[_ Old Earth _] Geologic column about 1600 years

[dad]

If we look from the cambrian, till the Holocene, and think of it as pre flood, that would mean those layers were put down in about 1600 years, roughly.
Again, looking at the geo column, roughly, it would seem to break down something like this.

Cenozoic 700 years
Mesozoic 300 years
Paleozoic 600 years

This is my opinion of how it actually happened, rather than crediting the flood with much of it. Plant growth rates were fantastic at the time, on day 3 they were made. and on day 6 we, and animals were made, that needed to eat them. Trees in days is fast. I think there was hyper evolution as well, as we see when God changed the created creature, a serpent, into a belly crawling snake. No wonder layers went down in a hurry. Add to this the water that came up from the deep earth below, and a daily drying, or windy period. (cool of the day). Varves, in a New York minute, almost, at least in a day.
Interesting, in this scenario, is when Adam, and others died. If we assume he was not in the garden long, then he would have died perhaps at the beginning of the Cenozoic !! This means that it was about the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs!
Having the fossil record, and geo column mostly pre flood explains a lot, I think, It takes away all the ammo evos use, about how the flood doesn't seem to explain it all.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Except of course you have exactly zero supporting evidence for your idea frorm either science or scripture.

 

[dad]

Except of course you have exactly zero supporting evidence for your idea frorm either science or scripture.

No, the pieces of the puzzle are there in the bible, from the timeframe of creation, to when Adam died. It fits science (don't confuse that with old age assumptions), and the bible better than your old age beliefs.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Except of course you have exactly zero supporting evidence for your idea frorm either science or scripture.

No, the pieces of the puzzle are there in the bible, from the timeframe of creation, to when Adam died. It fits science (don't confuse that with old age assumptions), and the bible better than your old age beliefs.

Really how does it fit science? It creates a buttload of geophysical problems, from how tectonic plates and movement works right down to physical interaction of particles.

 

[dad]

Except of course you have exactly zero supporting evidence for your idea frorm either science or scripture.

No, the pieces of the puzzle are there in the bible, from the timeframe of creation, to when Adam died. It fits science (don't confuse that with old age assumptions), and the bible better than your old age beliefs.

Really how does it fit science? It creates a buttload of geophysical problems, from how tectonic plates and movement works right down to physical interaction of particles.

Not really, unless one insists on assuming the past was just physical like the present. In reality we see things documented in the bible of this time that indicate otherwise. So all that is unsupportable is that notion of the past. Without that assumption, the evidence we see does fit hand and glove with our young created world.
Now, if you had, other than zero supporting evidence for the physical only past you believe in, why, we could talk turkey here. You don't.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Except of course you have exactly zero supporting evidence for your idea frorm either science or scripture.

No, the pieces of the puzzle are there in the bible, from the timeframe of creation, to when Adam died. It fits science (don't confuse that with old age assumptions), and the bible better than your old age beliefs.

Really how does it fit science? It creates a buttload of geophysical problems, from how tectonic plates and movement works right down to physical interaction of particles.

Not really, unless one insists on assuming the past was just physical like the present. In reality we see things documented in the bible of this time that indicate otherwise. So all that is unsupportable is that notion of the past. Without that assumption, the evidence we see does fit hand and glove with our young created world.
Now, if you had, other than zero supporting evidence for the physical only past you believe in, why, we could talk turkey here. You don't.

I have plenty, your super-photons, super-gravitons, super-gluons, etc. the ones needed for physical interaction, can't work if you want the universe to look almost exactly the same.

 

[dad]

...I have plenty, your super-photons, super-gravitons, super-gluons, etc. the ones needed for physical interaction, can't work if you want the universe to look almost exactly the same.

You mean the light, and laws and properties of the new heavens, or merged universe as I called it. First of all I didn't say the new heavens will look the same! Neither will it act the same. For ecample, in this physical only heavens we cannot detect we are the center of the universe! There, it will be obvious.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

...I have plenty, your super-photons, super-gravitons, super-gluons, etc. the ones needed for physical interaction, can't work if you want the universe to look almost exactly the same.

You mean the light, and laws and properties of the new heavens, or merged universe as I called it. First of all I didn't say the new heavens will look the same! Neither will it act the same. For ecample, in this physical only heavens we cannot detect we are the center of the universe! There, it will be obvious.

Why?

 

[dad]

...I have plenty, your super-photons, super-gravitons, super-gluons, etc. the ones needed for physical interaction, can't work if you want the universe to look almost exactly the same.

