Young Earth VS Old Earth and a Third point of view - the Creation Truth?

a reply to: Phantom423

The 6,000 years cited in the Bible is ridiculous

But it's not cited in the bible like that, that is the young earth creationist wrong interpretation of Genesis 1:1
That's what the OP said at the very beginning.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
A nice little list of transitional fossilS - note that there are a lot of them and this barely scratches the surface.

This really is a treat. Thanks for the compilation of evidence that the evidence of transition fossils is entirely lacking.

Here is Lucy. You may know her from computer renditions that speculate what her anatomy may have been like. This is actually the extent of the fossil remains of her (this is actually one of the more complete "missing links")



Despite being one of the most complete "missing links" available to archaeology, it is missing a majority of its skull and other key anatomical features. It's a travesty to the collective awareness of humanity that we are lead to believe there is overwhelming evidence for transition fossils, yet this incomplete data is what we presume to be a transitional fossil. The problem with evolutionary theorists is that they assume it is true, and calibrate measurements and assumptions based off that faulty premise.

Here's another one. Tiktaalik is apparently one of the transition fossils that helped make the gap between water and land. Hilariously enough, and maybe I just couldn't find it, but there are not even complete fossilized remains of Tikaalik's fin/hand/feet bones. Please, please someone find a fossil of tiktaalik's extremities full intact, otherwise this is just laughable that this was deemed a transition fossil



Seriously look at that^. How can you speculate that it is responsible for the transition from sea to land when you can't even analyze a complete fin??? It is absurd. I am being flippant about this because you guys have to see the absurdity of this speculation.

a reply to: edmc^2


What Bible™ are You referencing? I noticed that the King James Version II; 3rd-rewrite; 4th re-vision is a popular rule book currently.

Isn't a "Truth" something that will NEVER change? If "Yes" then why, oh why is there a 2nd version on it's 3rd re-write on the 4th re-vision? Wouldn't it have been the 'same' from when the Scribes first copied it from other religious™ works?

Your "Noah" seems an awful lot like "Gilgamesh".

But let Us begin at the start: "In the beginning was Adamu and Lilith created from the same dirt..." (EQUAL) turned into "In the beginning was Adam and Eve Eve NEEDing a bit of Adam to get going (subservient female)

********

Re: the 144,000 Did You know the JehovahWitnesses™ changed their spiel? (Remember TRUTH doesn't change) they went from 144k to 144k 'different groups' (probably right after enrolling member #144,001.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, Coop, there are practically no examples of transitional fossils. And poor Lucy! Must you continue to abuse this poor lady because of a few missing parts????

Transitions in vertebrates before the Cenozoic This is a fairly incomplete list. Please help us expand it!

Invertebrate to Vertebrate

Unnamed Upper (U.) Pre-Cambrian chordate — First to bear a primitive notochord; archaetypical chordate.
Pikaia gracilens — Middle (M.) Cambrian chordate with lancelet-like morphology.
Haikouella — Lower (L.) Cambrian chordate, first to bear a skull; archaetypical craniate.
Haikouichthys — L. Cambrian quasi-vertebrate, intermediate in developing a vertebral column; archaetypical vertebrate. [1]
Conodonts — U. Cambrian to Triassic quasi-vertebrates with spinal cord; "bug-eyed lampreys".
Myllokunmingia — L. Cambrian vertebrate with primitive spinal column; oldest true crown-group vertebrate.
Arandaspis — L. Ordovician vertebrate, armoured jawless fish (ostracoderm), oldest known vertebrate with hard parts known from (mostly) complete fossils.[2]

