Young Earth v. Old Earth

[jcrichton]

Hi,
I think the quotation from (probably St Paul’s) letter to the Hebrews, in its context looks more like it is referring to the only begotten Son of God (ie. the Word made flesh and God Himself), which, correct me if I error, is not what we are and is not the same as ‘children of God’.

Hi, D M!

There’s one thing that I find interesting about prophecies… their sense of duality; we can witness the event unfolding during the lifetime of the prophet or quite near his death while a specif revelation within the prophecy remains to be revealed in a much later time; for instance, the battle of Genesis 3:15 is not seen by us but it is found in Apocalypse 12 with greater details… within the revelation in Apocalypse we find that the Incarnation takes place, the Virgin Mary is protected by God, the Mother and Child are brought to Egypt, the Beast, unable to conquer/kill the Child takes the battle to His brethren, Mary’s other children… these relationships are somewhat obscured till Jesus is resurrected, and while on the Cross, calls to His Mom and tells her that “there is your son…”

So while Scriptures point to the Only Begotten Son, we too are coheirs with Christ and are granted the status of adopted children–a transition from creatures to children that is not revealed about the angels.

Does this mean that we should consider ourselves better than them? Not if we are obedient to Christ’s Commands!

You’re right there is a difference or distinction between the angels and humans in the plan of salvation, …but…does that distinction still necessarily entail that angels are in fact not created in God’s image?

Since there’s no mention that they were I suppose that they are of God’s essense but not necessarily made in His image.

but even still, should humans receive a higher place than the angels… I don’t know if that still means that the angels do not have God’s image and likeness…

I understand what you mean… remember St. Paul’s explanation of the Law being our pedagogue till Christ’s Coming? He used the example of the child who due to his age cannot fully wheel the father’s authority and is subject to his teacher, though he happens to be a servant… the child grows up and assumes full authority while the servant remains a servant–I think that this might be the case with the angels; they may be more powerful than we are but we are to inherit the Kingdom through Christ.

Sometimes I think that Jesus is king of the angels in the same as He is also the high-priest, that is to say that He has the office of an angel just as He does of a priest, or that the phrase ‘Emmanuel’ (God with us) is comparable and superior to the names Michael (Who can compare with God?), Gabriel (Man of God), Raphael (God heals), or Uriel (Light of God), etc.

…not just king but King–absolute Ruler (Hb 1:6; 1 P 3:22). I am not sure if you are saying that Jesus cares as much for the angels as for us or if you mean that He is as an angel… if it is the latter, I must, adamantly, disagree; though there is congruency between the names given to the angels and Christ’s Name and Titles, the names of the angels point to God while Jesus’ Name and Titles point to His Divinity.

As for the image of God being lost, I don’t think that those who were conceived in sin did not also have the image of God, and to reference the letter of James:

James 3:8-9 but no human being can tame the tongue - a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God.

I understand what you are saying… many times I think that part of the problems that exist in the world (especially the Christian world) is due to minor differences in wording/thinking–though we were Created in the image and likeness of God (which is a constant) something was lost at the Fall (this cannot be a physical attribute), hence my expression… this thought is derived from the revelation of that which we will inherit on Jesus’ Parusia: we will know Him as He knows us and we will Be as He Is. (This, of course, is my own determination.)

I have another question to consider for the old earth- young earth debate that I’m not sure has been answered: if creation was entirely good in the beginning, then how does one reconcile the number of things that exist in evolutionary biology, and would have existed long before humans had supposedly evolved and inherited at their conception (before they could have possibly committed the original sin) like any other organism, that one would consider to be corruptions? (ie. death, bodily lust, disease, pain, suffering, etc.)

Since I am waaaay lacking in the science dept. I cannot but speculate… Was Yahweh God’s design to create things that would never die or consume other creatures for their sustenance? Did the writer/s of Genesis think that God inferred that till the Fall all creatures were to eat grass or nothing at all? Are what man considers mutations flaws that should never have happened or are they the result of the design of Creation? …and for that matter… what is the purpose of mosquitoes and other pests that seem to be quite superfluous in the scheme of things? …and how can the mind of man conceive ideas of things that do not exist (electronic age especially)–from what source is it being harvested?

