6,000 year old Earth theory...?

Originally posted by blackthorne
if one takes the bible literally, then we are all descendants of incest. noah and his sons were the only people spared from the flood, right? sooo, we are all descended from kissing cousins! thought incest was a sin? lot and his daughters must be burning for that one. noah also would have had to have asian sons, african sons, etc..... and if he did, where are the histories of their travels to their new lands? and how did those who came to the americas cross oceans? noah was written about? where are their records of their voyages?

also, mt. ararat in 16, 900 feet, give or take a few. if the ark is up there, what happened to all the water? where did it go? basically, god would have had to have the oceans and land masses to switch place for that time for thta to amount of water.

in regards to the other questions:

Asian sons african sons etc....Ever heard of Pangaea? Supercontinent...These lands could have theoretically all been populated before the landmass known as Pangaea broke apart....After their separation it'd be reasonable to conclude that adaptation to different climates and topography would account for differences between races...No need to cross oceans either...

What happened to all the water? It went back inside the earth? Huge Ocean Discovered Inside Earth Also, the landmasses and oceans would not need to switch places....Psalms 104 states that the topography of the Earth changed dramatically AFTER the flood....

Psalm 104:6-9
"He established the earth on its foundations;
it will never be shaken.

You covered it with the deep
as if it were a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.

At Your rebuke the waters fled;
at the sound of Your thunder they hurried away —

mountains rose and valleys sank —
to the place You established for them.

You set a boundary they cannot cross;
they will never cover the earth again."

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


no, i do know they had wives already. so we are descended from his sons and their wives. which makes their progeny all first cousins.

reply to post by blackthorne


Okay, what's your definition of "incest"?

Also, why do you consider "incest" taboo?

(Standard questions)
A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


yet, where are the histories of their travels and voyages? are you telling me that the continents basically flew across the globe? where are the stories from those times? "wow, the earth just split and the land is moving aprt a great pace! yesterday the land was only a few feet from each other. today, it is farther!and now their is a water between the pieces!" if noah's travels were recorded, don't you think that the earth spilktting into pieces would have been important enough to have been written down?

reply to post by blackthorne


Where's the written records of evolution? We don't have any....Things like that take enormous amounts of time...It's not typically something that is written about because it isn't typically "observed".....

Think about it like this....Around noah's time, it could have just been a spring there....a few hundred years later, no one would know the difference if there was a lake there....and a few hundred years later still, no one would know the difference if there was an ocean there.....

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by mindlessbrainpower89
Logically, it would be amazing for one human male and female to evolve from a monkey both at around the same time and at the same place (perhaps the monkey had mutant twins?), so what would be the odds of a whole bunch of humans all suddenly being born to a group of monkeys?

Ahem...I'm Christian but even I feel the need to correct this....

It's not "one human male and female to evolve from a monkey both at around the same time"...It's the fact that mutations in genes(or adaptation) cause macroevolution over time...This effects ALL births thereafter...Meerkats for example....A pair of meerkats didn't simply give birth to an oddchild that stood up on his hind legs to get a better lookout on predators...This is an adaptive trait that ALL meerkats developed over time....

Evolution is not an instantaneous event....it takes time....lots of time....
Again, I'm a Christian

Also, humans "evolved" from the same genetic material...It'd make sense that genetics would reaffirm common ancestors....Both biblically and evolutionary....That's one thing I've never understood about the debate....Both sides agree we come from a common ancestor.....but then we can't just agree....we have to go on and on about who or what that common ancestor actually was....Can we just say it was a pair of hominid monkeys named adam and eve?

A2D

edit on 9-6-2013 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)

Touche, We may not fully agree but at least there is a common denominator. Though, I refuse to believe we came from apes. I Agree to disagree with some of your comments. Though this is the beauty of an argument. There is always at least two sides of the spectrum.

reply to post by mindlessbrainpower89


I also do not agree that we came from apes. Although I will not debate against evolution. I simply see too much support for the theory to completely disregard it. However, I also maintain my biblical view....it's not at all difficult to merge the two belief systems into a coherent belief...As long as you recognize the transportation vessel of the knowledge given to these ancient people......that is to say, as long as you realize that the Genesis account of creation is explained via an ancient phenomenological perspective rather than a modern phenomenological perspective....
A2D

we are lied to big time about the earth and our origins hebrew cosmology is a good start /the spanish conquistadors meeting and fighting giants .

ever heard of t-rexes being found with sinews and blood ? well it has happened .

world war 1 & 2 were good for getting rid of any living dinosaurs / mind you the little reptillian part of my lower brain screems still here

Originally posted by mindlessbrainpower89
reply to post by GR1ill3d

 

www.universitycad.com...

