Age Correlations and an Old Earth

1)
I am new to computor chats. This site is my first attempt. I have read some of the exhuastive arguments old earth vrs young earth. I am a believer in creation. However, I am not a young earth proponent as I don't believe the bible teaches anything about a young earth. I believe that most Jews/Christians misinterpret the Gen account. Gen. 1:1 stands alone. A very simple statement. "In the begining, God created the heavens and earth." That was hundreds of millions of years ago. Vrs. one speaks of the creation of universal matter, including earth matter. Vrs. two and foreward describe the conversion of original earth matter into a life sustaining planet. Billions of years seperate vrs. 1 from from the creative days that follow. So vrs 1 is the creation of the universe. Vrs. two forward has to do with earth preparation, not matter creation. Then the six creative days are conversion days. Please read the distinction in Gen. ch 1 carefully before setting your mind.2) Nowhere does the bible explain the length of a creative day. In Gen. ch 2 vrs 4 God sums up the creation of the heavens and the earth as having been completed in one day. Obvously God uses the word day to signal an unspecified period of time. If all six days are summed up as one day, obviously, the bible is not giving a spacific time frame -- only that there were definite stages in habitation development. The quote someone made from the apostle peter that a thousand years is to God as a day is simply telling us that time is inconsepuential for one that has lived for all past eternity. So then the creative days may have lasted hundreds of thousands of years. In fact each distinct creative phase may have been longer or shorter than another.3) Obvously a world deluge did leave some traces. But it cannot account for all the geologic phenomena found. Young earth creationist embarass themselves in trying to pin everything to the flood. Others who refuse to see real flood evidence also embarass themselves by rejecting anything biblical, even when there is some real science behind it.4) About dating. It's great to date things. Some things are correct, others probably plus or minus. In my understanding of Genisis, it matters little. I know things are really old. It takes starlight billions of years to reach us -- that's old. That was all set in motion in Gen 1:1, not 1:2 and forward. The creation of the luminaries reffered to in subsequent verses refers to the clarification of an unadjusted atmosphere so that the sun and starlight can penetrate. God describes it all from a mans vantage point. What we would see if we were there to see it.5) Flood stuff and dating -- There was a water canapy surrounding our planet in the upper atmosphere before the flood. This was achieved on day day preparation period two. Gen 1:6 "Let an expanse come to be between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters. 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse." Then the expanse is named heaven. This expanse is our atmosphere as attested to in vrs 20. When god created flying creatures, he placed them in the expanse he called heaven. The point is that we had a canapy that could throw carbon dating off because such a water vapor canopy might inhibit ultraviolet rays which could retard carbon 14 absorption for fossils before the flood. But this is just a side note anyway because I'm not in the camp of the young earth creationists. I'm in my own camp. I believe my creator, Jehovah. I believe his son Jesus. I believe the bible to be God's word to man. And I believe in true science. And some of you from both camps have done some awesome homework. I have been reading your stuff on this website for several days on various subjucts. You are educated people and I enjoy reading your viewpoints. Thank you.

RAZD, you asked me how old I think life is on this planet. I'm caught somewhere between the two camps of thought on this 'thread' as they seem to call it. Until today I never heard the term YEC. I had my own word for them. I called them creationists because I associate them with the seven twenty four theology. I'm glad to now know that they are called YEC's. I'm not a YEC. But I can't give you a time frame. I simply don't know. Out of curiosity, are there others who share my viewpoint expressed in stitch 124? Suffice it to say for now that life is old. 3.5 billion seems a little more than I was willing to settle on (not for earth -- think it's much older than that,but for life).Were do I feel humanity fits into the picture? A relative new comer. Of course there are many extinct creatures interpreted by some as human ancestors and by others as anamils not related to humans. These creatures I would date again very old. The Gen account provides the progression of creation. Mammals don't appear until the sixth creative period. As I explained, I believe that science has given ample evidence that these creative days are very lengthy. And as stated in stitch 124 (if this is a thread, then my previous entry could be a stitch)the bible uses the expession day for an unspecified period with a definite beggining and end -- see Gen 2:4. There the expression day covers all six creative periods. Man, according to Genesis is the crowning event, the climax of the sixth day, the last event. On this point, I place man, as we know him, with cortexes that equal ours, and with sophistocated language, at 6029 years. Sorry to dissapoint you. Do think that creatures like neanderthals existed much earlier than modern man, but I think they were distinct creatures, not men. This is what fits the framework of my belief because I don't believe in macroevolution. I think you get the feel of where I am. I believe in creation. But my belief is not largely with the either the YEC's or whatever the other side is called. On this site i found the abreviation toe. What's a toe? is that the flip side of Yec?

