Old Rocks

[keyarch]

YEC here. Death did not in any way enter the world until the fall. Until the curse.

I have to respectfully disagree here. I wrote a paper to support my position at:
http://www.genesistruth.org/documents/The_Curse.pdf

 

[gluadys]

I have to respectfully disagree here. I wrote a paper to support my position at:
http://www.genesistruth.org/documents/The_Curse.pdf

Thanks for this article. I've bookmarked it.

 

[Van]

Hi Folks, I have been away.

While most posts seem to me to be off topic, a few seemed to be on topic.

One poster simply said the assumption that the atomic clocks were all reset was valid. Opinions vary.
The same poster said the age of the Sun had been dated to 5 billion years. No, the Sun has not been dated as far as I know. Suns like ours last about 10 billion years and so because the earth is supposedly 5 billion years old, then the Sun is 5 billion years old, or mid-way in its life cycle with 5 billion years to go.

Another poster introduced (at least to me) the term YBC where we have an old earth but young (6000 year old) biological creation. My personal view, certainly just my opinion, is that life was created on the earth more than 6000 years ago, but "Adam" was created about 6000 years ago. The problem with this view is that we have have cave paintings that seem to be 10,000 to 15,000 years old. But that is a topic for another thread.

Returning to topic, if when the earth was formed out of the pre-solar nebula, some atomic clocks were fully reset, some were partially reset, and some were not reset, then one would expect to see a range of ages in the data with many "outliers" that must be assumed to be invalid for this reason or that, such as to allow the data to be selectively compiled to make a case. Does the picture fit the frame? I think so.

 

[RobertByers]

I have to respectfully disagree here. I wrote a paper to support my position at:
http://www.genesistruth.org/documents/The_Curse.pdf

I read some of it and thank you for contributing to creationism.
I don't see how you can say the curse did not curse everything.
Your own point said the snake above animals and livestock was cursed and so settles all three groups were cursed.
To say there was death before the curse is to make very ugly world.
cheers

 

[RobertByers]

Satan was not in creation???

He was a created being. It is true that he is not a physical being in the sense that we are, but he was a part of the created universe.

He did not contribute to sin in the world???

How can you even imagine that the one who instigated a sin did not contribute to it? He conceived it. He told an explicit lie designed to make it happen. He directly advocated disobedience to God.

He was thrown out of heaven after this action I think?

There is not a particle of scriptural evidence to back this conclusion.

Creation was the documented event in Genesis and not what was before. Satan was already around and not a part of the earth or universe. Angels were not in creation except in another sphere.

He was not in creation and so his evil didn't count against creation and man. Otherwise his sin should of brought a curse but it didn't as all was created for man and not angels who already were around.

Revelation talks about a war between God side and the demons and so i see it as post curse but immediate. Satan was thrown out and its reasonable to presume it was after his intervention with creation.
However scholars should weigh in but basic points here i bring up.

 

[Biblewriter]

Creation was the documented event in Genesis and not what was before. Satan was already around and not a part of the earth or universe. Angels were not in creation except in another sphere.

He was not in creation and so his evil didn't count against creation and man. Otherwise his sin should of brought a curse but it didn't as all was created for man and not angels who already were around.

Revelation talks about a war between God side and the demons and so i see it as post curse but immediate. Satan was thrown out and its reasonable to presume it was after his intervention with creation.
However scholars should weigh in but basic points here i bring up.

You should say, "by creation I mean the documented event in Genesis." But that is not what the noun creation means. It means everything that was created, regardless of when it was created.

Scripture does not say that all was created for man. It says all was created for the Lord Jesus. It says the earth was given to man, but does not say it was created for man.

You may assume any time you wish for the beginning of the war between God and the demons, but any time you select is just that. An assumption. Scripture simply does not say when Satan originally rebelled.

 

[Van]

Does the Bible say when Satan and the Angels were created?

