YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?

Man himself was eating meat right from the beginning - Abel sacrificed a sheep - why was he raising them if he didn't eat one now and then?I suppose you may have a point. I speculated that man was distinctly herbivorous before the flood, as per scriptural comparisons.Man attempted to hide from judgment with fig-leaves as aprons, then he was given skins (sheep or whatever) to hide his nakedness (presumably pointing to the Lamb of God that covers sins).At any rate, I now think he may have ate the pascal lamb as well (as Christ also commanded)Philip

Moose,Regarding apparent age and geological events: From an apparent YEC view (perhaps in unconscious denial) I’ve speculated some things:1) YEC’ism and time itself don’t necessarily refer to our solar time pieces. i.e., The sun was not manifest until the 4th day.2) As per a 60’s song (by some female) I’ve looked at clouds (time) from both sides now from east to west and still somehow its cloud’s (time’s) illusions I recall I really don’t know clouds (time) at all. That is to say, time is both a metaphysical illusion as well as an empirical event.3) Given special relativity (E=mCC) theory coupled with inflationary theory of universal expansion, both atomic and diurnal (solar) clocks may have slowed down from different perspectives within or without our earth/universe.4) Atomic time and diurnal time have diverse mis-calibrations over time. I may be an OEC at one cosmic point of time and a YEC the next.IN THE BEGINNING:EARTH was primordial (before Day 1). On Day 3 EARTH is redefined as dry landI personally see the earth as WITHOUT FORM AND VOID, darkness covering a SEA of quarks, perhaps (if you will).And, the Bible calls these WATERS at and/or before Day 1, even On Day 3 the gathering together of waters is now called SEAS (by God).HEAVEN is created on Day 1. On day 2, however, the expanse (firmament) is given the name HEAVEN.In SUM, I don’t think any non-chaotic natural processes had manifested IN THE BEGINNING. I may be wrong.Philip

Deerbreh,I was trying to communicate TIME itself. I spoke of measly clocks (solar and atomic) because I really don’t know what time is. I was talking about those timepieces only to clarify time somewhat, not to refute their accuracy.I personally allow apparent age in a YEC scheme. Apparent age could, should, and would seem to satisfy me enough. Planting the garden (of Eden), God forming man from the dust of the earth, etc., screams apparent age. But, then, I’d still have to reconcile post-creation events with existential science at least to a reasonable extent.The fact of Fish fossils on top of tall mountains screams global flood to many geologists (and simpletons like me). Nonetheless, a global flood scheme might not be parsimonious to uniform-geological-column schemes.Time itself seems to me to be a byproduct of light or something. Notwithstanding all questionable clocks, time seems to me to be very elusive when special relativity theory is coupled with big-bang-inflationary theories, or the Genesis 2nd Day scenario firmament expansion.Inflationary theories suggest the universe expanded in violation of E=mCC. (Now, I personally wouldn’t be insulted if you condemn inflationary theory as mad science, and then stop teaching it to our children.)But it seems logical that:1) The geological column may be younger from God’s stationary perspective (say) near the outside of the universe (i.e., 3rd Heaven). A day with the Lord is as a thousand years, seems truth enough.2) OEC and YEC are interchangeable depending on cosmic perspectives, God and man.3) Time is a great mystery of which clocks themselves don’t help much to define.4) We feel effects of time (if there be such a thing)5) The geo-column has undergone effects of time in a mysterious manner we perceive little about.

Are the YEC's looking at it from God's perspective or from science's perspective?Forgive my grammar, Moose. There are different kinds of YECs and each will give you a different answer, some lean more toward metaphysical philosophy and some lean more toward existential science. I stand corrected and was wrong to communicate OEC is man’s perspective and YEC is God’s perspective of time (concerning the geo-column).Now concerning your latter statement: geologists study rocks The Earth's geology is the result of a vast sequence of understandable processes and events.Geology experts (like yourself) are aware that: Not all geologists subscribe to geological uniformatarianism; a few YEC geologists buy into the catastrophic global flood model to explain many apparent geological flukes and geology’s vast sequence of understandable processes and events.In sum, to most honest YECs, IN THE BEGINNING might perhaps be understood in terms of:
1) Pre and post-global flood considerations regarding geological strata and/or
2) A primordial photon-less earth one without form and void and total darkness
3) Or, perhaps, a great (OEC) geological gap (btw Gen 1.1 and 1.3) that harmonizes with empirical processes.Most YECs will attempt to fit geology neatly into fundy naivety. Their hypotheses follow Biblical and gospel precepts, so as not to clash with their Salvation.Philip
-----------------------
DPM (podiatrist)
MS (biomedical science)
OEC Maybe
YEC Maybe
Biological mega-Evolution - No

