Apparent Age Theory

[shernren]

Science says (strongly implies) that it has all of its ducks in a row, going back billions of years. But when I read science texts I find that ducks are (admittedly) missing, but am assured that they will be found. So a miracle duck is put in place, to avoid any discontinuity. The invoice is an I.O.U for one real duck to be delivered at a later date.

Whoa. What a complete disconnect. Your invoice and his are completely different. It's like saying "I can't catch your train of thought, the last train left Times Square 15 minutes ago!"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And all this time I thought God was concerned with sin and wickedness...

You are correct.

 

[gluadys]

Ok then, I'll use this analogy to explain what I just said.

Science says (strongly implies) that it has all of its ducks in a row, going back billions of years. But when I read science texts I find that ducks are (admittedly) missing, but am assured that they will be found. So a miracle duck is put in place, to avoid any discontinuity. The invoice is an I.O.U for one real duck to be delivered at a later date.

Could you rephrase this so that it is not an analogy? What "ducks" are missing? What miracles are required?

 

[LoG]

Biological evidence does negate Ussher's timeline. Biological evidence places the origin of our species at least 140,000 years in the past. Biological evidence places the origin of our genus at least 2 million years in the past. Biological evidence ties us to a common ancestor we share with chimpanzees that lived at least 7 million years in the past.

This, even if true, would still not negate the timeline since you would need to prove an unbroken line of descendents up to the present. I see scriptural evidence for a creation that was destroyed 7-12000 years ago and a new creation around 4004 bc. Do you know of definitive evidence that would prove otherwise?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This, even if true, would still not negate the timeline since you would need to prove an unbroken line of descendents up to the present. I see scriptural evidence for a creation that was destroyed 7-12000 years ago and a new creation around 4004 bc. Do you know of definitive evidence that would prove otherwise?

lake varves
ice cores
tree rings
coral layers
all the usual suspects.

all show continuity for the 12K year period you mention. no destruction. no new creation. no gap.

 

[gluadys]

since you would need to prove an unbroken line of descendents up to the present.

That is exactly what our DNA does show.

I see scriptural evidence for a creation that was destroyed 7-12000 years ago and a new creation around 4004 bc. Do you know of definitive evidence that would prove otherwise?

Scripture per se is not scientific evidence and never attempts to provide such evidence of its claims. It is evidence only in the courtroom sense of bearing witness or testifying--but that is not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is physical evidence that is open to all observers.

Definitive scientific evidence says your dates are far too short. Even for archeology. Civilization goes back further than the date of even your destroyed creation.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10923986#post10923986

 

[Schroeder]

lake varves
ice cores
tree rings
coral layers
all the usual suspects.

all show continuity for the 12K year period you mention. no destruction. no new creation. no gap.

and are these the same ones that show when asteriods wiped out most of the earth and or dino. But wait there have been a lot of asteriods big ones to and no sign they wiped out much of anything. the so call chelupa asteriod that wiped out the dinos, seems it may not have and or most likely did not. As with most all the other ones that hit us. but yet there is a fine layer of space dust or asteriod dust(dont know the name of this) all over in the same layer or strata. But the dinos do seem to exsit quickly off the scene. maybe a flood with a lot of asteriods to break open the fountains of the deep hapened along with the rain and this layer was put done in the water and settled that way. since it seems to show a great killing off of life, just not in a way a asteriod would do it. just a opinion.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

and are these the same ones that show when asteriods wiped out most of the earth and or dino. But wait there have been a lot of asteriods big ones to and no sign they wiped out much of anything. the so call chelupa asteriod that wiped out the dinos, seems it may not have and or most likely did not. As with most all the other ones that hit us. but yet there is a fine layer of space dust or asteriod dust(dont know the name of this) all over in the same layer or strata. But the dinos do seem to exsit quickly off the scene. maybe a flood with a lot of asteriods to break open the fountains of the deep hapened along with the rain and this layer was put done in the water and settled that way. since it seems to show a great killing off of life, just not in a way a asteriod would do it. just a opinion.

let's work for a moment on a timeline.

K-T boundary (the Cretaceous - Tertiary boundary) is 65 million years ago.

ice cores and lake varves back 128K years
tree rings 12-15K with dead trees, 4K with just currently living trees.

so, a resounding no, these items have nothing to do with dinosaurs.
roughly a 3 or 4 orders of magnitude difference.

