The Creationist's Timeline

[IamsSon]

According to the bible the Earth is 13,000 years old. According to science civilization is 10,000 years old. Perhaps the people who wrote the bible didn't think that the Earth started until civ. did.

Daniel, where in the Bible does it state that the Earth is 13,000 years old?

[danielost]

Oh ok, but with that little tidbit, from a person standing on the moon, one year by there standards is 28 days. But the lunar cycle on earth, which takes 28 days works out to a lunar month, not a lunar year. So unless the point you're trying to make involves people writing the Bible on the moon, I don't see the relevance of talking about the lunar cycle here. Yes, the Semitic peoples calendar was based on the moon, but they broke their months down by observing the lunar cycle. When one cycle was complete, one month was over.

I am trying to point out that time is relative and not specific to one group of people.

According to the bible the Earth is 13000 years old. or 13 days old depending if your human or God.

[danielost]

Daniel, where in the Bible does it state that the Earth is 13,000 years old?

The bible says it took God 6 days to create the Earth and on the 7th he took a day off.

Then on the 8th day he created Adam and all of the animals.

Most Christians believe we are in the last days thus making this the 13th day. On the 14th day god will rest again ie a thousand years of peace.

[Nik Xues]

Animals existed before Day 7 dannyboy.

[danielost]

Animals existed before Day 7 dannyboy.

Did they exist or did their spirits.

The bible clearly states that Adam was the first living soul. And then God made the animals and brought them before Adam to name and then God made Eve from a rib of Adam. Whom Adam named Eve meaning mother/life.

Edited October 4, 2008 by danielost

[Nik Xues]

Day five God said. "Let the earth bring forth the living creature..,

...And let man be made in our image"

Gen 1:24

it also goes onto say and evening and morning were the sixth day.

[Nik Xues]

Its obvious the bible does not mean days by our standards. i beleive because man was more primitive it just means start to finish. so its more like Step 1 Step 2.

[danielost]

Its obvious the bible does not mean days by our standards. i beleive because man was more primitive it just means start to finish. so its more like Step 1 Step 2.

I agree.

Day five God said. "Let the earth bring forth the living creature..,

...And let man be made in our image"

Gen 1:24

it also goes onto say and evening and morning were the sixth day.

Again were these bodies or spirits.

[Nik Xues]

I assume "Living creature" means flesh and bone.

Dude you should have the book as a source material. That way you dont have to rely on others to fill you in.

[danielost]

I assume "Living creature" means flesh and bone.

Dude you should have the book as a source material. That way you dont have to rely on others to fill you in.

Dude you should have the book.

For you see according to gen. 2 there were no plants on the Earth on day 7

Gen.2

[1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

[2] And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

[3] And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

[4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

[5] And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-id...1&byte=1477

No plants, no food, no o2, no animal life.

So again I ask was the life created in gen. 1 bodies or spirit.

Edited October 4, 2008 by danielost

[The Puzzler]

Thanks 1.6 for the large full picture of the mosaic.

Thanks also sqlserver for the links although only the 1st one worked for me, the 'parts' just came up error.

I wasn't completely convinced by his explanations however, seemed alot was just his own guesswork.

The KT boundary is I guess the biggest evidence I can see.

The T Rex bones that have been found to have blood vessels is pretty interesting too.

Scientists find soft tissue in T-rex bone

A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil dug out of a hunk of sandstone has yielded soft tissue, including blood vessels and perhaps even whole cells, according to US researchers.

Paleontologists forced to break the creature's massive thighbone to get it on a helicopter found not a solid piece of fossilised bone, but instead something looking a bit less like a rock.

When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells.

"They are transparent, they are flexible," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and Montana State University, who conducted the study.

She said the vessels were flexible and in some cases their contents could be squeezed out.

"The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way," Ms Schweitzer said.

Her findings have been published in the journal Science.

"Preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before."

Studying the soft tissues may help answer many questions about dinosaurs: Were they cold-blooded like reptiles, warm-blooded like mammals, or somewhere in-between? How are they related to living animals?

"If we can isolate certain proteins, then perhaps we can address the issue of the physiology of the dinosaur," Ms Schweitzer said.

Jurassic Park?

Of course, the big question is whether it will be possible to see dinosaur DNA.

"We don't know yet. We are doing a lot in the lab now that looks promising," Ms Schweitzer said.

To make sure she was seeing what she thought she was seeing, Ms Schweitzer, a biologist by training, compared the Tyrannosaur samples with bone taken from a dead ostrich.

She chose an ostrich because birds are thought to be the closest living relatives of dinosaurs and ostriches are big birds.

Both the dinosaur and ostrich blood vessels contained small, reddish brown dots that could be the nuclei of the endothelial cells that line blood vessels.