Jawless Fish to Jawed Vertebrate

Birkenia — Silurian primitive, jawless fish, a typical member of the Anaspida[3][4]
Cephalaspis — Silurian armoured jawless fish, archaetypical member of the "Osteostraca," sister group to all jawed vertebrates.
Shuyu — Silurian to Devonian, armoured jawless fish belonging to Galeaspida, related to Osteostraca. Internal cranial anatomy very similar to the anatomy seen in basal jawed vertebrates[5]. This similarity is directly implied with the translation of its name, "Dawn Fish," with the implication that it represents the "dawn of jawed vertebrates."
Acanthodian to shark[6]
Ptomacanthus — sharklike fish, originally described as an acanthodian fish: brain anatomy demonstrates that it is an intermediate between acanthodians and sharks.
Cladoselache — primitive/basal shark.
Tristychius — another sharklike fish.
Ctenacanthus — primitive/basal shark.
Paleospinax — sharklike jaw, primitive teeth.
Spathobatis — Ray-like fish.
Protospinax — Ancestral to both sharks and skates.
Primitive jawed fish to bony fish[7]
Acanthodians — superficially similar to early bony fishes, and some have been identified as being the ancestors of sharks.
Palaeoniscoids — primitive bony fishes.
Canobius, Aeduella — palaeoniscoids with more advanced jaws.
Parasemionotus — combination of modern cheeks with more primitive features, like lungs
Oreochima — first teleost fish
Leptolepids — vaguely herring-like ancestors of modern teleost fish. Lung modified into swim bladder.
Amphistium and Heteronectes — percomorphs that demonstrate the transition of the eye location of flatfishes.

Fish to amphibian[8]

Paleoniscoids — both ancestral to modern fish and land vertebrates
Osteolepis — modified limb bones, amphibian like skull and teeth
Kenichthys — shows the position of exhaling nostrils moving from front to fish to throat in tetrapods in its halfway point, in the teeth
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion — fin bones similarly structured to amphibian feet, but no toes yet, and still fishlike bodily proportions
Panderichthys, Elpistostege — tetrapod-like bodily proportions.
Obruchevichthys — fragmented skeleton with intermediate characteristics, possible first tetrapod.
Tiktaalik — a fish with developing legs. Also appearance of ribs and neck.
Acanthostega gunnari—famous intermediate fossil. most primitive fossil that is known to be a tetrapod or four legged animal from the Upper Devonian of Greenland, which has shed significant light on the derivation and early evolution of tetrapods. It had legs and feet but was aquatic, not an amphibian.
Ichthyostega — like Acanthostega, another fishlike amphibian
Hynerpeton — A little more advanced then Acanthostega and Ichtyostega
Labyrinthodonts — still many fishlike features, but tailfins have disappeared
Gars — Fish with vascularized swim bladders that can function as lungs
Lungfish and Birchirs — fish that have lungs
Primitive to modern amphibians[9]
Temnospondyls
Dendrerpeton acadianum
Archegosaurus decheni
Eryops megacephalus
Trematops
Amphibamus lyelli
Doleserpeton annectens
Triadobatrachus — a primitive frog.
Vieraella — an early modern frog
Karaurus — a primitive salamander
Amphibian to reptile[10]
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris
Early reptile to diapsid[11]
Hylonomus
Paleothyris
Petrolacosaurus
Araeoscelis
Apsisaurus
Claudiosaurus
Planocephalosaurus
Protorosaurus
Prolacerta
Proterosuchus
Hyperodapedon
Trilophosaurus

Early diapsid to turtle[12]

Pappochelys rosinae — diapsid skull with expanded ribs and fused gastralia
Odontochelys semitestacea — secondary loss of temporal fenestrae, partial formation of a turtle shell, showing how the hard underbelly, or plastron, formed first.[13]
Deltavjatia vjatkensis
Proganochelys
Early synapsid to mammal[14]
Paleothyris
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Varanops
Haptodus
Dimetrodon
Sphenacodon
Biarmosuchia
Procynosuchus
Dvinia
Thrinaxodon
Cynognathus
Diademodon
Probelesodon
Probainognathus
Exaeretodon
Oligokyphus
Kayentatherium
Pachygenelus
Diarthrognathus
Adelobasileus cromptoni
Sinoconodon
Kuehneotherium
Eozostrodon
Morganucodon -- a transition between "proto mammals" and "true mammals".
Haldanodon
Peramus
Endotherium
Kielantherium
Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani
Vincelestes neuquenianus
Pariadens kirklandi
Kennalestes
Asioryctes
Procerberus
Gypsonictops
Juramaia
Eomaia
Sinodelphys

