Ancient horse skeleton found in Lehi, Utah

[readstoomuch]

Young earth theories about the earth, creation, evolution, dinosaurs, etc just do not make any sense.  Genetics and evolution are the keystones of biologic sciences including medicine.  The ability to use and measure isotopes to do imaging studies for diagnosis and treatment (ablation of a thyroid cancer for example) are also measured in specimens to determine their age.  You don't get to use the science you agree with and then reject the other.  This is all different than whether God created the earth or mankind.  The Bible is not so much about exact historical details as it is explaining God`s interaction and blessing of his people.  I would call myself a liberal literalist about the Bible.  I have to take the part about creation a little more liberally than literally.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I reject the evolutionary world view and timeline. You have to realize you have been taught this timeline your entire life so I know I sound crazy....I get it (the vast majority of Christians think the young earthers are nuts too!)   But the biblical narrative is quite clear in my opinion about the age of the earth. We have the Geneology from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5,  Genesis 10 and then Matthew 1 tells us Abraham to Jesus.  

I am just pointing out scripture if you do a little homework you would come up with the same young earth timeline. Now some of the LDS and Christians alike come up with all sorts of explinations to justify their billions of years old theory of the age of the earth. Or the easy way is to just say the Bible is inaccurate....which I reject. I trust the creater of the universe, the designer of you and I, more than the scientific world view.  

If you want to be intillectually fair to yourself just you tube "Kent Hovind's creation seminar" he gives an excellent presentation of the young earth...you would probably be suprised that there is a ton of evidence pointing to the bible being accurate.  

Thanks for sharing your beliefs.  Quite fascinating. 

[snowflake]

14 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

Young earth theories about the earth, creation, evolution, dinosaurs, etc just do not make any sense.  Genetics and evolution are the keystones of biologic sciences including medicine.  The ability to use and measure isotopes to do imaging studies for diagnosis and treatment (ablation of a thyroid cancer for example) are also measured in specimens to determine their age.  You don't get to use the science you agree with and then reject the other.  This is all different than whether God created the earth or mankind.  The Bible is not so much about exact historical details as it is explaining God`s interaction and blessing of his people.  I would call myself a liberal literalist about the Bible.  I have to take the part about creation a little more liberally than literally.  

Your response makes me smile....you say my Biblical worldview doesn't make any sense.....then mention evolution as science......so in your worldview.... a rock evolved into a human over billions of years......great! Makes sense to me! LOL!  You do realize your theory can't explain abiogenesis or life from non-life right?  Look at that problem there honestly, and the evolutionary worldview says that just randomly happened. 

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Hovind? You’re not serious?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Have you watched his creation seminar? What do you find so offensive about him?

[Marginal Gains]

54 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Have you watched his creation seminar? What do you find so offensive about him?

That he uses religion to perpetrate tax fraud (evasion?) should give you pause...

[snowflake]

43 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

That he uses religion to perpetrate tax fraud (evasion?) should give you pause...

I'm not going to defend a guy I don't even know.....but what about his young earth presentations don't you like? 

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, snowflake said:

I'm not going to defend a guy I don't even know.....but what about his young earth presentations don't you like? 

The idea that the earth is young, when clearly it isn’t.

[longview]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Have you watched his creation seminar? What do you find so offensive about him?

I am watching Hovind's video about the speed of light NOT being constant.  Pretty interesting (but I have not reached any final conclusions):

 

[snowflake]

1 minute ago, longview said:

am watching Hovind's video about the speed of light NOT being constant.  Pretty interesting (but I have not reached any final conclusions):

I have heard that the speed of light is not-constant and that it is slowing down.....just throwing that out there for the physics guys....is that true or not I don't know. Also we do not know what the speed of light is in one direction, we do know for two directional, but not for one. 

 

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The idea that the earth is young, when clearly it isn’t.

Have you seen his creation seminar series? Anything specific you can point out? 

