GR33N wrote: The key, I believe is as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Ah, I see. So, what is your answer to my three objections in terms of the science?
Not knowing how long the "creation days" lasted we don't know how long the earth had been formed before Adam and Eve walked upon the earth. Time as we know it did not start until after Adam and Eve found themselves out of the Garden of Eden. Understanding that could satisfy the OEC and the YEC at the same time.
Please define "time as we know it" versus the other form of time you seem to be talking about.
This got me thinking about the miracle of the Loaves and Fishes that Jesus performed. When we think about the word "creation" we think about making something out of nothing. But with this miracle and others it wasn't "created" out of nothing. There were already fishes and loaves. Just not enough. The word creation as we know is better defined as organized or formed. The miracle was that He "formed" or "organized" more or "expanded" the fishes and loaves from the existing ones that the Disciples had gathered by blessing it.
The earth creation, I believe, was much the same way. The earth was formed or organized from existing matter. Formed using the expansion of other "earth" .
Some people describe the power of Papa Smurf as magic. I prefer to think of it as "harnessing the power of Grayskull" to improve the lives of smurfs everywhere. So, you see that it's not really that Papa Smurf is "creating" food for the Smurfs to eat -- he is simply "reorganizing" it from existing Smurfy goodness, using the power of Castle Grayskull. If you don't believe this, you should pray about it and ask Papa Smurf whether or not it's true.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
jon wrote:If the earth is to be believed as a 'young earth' how does one account for dinosaurs?
For some LDS they would say it came from the parts of other worlds used to create this one. This of course shows a complete lack of understanding of the physical sciences(Geology and paleontology in particular).
I'm coming in way too late and can't read everything but I would like to offer the simple mechanical processes of erosion and sedimentation as evidence of an old earth. Go out in the back yard and find a sharp, pointy rock. Now, roll it around on the street until all the sharp corners are worn off and it is fairly round. Next, take the rock and roll it around in a water and sand mixture until it is perfectly smooth. The next experiment will be to find a giant slab of sandstone and drizzle water over it until a trough forms in the stone. Now, go to Zion National Park and look at the narrow slot canyons to estimate the time it took to form it. Next, drive up Provo canyon and look at the side of the canyon where you see layers of rock that at one time were sediments laid down after erosion then hardened under pressure and heat and time then the crust shifted slowly over time until you see them today, hundreds of feet in the air, warped and twisted and beautiful.
Can anyone look at the Grand Canyon with a young earth belief?
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
zeezrom wrote:I'm coming in way too late and can't read everything but I would like to offer the simple mechanical processes of erosion and sedimentation as evidence of an old earth. Go out in the back yard and find a sharp, pointy rock. Now, roll it around on the street until all the sharp corners are worn off and it is fairly round. Next, take the rock and roll it around in a water and sand mixture until it is perfectly smooth. The next experiment will be to find a giant slab of sandstone and drizzle water over it until a trough forms in the stone. Now, go to Zion National Park and look at the narrow slot canyons to estimate the time it took to form it. Next, drive up Provo canyon and look at the side of the canyon where you see layers of rock that at one time were sediments laid down after erosion then hardened under pressure and heat and time then the crust shifted slowly over time until you see them today, hundreds of feet in the air, warped and twisted and beautiful.
Can anyone look at the Grand Canyon with a young earth belief?
Z, that's one the best explanations that I've read! How many years of pouring water over sandstone will a "Young Earther" endure before giving up on the whole idea?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
jon wrote:If the earth is to be believed as a 'young earth' how does one account for dinosaurs?
carbon dating is up for debate.
if radiation killed the dinosaurs then the rate of carbon decay would make dinosaur fossils test older than they are if carbon dating is used.
the remains of people subject to vast amounts of radiation appear to be much older than they are when carbon dated. scientists know exactly how old those people were when they died but the carbon dating shows a different age.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Not really. There is some debate about how accurate it is in SOME situations. It's pretty good for the most part.
Besides, C14 dating only works back to about 40,000 years ago. Dinosaurs went extinct about 61,000,000 years ago (except for all the birds in the trees [now classed officially as avian dinosaurs]). Count the zeros in those two numbers. They are very different.
C14 dating doesn't help your argument very much.
if radiation killed the dinosaurs then the rate of carbon decay would make dinosaur fossils test older than they are if carbon dating is used.
There is no evidence that dinosaurs died from radiation exposure. How would that happen?
Since C14 dating can't be used on anything 61 million years old, why would we care, anyway?
the remains of people subject to vast amounts of radiation appear to be much older than they are when carbon dated. scientists know exactly how old those people were when they died but the carbon dating shows a different age.
Well, that could explain a variance in C14 dates for people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What else could it prove? Those are the only two atom bombs ever dropped on people.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Not really. There is some debate about how accurate it is in SOME situations. It's pretty good for the most part.
Besides, C14 dating only works back to about 40,000 years ago. Dinosaurs went extinct about 61,000,000 years ago (except for all the birds in the trees [now classed officially as avian dinosaurs]). Count the zeros in those two numbers. They are very different.
C14 dating doesn't help your argument very much.
if radiation killed the dinosaurs then the rate of carbon decay would make dinosaur fossils test older than they are if carbon dating is used.
There is no evidence that dinosaurs died from radiation exposure. How would that happen?
Since C14 dating can't be used on anything 61 million years old, why would we care, anyway?
the remains of people subject to vast amounts of radiation appear to be much older than they are when carbon dated. scientists know exactly how old those people were when they died but the carbon dating shows a different age.
Well, that could explain a variance in C14 dates for people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What else could it prove? Those are the only two atom bombs ever dropped on people.
[/quote]
Carbon dating where radiation is a variable is just called the atom bomb affect, it doesn’t necessarily mean nuclear radiation in every case. Just means carbon dating varies due to radiation exposure.
radiation is a possible variable if an asteroid caused dinosaur extinction. On the grounds that the asteroid put a hole in the atmosphere when it hit the earth. causing different types of radiation, solar being one.
I’m just stating a scientific scenario that may put the earth at around 25,000 years old.
hatersinmyward wrote: Carbon dating where radiation is a variable is just called the atom bomb affect, it doesn’t necessarily mean nuclear radiation in every case. Just means carbon dating varies due to radiation exposure.
radiation is a possible variable if an asteroid caused dinosaur extinction. On the grounds that the asteroid put a hole in the atmosphere when it hit the earth. causing different types of radiation, solar being one.
I’m just stating a scientific scenario that may put the earth at around 25,000 years old.
WTF? The last sentences you just typed are complete nonsense. They contain words commonly used in science but have no semblance of logic to them, at least as far as I can tell. You seem to be conflating completely disparate ideas into some sort of jumbled mess that you expect people to try and interpret.
It's similar to if I typed a sentence like, "Your problem with the car is that the engine isn't transferring hybrid torque to the rear axel brake pads, causing an imbalance in your spark plugs and a gear failure in your transmission coupling to the external chassis." All of those words are words that I might use when speaking of the functioning of a car. However, put together in the sentence above, they have no basis in logic and no relation to the actual functioning of a car.
You have done something similar with your sentences about science.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park