What do you think about pre Adamites?


BJ64
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Half of that battle is deciding/discerning what is revealed truth. As MarginofError noted in the "stirring the pot" thread, half of this question around pre-adamites (and evolution and geologic history and cosmology in general) is to what extent we take the scriptural creation accounts as literal history/science. There are many differences of opinion among ourselves (and broader Christianity) regarding exactly what is "revealed truth" and what those revelations mean.

I disagree. Revealed truth is reveal to us. Unless and until it is, we should keep a pretty open, "I'm not 100% sure" approach on these things, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 Here is a question I ponder, "If God is able to lengthen a day would science (carbon dating) show this as one day or multiple days"?  If God lengthened a day to 1000 days, would science carbon date a fossil during that time as one day or 1000 days?

No.   Carbon Dating has nothing to do with the length of a day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Scott said:

No.   Carbon Dating has nothing to do with the length of a day.  

Here's an interesting article on 14C creation rates being much lower than previously believed. If carbon dating didn't use lots of other kinds of historical and physical ways to confirm age, this might be an argument in favor of the young-earthers who claim that C-14 dating provides dates much too old.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/atmospheric-carbon-14-measurements-reveal-natural-production-rate-cosmic-rays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Anddenex said:

OK, sure, then why do they give a date of how many years, which is made up of days.

Is this a real question?  It is simple mathematics.  

It is because years is a measurement of time.  If a day was twice and as long and the Earth continued to orbit the sun at the same rate, the number of years old you are wouldn't change.   

Also, we just choose Earth years to measure time.   It wouldn't matter which years we choose when it comes how long we would live.  I am 44 Earth years old, which is about 3.7 Jupiter years.   You can use any unit of measurement you want.  If I use Earth years, Jupiter years, or any other year, it doesn't change how long I have lived. 

We use earth years to measure time only for convenience.   

Mathematically 1/2 is the same as 2/4 and so on.   

If the US converts to the metric system, existing roads aren't going to shrink or grow just because we are using a different unit of measure.  

Also a year is made up of days, but they are two completely different measurements.   A year is the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun.  A day is the the time it takes for the earth to complete a rotation around it's axis.  A month is (approximately) the time it takes for the moon to complete it's phases.   If the moon never existed and we couldn't measure months that way, time would still pass as the same rate.  It would do this regardless of how long the earth took to orbit the sun or spin on its axis.  The amount of time past would still be the same; we would just choose a different way to measure it.

Edit:

Perhaps this is the easiest way to explain how time is measured (including carbon dating, but all other long time period measurement methods of time as well).   

It is said that the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.8 billion years ago (whether you believe it or not).   This does not mean that since then the Earth has rotated the sun 13.8 billion times.  The earth didn't even exist until about 4.5-4.6 billion years ago so it couldn't do that.  When someone says that the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, it means that if you take the length of the current year in modern times and multiplied that time by 13.8 billion, that is how long ago the Big Bang occurred. 

The same is true of carbon dating.  The age of the earth was partially determined by carbon dated meteorites that hit the earth.   Meteorites, in theory, should be the same approximate age of the earth.  

When it is said that a carbon dated meteor (or whatever other object you choose) is 4.5-4.6 billion years old, it means that if you take the length of the current earth year on modern times and multiplied that time by 4.5-4.6 billion, that is how long ago the meteor was formed.  How long a day is on earth, the meteorite itself, or any other planet or object is completely irrelevant.  The measurement was chosen to be displayed as a modern earth year for convenience only. 

 

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott said:

Is this a real question?  It is simple mathematics.  

Yes, this was a real question. I understood carbon dating involved mathematics. :rolleyes:

Quote

It is because years is a measurement of time.  If a day was twice and as long and the Earth continued to orbit the sun at the same rate, the number of years old you are wouldn't change.   

Correct, the number of years is a measurement of time. This is already understood.

Quote

Also, we just choose Earth years to measure time.   It wouldn't matter which years we choose when it comes how long we would live.  I am 44 Earth years old, which is about 3.7 Jupiter years.   You can use any unit of measurement you want.  If I use Earth years, Jupiter years, or any other year, it doesn't change how long I have lived. 

We use earth years to measure time only for convenience.   

Mathematically 1/2 is the same as 2/4 and so on.   

If the US converts to the metric system, existing roads aren't going to shrink or grow just because we are using a different unit of measure.  

Also a year is made up of days, but they are two completely different measurements.   A year is the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun.  A day is the the time it takes for the earth to complete a rotation around it's axis.  A month is (approximately) the time it takes for the moon to complete it's phases.   If the moon never existed and we couldn't measure months that way, time would still pass as the same rate.  It would do this regardless of how long the earth took to orbit the sun or spin on its axis.  The amount of time past would still be the same; we would just choose a different way to measure it.