 

[LoG]

ice cores and lake varves back 128K years
tree rings 12-15K with dead trees, 4K with just currently living trees.

so, a resounding no, these items have nothing to do with dinosaurs.
roughly a 3 or 4 orders of magnitude difference.

Neither do they prove or disprove an uninterrupted continuity of biological life within the past 10-12000 years.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Neither do they prove or disprove an uninterrupted continuity of biological life within the past 10-12000 years.

i apologize for trying to help you learn the topic. if the data is not persuasive to you, how can i with my limited abilities be? believe what you must, however i would point out that believing the truth is better than believing falsehoods. perhaps not more comfort, nor more money making, nor even conductive to making friends or being popular.

i would assert that having lake varves, ice cores, tree rings and coral layers going back more than 12K years in all cases is enough evidence to be considered beyond reasonable doubt that the world has not been destroyed and recreated within this time period. nor was there a poof creative event in that time period that created the universe or the world, pollen alone in the varves demonstrates those trees lived in that time period.

you can have the last word. the evidence (like i learned from CSI) speaks volumes for itself, i don't need to push the point. i need to move onto the difficult things and not continually have to revisit the elementary things.....

 

[Calminian]

First, I think you're the brightest poster on this thread.

Here is a brief post concerning my position on origins.

1. I am a literalist when it comes to the account given in Genesis

Of course I know what you mean but I would suggest a different term. I prefer taking an exegetical approach to Genesis. I let the text itself reveal whether it is to be taken literally or not. Most OECs allow naturalistic theories to determine what the author meant. This is called eisegesis. I believe Genesis was intended to be an historical narrative account. This doesn't mean the author never uses any figurative language.

2. Therefore, the earth and everything therein was created in exactly 6 days consisting of 24 hours each.
3. God made Adam and Eve to appear to be a certain age (specifically speaking of Adam and Eve, the age of which they could bear children)

On number 3, Adam was not made to appear old. Only one looking at him with wrong presuppositions would conclude so.

4. God made all other things on the earth to appear to be a certain age

Again only those observing the earth with wrong presuppositions would conclude so. The earth had to be fully function, therefore has characteristics we would normally associate with maturity.

5. The universe was created in the same manner, as the account in Genesis states it.
6. Even though things appear to be millions if not billions of years old, they are in fact only at most 15,400 years old.

Not sure where that last figure came from. If there are gaps in the genealogies I suppose it's possible.

As far as the bogus deception claims, these are non sequiturs. Your post doesn't state anything about a false history. Those accusing you of such, simply believe other historical accounts over those in the Bible. No YECs believe God created an appearance of history. If they were honest they would admit this.

 

[Schroeder]

i apologize for trying to help you learn the topic. if the data is not persuasive to you, how can i with my limited abilities be? believe what you must, however i would point out that believing the truth is better than believing falsehoods. perhaps not more comfort, nor more money making, nor even conductive to making friends or being popular.

i would assert that having lake varves, ice cores, tree rings and coral layers going back more than 12K years in all cases is enough evidence to be considered beyond reasonable doubt that the world has not been destroyed and recreated within this time period. nor was there a poof creative event in that time period that created the universe or the world, pollen alone in the varves demonstrates those trees lived in that time period.

you can have the last word. the evidence (like i learned from CSI) speaks volumes for itself, i don't need to push the point. i need to move onto the difficult things and not continually have to revisit the elementary things.....

ithink th eguestion is how the layers got there. abd how they represent ages. if the contenients are moving wouldnt this cause problems with build up. and what about global warming. ice caps are melting now why could they not have done so before. it seems they guess on what they weather was like way back then and how it would layer itself. but i dont know enough to bother argueing i guess. i will leave it at that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because you haven't looked. Five minutes of checking would show your "theory" as nonsensical. In fact common sense should have.

It was common sense that led me to my theory.

 

[KerrMetric]

It was common sense that led me to my theory.

No it wasn't. Common sense from a physics perspective makes your ideas silly. Anyway, we've already ascertained you didn't know what you were talking about in that area.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it wasn't. Common sense from a physics perspective makes your ideas silly. Anyway, we've already ascertained you didn't know what you were talking about in that area.

I didn't think using 'common sense' was good science. Also aren't you guys supposed to do the math, not criticize the theory?

Again, I didn't present anything except my (sketchy at best) theory. You stated dogmatically that my theory defies the laws of physics, without any real examination of the theory. You dismissed it out of hand. And we didn't 'ascertain' anything.