Taking the minerals out of both ostrich bone and the Tyrannosaur bone - a simple experiment that can be duplicated by anyone using a chicken bone, for example, and vinegar - yielded flexible fibres.

Microscopic examination showed what look like bone cells called osteocytes in both.

The finding certainly shows fossilisation does not proceed as science had assumed, Ms Schweitzer said.

Since the discovery, she has found similar samples of soft tissue in two other Tyrannosaur fossils and a hadrosaur.

The fossil was dug up out of Montana's Hell Creek Formation, a rich source of fossils.

Paleontologist Jack Horner said it was encased in 1,000 cubic metres of sandstone. "It's a fantastic specimen," he said.

"The specimen was very far away from road, [so] everything had to be done with a helicopter."

The field team used standard procedure as they excavated the bones, wrapping them in plaster jackets before transporting them.

This particular dinosaur fossil was too big to lift and they reluctantly cracked a thighbone.

Usually paleontologists put preservatives on fossils right away, but Schweitzer has been trying to find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, so this one was left alone.

Mr Horner said he hoped museums around the world would start cracking open bones and looking for soft tissue in their fossils.

"Dinosaurs' [fossils] are relatively rare and we certainly think of Tyrannosaurus rex as being really rare - although it really isn't - so people tend not to want to cut holes into the bone or cut them in half," he said.

"But to study the cellular and molecular structures of these things you have to do that."

The "good stuff," he says, is on the inside.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1331570.htm

[Beckys_Mom]

Its obvious the bible does not mean days by our standards. i beleive because man was more primitive it just means start to finish. so its more like Step 1 Step 2.

Yea the Roman calendar was different than ours...a common mistake we all tend to make is comparing it with our own calender

[Nik Xues]

By the lunar calender we have 13, 28 day months.

July and august [Ceasars Julius and Augustus] are add ins.

halloween to newyears was one holiday back then as well.

[+Link of Hyrule]

^Of course they were add-ins. I wonder if anyone ever noticed why SEPT-ember is the ninth month, not the seventh? Why OCT-ober is the tenth, not the 8th? Why DEC-ember is the 12th, not the 10th??????

[Karlis]

I, personally, believe in a literal view of the Creation story in Genesis. However, I also admit that the evidence points to evolution. In fact, I would expect that considering. A scientist may look at the age of the Earth and say that it is 4 billion years old. I still believe that it is 6000. In my opinion the two sides don't contradict.