[MormonMason]

10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Who did Cain and Abel marry?

No scripture discusses who Abel married, if anyone.  Some apocrypha and pseudepigrapha also have their own ideas.  The Bible is silent on the matter but the Pearl of Great Price tells us who Cain's wife was.

Quote

28 And it came to pass that Cain took one of his brothers’ daughters to wife, and they loved Satan more than God.

(Moses 5:28)

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

12 hours ago, snowflake said:

I put my trust in the Bible as more trustworthy than what the "scientists" say. So the Bible says that the earth is young, I go with that. The dinosaurs were created on day 5 with all the other beasts meaning man lived on the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.  

Remember scientific "fact" constantly changes...the age of the earth, the big bang all of these theories are constantly changing and evolving.....is simply trust the Bible more than man. 

 

I gave up the idea of a young earth the year I had an opportunity to learn about and study ice cores.  There were hundreds of thousands of yearly deposit layers in them.  That's many more years than are mentioned in the Bible as it now is written.  Fossils under the Antarctic ice further aided in that.  Antarctica wasn't always covered in ice and there was life there, living in forests, long before the ice was there.  So far traces of human life dating to that time have not been found.

Edited May 8, 2018 by MormonMason

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

I gave up the idea of a young earth the year I had an opportunity to learn about and study ice cores.  There were hundreds of thousands of yearly deposit layers in them.  That's many more years than are mentioned in the Bible as it now is written.  Fossils under the Antarctic ice further aided in that.  Antarctica wasn't always covered in ice and there was life there, living in forests, long before the ice was there.  So far traces of human life dating to that time have not been found.

There is a scientific answer for that also that supports CREATIONISM! https://www.icr.org/article/8026/

[MormonMason]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

There is a scientific answer for that also that supports CREATIONISM! https://www.icr.org/article/8026/

It is not all that scientific an answer.  Scientists know exactly why it is that there are not as many layers as were expected in Greenland.  The ice sheet is melting beneath as a result of geothermal heat.  This has been known for a few years now.  Still more layers than years in the Bible.  The problem gets even worse if we factor in seasonal changes and changes in weather patterns.  It means that in Antarctica there would have been even more layers had it not been for those.  That would mean even more years.  But isotopic analyses of the individual layers have shown that the isotopic ratios of gases have changed over the years, which also is consistent with the kinds of things we still see in newly deposited yearly layers in modern times.  But even in Antarctica, there are differing flow rates of ice and snow on differing regions on that continent.  The Western Antarctic Ice Sheet has geothermal sources of heat beneath as well, causing melting from beneath.  Were it not for that, there would be even more layers in some of the ice cores.  Fact is, this earth is very old.  Kabbalists have long stated that the earth is billions of years old (they assigned the number 2,555,000,000 years, which is something Joseph Smith also picked up from someone who was well read in that literature).  Even their number did not agree with modern standards and estimates.  But I have no issue with God creating the earth.  I just know that it was much more than 6,000, or 10,000, or even 50.000 years ago.  You'll have to do better than this.

Edited May 8, 2018 by MormonMason

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, snowflake said:

Your response makes me smile....you say my Biblical worldview doesn't make any sense.....then mention evolution as science......so in your worldview.... a rock evolved into a human over billions of years......great! Makes sense to me! LOL!  You do realize your theory can't explain abiogenesis or life from non-life right?  Look at that problem there honestly, and the evolutionary worldview says that just randomly happened. 

Evolution is not rocks evolving into humans.  If you are going to challenge the theory of evolution, then at least educate yourself on what it is.  

[snowflake]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Evolution is not rocks evolving into humans.  If you are going to challenge the theory of evolution, then at least educate yourself on what it is.  

There you go hiding behind that silly defense that evolution doesn't involve abiogenesis.  Please give me your definition of what the theory of evolution is so I know what you mean. And yes....the evolutionary worldview would state that billions of years ago it rained on the rocks creating a "primordial soup"....then a bacteria...then blah blah blah and then here we are.....all by random chance. 