On such conundrums I must wait on further revelation or development–still, an old song comes to mind “…si sé mucho, no sé nada… ya mañana se verá… y será, será lo que será…” (…if I know much, I know nothing… it shall be revealed tomorrow… and it will be what it shall be…)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Barbarian observes:
That’s pretty well established, since we know why the sun shines and the rate at which fusion proceeds in various stars (the Hertzsprung Russel distribution depends on this fact) so that it’s not a guess at all.

What factors in stars do you think change the burning rate, which cannot be determined until it occurs? So far, the evidence shows very precisely what affects the lifetime of stars.

You think solar flares send appreciable amounts of solar flares out of the sun’s gravitational influence? Show me some evidence for that. That’s seems completely absurd. The flares shoot up and fall back into the sun.

Barbarian observes:
Actually astronomers have a very good picture of that, and observation has confirmed that.

That is cosmology. And it has nothing to do with why some stars blow up. The reason we know so precisely, is that the process by which it happens is not all that complex.

Might be good for you to learn how we know. It’s an interesting story. One way to learn about the ancient science if astronomy might be Coming of Age in the Milky Way, a very non-technical, but informative guide.

My lack of knowledge is not disputable… but your expression seems to be clear cut about what scientist know and have proven while you continue to use terms as “good picture” and “observation has confirmed.” Define either term and you have plausible reliability!

While I was not present during the last few super-novas, what, from your determination, can be attributed to their emersions and how can you prove that the flares from these stars did not attain an exponentially accelerated cycle and an abnormal intensity and volume of discharge?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[The_Barbarian]

What is a creationist?

In this case, someone who does not accept the Pope’s description of evolution.

Really. As I understand it, there are two definitions, one purely political and the other one, not.

I don’t think creationism is political. It’s a religion.

 

[The_Barbarian]

My lack of knowledge is not disputable… but your expression seems to be clear cut about what scientist know and have proven while you continue to use terms as “good picture” and “observation has confirmed.” Define either term and you have plausible reliability!

In short, there is a great deal of evidence showing the way stars work, and subsequent observation has shown this to be true. For example, Using what is known about force and motion, one can simulate the physical conditions in stars, and show why various elements fuse in different size stars, why some fuse elements at greater rates (and therefore don’t last as long as others), and so on.

While I was not present during the last few super-novas,

If you are over 20 you were here for the last one observed in our Galaxy, and for a great many observed outside the galaxy.
chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2008/g19/media/

what, from your determination, can be attributed to their emersions and how can you prove that the flares from these stars did not attain an exponentially accelerated cycle and an abnormal intensity and volume of discharge?

Evidence. The key event is a star large enough to generate gravitational forces large enough to fuse iron. It is prevented from collapse only by the huge forces brought about by what amounts to countless thermonuclear bombs.

When the last of the iron is fused, the star rapidly collapses, and blows itself apart in a gigantic implosion that for a brief time produces more radiation than all the rest of the billions of starts in the galaxy.

The outgassing of these heavy elements can be readily detected by spectroscopy here on Earth to verify what happened.

 

[turnorburn]

Yep.

You think the Pope can’t make a scientific statement? Scientists can also make religious statements. They just can’t use science to do it.

Yes.

Mine isn’t either. Because they go with the best experts they can find.

It simply and neatly destroys your argument that evolution is not consistent with our faith.

Never thought of the Pope as a “political activist.” And his statement is scientific, not political. Maybe your obsession with politics is leading you to believe anything is political.

It’s more than just that. Certainly, the Pope wouldn’t have endorsed evolution if it was contrary to our faith. But he’s hardly the first pope to acknowledge that evolution is consistent with the teaching of the Church.

I don’t remember saying that religion couldn’t address the issue of science. I said that science couldn’t address the issue of religion. Religion is metaphysical, and therefor transcends science, being able to consider nature and science, even if science can’t consider religion.

True. But it’s a truth that is not accessible to science.

Sufficient to explain the diversity of life. But not to explain why there is life in the first place. You’re wising up, Ed.

