Millions of years ago ! ?
- Thread starter wincam
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
JackH has been on this web site ever since I first came upon it myself and long before that......and like his weak evidence he too has never evolved. He believes in the survival of the fittest and that if he can devour you with his incessant verbiage he will prove himself ( if he is indeed a male) to be the king of the pack. Praise God for the truth of His word and the work of the Holy Spirit who opens the minds and hearts of all who truly seek after the truth.
there is nothing in observable repeatable science that contradicts the truth of God's word and "proves" the scriptures account of creation to be incorrect.
there is nothing in observable repeatable science that contradicts the truth of God's word and "proves" the scriptures account of creation to be incorrect.
Well Jesus believed the Old Testament as literal and that surely is good enough....after all He created everything and He was tree at the beginning we were not
If so, did Jesus and the apostles believe Genesis in the Septuagint to be literal and without error?
P
Oh,dear.Creationism takes a big hit with a new find in Africa. Scientist have found a skull dating back 30 million years.
This is an early on, ape skull,an obviuos pre monkey transitionary skull. 100% proof of a transition and God is obviously looking on nervously.
This skull actually has only one eye socket. Thats right folks,one eye socket.And the theory is that one eye was so limited that about 20 million years of "evolving" ,first with the 2nd migrating eyeball only in the nostril cavity,then migrating to the rectum,trying out (unsuccessfully) the belly button,and nipple positions,finally demanded a 2nd eyesocket in the front of the skull.
Now these top scientist(nobody would dare challenge these genius superior craneoid experts) have also answered the complete disappearance of the belly button eyeball,(this species BTW,is called 'belly eyed Mc sapion' as this expert was downing a happy meal at the time he named it),in the scientific unintelligable jargon so complex you guys can't understand it (has some ethiopian words) and therefore we won't go there.
But yes,the entire evo SCIENTIFIC world is thrilled and has new solid ground to teach all youngsters, world wide, this important indoctrination from hell.
Remember ,true science is the catch phrase.
This is an early on, ape skull,an obviuos pre monkey transitionary skull. 100% proof of a transition and God is obviously looking on nervously.
This skull actually has only one eye socket. Thats right folks,one eye socket.And the theory is that one eye was so limited that about 20 million years of "evolving" ,first with the 2nd migrating eyeball only in the nostril cavity,then migrating to the rectum,trying out (unsuccessfully) the belly button,and nipple positions,finally demanded a 2nd eyesocket in the front of the skull.
Now these top scientist(nobody would dare challenge these genius superior craneoid experts) have also answered the complete disappearance of the belly button eyeball,(this species BTW,is called 'belly eyed Mc sapion' as this expert was downing a happy meal at the time he named it),in the scientific unintelligable jargon so complex you guys can't understand it (has some ethiopian words) and therefore we won't go there.
But yes,the entire evo SCIENTIFIC world is thrilled and has new solid ground to teach all youngsters, world wide, this important indoctrination from hell.
Remember ,true science is the catch phrase.
Last edited:
E
The earth continents are on the move that can be measured today that's a fact, there's more to his design than written..
personally I think the people in those times were starting to ask questions they had about the earth instead of teaching of things they couldn't understand he used tools they had at hand. meaning words and knowledge they understood..rightly so as it is today we hear what we can handle in our minds and no more.
personally I think the people in those times were starting to ask questions they had about the earth instead of teaching of things they couldn't understand he used tools they had at hand. meaning words and knowledge they understood..rightly so as it is today we hear what we can handle in our minds and no more.
E
The fact is evolution requires faith to believe it which automatically makes it an absolute religion,evolution is forced on society and society is too busy with frivolous activities to even question it,because when one puts evolution under scrutiny they will soon see it is really quiet comical.However GOD gave us free will and at the end of the day if one wants to idolize their monkey god they are free to do so,but as far as I am concerned evolution is no more than a fairytale for adults.
Oh,dear.Creationism takes a big hit with a new find in Africa. Scientist have found a skull dating back 30 million years.
This is an early on, ape skull,an obviuos pre monkey transitionary skull. 100% proof of a transition and God is obviously looking on nervously.
This skull actually has only one eye socket. Thats right folks,one eye socket.And the theory is that one eye was so limited that about 20 million years of "evolving" ,first with the 2nd migrating eyeball only in the nostril cavity,then migrating to the rectum,trying out (unsuccessfully) the belly button,and nipple positions,finally demanded a 2nd eyesocket in the front of the skull.