[MormonMason]

9 hours ago, snowflake said:

There you go hiding behind that silly defense that evolution doesn't involve abiogenesis.  Please give me your definition of what the theory of evolution is so I know what you mean. And yes....the evolutionary worldview would state that billions of years ago it rained on the rocks creating a "primordial soup"....then a bacteria...then blah blah blah and then here we are.....all by random chance. 

Those "rocks" carried chemical compounds.  The chemical compounds were the precursors to amino acids.  Some of the latest I've read also implicates clay as the protective and catalytic mechanism that allowed the precursors to RNA to form, which later would lead to the formation of DNA, which is the basis of most life on earth.  Even Darwin was not adverse to God being the one to start the whole thing off.  Here is what he wrote in the final form of his text:

Quote

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species in each genus, and all the species in many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th Edition (1876), 429-430

But you should know that I also believe that this process was guided by God.  There are definite patterns to what happened that lead up to each new step.  All in all, it traces back to a similar thing spoken of in the Book of Abraham.  "We will take of these materials…"

A dash of elements from an exploding supernova blew into the dust and gas that originated from the star that gave its life to generate the nebula that became the stellar nursery to our solar system.  The motion of churning and rotation began from the eddy current.  This led to the formation of the solar disk.  After a long process of time, with many other events occurring prior, the moon formed close to the earth, causing super-waves to crash upon the surface, which led to the formation of clay from the solid, rocky minerals on the surface.  There was as yet no soil.  And so on, and so forth.  I most certainly do not believe it all was an accident.  But I also do not discount evolution as part of the creative process.  It makes sense to me and displays a pattern underneath it all and not random chance.

Edited May 9, 2018 by MormonMason

[Gray]

On 5/7/2018 at 10:08 PM, LittleNipper said:

There is a scientific answer for that also that supports CREATIONISM! https://www.icr.org/article/8026/

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

I know what scientific means. It would seem that evolutionists abuse it so often that most people don't have a clue. But the reality is that there are theories and hypothesis that seem to discredit the Bible and there are theories and hypothesis  that agree both with the ancient and observable relics discovered and the Bible.  It really depends on which side one wishes to be on.

[LittleNipper]

On 5/8/2018 at 12:11 AM, MormonMason said:

It is not all that scientific an answer.  Scientists know exactly why it is that there are not as many layers as were expected in Greenland.  The ice sheet is melting beneath as a result of geothermal heat.  This has been known for a few years now.  Still more layers than years in the Bible.  The problem gets even worse if we factor in seasonal changes and changes in weather patterns.  It means that in Antarctica there would have been even more layers had it not been for those.  That would mean even more years.  But isotopic analyses of the individual layers have shown that the isotopic ratios of gases have changed over the years, which also is consistent with the kinds of things we still see in newly deposited yearly layers in modern times.  But even in Antarctica, there are differing flow rates of ice and snow on differing regions on that continent.  The Western Antarctic Ice Sheet has geothermal sources of heat beneath as well, causing melting from beneath.  Were it not for that, there would be even more layers in some of the ice cores.  Fact is, this earth is very old.  Kabbalists have long stated that the earth is billions of years old (they assigned the number 2,555,000,000 years, which is something Joseph Smith also picked up from someone who was well read in that literature).  Even their number did not agree with modern standards and estimates.  But I have no issue with God creating the earth.  I just know that it was much more than 6,000, or 10,000, or even 50.000 years ago.  You'll have to do better than this.

NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHY --- except GOD! It is not appropriate to present one side of interpretations of data as the ONLY possible viable solution. This is what is totally wrong with public education in the US. ONLY a secular, humanistic, godless interpretation of data is being presented as completely FACTUAL!  And the students are the pawns. They actually BELIEVE teachers and professors know the unmitigated truth without any shadow of doubt! And the reality is that is a LIE! And frankly, the student that acts up in the classroom undoubtedly sees the hypocrisy and believes what he is hearing is propaganda.  

