The earth is 13,000 years old and it is soon to be renewed when Christ comes

[painted wolf]

Things can and did happen fast geologically in the beginning of creation...

ahem, you didn't account for the thickness of the Granite... it formes quickly (1000 years) in terms of 10km chunks, there is considerably more than 10km of Granite in the crust.

Therefore, says Cruden, a 50 km wide intrusion of granite, in say Greenland or the Canadian Shield, that geologists would have once estimated to have taken millions of years to form may have actually taken only 50,000 years. Smaller intrusions that are 10 km across may form in as little as 1,000 years. And from a geological point of view, that's extraordinarily fast, he adds.

this is the problem with quote mining.
you see even forming as quickly as 1000 years for every 10km of Granite it still takes longer than 13,000 years to form the crust.

Also the current crust isn't the origional crust, save for the surviving bit in Greenland. And that will eventually subside and dissapear as well, this process hasn't stopped and wont stop in the forseeable future. Creation is still going on.

Over Earth's history, most of the original crust has recycled by sinking into the planet's hot interior, melting, and heading back toward the surface. However, a few pieces of the ancient crust never sank.

wa:do

 

[FFH]

The really awful thing about me is that I really don't care one way or the other. Sometime, a billion years from now, it may come up in some heavenly science class and I'll be glad to know, but until then I'll be content.

That last paragraph describes me pretty well.

I think it is fine to discuss these questions and for each individual to try to convert others to what he thinks is right

This seemed to stand out the most for me, when reading the article you posted SoyLeche...

 

[DeepShadow]

Funny, what stands out to me is that your list of so-called "conspirators" or "patsies" now includes Apostles of the Church.

 

[FFH]

ahem, you didn't account for the thickness of the Granite... it formes quickly (1000 years) in terms of 10km chunks, there is considerably more than 10km of Granite in the crust.


this is the problem with quote mining.
you see even forming as quickly as 1000 years for every 10km of Granite it still takes longer than 13,000 years to form the crust.

Also the current crust isn't the origional crust, save for the surviving bit in Greenland. And that will eventually subside and dissapear as well, this process hasn't stopped and wont stop in the forseeable future. Creation is still going on.


wa:do

Yeah, I realize thickness adds time...

I guess it's just back to theorizing that God caused things to happen more quickly as compared to the much slower rate we see today....

I think we creationists have very little to go on other than things happened supernaturally in the beginning, with the emphasis on "super", while taking note of the term "naturally"....

 

[FFH]

Funny, what stands out to me is that your list of so-called "conspirators" or "patsies" now includes Apostles of the Church.

Were you thinking of Henry B. Eyring or his father? I mixed them up earlier when Kat brought this up...

Henry Eyring
Henry Erying (Wiki)

Henry B. Erying
Son

Stuart Erying
Grandson

 

[DeepShadow]

Neither. I was referring to this quote: "Actually, the antiquity of the earth was no problem for two of our greatest Latter-day Saint leaders and scientists, John A. Widtsoe and James E. Talmage. "

So which category would you put Widtsoe and Talmage in? Are they conspirators against the truth or mere patsies?

 

[FFH]

Neither. I was referring to this quote: "Actually, the antiquity of the earth was no problem for two of our greatest Latter-day Saint leaders and scientists, John A. Widtsoe and James E. Talmage. "

So which category would you put Widtsoe and Talmage in? Are they conspirators against the truth or mere patsies?

They are entitled to their opinions....

Show me where any apostle or prophet has ever stated the earth to be young or old in a conference setting....

All I could find on this subject, while doing a search on www.lds.org, was that creation happened during an unspecified amount of time....

So according to LDS.org we don't take the position of 6,000 years or a million years, but the position that the earth was created in an unspecified amount of time...

I guess it's sort of a nonposition, so as not to cause any undue criticisms or concerns, by members holding one position or the other, old or young....sort of a middle ground nonposition if there is such a thing...

All I am saying is that the "unspecified amount of time" of creation may be 7,000 years, according to scripture and specific geological evidences, adding an additional 6,000 years for mortal human existence,

 

[painted wolf]

I guess it's just back to theorizing that God caused things to happen more quickly as compared to the much slower rate we see today....