Dinosaur to bird[15]

Kulindadromeus — A basal neornithischian (Ya know, Triceratops, Iguanadon, Hypsilophodon, and such) with feathers.
Allosaurus — A large theropod with a wishbone.
Aerosteon — A large theropod of the same lineage as the aforementioned Allosaurus that was discovered to have air sacs supplementing lungs, like modern birds.
Compsognathus — A small coeleurosaur with a wishbone.
Epidendrosaurus
Epidexipteryx
Scandoriopteryx
Gigantoraptor — A large oviraptorosaur discovered brooding its nests in order to protect and incubate eggs.
Gobivenator
Mei — A troodont discovered sleeping with its head underneath its wing/
Saurornithoides
Sinovenator
Buitreraptor
Pyroraptor
Unenlagia
Graciliraptor
Bambiraptor
Balaur — A large flightless bird.
Tsaagan
Dromaeosaurus
Sinosauropteryx — a basal coelurosaur discovered to be covered in feathers. It is also the first dinosaur to have its colour determined, thanks to preserved pigment structures in the feathers.
Protarchaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Velociraptor — a very famous dromaeosaur discovered to have quill knobs on it's wrists. For SOME odd reason, sadly. everyone sees these things as mutant allosaur-looking... uh... things.
Deinonychus
Utahraptor
Achillobator
Oviraptor — the first dinosaur discovered to steal brood nests.
Sinovenator
Beipiaosaurus
Lisboasaurus
Sinornithosaurus
Microraptor — a feathered bird with distinctly dinosaurian characteristics, such as its tail.
Xiaotingia — slightly earlier than Archaeopteryx, slightly more like a dinosaur and less like a bird
Archaeopteryx — the famous bird-with-teeth.
Anchiornis
Baptornis
Rahonavis
Confuciusornis
Sinornis
Iberomesornis
Theriznosaurus
Nothronychus
Citipati
Falcarius
Alxasaurus
Chirostenotes
Avimimus
Khaan
Incisivosaurus
Caenagnathus
Troodon
Byronosaurus
Ingenia
Hesperonychus
Conchoraptor
Patagopteryx


Continued....

Transitional fossils continued:

Ambiortus
Hesperornis — A diving seabird with prominent teeth. It's also completely flightless.
Apsaravis
Ichthyornis — A flying seabird with prominent teeth.
Columba — One of many typical modern birds.

Transitional mammalian fossils

Primates

PurgatoriusWikipedia's W.svg — the earliest primate-like organism
PlesiadapisWikipedia's W.svg — Mammal closely related to primates.
CarpolestesWikipedia's W.svg — Mammal closely related to primates[16]
ArchicebusWikipedia's W.svg — First euprimate, or something very similar to it.
Omomys — Tarsier-like primate
EosimiasWikipedia's W.svg — Basal anthropoid
Amphipithecus — Another basal anthropoid
ApidiumWikipedia's W.svg — The first, primitive monkey.
Propliopithecus — Primitive New World Monkey
Darwinius masillae — a link between earlier primates and later ones.
DryopithecusWikipedia's W.svg Primitive ape.
ProconsulWikipedia's W.svg Primate that is closely related to apes.
SivapithecusWikipedia's W.svg Primate closely related to the ancestors of Orangutans
DjebelemurWikipedia's W.svg First lemuriform primate.[17]
Cantius Extremely primitive prosimian from the Early EoceneWikipedia's W.svg of North America.[18]
Teilhardina First North American primate.[19]

