Was the Earth made of Bits From Other Planets?
Q.
I can see where you are coming from and I agree with your response there are just a few things that I would like addressed as I believe they also pertain to the subject.
Several GAs are known to have said that the earth was in fact created from materials used to build other planets, giving credence to the truth that all matter cannot be created or destroyed only organized. So thus the earth could in fact be many billions of years old or perhaps even longer, who knows.
Most proponents of the genesis creation would argue that the earth is in fact approximately 6000 year old, which theory would appear to contradict modern science's belief in decay rates, carbon dating, and other forms of discovering just how old something is.
Thus it is natural for such individuals who's belief seems to have such a contradiction, to assume that Adam and Eve in fact existed in the garden for an incredibly long time in order to conform better with science's claims and the idea that the earth was only created in 6 days, with man being created on the 6th.
However even this would be fruitless even if one were to assume that days really referred to 1000 years, meaning the earth could then only be 12000 years old unless Adam and Eve dwelled in the garden or somehow kept in stasis for billions of years which would be quite unlikely or preposterous.
My question then is thus: Could the earth having already been used as material for other earths or just organized material that had existed for who knows how long before it became part of the earth if we tried to measure it based on our rather weak concept of time could then render the earth to actually be billions of years old as science claims?
Personally I think science really can't do what it says it can, as it so often is, but I would like your ideas on the subject if you have any.
A.
The Wikipedia claims the following in regard dinosaurs _
"They first appeared during the Triassic period, approximately 230 million years ago, and were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 135 million years, from the beginning of the Jurassic (about 200 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous (66 million years ago)."
We, as Latter-Day Saints, know that all animals and life-forms (other than microscopic things) have a resurrection. That means we know that there was no dinosaurs from other planets upon this one: They would have all been resurrected. This means we know that there were no dead dinosaurs upon this planet even 6000 years ago. Yet they make these ridiculous and unscientifically supported claims of bones they've dated at millions of years old.
The theory that some GAs have presented that the earth must have been made from bits left over from other planets, seems an unsubstantiated guess. This is said also to somehow try and make an unholy alliance with the religion of "theory science" (the largest religion, by far, upon the earth). But 3 things oppose this idea.
One is that we know that this earth will be resurrected and become the Celestial Kingdom. And we speculate that therefore other planets will require resurrection for there to be other kingdoms. This demonstrates that planets get resurrected at the end. Meaning that no parts could have come from other planets. It would be unfair of God not to resurrect other planets. If their parts are in this earth then these other planets could have no resurrection of their body.
The second is that we'd have to chase way over to where the previous planetary system was to get these bits. And then drag them all the way back in large chunks. It would be far simpler and faster to just organise matter where we were.
Thirdly there is the demonstrated problems of these dating methods. Let me give you some examples _
I watched a program on TV that was discussing several skulls that had been found.
One of the dogmas of theory science is the idea that the size of that power supply in our head called a "brain" has some relevance to our intelligence (relative to our body size). Therefore they need to prove that where there is more size for a brain to exist in a skull the greater the intelligence of the being must be. This created a problem in that they had a skull dated at being millions of years older which had greater room in the skull - a terribly inconvenient problem for them. But, hey, they didn't let that stop them. They went all around the world and finally found a method that came up with a date that made the one with less space to be millions of years earlier. Scientific????
A skull was found in Australia of what they claimed had to be the forefathers of the current Australian aborigine. It was carbon dated as being 2,500 years old. But that wasn't appropriate because the aborigines can't have changed that much in such a small time (they had to prove the aborigines were the original inhabitants). So they declared that the date must be wrong because there was lime in the soil. Then they set off and tested varying systems of dating all over the world. They came out as being all under 10,000 years old (they even admit to this, what is more), in fact most were in the small numbers of thousands. Until finally, in the UK, they found one that gave the date they wanted (60,000 years old). Amazing this science!
Archaeologists discovered that the Persian Gulf had been going out for the last 2,000 years, by evidence of fishing villages being further back. Yet the geologists discovered that the Persian Gulf had been going in for the last 2,000 years. Of course upon discovering this discrepancy between the priests of theory science they formed a united front - a bit meaningless after the event.
