From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 23:25:38 EDT
Don Winterstein wrote:
> The rub comes because of all the weird stuff unnecessary for the functioning
> of God's young world. This extra stuff includes such things as the fossil
> distributions, the galactic red shifts, the changes that lead to systematic
> differences in radiometric ages, etc., etc. Analyses of these things all
> strongly indicate great age, so this extra stuff would be misrepresenting the
> age of such a young world. Such things play no conceivable necessary part in a
> functioning young ecosystem.
>
My focus was on the biosphere with which Adam and Eve would have been intimately
associated. It was the Biosphere which had to look old, although created just a
short time before complete and balanced.
Were there fossils in the ground at that time? Your answer to that depends upon
whether you believe that fossils were the product of Noah's Flood, or if you
believe that fossils predated Adam and Eve. I don't believe that there were
fossils in the ground at the time of Adam and Eve. No fossils, no "extra stuff"
that might point to and old biosphere contrary to what God told them. It is
only if you believe that there were fossils in the ground at their time that it
becomes an obstacle for God's truth.
But what about today? Do fossils in the ground to day point to an old
biosphere? Do they make God into a liar? yes, but only if you believe that the
fossils in the ground predate the Creation week. If you believe that the
fossils are the product of Noah's' flood, then they would not predate the
Creation week and would not make God into a liar.
Radiometric ages and Galactic red shifts. Remember that I'm not your typical
YEC. I believe that the universe could be very old, so galactic red shifts, nor
the rest of astronomy as usually interpreted, are much of a problem. Nor is
isometric ages when applied to certain igneous rock on earth, typically,
Pre-cambrian and older, Moon Rock, and meteorites.
But igneous rock that is part of, or in between sections of, the Phanerozoic
rock, I believe are to be dated to the Flood event (some parts shortly there
after) and so cannot be older than a few thousand years. Therefore, all
supposed isotopic dates derived from them are actually irrelevant. So, the
fossils in the phanerozoic are not ancient, but are flood products. So, God has
not lied about the young age of the Biosphere. The evidence of the fossils and
isometric dating does not counter the Bible. Fossils came after the Creation
week and the interpretation of ages of phanerozoic rock as old ages from isotope
ratios depends upon the rock already being thought to be old. If they are
young, then the computed ages are actually irrelevant.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 08 2003 - 00:32:17 EDT