Old Earth
#11
"Neanderthals" are human beings.  For 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike.  This FALSE idea is based on some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis or rickets.  Recent dental and x-ray studies of "Neanderthals" suggest that they were human beings who matured at a MUCH slower rate and lived to be MUCH older than people today (Genesis anyone).  Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human.

It is my opinion that after the Great Flood, which evoked the "Ice Age" causing massive cooling of the earth, mankind who ventured northward was forced into cave dwelling.  The age of mankind didn't taper off after the Flood until after Abraham, who lived to be nearly 200 years old.  This indicates that mankind's environment underwent a drastic change after the Deluge, for those alive before it reached ages of 900 or more.
Reply
#12
(12-30-2010, 02:00 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: There are many many more examples like these that makes me think young earth is more likely, and that old earth is pushed solely to support evolutionary theory.
Please leave evolution out of this thread.  I utterly reject evolution.  I just want to hear  the arguments for and against old earth, and also what a Catholic is allowed to believe.  I am open minded on this topic, though if asked, I am old earth.
Well, it was a relevant part of the evidence I gathered regarding this topic.  The only good explanation I found for an old earth theory, was that it backed up evolution, which requires the millions and billions of years in order to function as theorized.

Another thing that I believe may back up a younger earth, is the theory of electric universe.  The universe being based on an electrical model, can theoretically be instantly changeable, and is essentially held together by unseen forces.  This is something which is consistent with the firmaments described in Genesis.  I believe the earth used to function differently in the early days, supporting life better than it does now, hence the long ages of man before the flood.
Reply
#13
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm
Reply
#14
Right now I hold to both. Gerald Schroeder made a good argument for this in his books. Schroeder teaches nuclear engineering and has worked for the government as a negotiator on nuclear arms treaties. He was at MIT, but is now teaching in Jerusalem. He is an observant Jew, and he reads the Bible in the Hebrew. He applies relativity's time dilation and measures from the earth and from the point of beginning. If you go through his math gyrations, he uses the number scientists think is the age as observed from earth, then divides by the acceleration of the universe's expansion. It goes like this if you take whatever age is currently thought to be correct, expressed in light years,  and then divide it by the rate of expansion, you get a fraction which cancels out the distance but expresses the time in years. If you take that fraction and multiply it by the days in a year, you get a number like 6 point something. That is six days have elapsed and we are in the beginning of the seventh day. It should always come out to this fraction as the "age" is dependent on the acceleration and if the age is changed the acceleration is too.

This is total dreamy speculation. What if the original Men were wiped out, then there were a few different hominids left but not with immortal souls, like the Neanderthals, or homo hablis, and the progenitor of homo sapien sapiens,Adam. God infuses a soul in him in the Garden, and then creates Eve, and voila here we are thrown out of Paradise. 
tim

came back and saw the mess I had written so I fixed it a little. 
tim
Reply
#15
(12-30-2010, 01:15 AM)miss_fluffy Wrote: I think Neanderthals are human, just a different race.  I read one theory that since facial features continue to grow as we age, that the skull differences in neanderthals were merely examples of very aged human beings.  Like back from when man lived some 500-900 years.

After weighing all the evidence, I think young earth is more likely.  Years ago I spent a great deal of time researching it.  Alas, I lost many of my sources in a flood, and I have other interests now anyways.  There was something about Niagara falls that intrigued me, something about granite and the halos formed therein, evidence that mankind was around at the same time dinosaurs were here, something about how things like radiation and heat can make yesterday's chicken bones appear millions of years old through carbon dating.  There are many many more examples like these that makes me think young earth is more likely, and that old earth is pushed solely to support evolutionary theory.

Carbon dating only works on organic material, and it's only good for relatively short periods (I think 50,000 years is about the upper limit), so it's completely irrelevant to arguments about the age of the earth (and could never make anything appear to be millions of years old). Age of the earth is calculated by other methods.
Reply
#16
Quote: The only reason the "old earth" theory exists is to back up evolutionary science. Everybody knows this.

