Oldest rock in the world 2 days after creation (embedded age)

[AV1611VET]

So your position is that people, dinosaurs, flying reptiles, ice age mega fauna, etc. all existed at the same time and some were subsequently fossilized post 4004 BC?

Well, I don't know about "ice age mega fauna," because I believe God created the earth as a tropical paradise.

But essentially yes, all existed at the same time.

Exceptions would be hybrids, such as the banana trees that we eat from today.

Those were not present during the Creation Week.

As well as winter wheat, sweet corn, Meyer lemons, Olympia spinach, and the like.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that no human being has ever seen a living dinosaur, that's a nonsensical position.

You don't think T. Rex was aboard the Ark?

 

[tampasteve]

Well, I don't know about "ice age mega fauna," because I believe God created the earth as a tropical paradise.

But that's important, we can see the evidence in the glacial and geological records that there have been ice ages, and we had lots of ice age mega-fauna mammals. Wooly mammoths, wooly rhino, mastodon, dire wolves, megatherium, and sabretooth cats all animals that thrive in cold environments and all in the fossil record where we expect them to be. Most of these existed with people, so I don't have an issue there, but they existed post-dinosaur hot period. We don't find fossil dinosaurs with fossil people or ice-age mammals.

But essentially yes, all existed at the same time.

I disagree, but thank you for clarification. Can you explain why we don't find fossil tigers in the same area as fossil dinosaurs? Why Florida is full of fossil Pleistocene and Eocene animals and no dinosaurs? Why we find butchering and cut marks on ice age fossils, but not on dinosaur fossils? Indicating hunting by people of course.

 

[NxNW]

You don't think T. Rex was aboard the Ark?

Considering that there is no evidence for the Ark ever existing, I'd say that's a nonsensical question. Genetic evidence does not show the bottleneck that would result from such a flood, though there have been unrelated mass extinctions in the past. But I'm curious how you'd contain or feed a T Rex on an Ark. I'm even more curious how you keep tropical, arctic, freshwater, and saltwater fish all alive in the same body of water.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that's important, we can see the evidence in the glacial and geological records that there have been ice ages,

Yes, there have been ice ages.

Job mentions one.

But not in 4004 BC, when time started.

The first ice age probably came well after the Flood, which was in 2348 BC.

That was when polar climatology started.

... and we had lots of ice age mega-fauna mammals.

No argument there.

Wooly mammoths, wooly rhino, mastodon, dire wolves, megatherium, and sabretooth cats all animals that thrive in cold environments and all in the fossil record where we expect them to be.

No argument there.

Wolves got off the Ark, some went north and thrived.

Most of these existed with people, so I don't have an issue there, but they existed post-dinosaur hot period. We don't find fossil dinosaurs with fossil people or ice-age mammals.

Here's the thing about finding fossils.

Academia "accordions out" this 6000 years we've had into eons upon eons of time.

Stretching it out like it's a giant rubber band.

This makes it look like things found in the earth lived a LONG TIME before other things.

The assumption is that the deeper you go, the older things are that are found.

But in reality, everything is flat as a pancake.

This creates the false assumption that no two types of fossils lived together.

And why would you find human fossils with dinosaur fossils anyway?

Would you hang around T. Rex for any length of time?

I disagree, but thank you for clarification.

You're most welcome!

Can you explain why we don't find fossil tigers in the same area as fossil dinosaurs?

Because the dinosaurs ate them?

Why Florida is full of fossil Pleistocene and Eocene animals and no dinosaurs?

Ecological niching?

Why we find butchering and cut marks on ice age fossils, but not on dinosaur fossils? Indicating hunting by people of course.

Maybe no one hunted dinosaurs?

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering that there is no evidence for the Ark ever existing, I'd say that's a nonsensical question.

* sigh * I understand.

Genetic evidence does not show the bottleneck that would result from such a flood, though there have been unrelated mass extinctions in the past.

The Flood was a miracle, orchestrated by God himself.

To expect evidence of something that wasn't scientific is treading on thin ice.

But I'm curious how you'd contain or feed a T Rex on an Ark.

I've covered this many times here, so I'm not going to explain it in this thread, as I suspect there's enough for you guys to cogitate on already, without adding to the pot.

I'm even more curious how you keep tropical, arctic, freshwater, and saltwater fish all alive in the same body of water.

Again, let's take one miracle at a time, lest you fall victim to information overload.

 

[tampasteve]

Yes, there have been ice ages.

Job mentions one.

But not in 4004 BC, when time started.

The first ice age probably came well after the Flood, which was in 2348 BC.

Unfortunately that isn't what we observe in the creation, it seems to be more around 10K years ago. Interestingly along when some of the most ancient structures were built. We have written texts, with dates written in them that approach your date of 2348BC - surely the last ice age ending would have been mentioned as that massive change in climate would be worth noting.

Here's the thing about finding fossils.

Academia "accordions out" this 6000 years we've had into eons upon eons of time.

Stretching it out like it's a giant rubber band.

This makes it look like things found in the earth lived a LONG TIME before other things.

The assumption is that the deeper you go, the older things are that are found.

But in reality, everything is flat as a pancake.

But it isn't. Yes there are sites that exhibit this, but it is not wide spread and they are generally able to be explained in a geological fashion. There are exceptions to the rule, but largely the rule stands. I don't argue that the world may not be as old as some scientists think, but I honestly find it impossible to explain that it is young, that all types of life have existed at the same time since 4004BC, very little that we observe in creation evidences this position.