What's that?Rox, I'm sure perhaps one or two honest ones awakened to YECism in graduate-level geology after noting "Fish fossils" in your bodacious mountain-tops of Colorado.But here’s an interesting Freudian slip which sounds like geologist conspiracy. You stated: It's almost impossible to get a degree in geology and adhere to YECism. This is appalling. I certainly hope some lurker’s taxes aren’t funding such geological bigotry.I converted to YECism during my freshman year at medical school after reading geological YECism for the first time in my life. I already possessed 2 science degrees: electronic engineering (AAS) and Psychology (BS). Up to then, I followed OECism. It was that old fundy "gap-theory" elaborating upon Gen. 1.1-3.Currently, I hold an MS in biomedical science, have practiced podiatric medicine about 14 years, and have been board certified in podiatric surgery most of that period. I personally can’t conceive of any mega-ToE from any physiological perspective. Mutational NS is way-out for me.At present I’m open to OEC because I don’t really know what TIME is. How about you, Rox? Do you or your geological authorities speculate anything cosmic about time and/or the primordial geosphere?Notwithstanding your Newtonian clocks, this topic is IN THE BEGINNING and requires relativistic insight, due to big-bang event(s), inflationary theory(s), etc., in a primordial geosphere.Trying to keep to topic, I’ve already HYPOTHESIZED that
1) The geosphere may have been a "sea of quarks" (or something) in the primordial geosphere.
2) A "creation design" event occurred directly upon geological matter, in the beginning
3) Photons appeared and universal expansion occurred by omnipotent force as would seem parsimonious to inflationary theory at or beyond E=mCC.
4) Non-chaotic geological formations occurred before during or after the cosmic excellencies manifested. That might include spherical excellencies of solar systems and galaxies, quantum science, higher elements, life, consciousness, apperception, and/or conscience formation.
5) Timelines are extremely elusive.
6) Finally, such non-chaotic (excellent) geological formations (during their generation) parsimoniously suggest redemptive events permeated everywhere. In other words, geo-science proves that the handiwork of God and His Redeemer continued upon the geosphere even after the beginning.This message has been edited by Philip, 06-25-2005 11:01 PM

Major de ja vou I’ve heard that song before, Edge. Your geologists deny your mega-ToE conspiracy (unconsciously perhaps) as do our biologists deny their mega-ToE conspiracy. Denying the problem or evading it is evil. Everyone innocently acts without sin when it comes to getting paid. I’m guilty too.I see you’re from Colorado as well. And, because I have four other science degrees, a non-geologist YEC conversion was understandable?!# I personally don’t know many geologists at present (you, Moose, and Rox), let alone any geologists that converted to YECism in grad-school or pre-grad. So I may be wrong.One Chemist (Behe, I think) seemed to vehemently convert to YECism while developing the concept of ICs. Will that suffice, Edge? Isn’t there someone in your literature who converted to YECism? Please don’t make me chase that rabbit. Surely one or two geologists in your camp turned Judas or something.Back to the topic What’s doctorate geology have to do with IN THE BEGINNING anyway? I was hoping we might be talking about quarks and photons (or something see below) in a primordial geosphere, not arguments of geological strata. Please, Edge.I’ve referred to non-chaotic geological formations as geological excellencies or excellent geological formations. I think Sir Isaac Newton and/or Jonathan Edwards introduced that term Excellency to refer to nature’s harmonies, symmetries, and proportions. The latter, Edwards, applied the term to redemptive metaphysical phenomena.Such Excellencies denote beauty, beneficence, and a peculiar permanence conferred upon us melancholy creatures. Excellencies must be worth gawking at by any geological authority. Examples of ‘excellent geological formations’ might be:1) Primordial excellent geological formations: Quarks, Photons, lower elements and their quantums The mystery of Orchestrated quantum mechanics commencing and sustaining matter The pre-universe and its beneficial relationship to our geosphere.2) Then, excellent geological formations of higher elements and inorganic compounds, their excellent longevities (half-lives), and simple organic compounds.3) Then, very excellent geological formations of complex organic and biochemical molecules along with their linked enzymes, DNA, RNA, etc. might even rate the term higher excellencies.4) Finally, extremely excellent fossil formations of living things, and numerous other orchestrated geological harmonies, symmetries, and proportions.Of course, geological authority doesn’t seem to have a handle on when its appropriate to gawk at primordial geological excellencies. Yet gawk geologists must, don’t you think? Even all geological authority must raise its hands in adoration to its Maker. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-27-2005 01:05 PM

There certainly are rules against honest "rant", despite my error about Behe.(Hope I didn't slander Behe, I said "I think" and "seemed" to imply that I may not have known)Philip