If they do, it will be caused by people like you; no one else says that.

And one of the major stumbling blocks to evangelization is creationism. Not just to saving souls, either. Creationism is an efficient atheist-maker.

Galileo went before the Inquisitors because he taught the the earth revolved around the sun, this is a portion of what he said.

Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of Your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion rightly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unpretended faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies and also every other error, error and sect whatever, contrary to the Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert verbally or in writing, anything that might cause a similar suspicion toward me; further, should I know any heretic or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be…

He made a good confession the alternative was the stake.
I dare say, you mean to tell me that if I had to pay the tribunal
a visit because I claimed my car ran on leaded gas and the Pope said “Heresy” I too would face the same outcome…:tsktsk:

POWER CORRUPTS, BUT ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

 

[buffalo]

Galileo went before the Inquisitors because he taught the the earth revolved around the sun, this is a portion of what he said.

Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of Your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion rightly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unpretended faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies and also every other error, error and sect whatever, contrary to the Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert verbally or in writing, anything that might cause a similar suspicion toward me; further, should I know any heretic or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be…

He made a good confession the alternative was the stake.
I dare say, you mean to tell me that if I had to pay the tribunal
a visit because I claimed my car ran on leaded gas and the Pope said “Heresy” I too would face the same outcome…:tsktsk:

POWER CORRUPTS, BUT ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

The Swan’s Song of Galileo’s Myth

 

[Pro_Domina]

Most Catholics hear are going to get scanalized in me saying this, but Young Earth is not neccesarily the position of the Church, in fact the most real theologans sustain that the 7 days is a symbol not an actual 7 days.
And evolution, that is even more complicated.

Listen I am all for orthodox teachings, but the thing is that 7 days and no evolution is not even Church doctrine.

I live in Rome and I see that from both sides, cons and progs, the professors and even the Pope are not fundamentalist protestantish rad trads on the subject.

We can’t be square. Theologically, Old Earth and Evolution is possible. The only thing that seems to be neccesary is the requirement that God at some point in the process puts in the rational soul and that Original Sin was commited.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Oh and about the Gallileo thing, I believe the true records state that there was only him, the judge and the recorder present.

Any how he got in trouble for sticking his nose in stuff other than the heliocentrism. He also lied to the Pope upon being questioned about sanctions placed by a bishop, etc.

 

[edwest2]

Most Catholics hear are going to get scanalized in me saying this, but Young Earth is not neccesarily the position of the Church, in fact the most real theologans sustain that the 7 days is a symbol not an actual 7 days.
And evolution, that is even more complicated.

Listen I am all for orthodox teachings, but the thing is that 7 days and no evolution is not even Church doctrine.

I live in Rome and I see that from both sides, cons and progs, the professors and even the Pope are not fundamentalist protestantish rad trads on the subject.

We can’t be square. Theologically, Old Earth and Evolution is possible. The only thing that seems to be neccesary is the requirement that God at some point in the process puts in the rational soul and that Original Sin was commited.

And yet the Church has not ruled infallibly as to the age of the earth. I prefer to consider the possibility that the earth is much younger than currently proposed. The mixture of science and atheism is widespread in this country.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Galileo went before the Inquisitors because he taught the the earth revolved around the sun,

That’s not what got him in trouble; that was an excuse. He got himself involved in some political problems, and that was the real reason.

By that time, everyone knew the facts, and few cared what this tribunal did. The universities in Italy (including those in the Papal States) taught heliocentrism even if they weren’t blatant about it.

 

[historyb]

And yet the Church has not ruled infallibly as to the age of the earth. I prefer to consider the possibility that the earth is much younger than currently proposed. The mixture of science and atheism is widespread in this country.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Pro_Domina]

Yet, the Pope inclines to…

Not Young Earth.

And about heliocentrism…

The Church knew long time ago.

I mean lets take an even bigger myth.

A square earth.

Since the middle ages the child Jesus was with an Orbe in His hand!!!

