[_ Old Earth _] How old is the Earth???

[turnorburn]

There isn't anything in the Bible about dinosaurs, much less feathered ones. But the National Geographic story illustrates why science is so much better than anything else at learning about the world. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship, not about the classification of living things. As you see, the magazine would have been wise to wait until scientists had finished studying the fossil, before publishing. If they had, they wouldn't have been embarrassed.

The guys who told you about it, didn't tell you about that part, for reasons everyone here can understand.

Why won't you look in your bible for the answers, that's where i find them..

tob

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Let's look at cockroaches.
According to scientific evidence, they have been on the earth for 300 million years.
And what have they evolved into?
I bet you'll never guess.
Cockroaches.

 

[turnorburn]

There isn't anything in the Bible about dinosaurs, much less feathered ones. But the National Geographic story illustrates why science is so much better than anything else at learning about the world. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship, not about the classification of living things. As you see, the magazine would have been wise to wait until scientists had finished studying the fossil, before publishing. If they had, they wouldn't have been embarrassed.

The guys who told you about it, didn't tell you about that part, for reasons everyone here can understand.

Nothing in the bible about dinosaurs? Here's the way it went..

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

tob

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Let's look at cockroaches.
According to scientific evidence, they have been on the earth for 300 million years.
And what have they evolved into?
I bet you'll never guess.
Cockroaches.

There isn't one species of cockroach, indeed there are 4,600 different species which as evolution predicts are each found in different environments. Also, many of those descendants are actually termites now.

If you were to compile a list of all known species on the planet, they overwhelming majority would be various Anthropods. Is God obsessed with designing 200,000 different species of beetles? Or perhaps is there something else in play here?

Also, in case you were thinking that evolution=progress then you are mistaken. Evolution does not believe something that is not an Antropod will come from Anthropods descendants, cockroaches split off a long long time ago, with the Trilobites.

 

[Paloma]

There isn't anything in the Bible about dinosaurs, much less feathered ones. But the National Geographic story illustrates why science is so much better than anything else at learning about the world. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship, not about the classification of living things. As you see, the magazine would have been wise to wait until scientists had finished studying the fossil, before publishing. If they had, they wouldn't have been embarrassed.

The guys who told you about it, didn't tell you about that part, for reasons everyone here can understand.

Does the Bible does not talk about giraffes, rhinos, snow leapords or plesiosaurs either! It talks collectively about Gods creations. The behemoth is a mere description of a creature. (albeit a large one) We, at this point in time, can ascertain, that it is describing a massive creature that "used to be" becasue we don't see this creature today. We would NOT expect the bible to talk about "dinosaurs", as to the writers of scripture, they were just animals- again perfect fit, no problem. The crab is a perfect example of MICRO evolution at work, not macro!

 

[Free]

Barbarian, the Bible totally confirms and insinuates a young earth.

Please provide support for this claim.

Make making the appearance of great age is no problem at all. Jesus turned water into wine instantly, but we all know it takes a month to make wine. God made the whole creation "look old" just as he created two fully formed adult humans, not toddlers. Peace.

While God certainly is capable of doing so, that does not mean he did. Why would he make everything look old when it is actually young? Do you know what that is saying?

 

[Free]

Does the Bible does not talk about giraffes, rhinos, snow leapords or plesiosaurs either! It talks collectively about Gods creations. The behemoth is a mere description of a creature. (albeit a large one) We, at this point in time, can ascertain, that it is describing a massive creature that "used to be" becasue we don't see this creature today. We would NOT expect the bible to talk about "dinosaurs", as to the writers of scripture, they were just animals- again perfect fit, no problem. The crab is a perfect example of MICRO evolution at work, not macro!

If dinosaurs existed in biblical times, I would fully expect there to be mention of them as they are quite unlike any other animals alive today. If they were alive then, what happened to them?

 

[Paloma]

There isn't one species of cockroach, indeed there are 4,600 different species which as evolution predicts are each found in different environments. Also, many of those descendants are actually termites now.

God has allowed each species a genetic variation potential to compensate for what ever enviroment they encounter. Bugs in general are very important to the functioning of the enviroment so it makes perfect sense that God would make a gazillion variations of bugs (not to mention they are food for us).

Our interpretation of the data is just a valid as yours. You are working with your bias, us with ours. At this point, it's a stalemate, neither of us can "prove" anything. We were not there. As stated before, with all the other related evidence, we think the picture is clear. I, for one would rather trust scriptute over man's interpretation.

Thr Young Earth Creation model best fits and describes what we actually see in the data.

 

[Barbarian]

We, at this point in time, can ascertain, that it is describing a massive creature that "used to be" becasue we don't see this creature today.

Nicely fits an elephant. Or a hippo.

We would NOT expect the bible to talk about "dinosaurs", as to the writers of scripture, they were just animals- again perfect fit, no problem. The crab is a perfect example of MICRO evolution at work, not macro!

The problem with that belief (for creationists) is that there is more genetic variation between horseshoe crabs than there is between humans and chimps. It's an unavoidable dilemma for them.

 

[Barbarian]

God has allowed each species a genetic variation potential to compensate for what ever enviroment they encounter.

It's called "mutation and natural selection." It's why speciation is a fact.

Bugs in general are very important to the functioning of the enviroment so it makes perfect sense that God would make a gazillion variations of bugs (not to mention they are food for us).

If so, beetles must be supremely important. But they don't seem any more important than anything else.

Our interpretation of the data is just a valid as yours.

The difference is evidence. Science has it. Creationism has only an unscriptural belief. Creationism is just man's attempt to adjust God's word.

