God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[`mud]

We all tend to forget who wrote this crap !!!
~
It wasn't from any god !
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

We all tend to forget who wrote this crap !!!
~
It wasn't from any god !
~
'mud

Unless, we all are gods, then gods wrote it.

 

[`mud]

 

[Salvador]

I quote the verses mentioned by you:

[49:14]O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female; and We have made you into tribes and sub-tribes that you may recognize one another. Verily, the most honourable among you, in the sight of Allah, is he who is the most righteous among you. Surely, Allah is All-knowing, All-Aware.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

It does not make a mention of Adam or Eve specifically, it mentions generally of every male and female and of tribes they belong to.

I quote the next verse given by you:

[7:190]He it is Who has created you from a single soul, and made therefrom its mate, that he might find comfort in her. And when he knows her, she bears a light burden, and goes about with it. And when she grows heavy, they both pray to Allah, their Lord,saying: ‘If Thou give us a goodchild,we will surely be of the thankful.’

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

This verse is also general for male and female and their being a pair to prosper and have comfort in the process.
You may therefore like to please correct your inference.

Regards

Are you sure the Koran isn't saying that all the nations and tribes descended from one couple, Adam and Eve?

 

[David M]

All,

I'm aware of ice core work. Ice can show snowfall layers for about 2,000 years of snowfall, then the awesome weight of the snow compacts the core so that estimations of dates have been made.

No you are not aware. Ice can show layers for tens of thousands of years of snowfall and the layers are not estimated, that are observed based on the physical properties of snow and ice.

 

[David M]

As for evidence of 8, not 12, people in more recent times, it has been established by scientists how the human population has, until the advent of modern medicine, doubled approximately every 125 years or so. Put 7 Billion into an Excel spreadsheet, and then divide by two every 125 years... when do you get to 8 persons? Pretty interesting... as you can imagine, I would interpret this as a piece of data where archaeology and other sciences are affirming the possibilities we see in the Holy Bible.

What scientists are these then? No reputable scientist has ever claimed that human populations have doubled every 125 years over history or even that the rate has been steady because we actually have population figures from the last thousand years they show show that the rate did not double every 125 years, in fact populations grew very, very slowly until the industrial revolution and improvements in sanitation and medicine.

Data from archeology and science shows that between 0 AD and 1700 the doubling time for the human population was... 1700 years.

Perhaps you should wonder why the places that you got this argument from use a figure of 125 years for the doubling of populations when that figure is not supported by any data but "just by conicidence" gives you that interesting result you mentioned. Its almost as if some dishonest shill took a start date that they already had in mind and used that to calculate a doubling rate that resulted in our current population.

 

[paarsurrey]

Are you sure the Koran isn't saying that all the nations and tribes descended from one couple, Adam and Eve?

Yes, please.

Regards

 

[shawn001]

All,

I'm aware of ice core work. Ice can show snowfall layers for about 2,000 years of snowfall, then the awesome weight of the snow compacts the core so that estimations of dates have been made.

Likewise, the Earth has no birthday candles, so we must do things like look at rocks and isotopes and then make assumptions based on further assumptions, like standard temperature, pressure and rates of decay being in effect for five billion years.

I've also said I believe there was an ice age following the Bible Flood. The Bible authors live in sunnier climes and didn't record this ice age. I think it helps us understand the geology and etc.

All, there was NO biblical flood of the globe for a FACT.

"I'm aware of ice core work. Ice can show snowfall layers for about 2,000 years of snowfall, then the awesome weight of the snow compacts the core so that estimations of dates have been made."

You maybe aware of it, but certainly haven't studied it. Its not just age, although your wrong there as well, by gases in the Atmosphere like Oxygen.


Antarctic Hills Haven't Seen Water in 14 Million ...


Antarctic Hills Haven't Seen Water in 14 Million Years

 

[BilliardsBall]

No you are not aware. Ice can show layers for tens of thousands of years of snowfall and the layers are not estimated, that are observed based on the physical properties of snow and ice.

I am aware. To justify hundreds of thousands of layers, mathematical models are created in which some measured characteristic of the ice core (such as dust content, acidity, or various chemical isotopes) is measured along every millimeter of the core’s length. Then, mathematical curves having hundreds of thousands of cycles are fit to the data. Missing is the statistical analysis showing that the fit is significant—that the data (such as dust content, acidity, or the variation pattern of oxygen-18) is not random noise. If laymen are not impressed by the claim that it took 800,000 “years” for all those cycles to be laid down, those same laymen may be impressed by the technical jargon describing the oxygen-18 or acidity measurements.

I'm not trying to call you a mere layman or offend you. But this is where uniformitarian assumptions go on and on... one example.

We also all know that there are competing theories of geological strata, especially that which contains fossils.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What scientists are these then? No reputable scientist has ever claimed that human populations have doubled every 125 years over history or even that the rate has been steady because we actually have population figures from the last thousand years they show show that the rate did not double every 125 years, in fact populations grew very, very slowly until the industrial revolution and improvements in sanitation and medicine.

Data from archeology and science shows that between 0 AD and 1700 the doubling time for the human population was... 1700 years.

Perhaps you should wonder why the places that you got this argument from use a figure of 125 years for the doubling of populations when that figure is not supported by any data but "just by conicidence" gives you that interesting result you mentioned. Its almost as if some dishonest shill took a start date that they already had in mind and used that to calculate a doubling rate that resulted in our current population.