If we look back at eternity past, the only entity that existed was God. At this "time" time had not been created, nor anything else. So "in the beginning" only God existed and nothing else existed. So if we make the reasonable assumption that the "in the beginning" of John 1:1-3 equates to the same "beginning" of Genesis 1:1, then the Angels were created during the "creation week."

Observations such as this lend themselves to the idea that the "creation week" was longer than 7 24 hour days, to allow "time" for the creation and corruption of Satan, and his fall, so that acting as an adversary he deceives Eve in the garden. On the other hand, since with God "time" is elastic, all of Satan's previous life before entering the garden could have taken only "a New York minute."

 

[Assyrian]

Just as a point of interest here, if you read Jewish apocalyptic literature, they saw the angelic rebellion as occurring in Gen 6.

 

[alexwylde]

Hi Folks, I have been away.

While most posts seem to me to be off topic, a few seemed to be on topic.

One poster simply said the assumption that the atomic clocks were all reset was valid. Opinions vary.
The same poster said the age of the Sun had been dated to 5 billion years. No, the Sun has not been dated as far as I know. Suns like ours last about 10 billion years and so because the earth is supposedly 5 billion years old, then the Sun is 5 billion years old, or mid-way in its life cycle with 5 billion years to go.

Another poster introduced (at least to me) the term YBC where we have an old earth but young (6000 year old) biological creation. My personal view, certainly just my opinion, is that life was created on the earth more than 6000 years ago, but "Adam" was created about 6000 years ago. The problem with this view is that we have have cave paintings that seem to be 10,000 to 15,000 years old. But that is a topic for another thread.

Returning to topic, if when the earth was formed out of the pre-solar nebula, some atomic clocks were fully reset, some were partially reset, and some were not reset, then one would expect to see a range of ages in the data with many "outliers" that must be assumed to be invalid for this reason or that, such as to allow the data to be selectively compiled to make a case. Does the picture fit the frame? I think so.

That is incorrect. We date stars that are outside of our solar system all the time. Astronomers can use the mass of the star in relation to it's brightness, in combination with other observations which help us date stars. I know this is Wikipedia, but it does cite a source (although not apparently clear to the average eye): Sun's Life Cycle.

We have indeed dated the sun independently of our observations on the age of the earth.

 

[Van]

No, we have not dated the age of the sun. Sun's like ours have a life cycle of about 10 billion years, but where our sun is in its life cycle is based on the assumed age of the earth. The linked article is fully consistent with this view.

 

[keyarch]

I don't see how you can say the curse did not curse everything.
Your own point said the snake above animals and livestock was cursed and so settles all three groups were cursed.
To say there was death before the curse is to make very ugly world.
cheers

Again, we disagree here, but I don't want to get too far off the original post. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this further.
Just so you know, I am a Creationist who takes Genesis literally. The only difference between myself and a YEC is how I interpret the age of the universe and the core planet (Gen. 1-2) and animal death (original design of the defense/attack systems) unrelated to the sin of Adam and Eve.
I do hold to a creation week of six literal days, some 6,000 years ago that established ALL biology on earth; a literal global flood about 1656 years later; etc.

 

[Terral]

Hi Van:

The paradox that separates Old Earth Creationists and Young earth Creationist is the age of the earth.

We agree. This earth has been around for over 4 billion years (LiveScience) and some folks continue to think we are looking at a 6000 year old planet. :0)

If Adam was created about 6000 years ago, and the earth was created within 6 24 hour days of the creation of Adam, then the earth is only 6000 years old.

Adam was created thousands and thousands and thousands of years ago (Gen. 2:7) with Eve and her seed (Gen. 2:20-22) still “IN” him, but the fall (Gen. 3) happened about 6,000 years ago (Timeline = far left).

However if the duration of the "creation days" was not 24 hours, allowed by the usage of the word translated as day as referring to an indeterminate period of time, then the earth could be older, but mankind, defined as the offspring of Eve, could not.

