answersincreation.org (Literal Genesis AND Old Earth Creationism?)

Got 6 billion mirrors?
I'm OK, You're OK. And ignore what the newspaper says!

I believe this topics core theme concerns the compatibility or non-compatibility of a literal Genesis interpretation and old Earth creationism. At lest, that's what I'm reading in the topic title.Adminnemooseus

Fact: there is only one perfect man in this universe and it is definitely NOT me!
My excerpt concerning the chronological ordering in the Genesis 6-day account was written 30 years ago, footnoted from a reputable Biology textbook. I may have erred in assuming that the scientific opinion concerning the chronological ordering of 6 diverse life forms (pretty basic) hadn't changed. So please refer me to some links that DIRECTLY and succinctly cover this specific area. My thanks and appreciation.

Yep. Sorry. Effect of recidistict recessive traits/ inbreeding is more under Fall of man.

You do realize that the "fall of man" is a religious belief, rather than a scientific finding.What, then, does "the fall" have do do with ID?And does it have any relation to the theory of evolution?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That's so far from what the rocks show that it isn't even funny. There were many sea animals in the Cambrian, there were invertebrates on land along with the first land plants, there was a enormous zoo of quadrupeds on land starting in the Devonian, a full 150,000,000 years before the first bird.....and that's all been known since maybe 1900. Your source is an apologetics source, not science. And the Book of Genesis specifically names grasses and plants bearing fruit as Day 3 creations - but dinosaurs were past their prime before either shows up in the fossils.Try palaeos.com for a few sips from the firehose of what's known about ancient life.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Hi there achristian1985, and welcome to EvC,I have to agree with Coragyps, your ideas about the order of different groups in the fossil record are way off. Well Cooksonia dates back to about 425 mya, so that's wrong. It doesn't affect your order, but your dates are wrong. That's wrong as well and this mistake certainly does mess up your order. I have aquatic fossils on the shelf next to me as I type that are older than that.There is evidence of ancient aquatic life going back billions of years. Ancient cyanobacteria left fossil stromatolites;

quote:

---

The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!

---

Source: Fossil Record of the CyanobacteriaSo I'm sorry to say that you are out by over three billion years. The Paleocene? The Paleocene? That's after the extinction of the dinosaurs!As far as I know, the oldest land animal fossil is this one;

quote:

---

Scientists have decided that a fossil found near Stonehaven is the remains of the oldest creature known to have lived on land.

​

It is thought that the one-centimetre millipede which was prised out of a siltstone bed is 428 million years old.

​

Experts at the National Museums of Scotland and Yale University, US, have studied the fossil for months.

​

They say the specimen is the earliest evidence of a creature living on dry land, rather than in the sea.

​

The discovery on the foreshore of Cowie Harbour was made by an amateur fossil hunter, Mike Newman.

​

To recognise his role in the significant find, the new species - Pneumodesmus newmani - has been named after him.

---

Source: BBC NEWS | Scotland | Fossil find 'oldest land animal' This is in stark contrast with your proposed order and it does not agree with the order of creation in Genesis 1. No, the oldest anatomically modern Homo sapiens are only about 150 000-200 000 years old (IIRC). With respect, I very much doubt that your biology textbook is as reputable as you think it is. It hasn't changed. It never agreed with the Bible in the first place. you have been misled.Mutate and SurvivePS; David Attenborough?Edited by Granny Magda, : Grammar.Edited by Granny Magda, : Codes

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Your point is obscure.Mine, I think, is much clearer: from a genetic standpoint, it would not be a particularly good idea for Eve's genes to perfectly match Adam's.

No.If the book was reputable, that is not what it said; if that is what it said, it was not reputable.

Canus Lobo: I was just agreeing with admin that I had gotton off track, not trying to say anything empirical about the Fall.
To all: thanks for the commentary and links. Obviously, when the excerpts got uploaded, skewing occurred (notice the ? marks in the middle of the date ranges- supposed to be hyphens.)
Dinosaurs I would most definitely think would probably belong in the time frame between Gen. 1:1-1:2, before the six-day account resulting in homo sapiens. Not a cop-out: but this is in toto giving me a greater realization that its not so cut-and-dried, that there's a larger area for faith than I considered.

You bet your ass.One of the posters here, I think it might have been RAZD, said something that stuck with me.He said: you can believe in God all you want, and you can believe that he created the universe. Only then you've got to believe that he created the real universe, the one that we actually live in.I agree. It's a cop-out beliving that God made the universe that exists in the daydreams of Young Earth Creationists, because that universe doesn't exist.

Canis latrans to be accurate.

Thanks Dr Adequate,But I don't think is was me. Like the idea, and have said similar things, but don't recall that one.Enjoy.

---

Well if you've said similar things, then it probably was you. I didn't say that I was accurately quoting verbatim every word that dropped like quicksilver off my guru's golden tongue, I just thought that you'd said something along those lines. Doubtless also I have pondered over the idea and elaborated it since then. But I do remember someone (I still think it was you) mentioning this idea: and the way that you (or maybe someone else) phrased it struck me very forcibly.

Thank you. Exactly right.They are the smaller, smarter cousins of the wolf.Proof? The wolf is all but extinct in the lower 48 states, while coyotes dine regularly on Beverly Hills poodles and other pampered pets.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.