You mean the light, and laws and properties of the new heavens, or merged universe as I called it. First of all I didn't say the new heavens will look the same! Neither will it act the same. For ecample, in this physical only heavens we cannot detect we are the center of the universe! There, it will be obvious.

Why?

Because we will not just see the physical only, but the whole picture when the new heavens are revealed, and these ones pass away.

 

[peace4all]

basically, it fits science by denying science.

what you are basically saying, is god had the ability to speed upa nd slow down certain things, at will, and make all of these things happen incredibly fast, so god could then mislead anyone seaking knowledge..

your theory here only proves that god is deceptive.

 

[dad]

basically, it fits science by denying science.

what you are basically saying, is god had the ability to speed upa nd slow down certain things, at will, and make all of these things happen incredibly fast, so god could then mislead anyone seaking knowledge..

your theory here only proves that god is deceptive.

No, I simply observe that things operate at different rates in the physical only world, and the world that was spiritual and physical.
If one seeks knowledge, one should beware of assuming the future and past are like the present. That is where they crash.
Science is in the testable observable present. It concerns only the physical, and is not applicible in a past that was more than that. I deny NO science, just assumptions about it that are only beliefs that cannot be supported!

 

[Wertbag]

What scripture do you believe supports the belief that the world was anything other than physical as Genesis seems to state?

 

[dad]

What scripture do you believe supports the belief that the world was anything other than physical as Genesis seems to state?

Plant growth and trees in days. Long human lifespans. Water layer above the earth. Water taken away, possibly off the earth. Serpent talking. Serpent being changed in a hyper evolution manner. Sons of God marrying girls, and seemingly having babies, (giants) as well. People being told to multiply with just the two, meaning what would later be called incest, indicating something other than present genetical properties. Water coming up from the earth, rather than rain. Light being here before the sun abd stars. To name some things!
Also, the timeframe we have from the bible does not allow for old ages for evolution, and strata deposition, so the rates must have been very very different.
Then of course, the future, which may be obvious, because these temporary heavens will pass away.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

...I have plenty, your super-photons, super-gravitons, super-gluons, etc. the ones needed for physical interaction, can't work if you want the universe to look almost exactly the same.

You mean the light, and laws and properties of the new heavens, or merged universe as I called it. First of all I didn't say the new heavens will look the same! Neither will it act the same. For ecample, in this physical only heavens we cannot detect we are the center of the universe! There, it will be obvious.

Why?

Because we will not just see the physical only, but the whole picture when the new heavens are revealed, and these ones pass away.

Why would earth's centrality in the universe become apparent? I'm not looking for a big picture answer, I'm asking what mechanism would suddenly pop into existence that would make this observation possible.

 

[dad]

...
Why would earth's centrality in the universe become apparent? I'm not looking for a big picture answer, I'm asking what mechanism would suddenly pop into existence that would make this observation possible.

I don't know. But God is coming to live here, so it must be the center. Not only that, it was made when there was no rest of the universe! The temporary heavens will pass away, and a new heavens and earth that sre forever, will be revealed. How could we say exactly in which ways it will be different?
One big difference is that it is not only physical, but also spiritual. What would things look like if we could see the spiritual as well as the physical? Well, we'd see more, as in the bible one time, where God opened the eyes of someone, as Elijah asked Him to do. He saw all kinds of thing going on he never dreamed were even there!
I could speculate, but it isn't written in stone. My huess is either it would just be that we see more, all the stars and things we may not see now, in the physical only universe.
Another idea, is that the universe may revolve arond the earth? That would make it apparent we are the center.
There are forces, attraction and repulsion, and positive and negative, etc, that hold things together in our physical only universe. If the spiritual was introduced, and combined with the physical, it would be totally different.
A new balance would ensue, between the both, and not just a PO balance, as we now have. That is why Einstein's relativity applies only to the Po universe!

"A consequence of the Uncertainty Principle is that if an object's position x is defined precisely then the momentum of the object will be only weakly constrained, and vice versa. One cannot simultaneously find both the position and momentum of an object to arbitrary accuracy.


This uncertainty leads to some strange effects. For example, in a Quantum Mechanical world, I cannot predict where a particle will be with 100 % certainty. I can only speak in terms of probabilities. For example, I can only say that an atom will be at some location with a 99 % probability, and that there will be a 1 % probability it will be somewhere else (in fact, there will be a small but finite probabilty that it can even be found across the Universe). This is strange.
We do not know if this indeterminism is actually the way the Universe works, because the theory of Quantum Mechanics is probably incomplete. That is, we do not know if the Universe actually behaves in a probabilistic manner (there are many possible paths a particle can follow and the observed path is chosen probabilistically) or if the Universe is deterministic in the sense that I could predict the path a particle will follow with 100 % certainty.