Edit:

Perhaps this is the easiest way to explain how time is measured (including carbon dating, but all other long time period measurement methods of time as well).   

It is said that the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.8 billion years ago (whether you believe it or not).   This does not mean that since then the Earth has rotated the sun 13.8 billion times.  The earth didn't even exist until about 4.5-4.6 billion years ago so it couldn't do that.  When someone says that the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, it means that if you take the length of the current year in modern times and multiplied that time by 13.8 billion, that is how long ago the Big Bang occurred. 

The same is true of carbon dating.  The age of the earth was partially determined by carbon dated meteorites that hit the earth.   Meteorites, in theory, should be the same approximate age of the earth.  

When it is said that a carbon dated meteor (or whatever other object you choose) is 4.5-4.6 billion years old, it means that if you take the length of the current earth year on modern times and multiplied that time by 4.5-4.6 billion, that is how long ago the meteor was formed.  How long a day is on earth, the meteorite itself, or any other planet or object is completely irrelevant.  The measurement was chosen to be displayed as a modern earth year for convenience only.

No offense, but I can tell from your answer you really didn't understand the question, which is why you began with "Is this a real question"? A question which is obvious you don't know the answer to, but that is OK. Read your last paragraph, the highlighted portion, go back and read my question and then provide an answer. The intended shock or insult with "Is this a real question"? doesn't help a long winded answer to the question that didn't even answer the question but just showed math, which -- thank you -- I am familiar with.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scott said:

 

It is said that the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.8 billion years ago (whether you believe it or not).   This does not mean that since then the Earth has rotated the sun 13.8 billion times.  The earth didn't even exist until about 4.5-4.6 billion years ago so it couldn't do that.  When someone says that the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, it means that if you take the length of the current year in modern times and multiplied that time by 13.8 billion, that is how long ago the Big Bang occurred. 

Off topic...

I personally believe that if the universe formed as they believe it formed in secular science, we've made the Universe FAR too young.  We've based it upon local measurements regarding speeds and dilation of light, but it is still a local measurement (local meaning we cannot see to the ends of the universe, thus anything we see is just a portion of that universe).

I imagine as we learn more we will find the Universe is trillions at the youngest, more likely quadrillions if not octillions of years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2018 at 2:49 PM, Anddenex said:

There are two theories (could be more) from prophets I have read:

1) Brigham Young (someone feel free to correct me if I am quoting him wrong) said the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth. This meant that there were people on the earth, outside of the garden who were living and dying. Or, simply meaning at one point the earth was populated (all species now dead) and Adam and Eve were to repopulate the earth.

2) Joseph Fielding Smith (In correlation with this) said No. Adam and Eve were the first (condensed version of his whole words)

If Joseph Fielding Smith is correct, then our understanding of pre-Adamites is incorrect. If Brigham Young is correct, well, then Adam and Eve truly "replenished" the earth.

Of course if something is a just a prophets opinion it is just that. Books, discourses, and talks at BYU are not the gospel. Maybe the dust off the earth was early man which was created more Godlike. New DNA was added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, john4truth said:

Of course if something is a just a prophets opinion it is just that. Books, discourses, and talks at BYU are not the gospel. Maybe the dust off the earth was early man which was created more Godlike. New DNA was added.

Brigham Young,said, adam and eva came from another planet
the bible is not translated correctly.
Life only comes from life

not from clay

---------------------------------------

from clay

that's impossible
a thing of impossibility

Edited by goor_de
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

No offense, but I can tell from your answer you really didn't understand the question

Apparently so and I still don't. 

PS, the question of "Is this a real question?" was an exclamation of surprise, rather than meant to be an insult; though I guess I I can see how it was taken that way.   I wanted to use the phrase WTF(etch), but I didn't think it appropriate.  

Here is your question:

Quote

OK, sure, then why do they give a date of how many years, which is made up of days.

The length of a year and day have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

A year isn't based on the number of days; it is based on the time the earth takes to make one orbit around the sun.  The length of a day has absolutely nothing to do with this.  If the earth's rotation was stopped right now and there were no days, the length of a year would still be the same.  It would effect neither the length of a year or carbon dating.

So if this isn't a satisfactory answer to you,  then yes, I don't understand your question.

And for the record, I scored almost perfect in my ACTs, skipped 5th grade in school and went into another grade early (I can prove this), have published several scientific papers, help develop medicines that have saved many lives, and am considered to be one of the best engineers in the state I live in.

