blackbird

Maybe Adam and Eve had more children than are listed in the Bible. Not sure every detail is mentioned.

Good point. I would have to go and read that part. Maybe Noah brought his family on the ark and could it have included a son-in-law or daughter-in-law?

Yes there may have been some close family connections with Adam and Eve's children in order to start the human race. But perhaps that was how it happened.

From what I have heard by a slide-show presentation by Prof Philip Stott, the fossil record is somewhat confused and many missing pieces.

Well, I don't see why dinasaurs couldn't have lived a few thousand years ago. Maybe they did. I don't believe in neanderthal man or than man came from apes.

That's up to you. I am not trying to impress the world or non-believers. As I said believing in the Bible will not get you into favour with the world. You can't have it both ways. The science subjects you mention are still perfectly legitimate. Christian scientists believe those subjects. But just have a problem with old earth age and evolution.

The creation discussion re fossils is somewhat involved. That website I gave goes into aspects of it. You may find more related subjects there. It seems to be saying that the Biblical flood called Noah's flood in Genesis was a catostrophic event which caused the fossils to be deposited as they are now. The website goes into some of that. The age of the earth is only a few thousand years so whether it was created with the fossils already in it at the time of creation or whether they were created by the flood I don't know.

Yes, it is a departure from "normal" whatever normal is. As the Bible says spiritual things are foolishness to the world. God has chosen the foolish things to confound the wise. The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. If you would rather be "normal" and be a part of the world system which is doomed, that's up to you. If you want to be part of God's family in the heavenly, kingdom then you have to have spiritual eyes and accept the Bible as the truth from God.

This website gives some pretty good explanations about that: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

Doesn't matter to me if you think what I believe is an aberration. Go ahead and believe that. If you don't want to believe in the supernatural, that's up to you. You have some opinions I agree with but not in this subject.

You're the one who was questioning the answers I gave you. I was simply responding to what you said earlier.

The Bible is a supernatural book. It was written by God and simply states what happened in terms that ordinary people could understand down through the ages. It boils down to faith in what God said in the Bible.

I don't claim to be an expert and don't know about coal. As I said before the earth must have been created with an apparent age. When a tree is created for example, how old is it? How old will a rock appear to be? etc. Light from stars will have to have the appearance of having travelled a great distance at the moment it was created. You miss the main point. The creation was a supernatural event.

Quote Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8 have both roots and rootlets attached. Such trees, and their missing roots are discussed in detail in an article on 'Fossil Forests'. 9 Likewise many, if not most, of the large, fragmented, and broken-off Stigmaria roots (of these trees) are also missing their rootlets. In fact, that's how the word "stigmaria" (roots) got its name: i.e. because of the scar marks left behind from the broken off (and now missing) rootlets. 9 Many of these roots and rootlets are also buried individually. 9 Thus virtually proving that neither the trees themselves, nor their rootlets were buried in the place where they grew, or "in situ," but were uprooted and re-buried where they are now found. Unquote This article demonstrates that there must have been a great flood which tore trees from their roots and then deposited them in other places. This would not happen without a catastrophic event such as a great flood to tear the trees out and move them quickly.

Here is a interesting article on the EVIDENCE for the flood. http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm Quote One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world: especially in and around coal seams. They are often in the form of fossil trees that were buried upright and which often cross multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, shale, limestone and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. Sometimes they are oblique (or at an angle to) the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular with (or standing 'upright' in) it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of the trees are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7 Unquote I have seen a photo of fossilized trees standing upright. They were caught suddenly by the massive sediment as a result of the flood and never had a chance to get old,die, and fall as trees normally do. This is strong evidence of the flood.

Gilgamesh is the semi-mythic King of Uruk best known from The Epic of Gilgamesh (written c. 2150-1400 BCE) the great Sumerian/Babylonian...

Apparently there are other stories about the flood. These reportedly came from varies other places and sources around the world. The fact that other peoples from various countries have a tradition of reporting there was a flood just reinforces the truth of the biblical account that there was indeed a great flood as recorded in Genesis. Gilgamesh may have been just another source among many that reported a flood in ancient times. The biblical account did not come from Gigamesh. The biblical account of Noah's flood is accurate because it came from God. Men recorded it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. One source estimate a very rough guess of a date of 2,300 years B.C. or 4,300 years ago. That is not regarded as accurate but only a dates some scholar put forward.