Adam and Eve are both ‘seventh day’ creations (Eve "IN" Adam) representing the perfect/mature ‘Eth Erets Universe of Genesis 1:1 (Adam in Gen. 2:7 = diagram) ‘and’ the heavens (Adam), heaven (her seed) and the earth (Eve) of this now broken triune universe (diagram). The reconstitution ‘days’ of Genesis 1:3-31 are days ‘to God’ that passed over the course of billions of years from our temporal perspective. The short of the long is that Genesis 1 and 2 are filled with ‘gaps,’ which is understood from a reading of 2Peter 3:5:
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

"For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed LONG AGO and the earth was formed out of water and by water. . .". 2Peter 3:5.

[/FONT]

You might assume that the waters 'above' the expanse (Gen. 1:6-8 = heavens) and the waters 'below' the expanse (earth) both existed at the same exact time, because both are mentioned together in these same verses; but the truth of 2Peter 3 above says otherwise. We have the largest ‘gap’ of all between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 where the perfect/mature ‘Eth Erets existed in a completed form (pic = blue sphere on right) for ages and ages and ages, before being made formless and void in Genesis 1:2 to then take on a 'triune' image (like this). My post on "The Big Bang Theory Of Creation Is A MYTH" (link) might help you to visualize these things more accurately. Scripture says exactly what the Geological Record says, but only if you apply the correct interpretations. :0)

So we have folks on both sides questioning the parentage of those on the other side.

That is the normal reaction when folks are not privy to all the facts and continue to base their opinions upon MYTHS.

According to a widely accepted theory from science, our solar system, including the sun and the earth, was formed when our "pre-solar" nebula collapsed about 5 billion years ago. The reason given for the age is that the oldest rocks on the earth seem about that old.

Compared to the age of the universe (over 13 billion years), then our earth is very young indeed. :0)

Those that offer the old earth date make an assumption, that when the earth was formed, it got so hot, all the minerals were broken down into molecules, so any atomic clocks that we ticking in the rocks of the nebula were destroyed when the earth was formed. But if they were not destroyed, then we are dating the age of the nebula rocks which could date from some supernova whose ejecta became part of our pre-solar nebula.

Since the gap between the Old and Young Creationists is 4.4 billion (Old) to only 6,000 years (that is funny), then the differences between nebula rocks, earth rocks and the Young Earth theory are astronomical no matter how you want to slice the cake. If the universe is only 6000 years old, then how are we seeing light from galaxies that are billions of light years away (link)? :0) This universe has obviously been around for billions and billions of years ‘and’ for much longer than our local planet Earth. That explains the reason for our local sun and moon coming to exist on the fourth day in Genesis 1:17-19, while the original exploding nebula was created between Genesis 1:3 and 1:16.

Unfortunately, even if the atomic clocks are discredited, we still must face all the evidence, like cave formations and coral reefs, that suggest the earth is tens of thousands to millions of years old.

You mean billions of years old. :0)

But the good news is this would get rid of all those billions of years where life supposedly evolved from non-life into the species of today.

God did the creating (Gen. 1:1+) billions of years ago, then reconstituted the broken remains of the Big Bang taking place in Genesis 1:2 in six days to Genesis 1:31. That life to spring out of the ‘waters’ in Genesis 1:20 has been evolving ever since. :0) The plants and animals that could not evolve to keep up with a changing environment went the way of the dinosaur and the rest is history . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Van]

Hi Terral, just a couple of points.

First, the generations from "Adam" to Jesus rule out that Adam was created much before 6000 years ago. The paradox this creates is that we have cave paintings that appear to be 10,000 to 15,000 years old. Either the dating is in error, or Adam was created before 6000 years ago, or we have pre-adamic folks able to handle abstract thinking. None of those options flips my switch, hence the paradox.

The Old Earth Creationists do not believe the Universe is only 6000 years old. But they do believe the Solar System is about 5 billion years old. However, the point of the thread is that date is based on an assumption that all the atomic clocks were reset. And if they were not, then we could be dating rocks from the pre-solar nebula, and not the age of the formation of the solar system.