Non-human primate to human

SahelanthropusWikipedia's W.svg — possible candidate for last human-chimpanzee common ancestor; from placement of skull possibly walked upright.
OrrorinWikipedia's W.svg — possible human ancestor, may have walked upright as shown by shape of femur.[20]
ArdipithecusWikipedia's W.svg
Australopithecus — a genus of bipedal apes
Australopithecus sediba — advanced Australopithecus showing more human features
Homo habilis — a transitional form from Australopithecus to later Homo[21]
Homo rudolfensis — a type of Homo habilis or a different species
Homo ergaster — an early form of Homo erectus or a distinct species
Homo erectus — a transitional form from Australopithecus to later Homo (Latin for "human") species
Homo heidelbergensis — a possible common ancestor of modern man and Homo neanderthalensis [22] [23]
Homo neanderthalensis — Neanderthals likely interbred with modern humans.[24][25]
Homo sapiens idaltuWikipedia's W.svg archaic subspecies of modern human, possibly ancestral to Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans).

Cetaceans

Indohyus — a vaguely chevrotain-like or raccoon-like aquatic artiodactyl ungulate with an inner ear identical to that of whales.
AmbulocetusWikipedia's W.svg— an early whale that looks like a mammalian version of a crocodile
Pakicetus — an early, semi-aquatic whale, a superficially wolf-like animal believed to be a direct ancestor of modern whales.
Rhodocetus — An early whale with comparatively large hindlegs: not only represents a transition between semi-aquatic whales, like Ambulocetus, and obligately aquatic whales, like Basilosaurus.
Basilosaurus — A large, elongated whale with vestigial hind flippers: transition from early marine whales (like Rhodocetus) to modern whales
DorudonWikipedia's W.svg — A small whale with vestigial hind flippers, close relative of Basilosaurus.
Proboscideans
Eritherium
Phosphatherium
Numidotherium
Barytherium
Phiomia
Prodeinotherium
Stegodon

Transitional plant fossils

CooksoniaWikipedia's W.svg — early vascular plant
ArchaeopterisWikipedia's W.svg — early tree
WilliamsoniaWikipedia's W.svg — an early flowering plant ("stem angiosperm")


___________________________________________



I assume you're having roast dinosaur today rather than turkey.

a reply to: Phantom423

My point was that the missing links are missing a majority of their bones. It is a faith-based assumption that these are transition fossils because there is not enough of the skull to properly identify the organism. Even the complete organisms of fish and birds that they claim are transition fossils cannot be verified as transition fossils, they are simply left to the assumption that they must be transition fossils because evolution must be true. It is a religion based on circuitous logic



They gave this one it's own species name Homo Naledi, despite the minimal amount of recoverable skeletal remains. If you believe this is a demonstration of a transition fossil then you have great faith in your beliefs, because it is not based in verifiable data.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Not too far from a reality considering the soft tissue found in dinosaur remains. All the concrete, verifiable, observable evidence points to the faultiness of the theory of evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

My point was that the missing links are missing a majority of their bones. It is a faith-based assumption that these are transition fossils because there is not enough of the skull to properly identify the organism. Even the complete organisms of fish and birds that they claim are transition fossils cannot be verified as transition fossils, they are simply left to the assumption that they must be transition fossils because evolution must be true. It is a religion based on circuitous logic

I understand your position and perhaps it has some merit. Why not write a letter to the authors of the paper? I'm not being facetious, I'm quite serious. There's nothing wrong about asking questions. In fact, that's a critical part of the discovery process. The only caveat in this case would be that you would have to be prepared to respond to the argon-argon assay performed in 1992 at the University of Toronto. Evidence is additive so even if part of the skull was missing, other data can rightfully be used to backup the research.

Not too far from a reality considering the soft tissue found in dinosaur remains. All the concrete, verifiable, observable evidence points to the faultiness of the theory of evolution.

There's a huge list of transitional fossil evidence. You can't just disregard something that doesn't fit your opinion. You need to explain why these transitional fossils should not be counted as supporting evidence. And once again, as I've said many times, everything goes to the methodology - if the methods used to characterize transitional fossils are faulty, then you have to give a reason for your opinion.