Its not going any slower today than it did back then!!
There is absoultely no evidence that things went any faster than they do now.

A theory needs evidence, you aren't theorizing, your guessing.

wa:do

 

[DeepShadow]

They are entitled to their opinions....

Yes, they are. So are you, so am I. Which is why I was shocked to hear you hurl insults at everyone who disagrees with you, and then justify your spleen-venting with the moral band-aid that "everyone does it." Do I need to search through your own posts and find these insults again?

I'll ask you again, would you put Talmage in the "conspirator" category or the "patsy" category? What about Widtsoe? Based on your earlier comments, I suppose you'd define me as a "patsy," because I am so woefully uninformed on topics that I've spent the last ten years researching, debating and teaching professionally.

I intend to keep asking this until you apologize for your insulting generalizations. Every argument in science is judged on its merits, even yours with your collection of pet fallacies. That you refuse to do so to others is morally unconscionable.

Note: some of the above would constitute an "ad hominim," if I hadn't given you an opportunity to prove me wrong. If you redefine your characterizations to allow some respect for opposing viewpoints, then you obviously don't have the vices I've ascribed to you.

 

[FFH]

DeepShadow, sorry if I unsulted you or anyone else who has responded in this thread...

My intention is not to offend and I hope the same stands for others...

I'm just as enthusiastic about this subject as you are, just not as educated, that's all...

Show me the remarks you thought were offensive and I will promptly delete them...

 

[FFH]

Its not going any slower today than it did back then!!
There is absoultely no evidence that things went any faster than they do now.

A theory needs evidence, you aren't theorizing, your guessing.

wa:do

Okay fair enough...

It seems this subject, at certain level, becomes a matter of faith or personal opinion.

 

[FFH]

DeepShadow, I have read "Jesus the Christ" by James E. Talmage and I can't remember if he mentioned anything about this subject..

Maybe we could do a search in that book and see if he had anything to say concerning this...

As missionaries we were allowed to bring scriptures, "Jesus the Christ" and "Gospel Principles" and that was pretty much it, so obviously it's on the top of the list as far as doctrinely binding reading materials go...

 

[gnostic]

I really don't see how all this talk about granite, U238, and magma have to do with God.

So far, FFH, you have provided no proof, but just mixed natural occurrences, and say that "God" is involved with it.

Crystallisation occurred naturally, and breakdown or decay naturally. The granite formed naturally, without "divine intervention". And I still see that you are still using the materials from the Young Earth and the so-called Earth Science Associates, instead of seeking evidences from "real geologists" and "real earth scientists".

 

[FFH]

Show me the remarks you thought were offensive and I will promptly delete them...

If you think my remark about scientists being influenced by their beliefs is offensive, well sorry about that, but I think they can obviously be influenced one way or another when doing scientific research...both evolution and creation scientists...

This is what I mean when I say both sides do it/are guilty...then ad hominems start to come into play...

It's our job to filter out what is truth and what is not, regardless of these issues...

 

[gnostic]

If you think my remark about scientists being influenced by their beliefs is offensive, well sorry about that, but I think they can obviously be influenced one way or another when doing scientific research...both evolution and creation scientists...

This is what I mean when I say both sides do it/are guilty...then ad hominems start to come into play...

Sorry, FFH, but that doesn't really wash. If you read any of the recent evolutionists' discoveries, in the science journals or whatsoever, you will find that they have not used religion or refer to any belief in God.

So how is that biased? The data that need to be gathered, without influences. Science, or in this case, evolution never claimed to be perfect. Any scientists, who claimed to be perfect in their findings, are often the ones found lacking in methods and procedures.

Creationists, on the other hand, are already influenced by what they believe, namely God and their bible. If these so-called creation scientists are serious about science at all, then they need to look for answers, without jumping to conclusion that God did this or that.

It's our job to filter out what is truth and what is not, regardless of these issues...

I'm afraid that you are not the one for that job, since you are ready to push the truth over the line, one too many times, and you're already biased on creationist's side. You are also influenced about the Second Coming of Christ, as your topic's subject-line indicates ("The earth is 13,000 years old and it is soon to be renewed when Christ comes").