 

[Paloma]

If dinosaurs existed in biblical times, I would fully expect there to be mention of them as they are quite unlike any other animals alive today. If they were alive then, what happened to them?

Ok, good question. Let me try and explain. If I took a child and prevented him/her from EVER seeing a rhino, then one day, showed them a fossil of one or a diagram of what we think they looked like, do you think they may "see" it as a freak, an oddity, a long extint creature with a weird horn? Yes they would!

Bias's are hard to avoid.

Just because we today, have grown up with rhino's we don't treat them like anything odd. The "dinosaurs", as we have been brainwashed to see, are nothing more than extint creatures that used to exist like rhinos. To those living with them, they thought nothing about them. They were just creatures. Prior to the coelacanth being dicoered it looked WEIRD! With that tail, it must be "prehistoric" right? Wrong! Alive and doing well.

Watch this!

 

[Barbarian]

Let's look at cockroaches.

Interesting subject. From a few ancient primitive forms, we see thousands of highly evolved kinds of cockroach.

According to scientific evidence, they have been on the earth for 300 million years.

I'd be interested in seeing any species alive today that was around 300 million years ago.

And what have they evolved into?

An amazing variety of evolved roaches.

I bet you'll never guess.

Surprise.

It's sort of like claiming that humans are just primates, because there were primates many millions of years ago. It's true, but we've evolved into something unique; a sentient animal, to which God directly gives an immortal soul.

 

[Free]

Ok, good question. Let me try and explain. If I took a child and prevented him/her from EVER seeing a rhino, then one day, showed them a fossil of one or a diagram of what we think they looked like, do you think they may "see" it as a freak, an oddity, a long extint creature with a weird horn? Yes they would!

Bias's are hard to avoid.

Just because we today, have grown up with rhino's we don't treat them like anything odd. The "dinosaurs", as we have been brainwashed to see, are nothing more than extint creatures that used to exist like rhinos. To those living with them, they thought nothing about them. They were just creatures. Prior to the coelacanth being dicoered it looked WEIRD! With that tail, it must be "prehistoric" right? Wrong! Alive and doing well.

Watch this!

Of course dinosaurs are extinct creatures that used to exist, that's kind of the point, but the fossils show that many of them were vastly different than anything alive today. If the Earth was young, we should see them in relative abundance.

 

[Barbarian]

However, since the middle of the 20th century it has been known that the primitive cockroach insects found fossilized in Palaeozoic strata are the forerunners not only of modern cockroaches but also of mantises and termites.[2] The origin of these groups from a blattopteran stock are now generally thought to be in the early Jurassic; the earliest modern cockroach found is from the Cretaceous. Thus the “Palaeozoic cockroaches” are not cockroaches per se, but a paraphyletic assemblage of primitive relatives...

Contrary to modern forms, the female roachids all have a well-developed external ovipositor, a primitive insect trait.[6] They probably inserted eggs singly into soil or crevices. The egg pods, called ootheca, seen in modern cockroaches and their relatives is a new shared trait separating them from their primitive ancestors. Some of the roachid species could reach relatively large sizes compared to most of their modern relatives, like the Carboniferous Archimylacris and the Permian Apthoroblattina, the latter who could reach 50 mm in body length. However, none that we know of reached near the size of today's largest tropical species, the modern 'giant cockroaches', such as the famous Hissing Cockroach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blattoptera

 

[Paloma]

I am sorry to have to say this, but the old earth paradigm is satans masterpiece of deception. Without it, his worldview crumbles like old cheese. It took me along time to wrap my brain around this concept that the earth could be young. But since adapting it, I have such an incredible peace and understanding that it defines decription.

 

[Paloma]

Of course dinosaurs are extinct creatures that used to exist, that's kind of the point, but the fossils show that many of them were vastly different than anything alive today. If the Earth was young, we should see them in relative abundance.

No! Your seeing it wrong. There is no such thing as dinosaurs! All we have is extint creatures. WE call them dinosaurs but they are not. They are mearly extint creatures that used to roam the earth like the dodo birds.

 

[Free]

No! Your seeing it wrong. There is no such thing as dinosaurs! All we have is extint creatures. WE call them dinosaurs but they are not. They are mearly extint creatures that used to roam the earth like the dodo birds.

This doesn't make sense. "They are mearly extint creatures that used to roam the earth like the dodo birds," to which we give the name dinosaur. So yes, dinosaurs did exist because that is the name given to that category of extinct creatures.

So I ask again: why don't we see them in abundance? What happened to them?

 

[Paloma]

Please provide support for this claim.


While God certainly is capable of doing so, that does not mean he did. Why would he make everything look old when it is actually young? Do you know what that is saying?

Ok brother, how do I make a 50 ft tree look "young"? How do you create a planet and make it look "young"? Have you ever seen a "young planet" ? Me neither. The planet of eden was complete, perfect, ready for habitation. Food from the trees, top soil and good earth ready for planting. Chickens running around. To an alien just "beamed" in, it would look "old" but it was not. It was just created "ex nihino".

 

[Free]

I am sorry to have to say this, but the old earth paradigm is satans masterpiece of deception.

But you said, "God made the whole creation 'look old'."

 

[Free]

Ok brother, how do make a 50 ft tree look "young"? How do you create a planet and make it look "young"? Have you ever seen a "young planet" ? Me neither. The planet of eden was complete, perfect, ready for habitation. Food not he trees, top soil and good earth ready for planting. Chickens running around. To an alien just "beamed" in, it would look "old" but it was not. It was just created "ex nihino".

Where is the biblical support I asked for?