Conflicting evidence, when presented properly, must be taken into consideration. Although I didn't study all the papers thoroughly, I do remember that the soft tissue issue was controversial from the start. I'd like to know your rationale for refuting the published data about the dinosaur soft tissue.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I understand your position and perhaps it has some merit. Why not write a letter to the authors of the paper? I'm not being facetious, I'm quite serious. There's nothing wrong about asking questions. In fact, that's a critical part of the discovery process. The only caveat in this case would be that you would have to be prepared to respond to the argon-argon assay performed in 1992 at the University of Toronto. Evidence is additive so even if part of the skull was missing, other data can rightfully be used to backup the research.

There is a lot of subjectivity in regards to taxonomy. My main dissent would be that, given the incompleteness of these supposed pre-human samples, we should not jump the gun and assume they are a missing link. Many scientists are quick to conclude that they have found something supporting the evolutionary time frame, even if it there is not enough sample to make any objective realizations.

If new researchers are under the impression that evolution has to be true and is fact then they will ignore empirical evidence that demonstrates the contrary. In this way, I believe this theory has gotten out of hand. The incomplete nature of these supposed missing links is what disturbs me, especially since it is considered in the mainstream as if there is an abundance of unambiguous transition fossils.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

I understand your position and perhaps it has some merit. Why not write a letter to the authors of the paper? I'm not being facetious, I'm quite serious. There's nothing wrong about asking questions. In fact, that's a critical part of the discovery process. The only caveat in this case would be that you would have to be prepared to respond to the argon-argon assay performed in 1992 at the University of Toronto. Evidence is additive so even if part of the skull was missing, other data can rightfully be used to backup the research.

There is a lot of subjectivity in regards to taxonomy. My main dissent would be that, given the incompleteness of these supposed pre-human samples, we should not jump the gun and assume they are a missing link. Many scientists are quick to conclude that they have found something supporting the evolutionary time frame, even if it there is not enough sample to make any objective realizations.

If new researchers are under the impression that evolution has to be true and is fact then they will ignore empirical evidence that demonstrates the contrary. In this way, I believe this theory has gotten out of hand. The incomplete nature of these supposed missing links is what disturbs me, especially since it is considered in the mainstream as if there is an abundance of unambiguous transition fossils.

Can you debunk any of the fossils posted by phantom423?

a reply to: cooperton

Scientists generally do not proclaim absolutes - there can always be another opinion, contrasting evidence, undiscovered facts. Considering that there are hundreds, even thousands, of research articles in the literature discussing every aspect of evolutionary theory, an opposing opinion would need either hard evidence that it's all wrong or bring new evidence to the table.

Researchers read the literature like everyone else. New discoveries happen frequently causing previous research to be either outdated or totally incorrect. As for a missing link, it's unlikely that a complete, intact skeleton with extractable DNA is ever going to be found. Considering the analytical tools that are employed in the profession, which tools would you throw out as being totally useless?

The preponderance of evidence supports evolution as a credible scheme for life as it is on this planet. There's no evidence to the contrary other than opinion.

All science is always "incomplete". New knowledge builds on old knowledge. Old beliefs are thrown out when new evidence demonstrates that they were wrong. This happens all the time. By way of example, consider the recent evidence on climate change. One of the most cited papers which is referenced in public media all the time has been declared in error. The mathematics was totally wrong. Now it's up to that scientist to go back to the drawing board, acknowledge the errors and correct them. This is not unusual.

Once again, the starting point for challenging results is to present new results. I think this is fairly logical.

a reply to: edmc^2

"The earliest records we have of human history go back only about 5,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 edition, Vol. 6, p. 12.

That is RECORDED history. Not ALL OF history.

We have solid EVIDENCE for much more human history than that which has been RECORDED.

We have only RECORDED our history since we learned how to RECORD.

Genesis is a RECORDING of campfire stories that a various wandering groups of humans, in what we now call the 'middle east', told each other for millennia before any such RECORDING could be made.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

I understand your position and perhaps it has some merit. Why not write a letter to the authors of the paper? I'm not being facetious, I'm quite serious. There's nothing wrong about asking questions. In fact, that's a critical part of the discovery process. The only caveat in this case would be that you would have to be prepared to respond to the argon-argon assay performed in 1992 at the University of Toronto. Evidence is additive so even if part of the skull was missing, other data can rightfully be used to backup the research.