“Y-Chromosomal Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve” are the scientifically-proven theories that every man alive today is descended from a single man and every man and woman alive today is descended from a single woman.


Regardless of whether or not you believe their names were Adam & Eve, it does appear that everyone alive today are the descendants of one man and one woman.


Scientists who share the Darwinian bias naturally presume that these two were not the only humans alive during their pre-child bearing lifetimes, while Biblical creationists naturally presume that they were.

Logically, it would be amazing for one human male and female to evolve from a monkey both at around the same time and at the same place (perhaps the monkey had mutant twins?), so what would be the odds of a whole bunch of humans all suddenly being born to a group of monkeys?

The mitochondrial Eve data does not prove the Bible—but it is most definitely consistent with it.

Even if you don't believe these two people were Adam & Eve, even if the Darwin fans are correct in saying these two were not the only humans around pre-child bearing times.. and, IF the Bible is true... and the flood story true.. Wouldn't we all be related to Noah+wife anyway? The professor seems to believe these two humans survived a disaster. What if he was right? Let me gues.. he must be crazy too?

"Biologists have been aware of mitochondria since the 19th century. But it wasn't until the late 1970s that the value of using the DNA within mitochondria to track ancient human history became clear. Mitochondrial DNA differs in a few key ways from nuclear DNA -- the variety of DNA located within the nucleus of each of your cells determines your eye color, racial features, susceptibility to certain diseases and other defining characteristics. mtDNA, on the other hand, contains codes for making proteins and carrying out the other processes mitochondria undertake:

Quoted from Science.howstuffworks.com

There are plenty of facts & theories out there, we all think/decide for ourselves. But one thing before I go... Don't let this happen to you! (Click to view the illuminati card below.)

Well I do think for myself, and decide for myself on a number of things. One thing I have thought about for myself (and i mean really thought about it) is the facts and looked at hard data.

My thing is, this. When you have most branches of the scientific community converging on the same answer(Evolution, the big bang, dinosaurs, etc.) that the earth IS billions of years old and that we most likely evolved from a common ancestor. It becomes very tough to believe in talking snakes, creation and all the rest.

When you have all those fields of science pointing in the same direction, and all these thousands of different religions who can't really agree on one story.. it becomes evidently clear to most that the "creation" stance is the weaker of the two.. and when I say weaker I envision a large foot coming down on a small ant, and it's guts being displaced all over.

reply to post by mindlessbrainpower89

Regardless of whether or not you believe their names were Adam & Eve, it does appear that everyone alive today are the descendants of one man and one woman.

Who never met. Who probably weren't even members of the same species.

Mitochondrial Eve... is estimated to have lived approximately 190,000–200,000 years ago... Y-chromosomal Adam is estimated to have lived between 237,000 and 581,000 years ago. Source

Scientists who share the Darwinian bias naturally presume that these two were not the only humans alive during their pre-child bearing lifetimes, while Biblical creationists naturally presume that they were.

No human being was ever born from a monkey – or from an ape, either.

6000 year old earth is ridiculous. I can understand people having faith in ancient traditions and customs, but to take it so literally that you disregard all of modern science, is silly. Evolution and god are completely compatible. You don't have to fight science to keep your faith. God could have used evolution as a tool and the bible as a metaphor to describe it to the simple folk living at the time. There is no objective evidence to suggest the earth was ever completely flooded with water. All scientific evidence points toward a 4.5+ billion year earth. 6000 is debunked easily with sedimentary layers and formation of stalactites, not to mention the fact that the fossil layers and types of creatures within have NEVER been mixed. 6000 year old earth means that humans and dinosaurs lived together and most life was killed in the flood. This notion is absurd because we do not have mixed fossil layers.

leave faith and religion out of all of it for the earth and the universe are billions of years old and every living grain of dirt is dead flesh and plant life and all the rest is volcanic rock and space debris....god is a myth and a pacifier for the scared

Time is relative, so the first day of creation based from God's standpoint, was actually about one billion earth years, give or take.
The second day was several hundred million years.
The third day lasted about tens of millions of years and each subsequent God day was even much less than the day before.
God and Earth time finally began to stabilize after about the seventh day, about 6000 years ago.
This exponential measurement of time was the result of the Big Bang causing chaos at the onset, now that things have stabilized, the unit of measurement for time is now linear.

reply to post by Rulkiewicz


The Earth is billions of years old, basic geology proves this. Radiometric dating proves this as well as basic geologic principals such as superposition. There is no argument against it that maintains any merit or is not accompanied by an accusation of attempting to undermining christian beliefs.