 

[jcrichton]

In short, there is a great deal of evidence showing the way stars work, and subsequent observation has shown this to be true. For example, Using what is known about force and motion, one can simulate the physical conditions in stars, and show why various elements fuse in different size stars, why some fuse elements at greater rates (and therefore don’t last as long as others), and so on.

Yet, the evidence is generaly extrapolative, as far as I know none was there when any of the super-nova emerged.

Science has a habit of defining the unknown through observation and its comparisons with what is known (take the example of the hyper-thermal pools)… always realigning its factors with the new factual data that is gathered.

I may be the most obtuse person in the world but till science has actual facts their theorizing is educated guess.

Evidence. The key event is a star large enough to generate gravitational forces large enough to fuse iron. It is prevented from collapse only by the huge forces brought about by what amounts to countless thermonuclear bombs.

When the last of the iron is fused, the star rapidly collapses, and blows itself apart in a gigantic implosion that for a brief time produces more radiation than all the rest of the billions of starts in the galaxy.

The outgassing of these heavy elements can be readily detected by spectroscopy here on Earth to verify what happened.

Again, this is an observation–something can be set in a mathematical formula and experiments, using what is believed to be the composite of the subject, can be performed but these experiments can never satisfy every single posible contingency; the final report: it is still not based on actual events, but on observation of what is perceived as the actual event.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[D_M]

Hi, D M!

There’s one thing that I find interesting about prophecies… their sense of duality; we can witness the event unfolding during the lifetime of the prophet or quite near his death while a specif revelation within the prophecy remains to be revealed in a much later time; for instance, the battle of Genesis 3:15 is not seen by us but it is found in Apocalypse 12 with greater details… within the revelation in Apocalypse we find that the Incarnation takes place, the Virgin Mary is protected by God, the Mother and Child are brought to Egypt, the Beast, unable to conquer/kill the Child takes the battle to His brethren, Mary’s other children… these relationships are somewhat obscured till Jesus is resurrected, and while on the Cross, calls to His Mom and tells her that “there is your son…”

So while Scriptures point to the Only Begotten Son, we too are coheirs with Christ and are granted the status of adopted children–a transition from creatures to children that is not revealed about the angels.

Does this mean that we should consider ourselves better than them? Not if we are obedient to Christ’s Commands!

Since there’s no mention that they were I suppose that they are of God’s essense but not necessarily made in His image.

I understand what you mean… remember St. Paul’s explanation of the Law being our pedagogue till Christ’s Coming? He used the example of the child who due to his age cannot fully wheel the father’s authority and is subject to his teacher, though he happens to be a servant… the child grows up and assumes full authority while the servant remains a servant–I think that this might be the case with the angels; they may be more powerful than we are but we are to inherit the Kingdom through Christ.

…not just king but King–absolute Ruler (Hb 1:6; 1 P 3:22). I am not sure if you are saying that Jesus cares as much for the angels as for us or if you mean that He is as an angel… if it is the latter, I must, adamantly, disagree; though there is congruency between the names given to the angels and Christ’s Name and Titles, the names of the angels point to God while Jesus’ Name and Titles point to His Divinity.

I understand what you are saying… many times I think that part of the problems that exist in the world (especially the Christian world) is due to minor differences in wording/thinking–though we were Created in the image and likeness of God (which is a constant) something was lost at the Fall (this cannot be a physical attribute), hence my expression… this thought is derived from the revelation of that which we will inherit on Jesus’ Parusia: we will know Him as He knows us and we will Be as He Is. (This, of course, is my own determination.)

Since I am waaaay lacking in the science dept. I cannot but speculate… Was Yahweh God’s design to create things that would never die or consume other creatures for their sustenance? Did the writer/s of Genesis think that God inferred that till the Fall all creatures were to eat grass or nothing at all? Are what man considers mutations flaws that should never have happened or are they the result of the design of Creation? …and for that matter… what is the purpose of mosquitoes and other pests that seem to be quite superfluous in the scheme of things? …and how can the mind of man conceive ideas of things that do not exist (electronic age especially)–from what source is it being harvested?