Final point, if the "atomic clocks" simply date pre-solar nebula rocks, then the independent lines of evidence for the age of the earth indicate the earth is tens of thousands to millions of years old.

 

[Terral]

Hi Van:

Thank you for writing.

Hi Terral, just a couple of points.

First, the generations from "Adam" to Jesus rule out that Adam was created much before 6000 years ago.

No sir. Adam’s ‘earthly’ incarnation began only after the ‘fall’ of Genesis 3 where the Lord God (Christ) began giving his ‘two witnesses’ these various ‘skins’ (Gen. 3:21). Adam was formed in Genesis 2:7 with Eve and everyone here “IN” him and he existed as a ‘living soul/being’ in a heavenly garden for a VERY long time, before Eve and her seed were ever taken from his side in Genesis 2:20-22. Scripture says,

“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.” Genesis 5:1-2.

See the problem? :0) The Lord God formed “Adam” in Genesis 2:7 and we have all the events from that verse to Genesis 2:20-22 where Eve and her seed are ‘then’ taken from his side. The Lord God formed “Adam” in the likeness of God with Eve and her seed “IN” him. THEN the Lord God created ‘them male and female’ in the day ‘they’ were created. In other words, Adam is no longer “ONE” with all the ‘gods’ (Ps. 82:6, Jn 10:34) still IN Him in the likeness of God ‘and’ like Christ’s Body (1Cor. 12:27) is made up of ‘MANY members.’ 1Cor. 12:12-14. Adam was no male or female in Genesis 2:7, because ‘at that time’ he was formed in the likeness of the “one God and Father” (Eph. 4:6). Adam and Eve continued to be ‘heavenly’ hosts up to the ‘fall,’ when Satan’s evil seed became mixed with the righteous branch ‘her seed’ with their eating of the forbidden fruit. Then read through Genesis 3 to realize the Lord God gives them ‘skins’ (Gen. 3:21) “in the day they were created” in the image of fallen man (like sixth day people) we continue to live with today.

The paradox this creates is that we have cave paintings that appear to be 10,000 to 15,000 years old. Either the dating is in error, or Adam was created before 6000 years ago, or we have pre-adamic folks able to handle abstract thinking. None of those options flips my switch, hence the paradox.

Your statement appears funny to one who knows ‘the truth’ of this matter intimately. :0) The cave paints were drawn by members of the ‘sixth day’ races that have been part of this earth for millions of years. Your father Adam was and is no cave man. :0) The finer details of Genesis 1 and 2 are escaping your notice, as you have yet to identify the differences between the ‘sixth day’ people (Gen. 1:26-28) and your father Adam as a ‘seventh day’ man. Genesis 2:1-8. The six days of ‘recreation’ in Genesis 1 are days TO GOD that extend over the course of billions of years, which is obvious from the light we can see from galaxies that are billions of light years away (link). The current ‘seventh day’ began FAR more than just 6000 years ago, but that is the time that began with Adam’s fall and curse of Genesis 3.

The Old Earth Creationists do not believe the Universe is only 6000 years old. But they do believe the Solar System is about 5 billion years old. However, the point of the thread is that date is based on an assumption that all the atomic clocks were reset. And if they were not, then we could be dating rocks from the pre-solar nebula, and not the age of the formation of the solar system.

Old Earth Creationists believe many different things, but what can you prove from the physical evidence and what ‘is’ written in God’s Living Word? :0) God is NOT the Author of confusion (1Cor. 14:33), but the Geological Record says ‘exactly’ what God’s Word says, but ONLY when the correct ‘interpretation’ is applied to the Holy Text in a ‘true’ context. Quite frankly I do not care if you guys want to call yourselves Old Earth Creationists or Young Earth Creations or the man in the moon, but I am here to simply state my case for how "Creation" and "God" are telling the same exact stories from a Scientific and Biblical perspective. Since this universe is between 11 and 18 Billion years old (Nasa article), then a case for our earth being 4.4 Billion years old makes me a Young Earth Creationist in the book of someone. :0)

Final point, if the "atomic clocks" simply date pre-solar nebula rocks, then the independent lines of evidence for the age of the earth indicate the earth is tens of thousands to millions of years old.

