Biblical Time Measurement Vs Modern Time Measurement

You do know that the biggest critter that ever lived lives today? Also some of the biggest plants.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Creavolution, Precious little that I know of. I think there are various ancient myths about humans living to be 1000 years old. Also, the extreme sizes of some varieties of dinosaur might indicate a great longevity not witnessed in modern reptiles.I can think of at least one rebuttal to my big reptiles = old reptiles line of reasoning: whales. Whales are huge...but how old are they?--Jason

Thanks for Filling me in Literalist... Still seems to me to be too full of 'ifs', 'maybes' and 'perhapses'I really am amazed how people can simply 'believe' in things that otherwise don't seem to make sense. (don't mean that to be rude/insulting just genuine amazement.)I guess it's too much for me to accept that people used to live to be a thousand.

Hi jar,The blue whale and the giant sequoia?It was my understanding, though, that how dinosaurs were able to support their oxygen needs is still not understood.Insect size is limited, I thought, by their particular method of respiration and the oxygen content/air pressure of the atmosphere.So might these fossils be considered that the atmoshpere has changed somehow over time (whichever side of the debate one is on)?--Jason

the atmosphere has changed over time, considerably. For example, samples drawn from millions of years old amber show well known differences. Air BubblesBut there was no sign of gigantism in the past, particularly related to today. While there were big ass dinosaurs, there were also small ones right beside them. Many critters today are among the largest ever. Some of the rain forest trees and vines, like the Strangler Fig, would definitely be classed as giants.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Creavolution, No problem. You're coming across as genuinely amazed...and I find your amazement understandable. Today there are fish and amphibians. In the fossil record there are fish and amphibians.Yet, you accept that fish turned into amphibians, right?(My point is not to get into discussions about fish and amphibians but to demonstrate that you are believing in something that doesn't make sense to me).--Jason

the link you give says it looks like the ancient atmosphere had considerably more oxygen...35% versus today's 21%.--Jason

I wouldn't say I believe 100% in evolution (hence my name), I don't know enough about it to be absolutely certain. but I do find it very convincing to the point that I probobly accept it as the most likely explanation.BTW It's not so much "turned into" as evolved from. i.e. at some point a fish mutated (albeit very slowly over many small steps) to become an amphibian. This doesn't require that fish stop existing. merely that a new form of life began to evolve.

Of course the antediluvian atmosphere was different. It was so invigorating and health-giving that the Assyrians never even noticed the Flood (Gen 2:14)

I also asked you in the other thread why creationists aren't doing anything to test those what-ifs?When your car doesn't start, do you just "believe" that God doesn't want you to go to work today? Or do you do a very simple experiment and see if you have any gas?Why don't creationists do some very simple experiments to test those what-ifs? Why not try to grow a giant chicken? Why not increase the O₂ content in nursing homes to increase longevity?What amazes me isn't so much that you believe people lived 900 years. What amazes me is that you don't try to achieve the same results today. Not only would it be a benefit to mankind, it would also be great PR for creationism.Pardon me for being cynical, but I suspect it's because they (i.e. you) don't really believe it would work.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Yes. But there were times when there was little or no oxygen.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

cool! now that would impress me!

You are right this is not the forum to discuss that. What I wanted to comment on was my surprise and disappointment.I've been thinking you were at least a little bit knowlegable and sensible now you blow that up by making a reference to the most unknowlegable kind of statment made by the worst of the creationists. It hints that you no absolutely nothing and, worse, are unable to reason in a coherent way. There should be no need to discuss this at all you should be able to work it out for yourself.Too bad but I guess I allowed my expectations to build up a bit too much.

As a member of the OEC group, (it seems we all have to categorized) I had a thought on the age issue in the Bible. I read recently that apparently, biologists have discovered the DNA that they believe is responsible for the aging process. They have also found that DNA mutations will cause an acceleration of the aging process.As evolution occurs due to genetic mutations, (as I understand it from reading this forum), then is it not conceivable that the evolutionary process, through genetic mutations caused the average life span to be considerably reduced from what it was a few thousand years back.Not trying to prove anything here, but that does seem to me to be one possibility when considering the longevity of the our distant ancestors.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Conceivable -- sure. But highly implausible.Maybe length of life has evolved during the duration that homo sapiens has existed. But the change isn't likely to have happened in the last 6000 years. And it isn't likely to have been that large a change.It is far more plausible that a different calendar was used (different year length), or that the numbers were exaggerated, or that it is all myth.