Age of the earth

[menageriekeeper]

By contrast, God, according to the Biblical record, created the rest of the animals on a massive scale. So, according to a young earth, Biblical model, you would find many, many fossilized remains of dinosaurs, insects, etc., which were killed in the flood, but you would find next to NO human remains, since humans were very small in number, and localized.

The thing is with this theory, is that we have a pretty good idea of where civilization was located before the flood. But yet there is no fossil record period, of man and dinosaur together. But I'm sure there are archaeologists that would be glad for you to fund them so they could go look.

 

[Marcia]

The thing is with this theory, is that we have a pretty good idea of where civilization was located before the flood. But yet there is no fossil record period, of man and dinosaur together. But I'm sure there are archaeologists that would be glad for you to fund them so they could go look.

What do you mean together? Do you mean physically near each other?

Based on the terrible way scientists have tried to replicate the dinosaurs and then have had to admit mistakes over and over, this means little to me. I don' think we even know what the dinosaurs were or what they looked like. When I was in school, we were told they were huge, carnivorous, and cold-blooded. Now supposedly they are warm-blooded and more like birds, I think. And not all were carnivorous.

Didn't they "build" dinosaur models based on a piece of a jaw bone or finding a tooth in one place and part of a foot 3 miles away? The science behind this is very sketchy.

 

[Marcia]

This is somewhat related - I just rec'd this in my email:

Several months ago news services around the globe announced a startling new fossil find named “Ardi” that would revolutionize the way we view human evolution. But this is the same claim that was made when the “Hobbit” was found and before that “Lucy,” and many more. There is deep and abiding confusion for evolutionary scientists making sense of the fossil record in Darwinian terms. Maybe that’s because Darwinism has become bankrupt as a paradigm to understand human origins.
Dr. Fuz Rana and Dr. John Bloom will use clear thinking, the very best evidence, and open mindedness to sort out this difficult puzzle in this stimulating weekend seminar. Can the biblical narrative and the fossil record be reconciled? Come find out on the evening of February 18. (Hint: the answer is “yes.”)


February 18, 19, 20
Thursday and Friday Evening 6 - 10 pm
Saturday 9 am - 5 pm
Moats Lecture Hall, Business Building
Biola University
Graduate credit toward the M.A. degree in Christian Apologetics is available
Cost: only $95
Register now: www.apologeticsevents.com

Any of you near this location (Los Angeles area) could attend.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Do you mean physically near each other?

Well, if the theory is that man and dinosaur coexisted, then the fossil record should show some sign of this(though I'm guessing in a flood humans would have the capacity to grab onto a tree trunk as it came floating by). So yes, fossils or other signs of human occupation (fire, tools etc) should be present within the strata that contains signs of dinosaur occupation.

I wouldn't expect to find human bones in a dino habitat. Although, I'm guessing a carnovore wouldn't be too picky about where his next meal came from. :laugh:

 

[Havensdad]

That's simply not what you find. For example, you don't find any modern mammal remains fossilized in the same manner as dinosaurs either.

Um, that is not true. You find many, many fossilized remains of other mammals. There are fossilized horse, squirrel, even primate remains. These, as a matter of fact, have been found in some instances UNDER dinosaur fossils. However, these are called "anomalies" and are blamed on unprovable geologic processes.

 

[Havensdad]

Well, if the theory is that man and dinosaur coexisted, then the fossil record should show some sign of this(though I'm guessing in a flood humans would have the capacity to grab onto a tree trunk as it came floating by). So yes, fossils or other signs of human occupation (fire, tools etc) should be present within the strata that contains signs of dinosaur occupation.

I wouldn't expect to find human bones in a dino habitat. Although, I'm guessing a carnovore wouldn't be too picky about where his next meal came from. :laugh:

Actually, according to the biblical record, you would NEVER find dinosaur fossils with human fossils. Since humans were isolated to one little area of the earth (which might be under the ocean now, for all we know), and were comparatively few in number, you would not expect to find any human fossils with dinosaur.

 

[Havensdad]

The thing is with this theory, is that we have a pretty good idea of where civilization was located before the flood. But yet there is no fossil record period, of man and dinosaur together. But I'm sure there are archaeologists that would be glad for you to fund them so they could go look.

Really? Tell me, when was the flood? I am curious because the same geology you are using to say that dinosaurs are millions of years old, is the one that says the flood couldn't have happened.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I am curious because the same geology you are using to say that dinosaurs are millions of years old, is the one that says the flood couldn't have happened.

Actually the science that says dinosaurs are millions of years old also allows for a localized flood that might certainly have covered up early civilizations.

Out of curiosity, are you under some impression that at the time of the flood there couldn't have been more than a few hundred humans. Because that is what it sounds like.

Now, why would the area that humans occupied be under an ocean now? What ocean?

The Bible clearly describes where Eden was located, what direction Adam and Eve traveled when they were ejected and a several hundred years later where Noah's Ark landed. No ocean to be found between the two.

 

[Jarthur001]

i have not read the whole thread...

So this may have been said already.

How old was the earth when God made it? Was Adam a babe or full grown?

Young earth believers can believe that the earth was made with AGE, and could be like 100,000 years old, but still been created 6k10k years ago.

 

[Jarthur001]

i have not read the whole thread...

So this may have been said already.

How old was the earth when God made it? Was Adam a babe or full grown?

Young earth believers can believe that the earth was made with AGE, and could be like 100,000 years old, but still been created 6k10k years ago.

ok...never mind..I just read the page before.

 

[quantumfaith]

"I do have a problem with using science (finite) to interpret Scripture (infinite) as the OE'ers must do to come to their conclusion."