Now these top scientist(nobody would dare challenge these genius superior craneoid experts) have also answered the complete disappearance of the belly button eyeball,(this species BTW,is called 'belly eyed Mc sapion' as this expert was downing a happy meal at the time he named it),in the scientific unintelligable jargon so complex you guys can't understand it (has some ethiopian words) and therefore we won't go there.
But yes,the entire evo SCIENTIFIC world is thrilled and has new solid ground to teach all youngsters, world wide, this important indoctrination from hell.
Remember ,true science is the catch phrase.
This is an early on, ape skull,an obviuos pre monkey transitionary skull. 100% proof of a transition and God is obviously looking on nervously.
This skull actually has only one eye socket. Thats right folks,one eye socket.And the theory is that one eye was so limited that about 20 million years of "evolving" ,first with the 2nd migrating eyeball only in the nostril cavity,then migrating to the rectum,trying out (unsuccessfully) the belly button,and nipple positions,finally demanded a 2nd eyesocket in the front of the skull.
Now these top scientist(nobody would dare challenge these genius superior craneoid experts) have also answered the complete disappearance of the belly button eyeball,(this species BTW,is called 'belly eyed Mc sapion' as this expert was downing a happy meal at the time he named it),in the scientific unintelligable jargon so complex you guys can't understand it (has some ethiopian words) and therefore we won't go there.
But yes,the entire evo SCIENTIFIC world is thrilled and has new solid ground to teach all youngsters, world wide, this important indoctrination from hell.
Remember ,true science is the catch phrase.
buried, like Dinosaurs, alongside and along with comparitively modern plants and animals - another cover up no doubt not mentioned - wincam
Oh,dear.Creationism takes a big hit with a new find in Africa. Scientist have found a skull dating back 30 million years.
This is an early on, ape skull,an obviuos pre monkey transitionary skull. 100% proof of a transition and God is obviously looking on nervously.
This skull actually has only one eye socket. Thats right folks,one eye socket.And the theory is that one eye was so limited that about 20 million years of "evolving" ,first with the 2nd migrating eyeball only in the nostril cavity,then migrating to the rectum,trying out (unsuccessfully) the belly button,and nipple positions,finally demanded a 2nd eyesocket in the front of the skull.
Now these top scientist(nobody would dare challenge these genius superior craneoid experts) have also answered the complete disappearance of the belly button eyeball,(this species BTW,is called 'belly eyed Mc sapion' as this expert was downing a happy meal at the time he named it),in the scientific unintelligable jargon so complex you guys can't understand it (has some ethiopian words) and therefore we won't go there.
But yes,the entire evo SCIENTIFIC world is thrilled and has new solid ground to teach all youngsters, world wide, this important indoctrination from hell.
Remember ,true science is the catch phrase.
This is an early on, ape skull,an obviuos pre monkey transitionary skull. 100% proof of a transition and God is obviously looking on nervously.
This skull actually has only one eye socket. Thats right folks,one eye socket.And the theory is that one eye was so limited that about 20 million years of "evolving" ,first with the 2nd migrating eyeball only in the nostril cavity,then migrating to the rectum,trying out (unsuccessfully) the belly button,and nipple positions,finally demanded a 2nd eyesocket in the front of the skull.
Now these top scientist(nobody would dare challenge these genius superior craneoid experts) have also answered the complete disappearance of the belly button eyeball,(this species BTW,is called 'belly eyed Mc sapion' as this expert was downing a happy meal at the time he named it),in the scientific unintelligable jargon so complex you guys can't understand it (has some ethiopian words) and therefore we won't go there.
But yes,the entire evo SCIENTIFIC world is thrilled and has new solid ground to teach all youngsters, world wide, this important indoctrination from hell.
Remember ,true science is the catch phrase.
When you make a statement like this, you should furnish a link.
Do you have a link?
Here's a link for information about a 1.8 million-year-old hominid:
Complete skull of 1.8-million-year-old hominin found - life - 17 October 2013 - New Scientist
E
If you don't believe in Evolution as from God then what's the point in asking "No life or evolution possible" when you have already made your mind up. I'm a believer in both, shocking scary and fear of not being from him because scripture doesn't prove or disprove evolution "though OT speaks of a giant race and six toe beings" for most Christians too even dare to step from scripture into the unknown is a faith worse then death. Jesus went against the teachings of the elders and what happened he was tortured beatin and nailed to a cross to die. It was to shocking, scary, fearful for the elders to step out and believe in the unbelievable. So they said lets get rid of the problem. That same attitude is alive and thriving today.
