From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 08 2003 - 06:47:30 EDT
Allen
Were the Precambrian fossils eg stromalites and Edicaran fauna laid down
before of after the Flood or before or after Adam? With a scattering of
fossils in the Precambrain going back to 3 by thsi casuse a problems to you
.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "allenroy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
To: "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:29 AM
Subject: extra stuff
> 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 - 07:47:33 EDT