want it nifty and tidy and without deep and ponderous thoughts attending.
A expanded view of creation does indeed allow for billions and billion of years before man sets foot in the Garden of Eden. Just because two scriptures are next to each other does not preclude a vast amount of time to elapse between them.

God made man in his own likeness and image both male and female and commanded them to multiply and replenish the "EARTH". Wait, wait, wait.......just because he called it earth did not mean that from the time that they commenced multiplying and replenishing until the had finished all the hosts thereof was actually accomplished upon terra firma.

And how long do you suppose that two parents require to finish all the hosts thereof before they were transplanted into the Garden as the FIRST FLESH upon the physical world when all things were first created in heaven before they were naturally upon the actual earth.

In this respect we can call it earth with all its spiritual dimensions where spirit bodies are brought forth by the continuation of the seed 'out of the world' by exalted parents before they are placed into the Garden to fall and continue the second sort of seeds in the physical dimension. For exaltation is eternal live(s) [plural] and that means two kinds of seeds as well. One spiritual after they are resurrected to that glory and secondly physical after they fall.

Thus are they called gods because they lay down their lives and take them again. Not of themselves but subject to the Redeemer who is and was and always will be Very God.

All the ponderous flora and fauna of the dinosaurs epochs were harvested to prepare the resources that they were prepared precisely for that purpose.There was a complete extinction between that era and when God reseeded the earth and places beasts of all kinds and fowls in the air and fishes in the sea in all their varieties. Just because there is evidence of a previous existence does not mean that there was and connection. Even if some species were similar. So what?

That is what scripture shows when looked into with a depth of understanding and faith. It does not conflict with the slot thought of science which can only think in linear lines of unbroken continuity.

It is absolutely irrelevant to the age of the earth how long the six specific days of creation might have been. The billions of years after that before man is put into the Garden extinguishes any recreational, underdeveloped theology.

[_hatersinmyward]

I have fossils on my desk that alone are enough to refute the idea that the earth is very young.

have you heard of the atom bomb effect quazi? :)

the bones were probably radioactive from the astroid making their rate of decay faster than normal. this has also been checked with japanese human remains. the skeletons are carbon dated older than they really are.

[_just me]

Allow me, if you please.

No problem, friend.

Christians have a lazy eye when it comes to reading scripture. They want it nifty and tidy and without deep and ponderous thoughts attending.
A expanded view of creation does indeed allow for billions and billion of years before man sets foot in the Garden of Eden. Just because two scriptures are next to each other does not preclude a vast amount of time to elapse between them.

God made man in his own likeness and image both male and female and commanded them to multiply and replenish the "EARTH". Wait, wait, wait.......just because he called it earth did not mean that from the time that they commenced multiplying and replenishing until the had finished all the hosts thereof was actually accomplished upon terra firma.

And how long do you suppose that two parents require to finish all the hosts thereof before they were transplanted into the Garden as the FIRST FLESH upon the physical world when all things were first created in heaven before they were naturally upon the actual earth.

In this respect we can call it earth with all its spiritual dimensions where spirit bodies are brought forth by the continuation of the seed 'out of the world' by exalted parents before they are placed into the Garden to fall and continue the second sort of seeds in the physical dimension. For exaltation is eternal live(s) [plural] and that means two kinds of seeds as well. One spiritual after they are resurrected to that glory and secondly physical after they fall.

Thus are they called gods because they lay down their lives and take them again. Not of themselves but subject to the Redeemer who is and was and always will be Very God.

All the ponderous flora and fauna of the dinosaurs epochs were harvested to prepare the resources that they were prepared precisely for that purpose.There was a complete extinction between that era and when God reseeded the earth and places beasts of all kinds and fowls in the air and fishes in the sea in all their varieties. Just because there is evidence of a previous existence does not mean that there was and connection. Even if some species were similar. So what?

That is what scripture shows when looked into with a depth of understanding and faith. It does not conflict with the slot thought of science which can only think in linear lines of unbroken continuity.

It is absolutely irrelevant to the age of the earth how long the six specific days of creation might have been. The billions of years after that before man is put into the Garden extinguishes any recreational, underdeveloped theology.

Interesting and such a unique perspective. Thanks for sharing. :)

[_Ceeboo]

Good morning Quasi,

(For some bizarre reason, I am having a very difficult time communicating with many of you on this thread)

Not really, Ceeboo. There are lots of questionable reports out there on the web that support a young earth theory. Non of them hold water. Just like reports about bigfoot and chupacabra.