If you don't believe in Evolution as from God then what's the point in asking "No life or evolution possible" when you have already made your mind up. I'm a believer in both, shocking scary and fear of not being from him because scripture doesn't prove or disprove evolution "though OT speaks of a giant race and six toe beings" for most Christians too even dare to step from scripture into the unknown is a faith worse then death. Jesus went against the teachings of the elders and what happened he was tortured beatin and nailed to a cross to die. It was to shocking, scary, fearful for the elders to step out and believe in the unbelievable. So they said lets get rid of the problem. That same attitude is alive and thriving today.
1. How old is the earth?
2. How long have humans been on the earth?
3. Was there a global flood 4,000 to 5,000 years ago? Or even within the past 10,000 years?
4. Did dinosaurs coexist with humans?
E
I can say this from scripture
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deu 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;
Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.
and Samual 21:20 And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deu 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;
Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.
and Samual 21:20 And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.
Last edited:
W
Very well, let us begin here. Genesis tells us that God created man as a being like himself, in His image. To understand what this implies we must first allow scripture to define for us the image or nature of God. God has never given us anything by which we could formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us in scripture defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs - carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, size, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and the type of soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. The extended properties of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.
The ‘essence’ of God defines the intrinsic qualities of God. They do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God He is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. The singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance. (We will talk about theophonic manifestations later).
1. The essence is what I regard as signature traits. These traits qualify God as God.
Intrinsically, the essence of God is:
* Spirit * Ever-present * Immortal
* Holy * Eternal * Self-existing
* All-powerful * Invisible * Self-sustaining
* All-knowing * Unified * Transcendent
2. The character of God is what I would regard as attributes that define His moral
integrity.
The character of God is:
* Holy * Good * Faithful * Patient
* Righteous * Honest * Loving
* Just * Fair * Forgiving
* Pure * Consistent * Merciful
These are only some of the qualities we find ascribed to God in the scriptures. Every attribute of essence and character that scripture assigns to God are assigned also to man yet in limiting degrees. So, what is there about man then that bears the likeness of his Creator? Scripture has much more to say about the image of God than just the simple fact that he is Spirit. Scripture tells us that man also possesses a spirit. Man also possesses the same intrinsic qualities that define the nature and character of God, yet limited in degree. Man was created as a holy and righteous being. He was created as an eternal being endowed with wisdom. He was created with the capacity to love, to dispense mercy, kindness, goodness, compassion, and justice. Man was given transcendence – he was placed over all God’s creation to ruler over it. This is what defines man as one created in the image and likeness of God. As such, man is the closest thing to God that exists in creation.[/QUOTE I agree with much of what you say. But, Jesus, is the express image of the person of God, If you have seen me, you have seen the Father, Scripture calls our bodies a set of clothes or a vessel to house the Spirit and Jesus while in this vessel never has given over to its corrupted nature and kept himself pure and sinless. so we have seen the father. even more so in that being found in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God , but took upon him the form of a servant. Also learning obedience by suffering.
The ‘essence’ of God defines the intrinsic qualities of God. They do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God He is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. The singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance. (We will talk about theophonic manifestations later).
1. The essence is what I regard as signature traits. These traits qualify God as God.
Intrinsically, the essence of God is:
* Spirit * Ever-present * Immortal
* Holy * Eternal * Self-existing
* All-powerful * Invisible * Self-sustaining
* All-knowing * Unified * Transcendent
2. The character of God is what I would regard as attributes that define His moral
integrity.
The character of God is:
* Holy * Good * Faithful * Patient
* Righteous * Honest * Loving
* Just * Fair * Forgiving
* Pure * Consistent * Merciful
These are only some of the qualities we find ascribed to God in the scriptures. Every attribute of essence and character that scripture assigns to God are assigned also to man yet in limiting degrees. So, what is there about man then that bears the likeness of his Creator? Scripture has much more to say about the image of God than just the simple fact that he is Spirit. Scripture tells us that man also possesses a spirit. Man also possesses the same intrinsic qualities that define the nature and character of God, yet limited in degree. Man was created as a holy and righteous being. He was created as an eternal being endowed with wisdom. He was created with the capacity to love, to dispense mercy, kindness, goodness, compassion, and justice. Man was given transcendence – he was placed over all God’s creation to ruler over it. This is what defines man as one created in the image and likeness of God. As such, man is the closest thing to God that exists in creation.[/QUOTE I agree with much of what you say. But, Jesus, is the express image of the person of God, If you have seen me, you have seen the Father, Scripture calls our bodies a set of clothes or a vessel to house the Spirit and Jesus while in this vessel never has given over to its corrupted nature and kept himself pure and sinless. so we have seen the father. even more so in that being found in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God , but took upon him the form of a servant. Also learning obedience by suffering.