On such conundrums I must wait on further revelation or development–still, an old song comes to mind “…si sé mucho, no sé nada… ya mañana se verá… y será, será lo que será…” (…if I know much, I know nothing… it shall be revealed tomorrow… and it will be what it shall be…)

Maran atha!

Angel

Hi,

I’m trying to figure out what you mean by duality of prophecy… and it’s hard… do you mean that verses in scripture can have more than one meaning?

If so, I would agree… but that being said, in the context of the Word, I do not think we shall ever become the Son (that is, an uncreated Being), but we shall become one with Him and reign with Him… one body, one spirit…

The way I think of it is this, that the angels are like the humans, and the humans are like the angels, both possess a soul, intellect, and I think also are made in God’s likeness… but the angels play a different role in salvation then do humans, similarly humans as individuals play a different role in salvation as each of us were made uniquely and we shall inherit higher or lower places on account of the cumulation of our deeds… following from this principle (that the higher or lower is given in accordance with what we have done) I would postulate that the reason why the angels are beneath the humans is not so much because they were lacking in some aspect of the image of God or in being His children, but because humans played a more important role in establishing God’s kingdom and thus it is to them that the new creation that is to come shall be subjected to.

Angels are simply not as important in this plan as us humans, and we have a far more important role, which in turn means that the world (and they as well) shall be subjected to us.

I have no idea if Jesus has an angel’s office or not, I simply hypothesized such… and you are right that the names of the angels apply to God, but I think that the name Emmanuel also applies to the Father, for Jesus told Philip that if you have seen Me than you have seen Him (which is the very ‘message’ (angel comes from the greek word άγγελος/‘angelos’ which literally means ‘messenger’), so to speak, delivered by the name of ‘God with us’ ). At the same time I think the angels are incomparable to God, just as we are incomparable to God.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi,
I’m trying to figure out what you mean by duality of prophecy… and it’s hard… do you mean that verses in scripture can have more than one meaning?

Hi, D M!

…yeah… many times we find prophecies about to be fulfilled during the lifetime or very near the lifetime of the prophet to whom they were revealed; while, simultaneously, there is indeed a prophecy hidden that will only take place when the Word becomes Incarnate.

If so, I would agree… but that being said, in the context of the Word, I do not think we shall ever become the Son (that is, an uncreated Being), but we shall become one with Him and reign with Him… one body, one spirit…

…how much we would share of God’s essense is not known; Scriptures do reveal that we will become spiritual beings in the essense of God… however, I always find interesting passages that serve to ground me and make me think “I’ll wait for His Full Revelation!”

The way I think of it is this, that the angels are like the humans, and the humans are like the angels, both possess a soul, intellect, and I think also are made in God’s likeness… but the angels play a different role in salvation then do humans, similarly humans as individuals play a different role in salvation as each of us were made uniquely and we shall inherit higher or lower places on account of the cumulation of our deeds… following from this principle (that the higher or lower is given in accordance with what we have done) I would postulate that the reason why the angels are beneath the humans is not so much because they were lacking in some aspect of the image of God or in being His children, but because humans played a more important role in establishing God’s kingdom and thus it is to them that the new creation that is to come shall be subjected to.

Angels are simply not as important in this plan as us humans, and we have a far more important role, which in turn means that the world (and they as well) shall be subjected to us.

I don’t know exactly how we would fair or whether the angels would be an integral part in our reunion with God–the fact that they are spiritual beings who are obedient to God is enough for me.

I have no idea if Jesus has an angel’s office or not, I simply hypothesized such… and you are right that the names of the angels apply to God, but I think that the name Emmanuel also applies to the Father, for Jesus told Philip that if you have seen Me than you have seen Him (which is the very ‘message’ (angel comes from the greek word άγγελος/‘angelos’ which literally means ‘messenger’), so to speak, delivered by the name of ‘God with us’ ). At the same time I think the angels are incomparable to God, just as we are incomparable to God.

…what I meant was that the angels’ names reflect characteristics of God while Jesus’ Names reflect God Himself; as you said, Jesus made it clear to Philip (and the other disciples) “…don’t you Believe that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father?..” There’s nothing ambiguous about it!