Here is the big problem with this assumption.  Suppose you are trying to convert an atheist.  You slam him with "Origin of Life", which is a major winning argument for us.  You show him some "molecular machine videos", and he starts to appreciate the problems with evolution.  And then he brings up convincing proof of "old earth".

For if you make Adam contingent upon a "young earth", and it is incorrect, you are unnecessarily handicapping yourself.

As far as assuming that everyone is colluding on "old earth" to defend evolution, that is false.  Take Ice core samples.  These are not used to date the earth.  The oldest core is estimated to be 1 million years old.  So here is an example where glaciologists have concluded they have 1 million year old ice without drawing any conclusions to the age of the earth.

Also, at the very least we have to admit that God left evidence of an old earth.  When light reaches us from 1 million light years away, we have evidence of old earth.  Now God could have created those photons in transit, but nonetheless, He still is creating evidence of old earth.

And so you are confronted with this evidence when trying to convert an atheist.  And from the encyclical from Pope Pius XII, it appears we can say: "As a Catholic, you can believe in Old Earth."
Reply
#17
Quote: Carbon dating only works on organic material, and it's only good for relatively short periods (I think 50,000 years is about the upper limit), so it's completely irrelevant to arguments about the age of the earth (and could never make anything appear to be millions of years old). Age of the earth is calculated by other methods.

I am not interested in the actual age of the Earth.  The important question is if the Earth is precisely 6,000 years old (whatever the exact literal bible translation is).  If you carbon date something to 15,000 years old, that is enough evidence to lose an argument with an atheist.  If you are required to hold to the literal creation story.  Are we required to hold to this?  It appears that the answer is "no", with regards to the age of the Earth.
Reply
#18
(12-30-2010, 04:13 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 01:15 AM)miss_fluffy Wrote: I think Neanderthals are human, just a different race.  I read one theory that since facial features continue to grow as we age, that the skull differences in neanderthals were merely examples of very aged human beings.  Like back from when man lived some 500-900 years.

After weighing all the evidence, I think young earth is more likely.  Years ago I spent a great deal of time researching it.  Alas, I lost many of my sources in a flood, and I have other interests now anyways.  There was something about Niagara falls that intrigued me, something about granite and the halos formed therein, evidence that mankind was around at the same time dinosaurs were here, something about how things like radiation and heat can make yesterday's chicken bones appear millions of years old through carbon dating.  There are many many more examples like these that makes me think young earth is more likely, and that old earth is pushed solely to support evolutionary theory.

Carbon dating only works on organic material, and it's only good for relatively short periods (I think 50,000 years is about the upper limit), so it's completely irrelevant to arguments about the age of the earth (and could never make anything appear to be millions of years old). Age of the earth is calculated by other methods.

You are right, I wish I recalled the source, but I did read about this true account regarding the inaccuracies of different radiometric dating methods, I just don't recall the name of it.
Reply
#19
Carbon dating doesn't work - it is an EXTREMELY faulty process.  Two separate bones were taken from the same frozen mammoth.  The carbon dates were like 10,000 years apart!  The simple fact is that modern scientists do NOT know if the ratio of C-12 to C-14 was the same as it is today.  The pre-Flood earth, which was MUCH different than we know, that ratio could (and surely would) have been MUCH different, which would skew C-14 dating astronomically, effecting the "half-life" of the process.  So, all carbon dates up to about the time of the Flood would be somewhat accurate, but before the Flood the saturation of carbon in organic material would have been greatly different, thus effecting the process dramatically.
Reply
#20
First no man before ADAM, no neanderthals they were in periods after the Noahic Flood groups drifted off into isolated areas of the world. The dinosaurs were proably part of the pre-flood world or even pre-fall world when creatures were healthier and bigger , even humans lived long ages. God didn't immediately  change things after the fall the size of things and the long ages gradually  diminished over the centuries as the ages after the patriarchs attest. Some say a vapor canopy of sorts was over the world pre-fall and things grew large , in abundance and all was healthy, after the fall God allowed a gradual downward spiral, sort of like a vegetable which when it cooks loses its vitamins. All education and healthcare is mankind's desperate attempt to return to the pristine world of genius and total health that Adam & Eve had before they ate of the tree putting them as the authority over what God told them to do.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)