E
About time it self if you believe that the months of August and July are real months then you believe in roman rule and law because it was Julius Caesar who added these months because his astronomers who said it was needed to keep the seasons balanced July he named after himself Julius, August was named after Augustus for which we use today. Nuclear physics is real we have bombs and power plants and ships that run off it and true science knows how long radiation isotopes age a a curtain rate from this they can see the rate of aging in rocks and such I rather take this information than a simple guess. Radiation is everywhere in our bodies to plants to everything on the planet which radiation is admitted from the sun.
Last edited:
W
I acknowledged that I didn't care about evolution or the "science" behind it. Instead of reading about rubbish I will rather study my Bible.
FYI I am commenting on a Christian website while being a Christian. What is your religion again?[/QUOTE Although many scientist don't believe in God , many do. I look at evo. as something designed by God. The ability to adapt to changing environments. Life would be long dead if it couldn't. It even deepens the glorious life of our Father. He is an artist and loves to create. Changes in genetic makeup lead to changes in structure, And there are genetic changes or mutations all the time, which lead to phenotypic variation. I usually try and not get into these evo. discussions because they usually don't end in edification and ,frankly I hear some of the stupid responses, it's disheartening Whether evo. or not , What does this change about the Lord, except that the creation is not litteral but more general. God still created all things that are made.
FYI I am commenting on a Christian website while being a Christian. What is your religion again?[/QUOTE Although many scientist don't believe in God , many do. I look at evo. as something designed by God. The ability to adapt to changing environments. Life would be long dead if it couldn't. It even deepens the glorious life of our Father. He is an artist and loves to create. Changes in genetic makeup lead to changes in structure, And there are genetic changes or mutations all the time, which lead to phenotypic variation. I usually try and not get into these evo. discussions because they usually don't end in edification and ,frankly I hear some of the stupid responses, it's disheartening Whether evo. or not , What does this change about the Lord, except that the creation is not litteral but more general. God still created all things that are made.
I can say this from scripture
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deu 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;
Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.
and Samual 21:20 And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deu 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;
Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.
and Samual 21:20 And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.
An hour later you go off on this rant about fallen angels having sex with human women and producing giants.
There are plenty of threads about that to post on.
This thread is about the age of the earth.
Is the earth approximately 4.55 billion years old or around 6,000 years old?
Or somewhere in between?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
I'm willing to accept a margin of error of 4 billion or so.
Duh.
E
4.6 billion yrs old
Radiation measurements
The discovery of the natural radioactive decay of uranium in 1896 by Henry Becquerel, the French physicist, opened new vistas in science. In 1905, the British physicist Lord Rutherford--after defining the structure of the atom -- made the first clear suggestion for using radioactivity as a tool for measuring geologic time directly; shortly thereafter, in 1907, Professor B. B. Boltwood, a radiochemist at Yale University, published a list of geologic ages based on radioactivity. Although Boltwood's ages have since been revised, they did show correctly that the duration of geologic time would be measured in terms of hundreds-to-thousands of millions of years.
The next 40 years was a period of expanding research on the nature and behavior of atoms, leading to the development of nuclear fission and fusion as energy sources. A byproduct of this atomic research has been the development and continuing refinement of the various methods and techniques used to measure the age of Earth materials. Precise dating has been accomplished since 1950.
A chemical element consists of atoms with a specific number of protons in their nuclei but different atomic weights owing to variations in the number of neutrons. Atoms of the same element with differing atomic weights are called isotopes. Radioactive decay is a spontaneous process in which an isotope (the parent) loses particles from its nucleus to form an isotope of a new element (the daughter). The rate of decay is conveniently expressed in terms of an isotope's half-life, or the time it takes for one-half of a particular radioactive isotope in a sample to decay. Most radioactive isotopes have rapid rates of decay (that is, short half-lives) and lose their radioactivity within a few days or years. Some isotopes, however, decay slowly, and several of these are used as geologic clocks.