My science book at school showed a picture of a supposed "New Stone Age" building. However they have since found a more modern town underneath. Oh, dear!
In high school my science teacher informed us that scientists said the rings around Saturn were definitely continuous in substance and of a liquid nature. However upon sending a probe past we found that they are formed of rocks and are separate from each other. None out of two! Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I remember watching a special on TV that talked of the supposed "Ice Age." They showed 3 areas in the world that demonstrated this substance in the layers, that they claimed to be evidence of this supposed age. Then, ON THE SAME PROGRAM, further along on a different subject, they showed layers over the same period in two other places. And guess what? NO Ice Age layers! Let me guess, they just didn't happen to notice that.
A Roman style sword was found, in Britain, that they figured would have been made in around 650 AD. They took it to be carbon dated. It was dated at 1380 AD! So much for carbon dating (again). But, hey, they didn't let that upset them, they took some wood samples from the rings of a tree in the area. They concluded 100 years for each ring and "recalibrated" their machine. After sufficient additional recalibration it then came to a date of 670 AD! Now that is better. Perhaps they should have just got one of their wives to date it at 650 AD and saved the money.
Then there was the most incredible one that I think even beats these. There was this scientist looking at old cave paintings in France. He noted that the people had obviously put paint in their mouths and blown it onto the wall with their hand in front, making a hand outline. He noted that this also happened in Japan. He then informed us that as the paintings in Japan were dated earlier than this it proved that the French were really from Japan originally. Having this great revelation of scientific logic I then thought upon the paintings that my children have done around their hands. And realising that the children in Japan had done the same thing many years before, I came to the great discovery that this proves we actually came from Japan too! Science????
If you need more examples (of which they seem endless) just watch any of the science programs on TV and think through what they are trying to get you to conclude. One trade mark of these shows is that they will start off saying, "this could have happened." And after saying that 2 or 3 times it goes to, "then when this happened." They've sucked the viewer in.
These "theory scientists" should stick to the truly provable areas of science and do something useful with their lives.
So all this leaves us with the knowledge that trying to mix the religion of "theory science" with God's religion is a futile gesture. Trust God, he was there.
I can see where you are coming from and I agree with your response there are just a few things that I would like addressed as I believe they also pertain to the subject.
Several GAs are known to have said that the earth was in fact created from materials used to build other planets, giving credence to the truth that all matter cannot be created or destroyed only organized. So thus the earth could in fact be many billions of years old or perhaps even longer, who knows.
Most proponents of the genesis creation would argue that the earth is in fact approximately 6000 year old, which theory would appear to contradict modern science's belief in decay rates, carbon dating, and other forms of discovering just how old something is.
Thus it is natural for such individuals who's belief seems to have such a contradiction, to assume that Adam and Eve in fact existed in the garden for an incredibly long time in order to conform better with science's claims and the idea that the earth was only created in 6 days, with man being created on the 6th.
However even this would be fruitless even if one were to assume that days really referred to 1000 years, meaning the earth could then only be 12000 years old unless Adam and Eve dwelled in the garden or somehow kept in stasis for billions of years which would be quite unlikely or preposterous.
My question then is thus: Could the earth having already been used as material for other earths or just organized material that had existed for who knows how long before it became part of the earth if we tried to measure it based on our rather weak concept of time could then render the earth to actually be billions of years old as science claims?
Personally I think science really can't do what it says it can, as it so often is, but I would like your ideas on the subject if you have any.
A.
The Wikipedia claims the following in regard dinosaurs _
"They first appeared during the Triassic period, approximately 230 million years ago, and were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 135 million years, from the beginning of the Jurassic (about 200 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous (66 million years ago)."
We, as Latter-Day Saints, know that all animals and life-forms (other than microscopic things) have a resurrection. That means we know that there was no dinosaurs from other planets upon this one: They would have all been resurrected. This means we know that there were no dead dinosaurs upon this planet even 6000 years ago. Yet they make these ridiculous and unscientifically supported claims of bones they've dated at millions of years old.
The theory that some GAs have presented that the earth must have been made from bits left over from other planets, seems an unsubstantiated guess. This is said also to somehow try and make an unholy alliance with the religion of "theory science" (the largest religion, by far, upon the earth). But 3 things oppose this idea.
