Quote:
Originally Posted by notofworks
So Pel, do you give any plausibility to my college-days view that "In the beginning, God created...." and He made it exactly as it appears complete with aged appearances, coal, diamonds, etc.?
|
If one thinks about it creation had to have an appearance of age. For example, if you walked into the garden of Eden you'd see two young adults, one male one female, trees, rivers, etc. You would date the young adults at being mid to late twenties. You'd date the river by erosion, flow, etc. and it would appear to have been there many many years. The trees of the garden would appear to have been growing for many decades. Just on the surface level you'd have to admit an appearance of age.
Science isn't always right. A discovery could be made tomorrow that would could throw the entire scientific establishment on it's head. But odds are you and I would never you hear about that discovery. These are issues of "forbidden archeology". You see, there are discoveries that just don't add up to the current model and these discoveries are typically labled, catagorized, and put into storage. For example there are stories of very high tech machinery being discovered embedded in rock supposedly millions of years old. Artifacts that indicate that ancient Egyptians were in the British Isles long before "traditional" history would want you to believe they were there. You have mysterious objects found places that they just shouldn't be. You have gigantic human skeletons. Deformed, modified, or just plan perplexing human skeletons. You have items like the crystal skull that science can't really explain. Most are chalked up to being anomalous oddities. I'm not so sure of that. There's so much more information that you and I aren't told. Discoveries that the evolutionary establishment squints at and tosses aside because they're so sure of their theory. If they did find the ark... I assure you we'd NEVER hear about it unless some researcher opened the story... and he'd only get time on late night talk radio and be discredited by his colleagues.
Of course those who study forbidden archeology appear to push for a more ancient mankind because evidence is found in supposedly more ancient locations, sediments, etc. But what if the truth is the other way around? What if it isn't that man is older than the establishment wants us to know... what if mankind is younger?
Just some food for thought.
Threaded Mode