My concern was that some desire to confine Jesus into the definition of an angel–this theology is so limited because it rejects all Scriptural revelation that demonstrate that Jesus is Divine and that He and the Father are One.

…I concur with you, both the angels (in a way, superior to us) and man are incomparable to God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[algran]

It’s strange how my original thread(Young Earth v. Old Earth) morphed into a thousand different topics. I would guess only 15% of the replies were concerned with answering my original point. And I think this thread became a personal dialogue forum between only a few people. I didn’t learn much from all that, because my original topic wasn’t addressed properly.

 

[Pro_Domina]

It’s strange how my original thread(Young Earth v. Old Earth) morphed into a thousand different topics. I would guess only 15% of the replies were concerned with answering my original point. And I think this thread became a personal dialogue forum between only a few people. I didn’t learn much from all that, because my original topic wasn’t addressed properly.

I don’t know if I did what you wanted. Sorry if it was not.

 

[Philipp]

It’s strange how my original thread(Young Earth v. Old Earth) morphed into a thousand different topics. I would guess only 15% of the replies were concerned with answering my original point. And I think this thread became a personal dialogue forum between only a few people. I didn’t learn much from all that, because my original topic wasn’t addressed properly.

Here is a very short summary of some “hard” data supporting a young earth I’ve discovered during 30 years of research. It comes primarily from C-14 dating of fossils and archaeology. Perhaps this will help as it is hard data and not based on assertions and speculations.

DINOSAUR EXTINCTION: When? Most scientists have concluded that catastrophic events of some sort have caused the demise of most dinosaurs, but when? It is hoped that this review of C-14 dates for many mega-fauna and dinosaurs will strip away some of the confusion caused by media support for the evolutionary paradigm. This data shows that the time line is the same as for the demise of mega fauna [saber tooth tigers, mammoths, mastodons, ground sloth, bison, and wolf]. That is only 1000’s of years ago. The human population projection equation supports these data.

EVOLUTIONARY/MEDIA SELF DECEPTIONS. Dinosaurs did not become extinct 12 M years BP as was thought in 1924 by evolutionists and not 65 M years BP as suggested by various radiometric dating methods like K/Ar, Ur/Pb and Ar/Ar. These radioactive decay systems can not get it right even for most known volcanic eruptions and lava flows as I have shown in previous threads.[Ar/Ar for Mt Vesuvius in 2000 years BP may be an exception]. A brief review of prime examples include Mt. St Helens lave dome dacite and other particles of 1986 at 300,000 to 2,700,000 million years BP, off by many 100’s of times.

Soooo direct C-14 dating of many megafauna, and “dinosaur” bones reveal that dinosaurs lived at the same time as magafauna which our ancestors also saw:

(1) La Brea Tar Pit Series of Los Angeles, [4 of 12 RC dates as examples, 1964)
12,650 +/-160 UCLA 1292B, left femur, from Pit 3.
23,700 +/-600 UCLA 1292H, right femur from pit 60
26,700 +/-900 UCLA 1292G, right femur from pit 4
28,000 +/-1400 UCLA 1292 D, left femur from pit 4

(2) Bison bone collagen, 30,810 +/- 975 RC years BP (AMS) with evidence of human activity in Yukon region. Also wolf bone collagen at 27,920 +/-650 RC years BP (AMS).

(3) About 50 Mammoth bones from Hot Springs, SD, 26,000 years BP for bone bioapatite.

(4) 350 Mammoth bone reports from Eurasia continent, 9,670 +/- 60 to >53,170 RC years BP. All were less than 40,000 RC years except for 21; most of the 21 were about the same age as for unfossilized wood from drill core samples deep in the permafrost of Prudhoe Bay Alaska at 43,380 +/- 380 RC years at 60m depth. Fossilize wood in the US in Colorado gave the same age as unfossilized wood in the perma frost.

(5) Eight mammoth bones, tusks and teeth from Wrangell Island above Siberia were dated at less than 5,000 years BP using purified collagen.

(6) A musk ox carcass frozen in Alaskan, USA, muck gave dates of 24,140 +/- 2200 years and 17,210 +/- 500 RC years BP for scalp muscle tissue and hair, respectively.

