I do find some more recent happenings interesting though and watch as "science," tries to explain them away. After St. Helens erupted the trees petrified overnight yet the dating came back as thousands of years old. Some of the canyons that occurred were as deep as some that had been dated as very old too. I find things like this strengthen my faith that the earth could be young.
I'm not overly bothered by a old earth view but I don't understand the creationistic evolution theory based on one issue. Death and destruction before the fall.

To think I just started reading Genesis again two days ago (last time I read through that book was back in '97)

First off, expect to see seperate threads on different questions I have, as I find Genesis to be....interesting.

Two, why is it that people here put more faith in scientists THEORIES and there un-proven methods of seeing how old something is then anything else?

For instance, why is it that things barried in the ground just happened to always be in the millions or billions of years. You NEVER hear "thousands" or even "hundreds". It's as if there methods of dating are actually wrong and really skew the numbers. They really want to prove if their form of dating is wrong or right? Go to a grave that is at least a thousand years old (has to be proven by text alone that it's a thousand or so years old, not by some other method), take out the casket, give it to a scientist WITHOUT telling him where you got it or how old it is, have him do some type of dating, and then see what his answer is. Wouldn't surprise me if he said "it's 2 million years old"....especially if you just took a piece of wood from the casket, gave it to him, and not tell him where it came from.

D & G said:

Quote:

It is my personal belief that if you don't understand the history of something, then you flat out don't understand it at all

With that one simple sentence you have proven yourself wise beyond your years.

There are people......wayyyyyyyyyy older than you (some of them on this very board, and extremely vocal about their ignorance too) that never arrive at that simple--and entirely true IMO--fact.

_________________
"The 'farce' is strong with Sith Lord Obama-Wan." words of Scourge.

"Uh....You can believe me....Uh....because I never lie, and....Uh....Uh....I am always right." words of Sith Lord Obama-Wan.

Daddy likes it all, the DraíodóirDé likes it all

Points:

1. You are welcome D & G.

2. Above......good post.

Aye, good post - had to be said another time

Points:

1. First off I want you to know GP that I agree wholeheartedly with everything you just said in your post above.

2. Someday GP i'll have to have an in--depth conversation with you about all the thoughts in your post above. It will be fascinating and we will both have a great time and lots of fun and it will be an enlightening talk.

3. Of course......my hacienda in Seattle will be well stocked with Moose Drool Ale to aid in our conversation.

Big problem with people and their ideas in this country today is the people up above have lost the will and gut to firmly establish the objective from the opinion when it comes to historical and statistical fact, because the ball-less consensus is that if it involves morality even a LITTLE BIT, nothing objective can be put out or the people will riot. We'd rather pretend we're catering more to 'freedom of speech' by allowing any and all misinformation to be one rather then simply setting up a higher section in the bookstore.

OCI.........

Every word in your post........

Every sentence in your post.........

All of it.........

Spot on IMO.

Zze said:

Quote:

it would be needed a new creation of animals for the "unversal flood" to be a true story ... or the flood was not universal ... but the bible says all flesh that was in dry land perished.

Quote:

there should be a new creation of the human sapiens sapiens ofr it to be true ...

I'm not sure if maybe I'm missing something here or misinterpreting what you're saying, but are you saying that you are under the impression that every single animal and human died in the flood, and therefore God would have to create them all again after the flood?

If that is indeed what you are saying, just to clarify the Bible says that there were two of each animal that were on the ark, and therefore they were the ones that repopulated the earth after the flood waters receeded. Also there were 8 people on the ark that repopulated the humans as well.

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." (Genesis 6: 17-20)

"....God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water" (1 Peter 3:20)

Also I'm not sure if you've read some of the articles on here, but here are some links that might interest you that show some scientific evidence on how geology and other stuff can be explained by a catastrophic flood.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp
There may be some articles in here that might interest you as well that are related to fossils and how they formed (evidence points to a catastrophic burial of soil/rock instantly as opposed to a build up of layers over long periods of time):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp

Zze, I thought I'd post something I wrote awhile back for another message board that is kind of related to the discussions here - namely scientific things that can be seen that point to a young earth and/or geology/fossils related (that can be applied to Noah's Flood as well). Keep in mind I'm not saying that everything I say here is proof against evolutionary concepts, but some of the stuff I wrote is in there to kind of challenge some of the mindsets or concepts that some people have about how fossils form, how old the earth is, how the geoligical layers formed, how dating methods aren't necessarily as accurate as the scientific community claims they are etc. Here is what I wrote:

---------------------------

Basically there are a number of things that need to be discussed in order to show why the 65 million year age for dinosaurs is not a set in stone fact as many people think it is. There is tons of evidence to indicate that dinosaur fossils are not that old, but they are very recent. Some of barriers to even considering this idea at all need to be discussed as well though. Some of these include:

1. Can fossils be formed quickly? Many people believe fossils take a long time to form and this is used as one part of their theory to say fossilized dinosaur bones are very old.

2. Does it take millions (or lots) or years for the geological layers to form on the earth? i.e. many people believe that the different layers in the Earth represent vast different periods of time. These layers are then used to date the fossils found in them.

3. How accurate are the dating methods used for once living organisms (eg. dinosaur fossils) and non-living things (eg. rocks)?

To discuss the first point, here are some pictures of modern articles that have been fossilized or surrounded by rock in very short periods of time if they are in the right environments (you can read the articles posted below for more info if you would like).