The only way I can square what we observe with a young Earth is to say that God created the fossils as fossils and that they were in fact not ever living on the Earth as scientists presume. But that takes me back to the original observation that if that is so then God is pulling a deception, which I don't believe is possible.

And why would you find human fossils with dinosaur fossils anyway?

Would you hang around T. Rex for any length of time?

Because we find human fossils around other species that we should, mammals and such. They should be there if they were around at the same time. But we don't, ever.

Because the dinosaurs ate them?

All of them? That's not a realistic argument to make. We don't find any of the mammals we have now in the same area as dinosaurs - they are not there.

Ecological niching?

Florida was under water at the time, but not under water later. Had Florida been above water it would have been just as suitable a habitat as anywhere else.

Maybe no one hunted dinosaurs?

Historically, people hunt everything, and the vast numbers of dinosaurs would be a very tempting target. If we were there at the same time, we would have hunted them, there is really no doubt about that.

 

[Aaron112]

The only way I can square what we observe with a young Earth is to say that God created the fossils as fossils and that they were in fact not ever living on the Earth as scientists presume.

No worries really. Others have shown clearly (sadly on youtube) and Scripturally that the fossil record is totally consistent with all of God's Word, with no contradictions at all.
It is only when mankind(of the flesh) start making up things that it can get confusing and wrong. By not listening to the flesh, we may have peace.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No worries really. Others have shown clearly (sadly on youtube) and Scripturally that the fossil record is totally consistent with all of God's Word, with no contradictions at all.
It is only when mankind(of the flesh) start making up things that it can get confusing and wrong. By not listening to the flesh, we may have peace.

If that's true, why do whales come AFTER land animals?

 

[Aaron112]

Wolves got off the Ark, some went north and thrived.

..... (sorry ahead of time) (not really!) and some became goverment and religions and science leaders/teachers ! (yes, and they thrive today (seemingly; until God's Judgment/Vengeance!) )

 

[Aaron112]

Would you hang around T. Rex for any length of time?

C'mon ! Yes! Of course. After watching videos of swimmers playing frequently with sharks in the oceans and pools, having rhinoceros play time with children and adults, lions and tigers being gentle daily pets, gentle caring elephants bigger than a bus,
I expect trex was not hostile at all to people, but submitted to man, like other animals.... and of course, man killed it, just like men always do over time (buffalo, a hundred other kinds , etc).

 

[Aaron112]

Maybe no one hunted dinosaurs?

Maybe instead of butchering/ cutting/ slashing, man just bored them to death with stories* ?


*forum threads

 

[truthpls]

Zircon is a mineral, not a rock. However, it normally occurs in igneous rocks, and its age is the age of the igneous rock in which it crystallised.

Unless it was in a rock a day after being created.

 

[truthpls]

But you can't show anything else to look at! That's the problem!

Yes we can look at Jesus. His works, prophesies, life, word. For others they might look at voodoo, sorcery, swamis climbing a rope in the air, or whatever.

No, it's 100% your claim and no-one elses.

Acts 14:15 -We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,

Admit that that was written by some else.

And this

John 1:3 -- All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

 

[truthpls]

Maybe instead of butchering/ cutting/ slashing, man just bored them to death with stories* ?


*forum threads

Maybe a lot of them were not as unfriendly as the movies and science books portray. Possibly the eggs made a great omelette as well.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes we can look at Jesus. His works, prophesies, life, word. For others they might look at voodoo, sorcery, swamis climbing a rope in the air, or whatever.

And still no evidence to show that scientists or anyone shouldn't just look at the natural world.

Acts 14:15 -We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,

Admit that that was written by some else.

And this

John 1:3 -- All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Quoting the Bible only shows that you can quote the Bible.

In your OP, you claim that embedded age is a thing. It's there to read in plain English, in black and white. And I have no need nor reason to accept embedded age as anything else except as blasphemy.

 

[truthpls]

The idea of embedded age is nothing more than blasphemy. There, I said it.

It is blasphemy to disparage the things Jesus said actually

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree. Against science and various other false gods.

Science is not a religion in any stretch or form and also to do so is against forum rules.

And I 100% meant and mean blasphemy against God.

 

[truthpls]

And still no evidence to show that scientists or anyone shouldn't just look at the natural world.

It is a bit like a dollar bill. It is fine to look at, but if you put it up by your eyes and look at 'just' that, you are out of balance

Quoting the Bible only shows that you can quote the Bible.

It also shows that, contrary to your claim, belief in creation was not only me.

In your OP, you claim that embedded age is a thing. It's there to read in plain English, in black and white. And I have no need nor reason to accept embedded age as anything else except as blasphemy.

Yes, created things were made complete. That appears as 'age' to unbelievers. I think that is what people call embedded age in the forum. My advice is to look at creation differently. When we hear these comically outlandish 'ages' we should know it is just a deception. No such thing anywhere in the universe or world.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is a bit like a dollar bill. It is fine to look at, but if you put it up by your eyes and look at 'just' that, you are out of balance

Nonsensical commentary is nonsensical commentary.

It also shows that, contrary to your claim, belief in creation was not only me.

No-one is arguing about creation. What the argument is about is about your ridiculous claim of embedded age.

Yes, created things were made complete. That appears as 'age' to unbelievers. I think that is what people call embedded age in the forum. My advice is to look at creation differently. When we hear these comically outlandish 'ages' we should know it is just a deception. No such thing anywhere in the universe or world.

And once again, the only person putting forward a deception is you with embedded age. And once again, I have no need nor reason to accept embedded age as anything else except as blasphemy.