Age Correlations and an Old Earth

agreed - I was being generous

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and whatever has still not addressed the CORRELATIONS between all the layer dating methodes and with historical evidence.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

There's complaining and then there's complaining. I was complaining but not that kind of complaining. It was definitely a different kind of complaining, more like wishful complaining, if there is complaining of that sort. Doesn't my 'guy' look like a George who thinks all his eggs are in his basket? Maybe I'll change it.

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.

I glanced at you post but did you say anywhere in there that B teaches or what the BIBLE TEACHES? I did not notice that there?

welcome to the fray.so how old do you think life is on this planet? is the 3.5 billion years or so okay? where does humanity fit in the picture?curious.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

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?

welcome to the world of abbreviations ... looks like you could be "OEC" mostly. Not to stumble, TOE is the "Theory of Evolution" and you will sooner or later run into "punk eek" which is the "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory of Gould and Eldridge.You may want to look at wikipedia on creationism to see where you fit in: Creationism - WikipediaEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

rickrose, irrespective of the length in real time of a "day" in genesis 1, the problem remains that the order fo creation of the specified living organisms is inconsistent with the scientific evidence. How do you explain such anomolies?

wjIf a Christian is not a strict interpretationist, then the fact that the order is wrong just doesn't matter.The explaination is that whoever first told the story either got the order wrong or over the eons, the story got jumbled.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

Actually I believe that the way the bible was written is a compilation of expounding and then deeper expounding. You see this writing technic through out the scriptures. By this I mean for example in the beginning God made the heavens and earth. Then the writer backs up and explains in more detail. then backs up again and explains in further detail. To my understanding this was common style of writting in those days. As far as the length of a day being defined in scripture one indicator would be that God made plants before He made Solar energy. Keeping this in mind plants could certainly not exist for muliple 100s, 1000s or 10s of 1000s of years prior to the suns creation. Just thought I'd throw this tid bit in.

Welcome here, Rick.Please be sure to review the forum guidelines and perhaps read over:
Message 1 and
Message 1This is not a "chat room". In those the msgs and responses are instantaneous. In my experience they have a heck of a time maintaining any coherent discussion.There are, of course, a lot of sites that discuss this topic. There are, I think, few that are as well run as this one. You can thank Percy, Moose and Asgara (among others) for that.You will find all sorts of "beliefs" here and lots of room to discuss whatever you want. However, this forum is rather more formal than most. You need to really mean to debate and discuss. You might need a bit of a thick skin too. Most people are very polite, especially if you are. However, many will jump on everything you say (sometimes even when they agree). The attack is, generally, not at you but at what you post. Try to remember that.Have fun. There is a lot to learn here. We are fortunate to have a number of well educated, well spoken people here. You'll recognize them as you go.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-27-2004]

The topic of the thread is the correlations of dating methods used by scientists to date objects, specifically to annual phenomena that can be counted to verify actual elapse years (see Original post for reference):Counting annual growth rings in several species of wood correlate between the different species and locations and theycorrelate to counting annual varve layers in a lake in Japan andcorrelate to radiocarbon dating andcorrelate to counting annual layers in ice cores in several locations andcorrelate to counting annual layers in calcite in Devil's Hole Nevada andcorrelate to Thorium-230 Radiometric Dating andcorrelate to Protactinium-231 Radiometric Dating.All these methods correlate not just on years but on climate and significant events. This means that any discussion of errors in one must show why the same errors in the same patterns occur in all the others.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

rick -see new proposed topic The Gap Theory (Fossils Young / Earth Old) genesis 1:3/ 1:1 (click) for some of your answers. Further discussion on this subject should take place on that topic once it gets released.This topic is for correlations of age dating systems.Thank you and welcome to the fray.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}