A consequence of the Quantum Mechanical nature of the world is that particles can appear in places where they have no right to be (from an ordinary, common sense [classical] point of view)!
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html

"How do atomic particles interact?

There are forces within the atom that account for the behavior of the protons, neutrons, and electrons. Without these forces, an atom could not stay together. Recall that protons have a positive charge, electrons a negative charge, and neutrons are neutral. According to the laws of physics, like charges repel each other and unlike charges attract each other. This is called electromagnetic force. So let's see how the electromagnetic force affects protons and electrons."...
"Another force, called the strong force, opposes and overcomes the electromagnetic force of repulsion between the protons and pushes the protons together. The strong force holds the nucleus of an atom together and the energy associated with it is called the binding energy. The electrons are kept in orbit around the nucleus because there is an electromagnetic force of attraction between the positive charge of the protons and the negative charge of the electrons."
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResource ... eatoms.htm

So, adding the spiritual changes things at the basic level, and a new balance is attained! The result is no decay, and it lasts forever. Among other things.
Likewise the cosmos is held together now in a way that may be fundamentally changed.
Planets and things are kept in place by things like gravity. Their orbits are a balance between gravity and the motion of the planet. A balance that is designed for the physical universe.

 

[ArtGuy]

I would also like to know why the Earth's geographical location within the universe is even relevant. Does it somehow invalidate Christianity if the Earth is off to the side a little bit?

 

[dad]

I would also like to know why the Earth's geographical location within the universe is even relevant. Does it somehow invalidate Christianity if the Earth is off to the side a little bit?

Why would God create the world with no stars or anything else, if it were some meaningless speck of dust? Why would He move here forever? Saying otherwise is baseless conjecture, and empty Godless philosophy that cannot be backe dup with science, or anything else!

 

[ArtGuy]

I would also like to know why the Earth's geographical location within the universe is even relevant. Does it somehow invalidate Christianity if the Earth is off to the side a little bit?

Why would God create the world with no stars or anything else, if it were some meaningless speck of dust? Why would He move here forever? Saying otherwise is baseless conjecture, and empty Godless philosophy that cannot be backe dup with science, or anything else!

I really like my TV. It's a really pretty TV. If I had to rank all of my possessions, short of my car and house, it would definitely be at the top. It still isn't, though, in the geographical center of my house. Because being at the center of something physically is not a prerequisite for it being valuable and special. And more importantly, because the geographical center of my house is, I believe, right in the the middle of my hallway.

The Earth could be on the very edge of the universe, and it wouldn't mean that it wasn't special.. Once again you're coming up with random insights that are in no way required, or even supported, by scripture or science, and then claiming that it must be true because you say so.

 

[dad]

...
I really like my TV. It's a really pretty TV. If I had to rank all of my possessions, short of my car and house, it would definitely be at the top. It still isn't, though, in the geographical center of my house. Because being at the center of something physically is not a prerequisite for it being valuable and special. And more importantly, because the geographical center of my house is, I believe, right in the the middle of my hallway.

The Earth could be on the very edge of the universe, and it wouldn't mean that it wasn't special.. Once again you're coming up with random insights that are in no way required, or even supported, by scripture or science, and then claiming that it must be true because you say so.

Well, there is a little something called reason. The earth was all there was of the universe at one time, and it is the forever home of the creator! I say it is pretty central, regardless of where you stick your TV!

 

[ArtGuy]

Well, there is a little something called reason. The earth was all there was of the universe at one time, and it is the forever home of the creator! I say it is pretty central, regardless of where you stick your TV!

When my parents built their house, for awhile the only thing there was the foundation of the house. It was to be their home presumably for the rest of their days. They didn't place it in the exact center of the property because... well, they didn't want to. There was nothing compelling them to do so.

Maybe God thought that the universe would be better off by having the Earth off to one side, even if he built the entire shebang around this particular chunk of rock. It's clear that the Earth isn't currently in the center of the universe. There's no reason to believe that God plans on moving it, and nothing in scripture that implies he will. Further, there's no reason, other than your own curious biases, to believe that being at the geographical center of the universe is in any way superior to being at any other point.

There's no evidence to support this view, no reason why it would make sense, no reason why it would even be desireable. Why, then, do you choose to believe it so fervently?