Please forgive, but please include third-party sources to back up your ‘claims’ concerning the age of rocks and the universe. Your timeline of thousands to just tens of thousands of years does not even go back as far as trilobites (link) that appeared on this earth about 600 million years ago. A reasonable timeline of events appears on this site (link) that places the creation of this universe at about 15 billion years ago and our local planet earth around 4.7 billion years ago.

Your previously existing nebula BLEW UP to scatter the molten star dust that became the foundational forming clay of this current universe, which science (good article) dates to between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years; which even includes moon rocks and asteroid fragments dated by five independent radiometric dating methods. What I would expect to see IF we were dating preexistent nebula rocks is a much older date from when ‘that’ nebula was formed between say 10 and 20 billion years ago. Even if you had one fragment of old nebula rock (which seems impossible to possess since that star vaporized), then a pattern of ‘two’ separate creation dates should show up in the work of scientists dating rocks all over the surface of this earth, the moon and in asteroids that makeup our local solar system. The closest sun to our solar system is Alpha Centauri (link) and the chances of finding a nebula rock from 4.3 light years away seems very much impossible to me, which means we are stuck with dating the rocks from our own solar system that all appear to have the same 4.4 billion year oldest age.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Van]

Hi Terral, in the above post you asked me to support my views with third party sources.
However, you said my view was "thousands to just tens of thousands of years." This of course is false. If cannot present my views accurately, there is no reason to continue discussion. What part of "tens of thousands to millions of years" do you not understand?

You agreed with me and said you believed in pre-adamic folks. Fine. I do not.

Next you say trilobites have been independently dated to millions of years. No, their dating relies upon nuclear decay dating methods. Their fossils are found in layers radio-dated to the Cambrian age. So to repeat, all the independent lines of evidence for an ancient earth support an age of tens of thousands to millions of years, not billions.

Next you seem to argue that no ejecta from a supernova made up part of our pre-solar nebula, but the heavy isotopes are only formed in a supernova so you seem to be presenting unsupported data. Third source: google:
Supernova nucleosynthesis

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

There are a few dates from different dating systems from around the world which support the 6000 years ago date, but some young earthers make an assumption, that there are no generations missed out in the family records in the Bible. And it isn't a dating system.. it's a record of people of note.. so although there is good evidence for 6000 yrs. I am still thinking that the flood was about 10-12,000 years ago. This is only because of Plato and the legend of Atlantis, and the way the sphynx lines up with sirius, calculating the precession back, you get 10,500 years ago.. for the pre-flood world monument, as it was then. But someone has obviously calculated the generations back to Noah to get 4400 years ago for the flood, but again, there might be families left out.. I wont get into the rock thing as i dont know much about it..

First, the generations from "Adam" to Jesus rule out that Adam was created much before 6000 years ago. The paradox this creates is that we have cave paintings that appear to be 10,000 to 15,000 years old. Either the dating is in error, or Adam was created before 6000 years ago, or we have pre-adamic folks able to handle abstract thinking. None of those options flips my switch, hence the paradox.

Van.. how can you date the cave paintings? what method are you using? The dating of Adam is not a dating.. it is a guess based on the generations.. I don't beleive in a pre-Adamic race..