(7) Dung of Ground Sloth in Rampart Cave, 10,800 to 40,000 RC years BP

(8) 11,750 +/-150 years BP camarasaurus (WY), bioapatite, 1905 [from Carnegie Museum].

(9) 16,120 +/- 220 years BP, Allosaurus (CO), bioapatite, Hall team, 1986 and 31,360 +/- 100 years BP 2008 after careful removal of offending “younger carbonates” before AMS dating.

(10)17,420 +/- +/-330 years BP, Camarasaurus (WY), bioapaite, 1905, [Carnegie Museum]

(11) 23,760 +/- 270 years BP, Acrocanthosaurus (TX) on AMS, bioapatite, Baugh team, 1984

(12) 25,750 +/- 280 years BP, Acrocanthosaurus (TX) on AMS, bioapatite, Baugh team,1984

(13) 31,050 + 230/-220 years BP, Hadrosaur (AK) on AMS, total organics.

Based on studies by Ph. D. scientists who support the literal interpretation of scripture the above dates are too old based on solid scientific arguments but what they do show is that there is NO 65 million years of supposed evolution of man and NO complete extinction of the dinosaurs.

Continued

 

[Philipp]

CONCLUSIONS AND OTHER OBSERVATIONS::
The time-line for dinosaur/megafauna existence is the same, based on direct C-14 dating of the bones themselves. These all important radiocarbon dates for fossils support the contentions that:

(1) the 65 million years of alleged evolution between man and dinosaurs does not exist.

(2) Supports other lines of evidence that man and dinosaurs coexisted in time such as depictions of Brontosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Torosaurus and other types of dinosaurs interacting with man that even evolutionists agree are world-wide; AND fossil human footprints with dinosaurs in TX and human footprints without dinosaurs in ancient strata in AZ, PA, NM and Russia.

(3) Challenges the age of 600 million years for the geologic column and descent of all life forms from A common ancestor. In other words: Dinosaurs, saber tooth tigers, mammoths, mastodons, bison and sloths all lived at the same time WITH MAN, based on radiocarbon dating of their bones alone. Trilobites with their fantastic eyes and other sea creatures are NOT our ancestors; they were created during the six days of creation and just happened to get buried during a major catastrophe because they couldn’t run and climb fast enough. The geologic record is a record of catastrophism, NOT evolution of life from non-life
Along with sedimentology studies by many scientists since 1896

ALL THE ABOVE DATA supports rapid formation of most sediments, now rock formations. Perhaps main stream scientists need go back to the origins drawing board and admit “that the earth is young after all” as ALL 28 CHURCH FATHERS AGREED IT WAS. Scientifically the above theory lmight be called the “abrupt appearance thkeory of origins” and makes much more sense than evolution and an old earth.

ANOTHER THOUGHT: I often think it useless to present such hard data on any CA threads because the theistic evolutionists are dogmatic theologians for their own brand of evolution. However, I hope that this helps you and others realize that there is hard data out there that supports the concept of a young earth.

Now watch the fur fly as the ET’s make their assertions of fraud, stupid science, “put your data in a peer reviewed main stream technical paper” [which no one including ID scientists are allowed to do]. The censorship is supreme; the sacred cow of evolutioin must be protected at all costs even academic freedom. I’ve been there, done this before on CA but I will continue to do so in hopes that somehow true debate in academia will some day be allowed.

 

[Orogeny]

Now watch the fur fly as the ET’s make their assertions of fraud, stupid science, “put your data in a peer reviewed main stream technical paper” [which no one including ID scientists are allowed to do]. The censorship is supreme; the sacred cow of evolutioin must be protected at all costs even academic freedom. I’ve been there, done this before on CA but I will continue to do so in hopes that somehow true debate in academia will some day be allowed.

Ah, the preemptive paragraph! That is real handy when you know that nothing you have written can be verified by any real scientist. Censorship!!! The cry of the dogmatic!!!

You have nothing that even a highschool science student couldn’t pick apart. I guess that is the best reason for not working with the scientific community to validate your data.

Peace

Tim