Those that lead the push for Young Earth Creationism (YEC) are charlatans that have found a very gullible following. That might seem harsh to say but it is what it is.

Originally posted by mindlessbrainpower89

Well, I am not no expert in this category but, reasonably the earth being roughly 6,000 years old is quite possible. One defense in this theory is, carbon dating has been shown to be inaccurate many of times. Not to mention, they have found different items that have been fossilized over a period of 50 years. If this doesn't make you think, think about this.. the world population is around 7.09 billion. Now, knowing this it would make sense for the earth to be around 6,000 years old if you put into perspective population rates. Please, only try to interpret what I am saying if you KNOW MATH. So, if you cuberoot 7.09 billion you get 1921.0945. Now, if humans reproduce like how limbs branch off a tree, isn't it more reasonable for the earth to be only 6,000 years old, rather then the earth being 65 million years old and humans 200,000 years old (homosapiens)? Think about it, if we have multiplied at a rate of 1921.0945 cubed in 6000 years it would make sense with all the wars that have happened in the past. Not to mention, the notorious "Noah's great flood." On the other hand if we started 200,000 years ago then the earth's population would be much greater even with all the natural catastrophes and man made wars. This is only my opinion.

What? First of all birthrates, life expectancy combined with epidemics and other natural causes of massive population decline or spikes in population growth, create a volatile and dynamic variable, which cannot be used to express a linear history to date the earth.

A meteor could wipe out the human species tomorrow and it would have no reflection on the Earth's age outside the fact that the Earth's formation predates human life and provides a marker that would serve to predate future geological events.

Next point -- Carbon dating is not used to date geological rocks.

We use Radiometric dating (Potassium Argon tends to be the most common) which is very accurate, combined with other methods. Some sedimentary rocks cannot be dated in this fashion but the minerals that make up the rock can be (as far as determining the earths age this method still holds true). Now if a granite dike crosscuts say a piece of sandstone leaving a baked layer separating the sandstone and the dike, we know the dike is obviously younger than sandstone. We cannot date the sandstone because it is a collection of minerals and we can only date those minerals not when the rock itself was formed; however, the granite can be dated using Potassium Argon method. We then know the date of the granite and also we know that logically the sandstone preceded that date.

On a side note your formula makes absolutely no sense......Why do we cuberoot? Why do we Cube? If you cube what you just cuberooted you're gonna get you're same number, not sure how that is significant. What is the significance of 1921.XXXX? How do you equate limbs growing on a tree to human population growth? They don't have a thing in common outside of the analogy to "family Tree" which doesn't add anything to the equation. Obviously you believe that the limbs of a tree is a constant; therefore, what is the constant? There isn't one.

If you're going to capitalize the phrase "KNOW MATH" then you should at least develop a proper equation that makes sense. You did absolutely nothing but broke down today's population number, reapplied the cube to get the same number we started with and proclaimed, "if the earth started 6000 years ago we get the same number we have today, therefore, the earth could easily have started 6000 years ago and produce our population numbers we have today." That's ridiculous.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by mindlessbrainpower89

 

I also do not agree that we came from apes. Although I will not debate against evolution. I simply see too much support for the theory to completely disregard it. However, I also maintain my biblical view....it's not at all difficult to merge the two belief systems into a coherent belief...

No, it's not:



But seriously, if you disregard the relation of humans and other primates, you are throwing away so much science and evidence... Why bother with common sense then...

reply to post by buddhasystem


I love this show he does, cracks me up everytime.



But I think my favorite video I have seen on "Intelligent design" Is this one from Neil Degrase Tyson:






He makes some of the most clear cut points on why "intelligent design" isn't intelligent.

reply to post by SPECULUM


Like I said before, this is the beauty to an argument, there is always at least two sides of the spectrum. So, if there is ONLY two sides of the spectrum and you leave the one side out, there would be nothing to debate about or do research over.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

But seriously, if you disregard the relation of humans and other primates, you are throwing away so much science and evidence... Why bother with common sense then...

Well I disregard the notion simply because out of all the evolutionary processes I do believe in....nothing has demonstrated the intellectual "evolutionary" process like humans from apes...Nothing else even comes close to the evolutionary leap that would take....nothing at all...

There are evolutionary processes that require much longer time frames to accomplish than what is speculated with the apes to humans process, and yet we still so no significant intellectual change(like that of humans) accomplished via evolution....

A2D