Please, this is Exactly what everyone does, we "interpret" the scriptures to fit whatever image we have of creation, theology etc. No matter how sound one feels about the exegetical skills, it always boils down to "this is what I feel it says". Granted, there are many scriptural passages which logically and reasonably have great consensus, such as "Thou shall not.... etc. My personal "issue" with those who see things "differently" from myself, is the often implicit and even sometimes explicit claim that if you are not a YE, then you just dont believe the Bible and your claims of being a believer are dubious at best.

 

[quantumfaith]

Why do you state what is false again? Human and modern animal fossils have been found many times, I showed you a photo of a fossilized human finger.

Fossils can form quickly. A fosslilzed ship's bell was discovered for the Isabella Watson, a ship that sank in 1852.

Trees have been found extending through many different layers of strata, called polystrate fossils.

Whole forrests of trees like this have been found which argues for a catastrophic flood that buried these trees quickly. There is much evidence for the scriptural accounts.

So then, "old fossils" are unscriptural?

 

[Marcia]

So then, "old fossils" are unscriptural?

If animals died before man or before man sinned, then it is. Death is called an enemy in the Bible and is thrown into the lake of fire. But when God created, it was all "good" until man sinned.

So either death is good - which contradicts the Bible (and also contradicts, I believe, Romans 5), which means the Bible is wrong, or there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned.

 

[quantumfaith]

What do you mean together? Do you mean physically near each other?

Based on the terrible way scientists have tried to replicate the dinosaurs and then have had to admit mistakes over and over, this means little to me. I don' think we even know what the dinosaurs were or what they looked like. When I was in school, we were told they were huge, carnivorous, and cold-blooded. Now supposedly they are warm-blooded and more like birds, I think. And not all were carnivorous.

Didn't they "build" dinosaur models based on a piece of a jaw bone or finding a tooth in one place and part of a foot 3 miles away? The science behind this is very sketchy.

The thing is, Real Scientists, are intellectually honest and always leave their research and ideas open for new ideas, research, conclusions, interpretations etc. That is the very nature and foundation of real science.

 

[quantumfaith]

If animals died before man or before man sinned, then it is. Death is called an enemy in the Bible and is thrown into the lake of fire. But when God created, it was all "good" until man sinned.

So either death is good - which contradicts the Bible (and also contradicts, I believe, Romans 5), which means the Bible is wrong, or there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned.

Well, we will just agree to disagree. And yes, I do believe life existed, lived and died, before God "breathed" the breath of life into man (neshama, I think). If you want to label me a "heretic" then go right ahead.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Liberal comment coming up:

If animals died before man or before man sinned, then it is. Death is called an enemy in the Bible and is thrown into the lake of fire. But when God created, it was all "good" until man sinned.

If plants and animals never died before man sinned then how were Adam and Eve able to comprehend what death was when God warned them not to sin?

Second point, What sort of tending was Adam doing in the garden if he wasn't pulling the dead heads off the roses? Or alternately, if he were pruning, wouldn't the cut stems not die?

I don't think that we can equate the death of plants and animal with the death of a human which has the breathe of God within him. God didn't breath into the environment, only into Adam.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, we will just agree to disagree. And yes, I do believe life existed, lived and died, before God "breathed" the breath of life into man (neshama, I think). If you want to label me a "heretic" then go right ahead.

Will do............

 

[Havensdad]

Actually the science that says dinosaurs are millions of years old also allows for a localized flood that might certainly have covered up early civilizations.

Localized flood would not have done it. Not to mention the bible says the waters "covered the whole earth." 15 cubits above the mountains, as a matter of fact (Gen 7:20). That would make a the idea of a localized flood preposterously silly. Not to mention that the dimensions of the ark, and Noah taking two (in some cases, 7) of every animal, is unbelievably ridiculous when they could have just gone somewhere else.

Out of curiosity, are you under some impression that at the time of the flood there couldn't have been more than a few hundred humans. Because that is what it sounds like.

The Biblical record seems to indicate there were not too many people.

Now, why would the area that humans occupied be under an ocean now? What ocean?

Because of what the Bible says happened after the flood...huge geological upheavals.

Psa 104:8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.

The Bible clearly describes where Eden was located, what direction Adam and Eve traveled when they were ejected and a several hundred years later where Noah's Ark landed. No ocean to be found between the two.

The rivers described in Genesis, were likely not the same rivers by those names today. The Bible does not say.

 

[Havensdad]

Liberal comment coming up:



If plants and animals never died before man sinned then how were Adam and Eve able to comprehend what death was when God warned them not to sin?

Same way my children can understand "Don't touch that: it's hot" without them actually touching the stove.

Second point, What sort of tending was Adam doing in the garden if he wasn't pulling the dead heads off the roses? Or alternately, if he were pruning, wouldn't the cut stems not die?

Flowers do not have the "breath of life." They are not alive, in a Biblical sense.

I don't think that we can equate the death of plants and animal with the death of a human which has the breathe of God within him. God didn't breath into the environment, only into Adam.

The Bible says animals have the breath of life. This is why men were not originally allowed to eat animals: death was not allowed. The Bible clearly says that death is the result of sin; not a part of God's creation.

 

[Havensdad]

The thing is, Real Scientists, are intellectually honest and always leave their research and ideas open for new ideas, research, conclusions, interpretations etc. That is the very nature and foundation of real science.

I have never, ever, met a scientist like this: and I have met a lot of them. All of them have presuppositions they are completely unwilling to let go of. For secular scientists, this usually includes things like the old age of the earth, evolution, etc. The minute anyone even thinks to question these things, they are labeled a "quack"...even if they have equivalent knowledge and credentials, not to mention valid data.