I don't know that Quantum Physics supports Uniformitarianism. I don't know what it has to do with it. quote Catastrophism versus uniformitarianism describes alternative process which could be primarily responsible for the formation the geological strata and embedded fossils. Catastrophism was accepted as the only possible explanation until the about the 18th century. Catastrophism taught that the geologic rock strata were primarily a result of catastrophes like the worldwide flood of Noah. At that time James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell proposed an alternative explanation of uniformitarianism. The theory of uniformitarianism taught that the present was the key to the past and exactly the same slow process that we see today is the one responsible for the formation of all the geological rock strata. Unquote Catastrlophism says that a major event such as Noah's flood or a meteor strike could have created an entirely different time scale of events. Prof Stott believes there could have been a major meteor strike 2500 years ago (if I recall correctly) which caused a tidal wave kilometers in height sweep around the earth destroying everything. Some evidence is claimed to be seen in the wobble of the earth's axis and from that it can be calculated when the meteor hit occured or how large it was. The result might have been an entirely different fossil record because of a fast deposition of fossils and layers of earth. This could throw the theory of uniformitarianism out.

quote Geologic Time Scale: Circular Reasoning The geologic time scale employs yet another circular argument. We determine the age of the rock by the assumed age of the index fossils it contains, then, to determine the age of all the other fossils in the same layer of rock, we look at the age of the layer of rock in which they are found. "…Geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." (R. H. Rastall, "Geology", Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 10, 1954, p. 168) "In about 1830, Charles Lyell, Paul Deshayes, and Heinrich George Bronn independently developed a biostratigraphic technique for dating Cenozoic deposits [the geologic time scale]…. Strangely, little effort has been made to test this assumption. This failure leaves the method vulnerable to circularity." (Steven A. Stanley, Warron O. Addicott, and Kiyotaka Chizei, "Lyellian Curves in Paleontology: Possibilities and Limitations", Geology vol. 8, September 1980, p. 422) "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." (J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy", American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47) Unquote http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm

Quote Can we use radioactive carbon dating to determine the age of the earth? The answer is no, we can't. The reason is twofold. Dr. Gerald Aardsma explains, "Radiocarbon is not used to date the age of rocks or to determine the age of the earth. Other radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium are used for such purposes by those who believe that the earth is billions of years old. Radiocarbon is not suitable for this purpose because it is only applicable: a) on a time scale of thousands of years and to remains of once-living organisms (with minor exceptions, from which rocks are excluded)."1 Radioactive carbon dating can't be used to determine the age of the earth simply because it can't be applied to the earth. It can only be applied to earth's organisms. Unquote http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/radioactive-carbon-dating-faq.htm

Apparently there are problems with that.

I found the information on the word uniformitarianism: Quote Catastrophism versus uniformitarianism describes alternative process which could be primarily responsible for the formation the geological strata and embedded fossils. Quwas accepted as the only possible explanation until the about the 18th century. Catastrophism taught that the geologic rock strata were primarily a result of catastrophes like the worldwide flood of Noah. At that time James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell proposed an alternative explanation of uniformitarianism. The theory of uniformitarianism taught that the present was the key to the past and exactly the same slow process that we see today is the one responsible for the formation of all the geological rock strata. Since deposition with the uniformitarianism theory was so slow, long eons of time were required. This meant that the current biblical beliefs at that time of a young earth, the recent history of life on earth and the worldwide flood of Noah were discredited. In addition, uniformitarianism laid the foundation for Darwin’s theory of evolution, which also needed an old earth to be credible. So uniformitarianism dethroned catastrophism and evolution dethroned biblical creationism and both became the dominant theories in academia and science until the present time. Currently, academia and science are clinging to uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution with all the strength they can muster. However, large splits have been seen in the ranks. During the last 50 years an enormous amount of information has been collected that supports catastrophism and intelligent design. The Mount St. Helens eruption and subsequent erosion has taught us that rapid deposition and rapid canyon erosion is a fact. It doesn’t take years to form. It doesn’t take rocket science to know that life forms cannot be fossilized unless buried rapidly. Unquote http://www.allaboutcreation.org/catastrophism-versus-uniformitarianism-faq.htm

You can do that if you wish. If you wish to find out about the other side of the subject, you will have to do some reading. I gave some links for that.

Prof Stott presented an interesting point. The secular humanist theories about the earth being billions of years old rests on a principle called uniformitarianism if I recall that word correctly. It means everything happens in a uniform manner and over a predictable time period and always has. Prof Stott demonstrated this assumption has been proven false. I wish I could find an article on this. It would be interesting. I can't remember his explanation.

Here is a page that relates to your question about age of earth. Quote There have been many ideas - stories, myths - about age and origins. But since the birth of science most of them have become mere curiosities. Two remain in serious contention. The account developed by secular humanist reasoning, characterized by naturalistic processes working over thousands of millions of years, is today by far the more popular. The other, characterized by supernatural creation a few thousand years ago, after having almost disappeared from serious discussion by the middle of the 20th century, has experienced a remarkable return to favour in the last decades. Before looking at these two competing ideas it should be noted that science is powerless to discover anything about origins with any degree of certainty. Science needs observations to work on, and none covering the critical times and events are available. Unquote http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/ages/index.htm#