Fossill records show that there was a greater variety of creatures thousands of years ago. These creatures were also more complex and sophisticated. Ferns grew 100 feet high and dragon flies had wing spans of 6 feet. Perfect creation was corrupted by sin and is falling and degrading as time goes on. The truth is just the opposite of what Darwin preached.
Hahaha! You really believe that?! Ok then, why are whales a lot bigger than when they started? Thousands of years ago? You don't believe also that dinosoars roamed the earth a few thousand years ago did you?
Just when I thought this thread went extinct... Dinosaurs did roam the earth "thousands of years ago". You might want to read the entire thread. NOT!! Die thread, die!
Here's a new article just now on slashdot titled "Evolution No Longer Worth Learning, Says Government". "The New York Times reports that the Evolution biology subject has disappeared from a list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students..." http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/171252&from=rss
Mia, I've just been browsing through this thread again and noticed something you said about trees. Firstly, i believe you are mistaken about how there are no trees older than about 4000 years old and implying that there was nothing alive before that. If thats what you meant by it. Trees are living organisms, like any other, and have life spans. They do get old and die. If left undisturbed, i.e. no floods, they will not live indefinately. But another interesting thing about trees and what may constitiute "proof" of the earth being, at least, twice, or three times, the age of 6000 years (I personly believe in the billions scenerio). There is a species of tree high in the mountains of california (bristle cone pine) that has an average life span of 1000 years with a few individulas found at over 4000 years. Oldest known individual is 4767. Using the tree ring patterns of the oldest living trees and the trunks of dead trees nearby, you can match up the yearly growth patterns (wide rings in good growing seasons and narrow rings in bad seasons) to get a history that will extend far beyond 6000 years. This technique is used in other places as well. In areas where glaciers are retreating (read global warming) people are finding evidence of trees that had grown where miles of ice once layed. Using these tree ring pattern matching techniques scientists are finding that vast forests once grew there before the last ice age. This is taking us back a couple tens of thousands of years. And now that the ice is retreating the forests are slowly advancing back into their old territory. That is till the next big freeze which is sure to come in the next cycle. Speaking of glaciers. In the study of global warming trends, scientists are taking cores out of miles deep ice in the arctic. these cores show layers of snow deposits over the years that end up making the ice shield. Layers of pollen from the air create minute boundries marking time. Pollen is deposited during summer. During winter it snows. each winter creats a new deposit of snow. It gets deeper and deeper. The weight of which then starts compressing it into solid ice. And the glacier grows and grows. This technique, if i remember correctly, also creates timelines that extend into the tens of thousands of years. These types of simple visual aging techniques are not influenced by any of "man's perception" of what a 1.3 billion year half life for potassioum 40 may mean, or what 7 days of creation may translate into, at present day time counting methods. Nor do they even approach a 4.3 billion year old earth, or have any kind of bearing on a whatever billion years since a Bang, of sorts, that may have initiated a universe. The point is they are pointing far beyond 6000 years. I'm not out to disprove those who believe a backwards counting of genesis will provide any realistic eveidence of the age of the earth. But i do think that a literal translation of who begat who from a very old text that has seen many many revisions and rewritings over time is very shortsighted. When the bible does not once state anything about the age of the earth, why bother trying to deduce it from questionable geniologies. Of course some of you will contend that nothing about the bible is questionable. Others say the same thing about the Coran, others say it about other texts from other religions, others say it about the creation stories passed down verbaly from generation to generation in other cultures that dont have a writen text on the subject. Personaly, I think the 6000 year old earth story is a case of grasping at straws to come up with some sort of credible story on the age of the earth that can compete with dinosaur bones. We are a crazy lot, us humans. One way or another we will belive anything. We just won't all believe the same thing at the same time.
My bad, if the bible does make explicit statements on the age of the earth. I was responding to your statements quoted below. There you state that it was based on the geneology studies. And in the same post you mention the tree's. Regardless of what it may or may not say in the bible. I think (or should i say, beleive) the tree "evidence" that i spoke of clearly shows a time well beyond 6000. If thats the number certain groups of christians what to stick to.
I've posted this in another thread. The actual word used in the bible is "yom" . Yom, translated actually has various definitions - day, half day, or a long period of time. So, 6000 years is never actually stated and probably results from trying to convert 7 days (time of creation) into a measurable unit of time.
For someone who is trying to come accross as a tree expert and has never seen trees that have survived a flood............. hmmm..
The Bible talks about dinosaurs. The word "dinosaur" is a very modern invention. Even later than the King James version of the Bible. The word you're looking for is "dragon." "trying to convert 7 days " The operative phrase is "and the evening and the morning" which is the Jewish definition of 1 day. "day" is defined by the verses. "and the evening and the morning were 1 billion years" makes no sense.
hmmmm... is right. I dont have a clue what you mean? And who said i was a tree "expert"? Just droppin some of the useless knowledge that occupies my cranium. I'm not talking about trees that survived a flood, many trees survive floods. Floods kill tree's too. I'm talking about tree's that were likely alive well before 6000 years ago.
Certain theistic branches of Hinduism, such as in Vaishnavism, conceive of a creation event with similarities to the Big Bang. For example in the third book of the Bhagavata Purana (primarily, chapters 10 and 26), describes a primordial state which bursts forth as the Great Vishnu glances over it, transforming into the active state of the sum-total of matter ("prakriti"). Other forms of Hinduism assert a universe without beginning or end.