There is a lot of subjectivity in regards to taxonomy. My main dissent would be that, given the incompleteness of these supposed pre-human samples, we should not jump the gun and assume they are a missing link. Many scientists are quick to conclude that they have found something supporting the evolutionary time frame, even if it there is not enough sample to make any objective realizations.

If new researchers are under the impression that evolution has to be true and is fact then they will ignore empirical evidence that demonstrates the contrary. In this way, I believe this theory has gotten out of hand. The incomplete nature of these supposed missing links is what disturbs me, especially since it is considered in the mainstream as if there is an abundance of unambiguous transition fossils.

But you have no actual argument besides that the evidence is incomplete, as opposed to the ever popular "god did it with magic" Which also isn't an argument.

I believe there is one factor that you did not take into account for your timeline.

The amount of time Adam, and then Adam and Eve, lived in the Garden of Eden prior to the sin.

Biblical history doesn't start recording genealogies and events until after the fall. The Bible does not state how long Adam and Eve lived in the garden of Eden prior to eating the fruit and subsequently being removed from the Garden.

My personal opinion is they lived a very very long time in harmony in the Garden of Eden before eventually sinning. Millions or billions of years. I don't believe it was a day, or a week, or a year and they got tired of it and did the one thing they were not supposed to. Of course, that's my opinion. The two pieces of evidence I would submit for this is 1) the curse specifically mentions that childbirth will now be painful. To me this indicates childbirth already occurred and was not painful, otherwise why even mention it? 2) When Cain left home he apparently didn't wander around a barren uninhabited world. He went and founded/lived in a city. With other people. And he was worried other people would hunt him down for his murder of Abel and kill him. Who exactly? I believe the people who were born to Adam and Eve in the garden.

So the start of the 6,000 year timeline of the Bible wouldn't have started until A) after the timeline of creation and B) after the time Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden prior to sinning. Also, how long did it take for Adam to be lonely? Doesn't say, could have been a billion years. Add on another billion years of Adam and Eve living together. Could easily reach 4.5 billion years total.

31 years old.

originally posted by: edmc^2

This also brings up an interesting point. That is, if mankind is about 6000 years and there are 1000 years left to complete the “seventh day”, then this makes each “creative day” 7000 years. So IF this timeline is consistent throughout the entire creative days, each “day” then corresponds to 7000 years. 7000 years x 6 = 42,000 years it took to make the earth into a habitable place.

The Bible frequently uses the term “day” to designate various periods of time. In some cases these periods are of an unspecified length. The account of creation found in the Bible book of Genesis is one example of this.

Source: The Untold Story of Creation: Awake!—2014

Unspecified = unspecified

Therefore not necessarily 7000 years either (this also counts for the 7th day). Each of the six creative days could have lasted for millions of years. 42,000 years is a bit unrealistic (even for just making the earth "into a habitable place" as you put it). Not much better than the approx. 6,000 or 10,000 years view (it differs from young earth proponent to young earth proponent). I assume when you said:

Young Earth (YE) proponents argue:

"The Bible says, God created the earth in 6 days and since each day is 1000 years, therefore, the earth is 6000 years old."

That you meant that YE-proponents argue that "each day is 24 hours", they get the approx. 6000 years (almost 6050 now) from mankind's age (counting the years from what's mentioned regarding this subject in the bible). So because they consider the creative days in Genesis to be 24 hours each, they can count mankind's age also as the approx. age of the earth (and often also the universe because they don't notice the distinction between Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the account that you mentioned in the OP).

Apparently there are also YE-proponents going with the 10,000 year number but I don't know how they got to that number. Cause that doesn't work with 1,000 year long creative days either (not quite, see numbers below, perhaps they're rounding it down 1000-2000 years to get the nice 10,000 round number).

