Himantolophus wrote:
does it matter if it's 5000, 50,000, 5 million, or 5 billion? Do you know for sure what God meant to say? Science is Man's attempt to find out the truth.
Well it matters in that it cannot be all of those ages. As I said it matters little to my conclusion that the earth has always been here from man's perspective. I am not the authority on what God meant to say, nor would I try to put words in God's mouth. I feel he meant to say exactley what he said, which is why I am a proponnent of plain reading and reject the idea that it was dumbed down, or that we need to inject our own wisdom into what God wrote.
Himantolophus wrote:
The theory is FAR from cumbersome and poorly predicting! Plate tectonics is remarckably good at predicting past events. we can trace the movement of continents for millions and millions of years and the rocks and fossils all conform to it. If modern geological is "poor" then I don't want to know what YEC thoery is. Why would you place your faith in a theory with no actual evidence?
I don't place my faith in scietific theory, not my own feeble attempts at explanation, nor popular science. Plate tectonics does nothing more than theorize that the earths crust is factures into 6 large plates and numerous smaller ones. IT theorizes what may be happening at boundaries and helps to explain sea floor spreading, subduction, plate colissions and uplifts, volcanoes, earthquakes, plumes, etc, etc. I have no problem with this. These forces that explain observations don't require the earth to be 6 billion years old, any more than they require the earth to be 2,422,693 years 4 months 12 days and 14.2 hours. Now it is plain to see that popular science attempts to show how plate tectonics could have worked during the last 6 billion years, but these are simple conclusions and interpretations based upon a foregone conclusion.
Himantolophus wrote:
Which gets back to the point. You have no proof what God really meant to tell those people back then. It is painfully obvious that the Universe is NOT 6000 years old and all the creatures were not put on this Earth at the same time. There was no global flood, although Noah's Ark seems based on an ancient local flood. Unless YEC can find evidence to support their own theories, they will continue to attack evolution and Old Earth.
I was not aware I was attacking, perhaps I have been over flamboyant in voicing that I don't see the requirement for it to be 6 billion years because we see observations. Conclusions and explanations are not evidence. I'm not certian what observation you refer to that make it painfully obvious that the earth is not 6000 years old. In any event why the restriction from 6 billion years clear back to 6000 years? Would it also be painfully obvious that the earth is not 250,000 years old?
Himantolophus wrote:
The age of Everest is only a single piece in the puzzle of putting together geologic history. Many convergent lines of evidence point at the age of the mountain and it didn't just push up instantaneously 6 million years ago. It was a slow, gradual process. The actual Everest may have actually rose 3 millions years ago, 6 million is an estimate. Geology is everchanging and is nver the same for long. There are fossils on the top of Everest which correlate with the fossils in the old Tethys Sea (this leads to age) and dating methods have dated the rock to that age as well.
I am well aware of explanations and theories that are a direct result that the earth must be 6 billion years old. These are not evidence, they are interpretations driven by capitulation to other unproven theories. Correlation of similar fossils at two places doesn't require the causation you suggest. Too much of "evidence" is found in discussions of scientific experimentation. I would suggest that theoies are cheap and easily taint further research.