Dating rocks by these radioactive timekeepers is simple in theory, but the laboratory procedures are complex. The numbers of parent and daughter isotopes in each specimen are determined by various kinds of analytical methods. The principal difficulty lies in measuring precisely very small amounts of isotopes.
The potassium-argon method can be used on rocks as young as a few thousand years as well as on the oldest rocks known. Potassium is found in most rock-forming minerals, the half-life of its radioactive isotope potassium-40 is such that measurable quantities of argon (daughter) have accumulated in potassium-bearing minerals of nearly all ages, and the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes can be measured accurately, even in very small quantities. Where feasible, two or more methods of analysis are used on the same specimen of rock to confirm the results.
Another important atomic clock used for dating purposes is based on the radioactive decay of the isotope carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5,730 years. Carbon-14 is produced continuously in the Earth's upper atmosphere as a result of the bombardment of nitrogen by neutrons from cosmic rays. This newly formed radiocarbon becomes uniformly mixed with the nonradioactive carbon in the carbon dioxide of the air, and it eventually finds its way into all living plants and animals. In effect, all carbon in living organisms contains a constant proportion of radiocarbon to nonradioactive carbon. After the death of the organism, the amount of radiocarbon gradually decreases as it reverts to nitrogen-14 by radioactive decay. By measuring the amount of radioactivity remaining in organic materials, the amount of carbon-14 in the materials can be calculated and the time of death can be determined. For example, if carbon from a sample of wood is found to contain only half as much carbon-14 as that from a living plant, the estimated age of the old wood would be 5,730 years.
The radiocarbon clock has become an extremely useful and efficient tool in dating the important episodes in the recent prehistory and history of man, but because of the relatively short half-life of carbon-14, the clock can be used for dating events that have taken place only within the past 50,000 years.
The following is a group of rocks and materials that have dated by various atomic clock methods:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Sample[/TD]
[TD]Approximate Age in Years[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cloth wrappings from a mummified bullSamples taken from a pyramid in Dashur, Egypt. This date agrees with the age of the pyramid as estimated from historical records[/TD]
[TD]2,050[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CharcoalSample, recovered from bed of ash near Crater Lake, Oregon, is from a tree burned in the violent eruption of Mount Mazama which created Crater Lake. This eruption blanketed several States with ash, providing geologists with an excellent time zone.[/TD]
[TD]6,640[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CharcoalSample collected from the "Marmes Man" site in southeastern Washington. This rock shelter is believed to be among the oldest known inhabited sites in North America[/TD]
[TD]10,130[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spruce woodSample from the Two Creeks forest bed near Milwaukee, Wisconsin, dates one of the last advances of the continental ice sheet into the United States.[/TD]
[TD]11,640[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bishop TuffSamples collected from volcanic ash and pumice that overlie glacial debris in Owens Valley, California. This volcanic episode provides an important reference datum in the glacial history of North America.[/TD]
[TD]700,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Volcanic ashSamples collected from strata in Olduvai Gorge, East Africa, which sandwich the fossil remains of Zinjanthropus and Homo habilis -- possible precursors of modern man.[/TD]
[TD]1,750,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Monzonite.Samples of copper-bearing rock from vast open-pit mine at Bingham Canyon. Utah.[/TD]
[TD]37,500,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Quartz monzoniteSamples collected from Half Dome, Yosemite National Park, California.[/TD]
[TD]80,000,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Conway GraniteSamples collected from Redstone Quarry in the White Mountains of New Hampshire.[/TD]
[TD]180,000,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]RhyoliteSamples collected from Mount Rogers, the highest point in Virginia.[/TD]
[TD]820,000,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Pikes Peak GraniteSamples collected on top of Pikes Peak, Colorado.[/TD]
[TD]1,030,000,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]GneissSamples from outcrops in the Karelian area of eastern Finland are believed to represent the oldest rocks in the Baltic region.[/TD]
[TD]2,700,000,0000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The Old GraniteSamples from outcrops in the Transvaal, South Africa. These rocks intrude even older rocks that have not been dated.[/TD]
[TD]3,200,000,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The
Fossil records
As geologists continued to reconstruct the Earth's geologic history in the 1700s and early 1800s, they quickly recognized that the distribution of fossils within this history was not random -- fossils occurred in a consistent order. This was true at a regional, and even a global scale. Furthermore, fossil organisms were more unique than rock types, and much more varied, offering the potential for a much more precise subdivision of the stratigraphy and events within it.