Since you argued against the 24-hour view for each creative day in the rest of your commentary it seems you meant that YE-proponents argue that "each day is 24 hours", not a 1,000 years (even though I guess there are some of those as well, but then they probably need some kind of distinction between the length of the 6 creative days and the 7th day, not counting the 7th day as 1,000 years as well; and they still won't get to 6,000 years for the age of the earth, that would be closer to the 10,000 year view for the age of the earth though, but more like 11,000 - 12,000 years, depending on when on the 6th creative day one reckons mankind was created, at the beginning or end of that creative day). Anyway, I see no indication that any of the days mentioned in Genesis 1 are 1,000 years each, or 7,000 years each for that matter. I do see plenty of indications from geology and paleontology that they were many millions of years each, which is entirely consistent with the biblical view that these creative days are "long periods" (quoting from the earlier linked article), "periods...of an unspecified length", i.e. "aeons" and definitely "not days of twenty-four hours" and probably also not 1,000 or 7,000 years (or anywhere in that range).

Concerning these days of creation A Religious Encyclopædia by Schaff says: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours.” Similarly Delitzsch says in his New Commentary on Genesis: “Days of God are intended, with Him a thousand years are but as a day when that is past, Ps. 90:4 . . . The days of creation are, according to the meaning of Holy Scripture itself, not days of four and twenty hours, but aeons . . .”

Before it gets confusing, the "thousand years" mentioned there are just to show that God views and experiences time differently than humans, not to say that the creative days are literally a thousand years each. Paul referred to God as "the happy God" (1 Tim 1:11), people do say time flies when you're having fun. An "eon" (alternate spelling) is "an indefinite and very long period of time, often a period exaggerated for humorous or rhetorical effect." Or in the field of geology: "a major division of geological time, subdivided into eras." (definitions from google)

"God" supplied us the intelligence to create instruments that very accurately measure the age of Earth stratigraphy.
Anything found down there in stratigraphic conformity, is surrounded by the age that swallowed it. The Earth is as old as it has to be.

a reply to: edmc^2

I'm not a believer. Just an (very) amateur theologian.

Your theory seems just as valid as any I've ever read.

Something that is lost in translation is the slang.

"Back in my day" could easily be misunderstood 2000 years from now.

a reply to: LABTECH767

www.sacred-texts.com...

According to this adam and eve had body's of light while in the garden.

a reply to: whereislogic
Something to add though about dating methods:

This article and the two following ones describe and evaluate the different means of radioactive dating used by geologists to measure the ages of rocks and the remains of once-living organisms. They have been prepared by a nuclear physicist of many years’ experience in both research and industry in the field of radioactivity.
...
...radioactive decay rates have been shown to be unaffected by the extremes of external conditions.
...
The Uranium-Lead Clock
...
How Certain Are They?

We must admit that the dating process isn’t quite as simple as we have described it. We mentioned that the rock has to be free from lead at the beginning. This is usually not the case; there is some lead to start with. This gives the rock what is called a built-in age, something more than zero. Also, we assumed that the uranium was tightly sealed in the rock so that nothing could get in or out. Sometimes this may be true but not always. Over long periods of time, some of the lead or the uranium might seep out into groundwater. Or more uranium or lead might get in, especially if it is a sedimentary rock. For this reason, the uranium-lead clock works best on igneous rocks.
...
The Potassium-Argon Clock

The one that has been most widely used is the potassium-argon clock. ... Required conditions for the potassium-argon clock to work are the same as explained above: The potassium must be free of argon when the clock is started, that is, when the mineral is formed. And the system must remain sealed for the duration, allowing no potassium or argon to escape or enter.

How well does the clock work in practice? Sometimes very well but at other times poorly. It sometimes gives ages greatly different from those of the uranium-lead clock. Usually, these are smaller; such results are attributed to loss of argon. But in other rocks, the potassium and uranium ages agree very closely.
...
Paleontologists Try to Date the Fossils

Paleontologists have attempted to copy the geologists’ success in dating rocks only a few million years old. Some of their fossils, they believe, might fall in that age range. Alas, the potassium-argon clock does not work so well for them! Of course, fossils are not found in igneous rocks but only in sediments, and for these radiometric dating is usually not trustworthy.