If you take the so-called "gap theory" into consideration, the story of creation becomes even more interesting. For instance, the following link has some new thoughts on this:

~~~ ... Popularity of the Gap Theory (also referred to by such synonyms as the Ruin-and-Reconstruction Theory, the Pre-Adamic Cataclysm Theory, and the Restitution Theory) is generally attributed to the writings of Thomas Chalmers, a nineteenth century Scottish theologian. In recent years, the Gap Theory has undergone an “evolution” of its own, and for that reason is not easily defined. There are several variations, and its defenders do not agree among themselves on strict interpretations. ...

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/442

Regards,

Karlis

[danielost]

By the lunar calender we have 13, 28 day months.

July and august [Ceasars Julius and Augustus] are add ins.

halloween to newyears was one holiday back then as well.

The problem with this is there are 3 days left over 4 on leap year. I guess for those idiots who have to have a reason to get falling down drunk.

Edited October 5, 2008 by danielost

[Guyver]

Radiometric age dating has revealed that the Earth is around 4.54 billion years old.

In the Bible, however, If we go back only 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).

The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)

Richard Dawkins showed that the mistaken thinking of creationists is the same as mistaking the distance between New York and San Francisco to be 21 feet.

It would be natural to assume, if you were a creationist, that dinosaurs were also created 6000 years ago. However, dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million years old.

I think that's false. I don't personally know anyone (off the top of my head) that believes in a 6000 year old earth. Maybe they are out there and I just haven't run into them yet. Plus, I wonder where the heck you are coming from. Didn't you just start a thread not long ago looking to have a "religious experience" with God or something along those lines?

[churchanddestroy]

I think that's false. I don't personally know anyone (off the top of my head) that believes in a 6000 year old earth. Maybe they are out there and I just haven't run into them yet. Plus, I wonder where the heck you are coming from. Didn't you just start a thread not long ago looking to have a "religious experience" with God or something along those lines?

What, then, is your given age of the earth?

[Guyver]

What, then, is your given age of the earth?

In a word or two.......I DON"T KNOW! I've already broken down the existence of the race of beings known as the "Pre-Adamites" and my scriptural basis for excepting them and the so-called "Gap Theory." But what's the point? The time is irrelevant. What's relevant is the first cause. That my friend is the Holy God. Regards to you and all.

[churchanddestroy]

In a word or two.......I DON"T KNOW! I've already broken down the existence of the race of beings known as the "Pre-Adamites" and my scriptural basis for excepting them and the so-called "Gap Theory." But what's the point? The time is irrelevant. What's relevant is the first cause. That my friend is the Holy God. Regards to you and all.

Do you think it is possible to know what the age of the earth is? What evidence would you accept for the age of the earth?

[Saifulslam]

Genesis does get the time line wrong, because science clearly shows the age of the earth and universe is far older than the bible suggests, but why base the creationist timeline only on the bible, everyone knows the latter is no longer the true representation of gods word, due to tampering.

the quran refers to the creation of the universe in perfect harmony with modern science and its established facts and goes as far as refering to the big bang and says the its took eons for everything to come in to place, the words used in arabic relays to days and has a dual meaning also meaning eons, as time scale.

So the creationist view is correct as far science goes, its simple depends which holy book its from, and i can tell you there is no other besides the quran, which uses sciences to confirm its divinity.

[churchanddestroy]

Genesis does get the time line wrong, because science clearly shows the age of the earth and universe is far older than the bible suggests, but why base the creationist timeline only on the bible, everyone knows the latter is no longer the true representation of gods word, due to tampering.

the quran refers to the creation of the universe in perfect harmony with modern science and its established facts and goes as far as refering to the big bang and says the its took eons for everything to come in to place, the words used in arabic relays to days and has a dual meaning also meaning eons, as time scale.

So the creationist view is correct as far science goes, its simple depends which holy book its from, and i can tell you there is no other besides the quran, which uses sciences to confirm its divinity.

Well, the same can be said for the Bible or any other holy book. People claim that this book says that about this modern theory, but, unfortunately, I do not buy into it. I'm not an atheist, but this video

is excellent. Its about how you could actually convince an atheist that your religion is the 'correct' one, though I don't think anyone is going to meet this guy's standards. But hey, I was convinced once...

[Guyver]

Genesis does get the time line wrong, because science clearly shows the age of the earth and universe is far older than the bible suggests, but why base the creationist timeline only on the bible, everyone knows the latter is no longer the true representation of gods word, due to tampering.

the quran refers to the creation of the universe in perfect harmony with modern science and its established facts and goes as far as refering to the big bang and says the its took eons for everything to come in to place, the words used in arabic relays to days and has a dual meaning also meaning eons, as time scale.

So the creationist view is correct as far science goes, its simple depends which holy book its from, and i can tell you there is no other besides the quran, which uses sciences to confirm its divinity.

There is no timeline. There is no mention of time. The OP has misquoted the scriptures by adding 6000 years in front of the verse from Psalms. The only thing the scriptures indicate is that in the very beginning, before there was anything else....God created the heavens and the earth. All other timelines are speculation and guestimation no matter which side you're on. Let's face it, no one knows how old the earth is and it's impossible to tell. Sure science can give you some dates using radiometric techniques, and these dates have fluctuated wildly in the last fifty years. Ironically the age is always increasing.

[Rosencrantz]

Let's face it, no one knows how old the earth is and it's impossible to tell. Sure science can give you some dates using radiometric techniques, and these dates have fluctuated wildly in the last fifty years. Ironically the age is always increasing.

wow

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Yes... first year undergrads know more than you about this subject. I should know, I just graded my share of 50 exams out of about 300 in an Organismal Biology course and not a single person failed to explain dating procedures correctly.

I've been looking at your post history regarding scientific tests. Don't bother offering your uneducated opinion on them anymore. Your above post alone proves that point.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Rosencrantz

[Doug1029]

Genesis does get the time line wrong, because science clearly shows the age of the earth and universe is far older than the bible suggests, but why base the creationist timeline only on the bible, everyone knows the latter is no longer the true representation of gods word, due to tampering.

the quran refers to the creation of the universe in perfect harmony with modern science and its established facts and goes as far as refering to the big bang and says the its took eons for everything to come in to place, the words used in arabic relays to days and has a dual meaning also meaning eons, as time scale.

So the creationist view is correct as far science goes, its simple depends which holy book its from, and i can tell you there is no other besides the quran, which uses sciences to confirm its divinity.

With all due respect, science does not deal with god(s). It/They is/are irrelevant to science - scientific truth exists whether or not gods exist. Science no more confirms the Quran than it does the Bible. Interpret/rationalize your holy books any way you want, but science simply does not deal with religious issues.

Doug

P.S.: as I understand Big Band Theory, it does not actually say that the Universe originated from a single point (a singularity). What it says is that the Universe is expanding now and has been expanding as far back in time as we can observe, but because we can't see all the way to the beginning, we can't say that has always been expanding.

Doug

Edited October 9, 2008 by Doug1029