 

[FFH]

The earth is spinning on it's axis at a speed of 1040 miles/hr about 3.1 miles/sec (.5 km/sec) as measured at the equator.

The earth is orbiting the sun at a speed of 18.5 miles/sec (30 km/sec)

Our solar system is moving around the Milky Way Galaxy at 155 miles/sec (250 km/sec)

The Milky Way galaxy is moving in the Local Group of galaxies at 185 miles/sec (300 km/sec)

An object traveling at a faster rate of speed experiences a different passage of time. This has been measured by atomic clocks aboard supersonic jets.. The passage of time slows down the faster you go...

Heaven's planet/sphere of existence would be traveling through space, a certain speed, faster than our planet, for the "1 day equals a 1,000 years" scripture to be true/accurate.

What speed would be required to travel, through space, in order for one day to equal 1,000 years on earth ??? It could be calculated if we knew the atimic clock time difference measured in that supersonic jet experiment...

I think we can at least assume, for now, that the Lord's planet/place of existence is moving faster than ours...

 

[FFH]

According to the Biblical time frame, that I have layed out, the first plants and trees were created and started to grow baginning in the year 9,000 BC, that being 11,000 years ago...

The King Clone creosote bush is 11,700 years old, according to Jim Cormett, curator of the Palm Springs Desert Museum and is possibly the oldest living thing on earth, discovered in the Mojave desert, Palm Springs, California.

First 1,000 year period of creation (starts 11,000 BC)
Earth was without form and void
Water was upon the whole face of the earth
Light created

Second 1,000 year period (starts 10,000 BC)
Firmament/heavens/skies created
Waters divided between earth and the firmament/heavens/skies

Third 1,000 year period (starts 9,000 BC) or 11,000 years ago
Land and waters divided
Dry land appears and seas form
Plants and trees of all kinds created

The World's Oldest Living Thing
King Clone Creosote Bush (9,700 BC) 11,700 years old

The Oldest Germinated Seed approximately 10,000 years old

Fourth 1,000 year period (starts 8,000 BC) or 10,000 years ago
Sun, moon and stars created
Day and night begins

Fifth 1,000 year period (starts 7,000 BC)
All creatures of the sea and skies created

Sixth 1,000 year period (starts 6,000 BC)
All creatures of the land created
Adam and Eve created

Seventh 1,000 year period (starts 5,000 BC)
God rested from all his labors
Adam and Eve commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil

4,004 BC
Time of the fall

Oldest Living Tree (Bristlecone Pine)
2,800 BC 4,789 years old
The oldest Bristlecones are found at elevations of 10,000 or 11,000 feet

2,304 BC about 4,300 years ago
Time of flood

See this page: Date of the flood

 

[painted wolf]

It seems this subject, at certain level, becomes a matter of faith or personal opinion.

So it comes out that this isn't about evidence at all... It is easier to believe a comfortable lie than an uncomfortable truth.
This conversation isn't about talking about evidence but an attempt to convert others to a comfortable "faith".

As for the oldest living things, we have thier dead parents who lived just as long as they did, and thier dead grandparents who lived just as long, and dead great grandparents and so on.
Dendrochronology goes back far longer than 13,000 years.

I'm not even going to touch how flawed the "things traveled faster back then" argument is.

Seriously this is why IDers can't get serious scientists to debate them in public, its pointless and frustrating. It's not about science or evidence its about faith and shoddy guesswork.

wa:do

 

[FFH]

So it comes out that this isn't about evidence at all... It is easier to believe a comfortable lie than an uncomfortable truth.

I have given some good current tangible evidences that fit within my theory..

Obviously they are going to be biased...just look at them for what they are, evidences to which everyone must take notice of...

This conversation isn't about talking about evidence but an attempt to convert others to a comfortable "faith".

I don't need to convert anyone, I'm not working for money or to get more points with God....

I do feel compelled, however, to post many of the things I've posted so far.

I'm posting based on a deep belief/faith that the earth is young, which has given way to a knowledge, which evidences seem to fit within the time frame allowed....

As for the oldest living things, we have thier dead parents who lived just as long as they did, and thier dead grandparents who lived just as long, and dead great grandparents and so on.
Dendrochronology goes back far longer than 13,000 years.