An illustration of this is when fossils have been buried in a thick fall of volcanic ash that has later been consolidated to form a tuff. This is actually a sedimentary stratum, but it is made of igneous matter that solidified in the air. If it can be dated, it will serve to give the age of the fossil enclosed in it.

Such a case was found in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, where fossils of apelike animals attracted special attention because their finders claimed they were linked to humans. First measurements of argon in the volcanic tuff in which the fossils were found showed an age of 1.75 million years. But later measurements at another qualified laboratory gave results a half million years younger. Most disappointing to evolutionists was the finding that the ages of other layers of tuff, above and below, were not consistent. Sometimes the upper layer had more argon than the one below it. But this is all wrong, geologically speaking​—the upper layer had to be deposited after the lower and should have less argon.

The conclusion was that “inherited argon” was spoiling the measurements. Not all the argon previously formed had been boiled out of the molten rock. The clock had not been set to zero. If only one tenth of 1 percent of the argon previously produced by the potassium was left in the rock when it melted in the volcano, the clock would be started with a built-in age of nearly a million years. As one expert put it: “Some of the dates must be wrong, and if some are wrong maybe all of them are wrong.”

Notwithstanding expert opinions that these dates may be quite meaningless, the original age of 1.75 million years for the Olduvai fossils continues to be quoted in popular magazines committed to evolution. They give the lay reader no warning that such ages are really no more than guesses.

Source: Scientific Dates for Prehistoric Times: Awake!—1986

...
The Dating of Dinosaurs
...
One method being used to measure the age of fossils is called radiocarbon dating. This dating system measures the rate of decay of radioactive carbon from the point of death of the organism. “Once an organism dies, it no longer absorbs new carbon dioxide from its environment, and the proportion of the isotope falls off over time as it undergoes radioactive decay,” states Science and Technology Illustrated.

However, there are severe problems with the system. First, when the fossil is considered to be about 50,000 years old, its level of radioactivity has fallen so low that it can be detected only with great difficulty. Second, even in more recent specimens, this level has fallen so low that it is still extremely difficult to measure accurately. Third, scientists can measure the present-​day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past.

So whether they use the radiocarbon method for dating fossils or other methods, such as employing radioactive potassium, uranium, or thorium, for dating rocks, scientists are unable to establish the original levels of those elements through ages of time. Thus, professor of metallurgy Melvin A. Cook observes: “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.” That would especially be so when we consider that the Flood of Noah’s day over 4,300 years ago brought enormous changes in the atmosphere and on earth.

Dartmouth College geologists Charles Officer and Charles Drake further add doubt to the accuracy of radioactive dating. They state: “We conclude that iridium and other associated elements were not deposited instantaneously . . . but rather that there was an intense and variable influx of these constituents during a relatively short geologic time interval on the order of 10,000 to 100,000 years.” They argue that the breakup and movement of the continents disrupted the entire globe, causing volcanic eruptions, blocking sunlight and fouling the atmosphere. Certainly, such disruptive events could change radioactivity levels, thus distorting results from modern-​day radioactive clocks.

Source: What Happened to the Dinosaurs? Awake!—1990

Guesses do not equal "science" (from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge": a familiarity with facts/certainties acquired by personal experience, observation, or study.) Such as when you possess knowledge of the Law of Gravity or that 1+1=2 for an even easier example of true knowledge/science (scientia). I no longer see a need to use the word "science" with a different meaning (that meaning as used by some others has been warped and conflated with philosophical naturalism too such an extent that it has almost lost all its meaning, certainly in terms of clarity and the promotion of unbridled speculation with the term "hypothesis", often incorrectly used to label ideas that can't even be tested or verified).

a reply to: edmc^2

Maybe the "planet" was formed billions of years ago...
But what the bible talks about is when it was "prepared" for man... Just a thought.