After all that I still don't understand the question.

Why would the length of day effect carbon dating?

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, goor_de said:

the question is, is the C14 production in the atmosphere the same day and night
if not, then the value changes

Over time, the value still wouldn't change unless the earth stops rotating.   If the length of day was changed, there would still be an approximately equal amount of darkness and daylight no matter how long the day was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two opposing thoughts about the "miracle of lengthening a day"

1) Do I believe the account in Josh 10 is a literal, historical, factual (as a 21st century man would understand those terms) account or not. This gets at the question of Biblical literalism that I mentioned. Do I believe that the sun and moon really "froze" in their apparent motions? Or do I believe that the "author" of Joshua exaggerated the event as a way of saying, "See! Our God is bigger than your god(s)!" (which, I have read elsewhere, was not uncommon among "historians" of this time period).

Considering that the account was written to a people believing in a geocentric universe, am I supposed to read the account as if it occurred in a geocentric universe or knowing what I know in the 21st century about astronomical motions (including Newton-like laws)?

2) If I assume a 21st century interpretation of the miracle in Josh 10, I see that God would have to suspend a lot of natural laws of motion in order to cause the sun and moon to temporarily cease their "motions", and then suspend those laws again when those motions are restarted 24 hours later. Wikipedia notes that the radioactive decay at the heart of radiometric dating is controlled almost exclusively by nuclear forces inside of the atom. From my limited perspective, I don't see anything about suspending planetary scale laws of motion that necessitates suspending/altering the laws that control radioactive decay, but that doesn't mean that and omnipotent, omniscient God knows or acts according to my limited knowledge.

As I have noted elsewhere, the real challenge posed by these kinds of miracles, IMO, seems to be to challenge the basic tenet of science -- uniformitarianism. Using a miracle like Josh 10 sounds to me like "uniformitarianism is only good back to some great miracle/catastrophe when God completely disrupts natural law, then what do I do?". I can assume that I can extrapolate across the gap, so that my known laws extend before and after the miracle as if the miracle did not occur (which seems to be what we mostly do). But questions like this come across to me as saying that one should not extrapolate across the discontinuity. The argument then seems to come in favor Biblical literalism, which, as I noted, I am not sold on.

What parts of science do I accept? It's all good back to Joshua, but science has nothing to say about the universe before Joshua?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

.

What parts of science do I accept? It's all good back to Joshua, but science has nothing to say about the universe before Joshua?

 

I think it was a vision
When the earth stands still, large centrifugal forces act on everything.
In addition, you can no just stop the earth.
the prophets looked in the OT everything from the earth.
The sun always stands still

Edited by goor_de
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, goor_de said:

Brigham Young,said, adam and eva came from another planet
the bible is not translated correctly.
Life only comes from life
not from clay

that's impossible
a thing of impossibility

I agree and the sons of Adam married the daughters of man. This the new man a combination  of existing men and transplanted being

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, john4truth said:

I agree and the sons of Adam married the daughters of man. This the new man a combination  of existing men and transplanted being

 think,
Life can only be passed on by living beings.
Everything comes from the urstoff and the process of expansion is the one we see
there is no other way since eternity

Edited by goor_de
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I imagine as we learn more we will find the Universe is trillions at the youngest, more likely quadrillions if not octillions of years old.

If you follow Joseph Smith’s teaching that there is no beginning and no end then you can’t date the universe because it has no beginning it has always existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, john4truth said:

Sorry my memory is flawed. Genesis 6:2  The sons of God married the daughters of men.  Leaving room for debate, and I don't know.

Aye. The reference, clarified in the Pearl of Great Price in Moses states that those who joined and covenented with God were called "the sons of God". The daughters of men was in reference to marrying outside the covenant fold of God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Aye. The reference, clarified in the Pearl of Great Price in Moses states that those who joined and covenented with God were called "the sons of God". The daughters of men was in reference to marrying outside the covenant fold of God.

 

I think
  that is a kind of chiasmus
God's sons and people's daughters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, john4truth said:

Of course if something is a just a prophets opinion it is just that. Books, discourses, and talks at BYU are not the gospel. Maybe the dust off the earth was early man which was created more Godlike. New DNA was added.

Correct, this is why I began my statement with the following phraze, "There are two theories..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2018 at 6:13 AM, goor_de said:

the question is, is the C14 production in the atmosphere the same day and night
if not, then the value changes

That is within the realm of what I was referring to. In math if a value changes then the answer would change also, and depending on the how that variable changes the answer would change also.

And is our current level and understanding of science able to recognize the change or is the calculation solely do to what we know, which means we are missing parts to provide an accurate accounting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share