I am tending to be swayed by the young earther scenario.. a plain reading of Genesis.. a literal 6 days creation, and as it says.. I am reading a book now.. 'secrets of antigravity propulsion' and one thing that this book provokes in my mind is the idea that you cannot accept anyone else's ideas as true.. that includes the 'big bang'.. it can be proven that the universe is expanding.. so does that mean that it started at one point from nothing? all you know is that the universe is expanding.. I was watching a video by Kent Hovind, and this guy is really good.. someone asked him how the fresh water fish survived in sea water after the flood, and he said that they were making the assumption that the sea was salty at the time of the flood.. that in my humble is thinking 'out of the box' as it were... 'you can't quote relativity as being true or the big bang theory, or Newton's law of the conservation of momentum.. it was a good way of understanding the universe..

ps. if anyones interested .. I hate Star Trek the next generation.. it's all about sitting on couches being 'analysed' it's aweful...

 

[Van]

Hi Hiscosmicgoldfish, let me address your points, or at least my understanding of your points:

Generations could have been left out of the lists given in scripture. Yes, but it is more likely that the list is nearly complete such that Adam lived about 6000 years ago, give or take 1000 years. Note that the calculated date for David agrees with the historical date for David. Thus the idea that the method is way off does not flip my switch.

If Adam lived about 6000 years ago, then the flood would occur about 1500 years later, about 4500 ago. Note the 1500 years comes from Genesis 5, for if you add up the generations it adds up to about 1500 years.

Cave painting dating is the subject of much controversy. But many the animals drawn seem to be Ice Age animals, making the date of 10,000 to 15,000 years ago reasonable. Pigments of some cave paintings have been dated to this same period. Other drawings have been dated (Carbon 14) to 30,000 years ago. But I am dubious of those dates. And finally, stuff found in the caves, bones etc, have been dated to the same 10,000 to 15,000 years ago period, again using C14.

One can resolve the paradox by saying the dating is wrong, the paintings are less than 6000 years old, but that approach does not flip my switch.

Which takes back to the paradox. Move the date for Adam back to say 60,000 years ago, accept a pre-adamic race that could handle abstract thought, or say the dating is wrong. And as I have said before, none of these seems likely to me, hence the paradox.

 

[Assyrian]

There are a few dates from different dating systems from around the world which support the 6000 years ago date, but some young earthers make an assumption, that there are no generations missed out in the family records in the Bible. And it isn't a dating system.. it's a record of people of note.. so although there is good evidence for 6000 yrs. I am still thinking that the flood was about 10-12,000 years ago. This is only because of Plato and the legend of Atlantis, and the way the sphynx lines up with sirius, calculating the precession back, you get 10,500 years ago.. for the pre-flood world monument, as it was then. But someone has obviously calculated the generations back to Noah to get 4400 years ago for the flood, but again, there might be families left out.. I wont get into the rock thing as i dont know much about it..

First, the generations from "Adam" to Jesus rule out that Adam was created much before 6000 years ago. The paradox this creates is that we have cave paintings that appear to be 10,000 to 15,000 years old. Either the dating is in error, or Adam was created before 6000 years ago, or we have pre-adamic folks able to handle abstract thinking. None of those options flips my switch, hence the paradox.

Van.. how can you date the cave paintings? what method are you using? The dating of Adam is not a dating.. it is a guess based on the generations.. I don't beleive in a pre-Adamic race..

I am tending to be swayed by the young earther scenario.. a plain reading of Genesis.. a literal 6 days creation, and as it says.. I am reading a book now.. 'secrets of antigravity propulsion' and one thing that this book provokes in my mind is the idea that you cannot accept anyone else's ideas as true.. that includes the 'big bang'.. it can be proven that the universe is expanding.. so does that mean that it started at one point from nothing? all you know is that the universe is expanding.. I was watching a video by Kent Hovind, and this guy is really good.. someone asked him how the fresh water fish survived in sea water after the flood, and he said that they were making the assumption that the sea was salty at the time of the flood.. that in my humble is thinking 'out of the box' as it were... 'you can't quote relativity as being true or the big bang theory, or Newton's law of the conservation of momentum.. it was a good way of understanding the universe..

ps. if anyones interested .. I hate Star Trek the next generation.. it's all about sitting on couches being 'analysed' it's aweful...

