YEC Age of Earth question (false appearance of age?)

I believe that there has been considerable research into estimating the length of a standard day at various points in earth's history.This site seems to have a good summary of the available research:http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth1.htmInteresting that several independent pieces of evidence seem to agree very closely. I wouldn't have thought of using some of those pieces of evidence to determine the length of a day. Pretty clever research!

---

- Mini_Ditka, Driver of the Bear Bus

Nice try, takes more than that to flame me. I understand your position, and that the thread in general does not accurately address your position, but hey, you're the only one that showed up to play ball. Okay, help me out. If geological processes before the Flood are uniform and the same processes that we experience post Flood, how do we deal with geological processes which clearly indicate periods of time longer than the YEC scenario?Additionally, we all generally agree that a "day" is the time it takes the Earth to rotate once. But, how can there be a "day" on the first "day" of Creation when there was no Earth to rotate?What about before the first day? If time is uniform, then time didn't "begin" at the start of creation. If it had, it wouldn't be uniform.

I've explained the YEC position, I don't feel like arguing with you about it. I expect to learn much more about its implications as time goes on, and maybe even throughout eternity, but I don't want to play games with terms like "geological processes." If conditions were different then there would be different things to be discovered by geology, but we know the physical universe is lawful, that doesn't change. As light takes a different path in water than in air, conditions change circumstances, but the laws that govern them don't change, the processes don't change. If something changed the rate of radioactive decay, or the orbit of the earth, we would expect significant differences in circumstances. Time too I guess, but not to the wild degree you propose -- HOW different could the orbit BE? Or the rotation rate of the earth? I don't know what you mean by "uniform" time or why it matters. Perhaps there was some difference in the length of a day or year at some point, but it couldn't have been drastic. Seems to me I've read that the earth's axis is supposed to have tilted at some point and caused the seasons as we now know them. Sorry I'm really not into this at all. Time is temporary anyway. I'm looking forward to eternity.

If you check my post above (Post 46) you can learn how the rate of earth's rotation has changed over time.http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth1.htmVery interesting stuff

The fundimental theme of this topic is considerations of God having created an Earth that appears older than it really is. All discussion should connect to that theme.While messages far worse than you messages 46 and 49 are common, they are still close to what we call "bare links". While your link is indeed interesting, you probably best should have also actually posted some information from it. Other than that ugly little detail that you (amongst others) are going off-topic.Please take any further discussion of this situation to the "General..." topic, link below. Such discussion here is also off-topic.By the way, welcome to . Please do not take this message badly - It is intended as suggestions to all members as much as it is to you individually.Adminnemooseusps: Go Bears!!! The Vikings and Packers certainly suck this year.{Added by edit - I have just added "(false appearance of age?)" to the topic title}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-27-2005 11:32 AM

---

Alright, I'm taking the long way around on this one, so bear with me, please.Part 1: ObservationThere is no soil on Mars.The surface of Mars is dust and rocks and gravel, etc. But it's not soil.Soil is made up primarily of decomposing plant material.When a new island is formed by a volcano (think Hawaii), there is no soil on it.After it cools, a few plants which don't require soil colonize the land (moss, lichens, various seaweeds, palm trees(?)). As they grow and die, their remains rot and become soil. This allows other plants (grasses, roses, oak trees) to take root and we end up with a tropical island where once there was only rock.I assume that we're all in agreement on that stuff, as it's not particularly controvesial.Onto part 2: SpeculationAccording to Biblical Creation, God created all the plants on one day. But certain plants can not grow without soil.So, it seems to me that there are two possible solutions to that problem -1) God created soil the day before when he created the land.
2) God created the plants in a certain order (those that don't need soil first) and allowed them to grow and die by the processes we see today.If 1 is true, then God created the Earth with the appearance of age by creating soil which normally would take time to be generated.If 2 is true, then the period of time of that particular day of Creation is not 24 hours as we explain it today.So, it seems that we are left with an either or situation.If God created the world to seem older, how do we know that it didn't happen in 1348?If God took longer to create plants, how do we know that that day didn't last 3 billion years?

I don't believe that God created the world to "seem older." I take the Bible as written. If the earlier days were possibly longer or shorter, nevertheless there is no reason I can see to count them differently, and the Biblical chronology should hold. I don't see how the years could have been shorter as that would mean the earth was orbiting closer to the sun, that is, had a shorter orbit length, wouldn't it? No, I guess it could mean orbiting faster. But I haven't seen the importance of any of this. {Much of the above paragraph (day/year length) is off-topic (per my earlier comments) and should not be responded to. - Adminnemooseus}About soil, it's SO hard to care. God made the plants and they thrived, and how isn't crucial taht I can see. Either He made soil or they didn't need that kind of food at that point. SO much was SO different at the Creation than it is now. Maybe there was food for plants in the rocks that wasn't dead plants, I don't know. The plants were different too. All life had incredibly more vigor than now.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-27-2005 04:16 PMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-27-2005 04:42 PM

Sounds like you are backing a 3rd option -3) God created the world and it was nothing like the world we live on.Alright, I'll accept that.But it beggars the question: "How do we know that this is the world God created?"

quote:

---

But it beggars the question: "How do we know that this is the world God created?"

---

Could you clarify the question please? This world = the original creation or what's left of it we live in now or what exactly are you asking?

Well, if all the plants and animals and people and geology and radiology, etc. were completely different than they are today, don't you think it's possible that maybe the first part of the Bible is talking about a completely different planet?

No.

quote:

---

The Bible is the reality and any seeming contradictory reality in the world around us is what is given the lie.

---

So, rabbits chew the cud?

And locusts have four legs, I guess.

And bats are birds, unicorns exist, and the stars are "set" into a firmament that has water above it.

Well, ancient hebrew was not as precise as language as more modern languages, so the first one (bats are birds) can be written off as a language change. The second one about unicorns is a mistranslation of the word 're'em' (which I think refers to wild ox, or aurochs).Of course, the ancient hebrew view of the cosmos is very primative and incorrect.