One is that we know that this earth will be resurrected and become the Celestial Kingdom. And we speculate that therefore other planets will require resurrection for there to be other kingdoms. This demonstrates that planets get resurrected at the end. Meaning that no parts could have come from other planets. It would be unfair of God not to resurrect other planets. If their parts are in this earth then these other planets could have no resurrection of their body.
The second is that we'd have to chase way over to where the previous planetary system was to get these bits. And then drag them all the way back in large chunks. It would be far simpler and faster to just organise matter where we were.
Thirdly there is the demonstrated problems of these dating methods. Let me give you some examples _
I watched a program on TV that was discussing several skulls that had been found.
One of the dogmas of theory science is the idea that the size of that power supply in our head called a "brain" has some relevance to our intelligence (relative to our body size). Therefore they need to prove that where there is more size for a brain to exist in a skull the greater the intelligence of the being must be. This created a problem in that they had a skull dated at being millions of years older which had greater room in the skull - a terribly inconvenient problem for them. But, hey, they didn't let that stop them. They went all around the world and finally found a method that came up with a date that made the one with less space to be millions of years earlier. Scientific????
A skull was found in Australia of what they claimed had to be the forefathers of the current Australian aborigine. It was carbon dated as being 2,500 years old. But that wasn't appropriate because the aborigines can't have changed that much in such a small time (they had to prove the aborigines were the original inhabitants). So they declared that the date must be wrong because there was lime in the soil. Then they set off and tested varying systems of dating all over the world. They came out as being all under 10,000 years old (they even admit to this, what is more), in fact most were in the small numbers of thousands. Until finally, in the UK, they found one that gave the date they wanted (60,000 years old). Amazing this science!
Archaeologists discovered that the Persian Gulf had been going out for the last 2,000 years, by evidence of fishing villages being further back. Yet the geologists discovered that the Persian Gulf had been going in for the last 2,000 years. Of course upon discovering this discrepancy between the priests of theory science they formed a united front - a bit meaningless after the event.
My science book at school showed a picture of a supposed "New Stone Age" building. However they have since found a more modern town underneath. Oh, dear!
In high school my science teacher informed us that scientists said the rings around Saturn were definitely continuous in substance and of a liquid nature. However upon sending a probe past we found that they are formed of rocks and are separate from each other. None out of two! Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I remember watching a special on TV that talked of the supposed "Ice Age." They showed 3 areas in the world that demonstrated this substance in the layers, that they claimed to be evidence of this supposed age. Then, ON THE SAME PROGRAM, further along on a different subject, they showed layers over the same period in two other places. And guess what? NO Ice Age layers! Let me guess, they just didn't happen to notice that.
A Roman style sword was found, in Britain, that they figured would have been made in around 650 AD. They took it to be carbon dated. It was dated at 1380 AD! So much for carbon dating (again). But, hey, they didn't let that upset them, they took some wood samples from the rings of a tree in the area. They concluded 100 years for each ring and "recalibrated" their machine. After sufficient additional recalibration it then came to a date of 670 AD! Now that is better. Perhaps they should have just got one of their wives to date it at 650 AD and saved the money.
Then there was the most incredible one that I think even beats these. There was this scientist looking at old cave paintings in France. He noted that the people had obviously put paint in their mouths and blown it onto the wall with their hand in front, making a hand outline. He noted that this also happened in Japan. He then informed us that as the paintings in Japan were dated earlier than this it proved that the French were really from Japan originally. Having this great revelation of scientific logic I then thought upon the paintings that my children have done around their hands. And realising that the children in Japan had done the same thing many years before, I came to the great discovery that this proves we actually came from Japan too! Science????
If you need more examples (of which they seem endless) just watch any of the science programs on TV and think through what they are trying to get you to conclude. One trade mark of these shows is that they will start off saying, "this could have happened." And after saying that 2 or 3 times it goes to, "then when this happened." They've sucked the viewer in.
These "theory scientists" should stick to the truly provable areas of science and do something useful with their lives.
So all this leaves us with the knowledge that trying to mix the religion of "theory science" with God's religion is a futile gesture. Trust God, he was there.
posted by Doug Towers at 4:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home