So I can attempt to respond, please briefly fill me in on the anomolies of the Gen order of creation. Also would you do me the favor of explaining what exactly the meaning of the title of this site means above everyone's contribution. The Gap Theory (I got the middle ye/oe) gen 1:3/1:1. Please tolerate my ingorance. This is my first experience on a chat room, if this is a chat room. Also I have never engaged others in any lengthy discussion on c vrs e who took the time to explain what they believe. Busy world. thanks, rickrose

RAZD,what are some ages of post mortum bristle cone pines, fosilized ones. Do you know?Lake Suigetsu: quote you: "We have performed AMS C-14 measurements on more than 250 terrestrial macrofosil samples of the annual laminated sediments from Lake . . .I think your line of reasoning is that C-14 dating is callibrated by such means as lake . . . sediment - logical. But please describe how this was achieved. I mean it seems plain that they reached diatom layer, say, 24,300. Then they perhaps calibrated the microfosil find to match 24,399 - correct or not? If this is correct, did they then compare the c14 in the thin diatom layer(s) to the contiguous macrofosil. If this was all proved, then I believe I would rely on this sort of c14 calibration down to the depth of the deepest macrofosil. You didn't say that macrofosils were found at the bottom extremes. Thanks, rickrose

thanks for the good reply

First, I have been taking your earlier suggestion and reading the rules. I also just read about c-14 on wicipedia. I think you have cleared up most of my misunderstanding. So they date, say, a leaf at the 20 thousandth varve with then used instramentation. The c14 dating mechanics say leaf is 20,000 years old. They note they were at 20,000 varves (Under the sea- humor)and conclude c14 matches varve layer anual deposition count. Simple enough. Got another glimmer of light after reading wicapedia,c14. Atmosphere must have been stable for number of macrofosil/varve years.Do you know if the varve layers reached right to the surface of the lake. RAZD said that core was 75 meters. What I'm asking is this: They date the biblical flood at 4350 +-BP. Was the first macrofosil before 4350BP? Was there a thicker non varve deposition in the upper core? Please don't anyone out there get onto flood theology. And I hope I'm respecting this thread. Or does my question deviate too much. My quest is truth, not bias. Thanks, rickrose. And by the way, I do have thin skin.

thanks. Yes the bristle cones cover the first eight thousand years. And I will read earlier in the thread to see if I can find the site of the lake study. Maybe I'll find answer on my own. But did the lake study skip the first eight thousand years because they didn't need the info? That would mean that my Q. could not be answered by the lake.I'm progressively working my way through the first stitch. I'm past the trees. No disagreement there. I think I swam the shallow part of the lake. No disagrement there. I requested a book from the local library called Two Mile Time Machine. I will learn about ice cores. I want to work my way to the caves in france as a goal. When I progress that far I know I will halt for some time. But I'm not yet ready for that.
In quest of truth, rickrose

Great chart. I got the lake concept down. Very satisfied with the science. The chart makes it appear that a concentration of activity occurs between, say 7 and 15 k years. Is that true? If so, is there an explaination?Thanks Razd, rickroseIn Quest of Truth

Great, I'm wanting to progress beyond the lake. Just in for a shallow swim.rickrose

Razd, below is part of the initial quote for this thread.Carbon 14 Radiometric Dating
The Carbon 14 (C-14) data not only corroborates the tree ring and lake varve data, but the measurement system is validated by these studies (especially the varve study) as accurate.I must pick this apart if I am going to trust the dating method. The tree rings seem to prove only the age of the trees. I couldn't find anything on the bristle cone page that shows trees were used to calibrate c14. Something living can't be c14ed. O.K. so the dead trees were carbon dated. But calibration by the trees? Can't even find a reference to it. Would you mind pointing to article of how trees were used to calibrate c14 so I can feel confident for the first 8k yrs. This is critical for me because the lake has a hole -- some say even for the first 11 k yrs, as you probably read above. Please recall that earth age is not in dispute with me. Neither is the age of most life on it. Nevertheless, I would like to eventually work my way back in time.Summary: Need specific reference to c14 calibration for first 8,000 to 11,000 yrs as lake doesn't provide it. Tree calibration reference doesn't seem to be on this site as some thought it was.Thanks,rickroseIn Quest of Knowledge[This message has been edited by rickrose, 04-29-2004]

thanks, read reference. The more I investigate the subject, the more complex things appear.rickroseIn Quest of Truth

Read references. I too am limited by my ability to understand.rickrose

Ned, there must be a misunderstanding. I'm not trying go win an argument.rickrose