Dendrochronology and Young Earth

[_Bond James Bond]

Franktalk,

Fill in the blank please:

The Earth is _________ of years old.

A) Billions
B) Millions
C) Thousands

And don't dance around like others I've seen on the 'Net. A, B, or C?

Bump

[_Franktalk]

Franktalk,

Fill in the blank please:

The Earth is _________ of years old.

A) Billions
B) Millions
C) Thousands

And don't dance around like others I've seen on the 'Net. A, B, or C?

Bump

To be honest with you I don't know. From the dating that I think represents a solid method to figure out the past I believe the earth is at least millions of years old. But I could be wrong on the low side or on the high side. I doubt it is thousands of years. I base on this on a careful read of scripture. In 2 Peter the event of the flood tells us that the world that was perished. Well that is true that the world was way different but many things were left over for us to find of our ancient past. The Genesis account of the Creation may be the same. A reordering of what was left over from the prior dispensation. But since we are talking about widespread miracles over the earth I just do not know what they look like when compared to the trace evidence left over. I am sorry I can not give you anymore detail. I just don't have any. Now when it comes to science I really like a good theory and detailed observations. What I don't like is being spoon fed assumptions and told I better believe them or I will called stupid. This means nothing to me since I see right through it.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
To be honest with you I don't know.
...

As good an answer as we can expect, I suppose.
But -- since you are making an effort to clarify things,
perhaps we can look at a couple more questions as well.

1. If we count backwards all the years supplied in the
biblical genealogies, from Jesus to Adam, the total time
span thus accounted for is roughly 6,000 years. If we add
to that the two millenia separating us from Jesus, we get
the 8,000-years-old earth so often cited by creationists.
Regardless of the actual age of the earth, would you say
that the 8,000 year figure is roughly accurate?

2. The biblical record supplies no other initial ancestors
for human beings than that same Adam and his wife, from
roughly 8,000 years back. Regardless of the actual age of
the earth, would you say that the 8,000 year figure is
roughly accurate, in supplying the age of the human species?

...
the prior dispensation.
...

Not everybody is a Mormon, and not everybody accepts the
LDS division of the past into seven "dispensations." For the
non-sectarian, scientific-minded readers here, how do you
define what a "dispensation" is? How long does it last? Is it
an accurate measurement for any particular set of events
upon the physical earth?

I guess that's enough questions for one posting here.

UD

[_Bond James Bond]

To be honest with you I don't know. From the dating that I think represents a solid method to figure out the past I believe the earth is at least millions of years old. But I could be wrong on the low side or on the high side. I doubt it is thousands of years. I base on this on a careful read of scripture. In 2 Peter the event of the flood tells us that the world that was perished. Well that is true that the world was way different but many things were left over for us to find of our ancient past. The Genesis account of the Creation may be the same. A reordering of what was left over from the prior dispensation. But since we are talking about widespread miracles over the earth I just do not know what they look like when compared to the trace evidence left over. I am sorry I can not give you anymore detail. I just don't have any. Now when it comes to science I really like a good theory and detailed observations. What I don't like is being spoon fed assumptions and told I better believe them or I will called stupid. This means nothing to me since I see right through it.

Well that's something. At least you're not an 8000er.

[_Drifting]

What I don't like is being spoon fed assumptions and told I better believe them or I will called stupid. This means nothing to me since I see right through it.

Not a big fan of Gospel Doctrine class then huh....

[_Franktalk]

Drifting,

I find that most classes are covering a small part of what scripture says. It seems that most controversial issues are sidestepped. I think this is due to the knowledge of the members not the understanding of the teachers. The teachers I have talked to would love to get into the meat sections but can't because the members are not ready. When faced with children you teach to children. I see nothing wrong in this. There are many people that you can find who wish to go further. You can find them if you look. But many do not look and settle for a cursory view of scripture. I would venture to guess that most people don't pray for more understanding or discernment. They instead ask to win the lotto.

[_Chap]

Drifting,

I find that most classes are covering a small part of what scripture says. It seems that most controversial issues are sidestepped. I think this is due to the knowledge of the members not the understanding of the teachers. The teachers I have talked to would love to get into the meat sections but can't because the members are not ready. When faced with children you teach to children. I see nothing wrong in this. There are many people that you can find who wish to go further. You can find them if you look. But many do not look and settle for a cursory view of scripture. I would venture to guess that most people don't pray for more understanding or discernment. They instead ask to win the lotto.

Yup It's always the members' fault. The church would just love to teach them lots of really hard stuff ... but those lazy members ... they're like children. No doing anything with them.

[_Franktalk]

Yup It's always the members' fault. The church would just love to teach them lots of really hard stuff ... but those lazy members ... they're like children. No doing anything with them.

Actually you are correct. It is the members fault. If the church were indeed run by members with way more understanding they would not lean on the leadership and would not expect daily revelation from the leaders. They would expect revelation from God. The pressure from the members have set the stage for what is now the church. To back out from that position will require hard choices. Now having said that I still feel the church is great for fellowship and for charity. In those areas the church is top notch. If the church has members that love each other and do the work of charity then God will continue to bless them even if they do get many things wrong in the details of scripture. I do believe the power of the priesthood was restored and is in the LDS church. I do not believe it is the only authority on the earth. Even the Book of Mormon says so.

[_Themis]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100915171534.htm

This one below made me laugh

http://www.examiner.com/article/plate-tectonics-and-radiometric-dating-cannot-validate-one-another

All they do is say the two dating methods can't validate each other, but never why. Are they just that stupid or is their extreme bias and agenda not allowing them to understand the significance.

[_Chap]

Yup It's always the members' fault. The church would just love to teach them lots of really hard stuff ... but those lazy members ... they're like children. No doing anything with them.

Actually you are correct. It is the members fault. If the church were indeed run by members with way more understanding they would not lean on the leadership and would not expect daily revelation from the leaders. They would expect revelation from God. The pressure from the members have set the stage for what is now the church. To back out from that position will require hard choices ...

(My added emphasis)

Excuse me. Isn't the church run by the leadership, headed by a living prophet of God? And why would God confide that leadership to a man who was not willing and able to make all the hard choices necessary to make sure that his church was never led astray?