Edited May 9, 2018 by LittleNipper

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I know what scientific means. It would seem that evolutionists abuse it so often that most people don't have a clue. But the reality is that there are theories and hypothesis that seem to discredit the Bible and there are theories and hypothesis  that agree both with the ancient and observable relics discovered and the Bible.  It really depends on which side one wishes to be on. 

sci·en·tif·ic

adjective: scientific

based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.

The nutty sources you keep referring to aren't using the methods and principles of science to arrive at their claims, ergo they are not scientific.

[LittleNipper]

On 5/8/2018 at 12:27 AM, sunstoned said:

Evolution is not rocks evolving into humans.  If you are going to challenge the theory of evolution, then at least educate yourself on what it is.  

The life you say evolved must have originated somewhere...  So one either leads people to believe that life is a "natural process" and therefore popped into being as a result of natural influences, or one MUST believe life is the result of DIVINE CREATION! And I know of no evolutionist who promotes GOD much less DIVINE CREATION! Such is certainly not being presented in public schools as part of a secular package deal.

[LittleNipper]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

sci·en·tif·ic

adjective: scientific

based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.

The nutty sources you keep referring to aren't using the methods and principles of science to arrive at their claims, ergo they are not scientific.

Those nutty sources you want to disquality are no more or less opinionated than the "nutty" secularists you do accept. We can begin with Darwin and spotlight Nye the "science" guy! EVERYONE begins with a value or opinion and an objective. If one doesn't begin with a plan of action, there will be no action! Some imagine that "nature" is by definition an ongoing process which has always been the motivating force. A Christian sees GOD as the motivating force and "nature " but one of HIS creations. With one "nature" has always been. With the other "nature" at one point didn't exist!!!!!!! If you don't see the problem, I cannot help you.

Edited May 9, 2018 by LittleNipper

[MormonMason]

37 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHY --- except GOD! It is not appropriate to present one side of interpretations of data as the ONLY possible viable solution. This is what is totally wrong with public education in the US. ONLY a secular, humanistic, godless interpretation of data is being presented as completely FACTUAL!  And the students are the pawns. They actually BELIEVE teachers and professors know the unmitigated truth without any shadow of doubt! And the reality is that is a LIE! And frankly, the student that acts up in the classroom undoubtedly sees the hypocrisy and believes what he is hearing is propaganda.  

Even if we went with your linked article's claim that the deposits in the ice layers are seasonal rather than yearly (additional observations showing that the layers are formed yearly), that would still be a range of between 119,500 (four seasons) and 239,000 (two seasons) years for some of those cores.  Still more years than in the Bible.  If we postulate or consider years without precipitation it potentially adds even more years to those numbers.

Science is about what is observed.  Sometimes we don't get to see every aspect of a particular situation, but if other examples are out there one can piece together bits of data and fit it all to what can be or has been observed.  Sometimes we fit things together incorrectly.  But in the case of the ice cores, what we observe is that layers are formed yearly in the ice.  There is no good reason to suppose irregularity of such great degree given what can be and has been observed.  But no matter how we look at it there still are far more yearly layers in the ice than there are years in the Bible.

Edited May 9, 2018 by MormonMason

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Those nutty sources you want to disquality are no more or less opinionated than the "nutty" secularists you do accept. We can begin with Darwin and spotlight Nye the "science" guy! EVERYONE begins with a value or opinion and an objective. If one doesn't begin with a plan of action, there will be no action! Some imagine that "nature" is by definition an ongoing process which has always been the motivating force. A Christian sees GOD as the motivating force and "nature " but one of HIS creations. With one "nature" has always been. With the other "nature" at one point didn't exist!!!!!!! If you don't see the problem, I cannot help you.

If you want to describe scientists and the scientific method that way, that's your choice, but science has an actual meaning and you're using it to describe non-scientific endeavors.