Yes, it seems that way at first look. Consider how until the last century parents would have 6 or more children hoping 3 or more would make it... here's source that is not a religious source contesting your statement in part:

Pesticide Cocktail Anyone? - Food Revolution Network

 

[outhouse]

We also all know that there are competing theories of geological strata, especially that which contains fossils.

None that throw out academia the way you do.


Post credible sources for this, you have bias, and sources are required from you to back up your position..

 

[Sapiens]

I am aware. To justify hundreds of thousands of layers, mathematical models are created in which some measured characteristic of the ice core (such as dust content, acidity, or various chemical isotopes) is measured along every millimeter of the core’s length. Then, mathematical curves having hundreds of thousands of cycles are fit to the data. Missing is the statistical analysis showing that the fit is significant—that the data (such as dust content, acidity, or the variation pattern of oxygen-18) is not random noise. If laymen are not impressed by the claim that it took 800,000 “years” for all those cycles to be laid down, those same laymen may be impressed by the technical jargon describing the oxygen-18 or acidity measurements.

I'm not trying to call you a mere layman or offend you. But this is where uniformitarian assumptions go on and on... one example.

We also all know that there are competing theories of geological strata, especially that which contains fossils.

Now we all know that you have mastered the art of Cut and Paste from a BS creationist site, in this case:
An ice - The Center for Scientific Creation. (brought to you by The Scientific Creation Center, where god fearing kooks and bad ideas rub shoulders daily. They're so nuts they even push hydroplate and fountains of the deep ... way wacko).

 

[Bunyip]

I am aware. To justify hundreds of thousands of layers, mathematical models are created in which some measured characteristic of the ice core (such as dust content, acidity, or various chemical isotopes) is measured along every millimeter of the core’s length. Then, mathematical curves having hundreds of thousands of cycles are fit to the data. Missing is the statistical analysis showing that the fit is significant—that the data (such as dust content, acidity, or the variation pattern of oxygen-18) is not random noise. If laymen are not impressed by the claim that it took 800,000 “years” for all those cycles to be laid down, those same laymen may be impressed by the technical jargon describing the oxygen-18 or acidity measurements.

I'm not trying to call you a mere layman or offend you. But this is where uniformitarian assumptions go on and on... one example.

We also all know that there are competing theories of geological strata, especially that which contains fossils.

Example please?

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Are there still people who believe that the earth was created 6000 yrs ago??
Science and religion cannot not contradict each other. Science is a part of religion. It is people who corrupt science and people who corrupt religion.
In the following website I found my answers. MythoReligio Series | Book shop of MythoReligio Series

 

[BilliardsBall]

Example please?

At times we find strata, for example, containing fossils out of sequence. Geological explanations come into play. Other strata contains no fossils but provide important clues. There's a lot at stake and not just Bible relevance. We're seeking fossil fuel sources underground and undersea...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are there still people who believe that the earth was created 6000 yrs ago??
Science and religion cannot not contradict each other. Science is a part of religion. It is people who corrupt science and people who corrupt religion.
In the following website I found my answers. MythoReligio Series | Book shop of MythoReligio Series

I agree that science and the Bible should not conflict. They need not but some thoughtful explanations need to be made.

 

[outhouse]

At times we find strata, for example, containing fossils out of sequence.

Provide credible sources.


That simple is not true.

 

[outhouse]

I agree that science and the Bible should not conflict.

Do you understand the definition of honesty?

Because you seem to create conflicts in science and education and academia, and knowledge in every post you posit here.

 

[Bunyip]

At times we find strata, for example, containing fossils out of sequence. Geological explanations come into play. Other strata contains no fossils but provide important clues. There's a lot at stake and not just Bible relevance. We're seeking fossil fuel sources underground and undersea...

I asked for an example please, not just another ancient creationist claim. Do you have an example where fossils were found out of sequence? That is a simple claim to evidence - or did you just make it up?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I asked for an example please, not just another ancient creationist claim. Do you have an example where fossils were found out of sequence? That is a simple claim to evidence - or did you just make it up?

I understand that by definition evolutionists say there are no out-of-sequence fossils. They would claim that the fragmentary nature of the fossil record means that we don’t have a good idea of the entire period a fossil belongs in. So if we find a fossil in a stratum that is supposed to be 100 million years older than the species (using evolutionary dating for the sake of the argument), it simply means that it evolved 100 million years earlier than we thought.

Perhaps a better question would be whether evolution has made predictions about the fossil record that have been confirmed or otherwise by subsequent discoveries. For instance, Charles Darwin said that “no organism wholly soft can be preserved.” He was simply wrong, because we have many examples of this. For instance, hundreds of fossilized jellyfish and a fossilized squid, that look remarkably similar to the same creatures living today. Yet they were claimed to be 505 million years old (myo) and 150 myo respectively. The squid even contained an ink sac so fresh that the ink could be used to paint a picture. The ages assigned to these fossils comes from their position in the alleged geologic column and the dates assigned to the rock layers in which they were found. Remember that it is believed that the rock layers were supposed to have been slowly deposited over millions of years, and similarly, the process of burial and mineralization is supposed to have taken a very long time. But besides soft-bodied creatures, we have fossils like an ichthyosaur giving birth, and fish in the process of eating other fish, that capture moments in time. They must have been preserved quickly.

I'm sure you will tell me how much smarter we are today than in Darwin's time. I'd like to let you know that I believe in evolution. However, I believe circular assumptions are constantly made in biology, palentology and geology to support untenable hypotheses such as "There has never been a universal Flood" and "no catastrophes have occurred to preserve fossils quickly, universally" (beyond little pockets like the La Brea pits).

Thanks for your consideration and I apologize for being vague before.