"Not really", what? (You surely can suggest that they hold weak positions, but it seems silly, considering all the material they put out, to suggest that they do not have a position)

If you're interested in history (real history) may I suggest you visit:

Thanks (But I think you missed the point of why I posted what I did concerning the YEC's). I posted it to simply illustrate that they do offer "answers" for their position. Weighing/evaluating/debating their positions are indeed a complete and separate thing.

It's a site that I go to daily. It lists most of the current news about archaeology on a daily basis and might help you to put things into perspective.

Friend, what perspective do you assume I need help with?

I have fossils on my desk that alone are enough to refute the idea that the earth is very young.

Ohhh!
Don't let the YEC's see your desk (You will crush their entire belief set) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Buffalo]

In the examples you listed, you can find tons of replies. I googled this in 2 seconds:

Without question, and if you would have spent about 4 minutes on google, you might have seen a cowboy boot fossil, a pan fossil, a plane wreck buried in an ice core that dates to be around 65,000 years old, polystrate tree fossils going through 200,000 years of mud layers, etc, etc, etc.

Again, you can certainly debate their position, but they do indeed have positions.

Peace,
Ceeboo

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm

[_Quasimodo]

Ohhh!
Don't let the YEC's see your desk (You will crush their entire belief set) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Wow! I only need to post images of the fossils on my desk to end all this discussion of the age of the Earth! :)

The "youngest" one on my desk is about 13 million years old (the pumicite layers I found it in are dated to that time).

You would like it. It's the distal end of an ulna (lower forelimb) of some poor animal that was caught in a volcanic ash fall and died as a result. It's about twice the thickness of a human ulna. It is a cast. I.E. the bone itself completely decomposed and left a cavity that later filled with minerals. In this case it filled with opal. Not gem quality, but beautiful to look at.

I've sent images to various experts, but there is not enough of the bone to make an accurate guess as to the animal it came form. The best answer I got was "maybe some sort of bear or lion".

The others on my desk range from maybe 100 million years old (fish fossils) to about 500 million years old (trilobites that I have found).

Sorry if I missed your point! I agree that they have a point of view. I don't hold it in high regard, though. They seem to be grasping at straws to support their unsupportable ideas. I much prefer scientific analyses over religious preconceptions.

[_stemelbow]

Why?

When we have offered numerous examples of scientific data that supports our belief in an old earth, only to be met with "LA LA LA LA!!!! I DON'T CARE! I BELIEVE IN THE YOUNG EARTH BECAUSE THE Bible SAYS SO!", what are we to think?

Why are we all required to tread so lightly around fairy tales? Does acting politely help anyone?

I don't know what exactly you're seeking here. Acting politely is definitely a plus in constructive and thoughtful discourse. To ridicule does nothing but result in the opposite of progress if you ask me, and you are essentially asking me. I imagine Ceeboo would cuation me about responding to you at all (well with anything more than a "Wow!") but I think you miss the boat. If you learn to treat people with respect, even those who you disagree with, even vehemently disagree with, the outcome you wish to accomplish will have a better chance of occurring.

That's my take.

[_Blixa]

You would like it. It's the distal end of an ulna (lower forelimb) of some poor animal that was caught in a volcanic ash fall and died as a result. It's about twice the thickness of a human ulna. It is a cast. I.E. the bone itself completely decomposed and left a cavity that later filled with minerals. In this case it filled with opal. Not gem quality, but beautiful to look at.

pics? I love fossils. Paleohistory was part of my Utah childhood...

[_Quasimodo]

Why?

When we have offered numerous examples of scientific data that supports our belief in an old earth, only to be met with "LA LA LA LA!!!! I DON'T CARE! I BELIEVE IN THE YOUNG EARTH BECAUSE THE Bible SAYS SO!", what are we to think?

Why are we all required to tread so lightly around fairy tales? Does acting politely help anyone?

I don't know what exactly you're seeking here. Acting politely is definitely a plus in constructive and thoughtful discourse. To ridicule does nothing but result in the opposite of progress if you ask me, and you are essentially asking me. I imagine Ceeboo would cuation me about responding to you at all (well with anything more than a "Wow!") but I think you miss the boat. If you learn to treat people with respect, even those who you disagree with, even vehemently disagree with, the outcome you wish to accomplish will have a better chance of occurring.

That's my take.

I'm not sure that Scottie was being disrespectful of anyone. Only that particular point of view.

I have no animus to anyone on this board, but I do reserve the right to disagree with opinions posted here.

Isn't that what this board is all about?