. . . . "You're upset"









.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

Hi Hiscosmicgoldfish, let me address your points, or at least my understanding of your points:

Generations could have been left out of the lists given in scripture. Yes, but it is more likely that the list is nearly complete such that Adam lived about 6000 years ago, give or take 1000 years. Note that the calculated date for David agrees with the historical date for David. Thus the idea that the method is way off does not flip my switch.

If Adam lived about 6000 years ago, then the flood would occur about 1500 years later, about 4500 ago. Note the 1500 years comes from Genesis 5, for if you add up the generations it adds up to about 1500 years.

Cave painting dating is the subject of much controversy. But many the animals drawn seem to be Ice Age animals, making the date of 10,000 to 15,000 years ago reasonable. Pigments of some cave paintings have been dated to this same period. Other drawings have been dated (Carbon 14) to 30,000 years ago. But I am dubious of those dates. And finally, stuff found in the caves, bones etc, have been dated to the same 10,000 to 15,000 years ago period, again using C14.

One can resolve the paradox by saying the dating is wrong, the paintings are less than 6000 years old, but that approach does not flip my switch.

Which takes back to the paradox. Move the date for Adam back to say 60,000 years ago, accept a pre-adamic race that could handle abstract thought, or say the dating is wrong. And as I have said before, none of these seems likely to me, hence the paradox.

I don't accept C14 dating. Good point about the dating of David.. I was not aware of that.. I dont accept an 'ice age' either.. there is a flood explanation for the freezing also.. I just don't believe that there was anyone before adam.. but i am open to the idea that adam means 'the first humans'.. but more likely to be one first human.. was there a climate range in the old world? i don't know.. some of the problems of the flood can be thought through, but others are much harder.. for eg. the divide between the animals of asia and the pacific.. at around the area of flores in Indonesia.. due to the land masses having different classes living on each side.. when the land came together, the animals still showed that divide, as today. These sorts of arguments could be used by evolutionists to challenge creationists.. I saw a university debate on you-tube between Kent Hovind and the university lecturer, who was an evolutionist.. the lecturer must of thought it would be easy to tear up Hovind's theories.. as he hadn't prepared any notes.. and at the end of the debate.. the lecturer wasn't exactly 'quirming' but his replies were total lack-lustre.. and Hovind imo. won the debate.. I have read Davis A. Young's book.. The Biblical Flood.. a case study of the church's response to extrabiblical evidence, and ... A matter of days, by Hugh Ross.. I found myself not agreeing with Ken Ham's YEC ideas. I'll tell you a book that would suit you perfectly.. 'Forbidden Archeology' by Cremo and Thompson.. i have this book but i havn't read it all yet.. they arn't christians, but write a lot.. 800 pages about various problems with conventional geology and human ancestry ideas..
I have looked into the evolution of humans and that 'does not flip my switch'.. i have looked at the line up of skulls and keep coming back to the thought that they represent a line-up of different species, and instead of grouping together a number of skulls into the same species.. eg. zinjanthropus.. they show them as a progression.. instead of what might be a number of similar species living at the same time.. I think that what they show is a number of extinct apes, and that's all.. not even upright walking.. that hasn't been proved at all.. if there was this pre-adamic race.. they would be fully human.. but the evidence shows an actual opposite of evolutionary theory.. humans started out highly developed in armenia/iraq/iran area, with iron and technology etc. and moved out into India, China and Egypt and eventually the americas, and there was no 'stone age'.. as the use of iron depends on where you look in the world.. technology collapsed after the flood, and those buildings show what it was like before the flood.. Baalbek and I suspect the pyramids. Some of them anyway. I was reading about salt deposits high up still remaining on the pyramids.. evidence of the flood..

 

[Van]

So you do not believe the cave paintings are older than 6000 years. That is one way to "resolve" the paradox for yourself, but others who are unwilling to dismiss the apparent age of the paintings still see a paradox.