A spark plug encased in rock.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/rocks.asp

Fencing wire turned into a fossilized rock.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/fossil.asp

This is a fossilized teddy bear.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/stone_bears.asp

This is a fossilized hat.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp

Gear encased in rock.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/fossils.asp

So it can be shown that in the right conditions, fossilization can happen in very short periods of time.
Now if we look at some of the discoveries with dinosaur bones, it is interesting to see that there are some dinosaur bones found that are unfossilized. Here is an example of a recently discovered T-Rex bone that has unfossilized tissue found inside the bone. The argument is that these types of tissues would not be in the state they are in if these bones were indeed 65 million years old:



A) is tissue fragment that is still elastic. C) is part of the bone where fibrous structure is still present. You can read the article for more info on this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

Also there have been other people who have found unfossilized dinosaur bones (even on the outside of the bone). I read this guy's book a few years ago, and it was quite good. He talks about going to Alaska to look for these dinosaur bones and bringing back a bunch of them to analyze. Here is an exerpt from an interview with the guy:

"Our team of five went to the North Slope of Alaska, about as far north as you can go without actually getting into the Arctic Ocean. We landed at a little place called Umiat, population two, in a small bush plane and there picked up rubber rafts and rafted a hundred miles down the glacier-fed Colville river. The third day we found our first dinosaur remains. [Prof.] John Whit-more, our geologist and team leader, spied this fossil head — it was just dropping out of the bank ready to fall into the river. Dr Speck and I paddled just as hard as we could, and I just got my hands on it and, you know, the current was pulling us. And so I’m hanging onto this thing trying to pull it loose and get it in our rubber raft. It weighed 80 pounds [40 kilograms] — it’s a wonder it didn’t sink the raft. We later identified it as a Lambeosaurus — the furthest north such dinosaur remains have been found.

The Liscomb Bone Bed has probably thousands of frozen unfossilized dinosaur bones — some of them have the ligaments still attached. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure the importance of this. To believe that it is 65 million years or more since these dinosaurs lived on earth — that takes a lot of faith. It doesn’t take near as much faith to believe that they might have been frozen for a couple of thousand years at most. It places dinosaurs well within the time of man, so I think that’s exciting. That’s what we went there for — to find the frozen dinosaur bones and the Lord was very, very gracious to us. We brought back (under an official permit) over two hundred pounds of bones. It was a neat team and we all give God the glory."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/musicman.asp#unfossilized

Here is another article to check out on this topic:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurbones.asp

To discuss point number 2 I mentioned above, here are some things to consider about how quickly layers can form on the earth. Typically the scientific community believes these layers were formed in the earth over a slow process of millions of years, and therefore they date fossils found in them accordingly. But Creationists will argue with evidence seen in our lifetime (i.e. Mt. St. Helen's) that layers can form very quickly if there is a catastrophic event (especially with flowing water - i.e. Noah's Flood).
This is a picture of many layers of rock forming over very short periods of time when Mt. St. Helen's erupted.


As the mud flow was flowing past this point, the mud/rock/water flow actually settled into clear separate layers. This shows that layers like this can form in seconds, not millions of years as typically believed.
http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html

Here is another example of layers formed in sand when a water/sand deposit occured. i.e. they used a water/sand slurry to deposit this on a beach, and as it settles out and the water drains off, layers will form in the sand.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/sandy.asp

Here are some more lab tests showing layer separation after settling of dry solids and wet solids. As a side note, these tests I found on the internet actually are interesting to me because I see the same thing happening at my work as well with various tests I do in the lab with slurry mixtures of solids:



http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/lamination.asp

The third point to be discussed is the methods used to date rocks and therefore fossils. Basically you need to read some of these articles to understand some of the problems with these methods currently used. Basically fossils are generally dated based on the rock layers they are found in, and the rock layers are dated with the fossils found in them as well. When any discrepency is found in the ages of these layers that the scientific community has understood to be correct, it is seen as an error in many cases because the idea of this dating system is so engrained as "truth" that it can't be questioned. Everything has to fall back on this dating system, even when the evidence shows that this system is highly flawed.

To learn more about the problems encountered with dating rocks and fossils, it would be a good idea to read some of these articles below about it.

They basically show that different dating methods give completely different results. i.e. some of the stuff in these rock layers indicate it is only thousands of years old (using Carbon 14 testing) and other methods indicate that the rocks in these layers are dozens of millions of years old. Here are some exerpts that discuss these exact things in various rock layers:

"There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.

Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.

In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!

Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little 14C to measure, but dating labs consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old. For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks 14C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1–500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon ‘age’ of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

There is much more info on the subject of problems encountered with using the "scientifically accepted" methods of dating rocks and fossils (including Carbon 14 testing) if you want to look into it some more. Here is a good source with lots of info:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Here are some other articles as well for those that are interested in reading more into this topic:

Radiocarbon in an ‘ancient’ fossil tree stump casts doubt on traditional rock/fossil dating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp

Dating of wood and fossils in same strata:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

There is a lot of evidence out there to indicate that Noah's Flood is actually a very viable theory to how a large chunk of the fossils formed etc. There is strong evidence to indicate that there was catastrophic destruction that happened on this earth due to water with layers forming quickly, animals being buried quickly (forming fossils) and this continuing layer after layer as this flooding continued to happen. Here are some pictures as well indicating that these fish were buried extremely quickly as they were buried before they could even finish their meal! These layers did not take years and year to form and build up. They are as a result of sudden catastrophe - just as we can even see in our day on a smaller scale through the evidence we see of these exact same things happening due to Mt. St. Helen's erupting resulting in mud/water flows. The evidence we see today is proof that water catastrophe can and does form all the things we see in the geological rock strata, fossils etc. all throughout the earth.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i4/lime.asp