I have given living evidences, can you do the same and show me a 14,000 year old anything ???

Do we really know that those dead trees are old enough relatives to go beyond my 13,000 year old theory ??? Is science honest in their quest for truth or do many of them have hidden agendas...

The Shroud of Turin is the 2,000 year old burial cloth of Jesus Christ, but when scientists were allowed to carbon date the Shroud, they only dated the newer parts of the cloth that had been stitched into the older portions, due to a fire that destroyed parts of the original cloth...

Is that being scientifically honest ??? Dating a portion of the cloth that was sewn in hundreds of years later so the cloth would appear to be a fake ???

Those scientists who dated the Shroud refused to date the original cloth...why is that ???

Because they have their personal beliefs and agendas, which would be destroyed if they were to accurately date the Shroud....

Why do we continue to accept dishonest science in this area we are discussing ???

That's why, at a certain level, many evidences become a matter of faith, because any evidence proving the earth to be young, will be dismissed by the oposition as flawed, when in actuality it's not...

How do we know the dead trees are ancestors of the living ones ??? I still have 6,500 years to add to the living one, in order to fit within the 11,000 years allowed within the theory explained...

Where is the proof that the dead ones are ancestors of the living ones?

We don't even know for sure the dead trees are any older than the living ones, but are willing to accept that they are, when in actuality they most likely are not, just dead relatives not old enough to go beyond the time frame allowed of about 11,000 years...

Did someone actually see the seed fall from the dead so-called parent/ancestor tree and germinate the current oldest living tree ???

 

[McBell]

I have given some good current tangible evidences that fit within my theory..

Yes.
Your counting the hits and ignoring the misses are quite obvious.

Obviously they are going to be biased...just look at them for what they are, evidences to which everyone must take notice of...

I will as soon as you return the favour you ask.

I'm posting based on a deep belief/faith that the earth is young, which has given way to a knowledge, which evidences seem to fit within the time frame allowed....

Yes.
You have made it clear that you are only looking to ratify your current beliefs.

I have given living evidences, can you do the same and show me a 14,000 year old anything ???

HUH?
This sounds to me like strawman in full glory.

Do we really know that those dead trees are old enough relatives to go beyond my 13,000 year old theory ??? Is science honest in their quest for truth or do many of them have hidden agendas...

Nice ad hominem.

The Shroud of Turin is the 2,000 year old burial cloth of Jesus Christ,

Opinion.

but when scientists were allowed to carbon date the Shroud, they only dated the newer parts of the cloth that had been stitched into the older portions, due to a fire that destroyed parts of the original cloth...

Source please.

Is that being scientifically honest ??? Dating a portion of the cloth that was sewn in hundreds of years later so the cloth would appear to be a fake ???

Now all you need is proof of what you claim.
If you have none then it is merely yet another of the millions of conspiracy theories.

Those scientists who dated the Shroud refused to date the original cloth...why is that ???

Source please.

Because they have their personal beliefs and agendas, which would be destroyed if they were to accurately date the Shroud....

More Opinion.

Why do we continue to accept dishonest science in this area we are discussing ???

What is your proof of this alleged dishonesty?

That's why, at a certain level, many evidences become a matter of faith, because any evidence proving the earth to be young, will be dismissed by the oposition as flawed, when in actuality it's not...

This is because you have resorted to filling the gaps with God.
Why God?
Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Or the invisible dragon in my garage?

How do we know the dead trees are ancestors of the living ones ??? I still have 6,500 years to add to the living one, in order to fit within the 11,000 years allowed within the theory explained...

With your expert use of the shoe horn you have thus far demonstrated, it will not be any sort of problem for you.

Where is the proof that the dead ones are ancestors of the living ones?

We don't even know for sure the dead trees are any older than the living ones, but are willing to accept that they are, when in actuality they most likely are not, just dead relatives not old enough to go beyond the time frame allowed of about 11,000 years...

Huh?
Now you are merely talking in nonsensical circles.

Did someone actually see the seed fall from the dead so-called parent/ancestor tree and germinate the current oldest living tree ???

Do you really want to go there?

Did anyone even see life being created?
The earth being created?
Eve eat from the apple?

Do you really want to try going down that path?