The recognition of the utility of fossils for more precise "relative dating" is often attributed to William Smith, a canal engineer who observed the fossil succession while digging through the rocks of southern England. But scientists like Albert Oppel hit upon the same principles at about about the same time or earlier. In Smith's case, by using empirical observations of the fossil succession, he was able to propose a fine subdivision of the rocks and map out the formations of southern England in one of the earliest geological maps (1815). Other workers in the rest of Europe, and eventually the rest of the world, were able to compare directly to the same fossil succession in their areas, even when the rock types themselves varied at finer scale. For example, everywhere in the world, trilobites were found lower in the stratigraphy than marine reptiles. Dinosaurs were found after the first occurrence of land plants, insects, and amphibians. Spore-bearing land plants like ferns were always found before the occurrence of flowering plants. And so on.
The observation that fossils occur in a consistent succession is known as the "principle of faunal (and floral) succession". The study of the succession of fossils and its application to relative dating is known as "biostratigraphy". Each increment of time in the stratigraphy could be characterized by a particular assemblage of fossil organisms, formally termed a biostratigraphic "zone" by the German paleontologists Friedrich Quenstedt and Albert Oppel. These zones could then be traced over large regions, and eventually globally. Groups of zones were used to establish larger intervals of stratigraphy, known as geologic "stages" and geologic "systems". The time corresponding to most of these intervals of rock became known as geologic "ages" and "periods", respectively. By the end of the 1830s, most of the presently-used geologic periods had been established based on their fossil content and their observed relative position in the stratigraphy (e.g., Cambrian (1835), Ordovician (1879), Silurian (1835), Devonian (1839), Carboniferous (1822), Permian (1841), Triassic (1834), Jurassic (1829), Cretaceous (1823), Tertiary (1759), and Pleistocene (1839)). These terms were preceded by decades by other terms for various geologic subdivisions, and although there was subsequent debate over their exact boundaries (e.g., between the Cambrian and Silurian Periods, which was resolved by proposal of the Ordovician Period between them), the historical descriptions and fossil succession would be easily recognizable today.
By the 1830s, fossil succession had been studied to an increasing degree, such that the broad history of life on Earth was well understood, regardless of the debate over the names applied to portions of it, and where exactly to make the divisions. All paleontologists recognized unmistakable trends in morphology through time in the succession of fossil organisms. This observation led to attempts to explain the fossil succession by various mechanisms. Perhaps the best known example is Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Note that chronologically, fossil succession was well and independently established long before Darwin's evolutionary theory was proposed in 1859. Fossil succession and the geologic time scale are constrained by the observed order of the stratigraphy -- basically geometry -- not by evolutionary theory.
Stratigraphic
In places where layers of rocks are contorted, the relative ages of the layers may be difficult to determine. View near Copiapo, Chile.
At the close of the 18th century, careful studies by scientists showed that rocks had diverse origins. Some rock layers, containing clearly identifiable fossil remains of fish and other forms of aquatic animal and plant life, originally formed in the ocean. Other layers, consisting of sand grains winnowed clean by the pounding surf, obviously formed as beach deposits that marked the shorelines of ancient seas. Certain layers are in the form of sand bars and gravel banks -- rock debris spread over the land by streams. Some rocks were once lava flows or beds of cinders and ash thrown out of ancient volcanoes; others are portions of large masses of once molten rock that cooled very slowly far beneath the Earth's surface. Other rocks were so transformed by heat and pressure during the heaving and buckling of the Earth's crust in periods of mountain building that their original features were obliterated.
Between the years of 1785 and 1800, James Hutton and William Smith advanced the concept of geologic time and strengthened the belief in an ancient world. Hutton, a Scottish geologist, first proposed formally the fundamental principle used to classify rocks according to their relative ages. He concluded, after studying rocks at many outcrops, that each layer represented a specific interval of geologic time. Further, he proposed that wherever uncontorted layers were exposed, the bottom layer was deposited first and was, therefore, the oldest layer exposed; each succeeding layer, up to the topmost one, was progressively younger.
Today, such a proposal appears to be quite elementary but, nearly 200 years ago, it amounted to a major breakthrough in scientific reasoning by establishing a rational basis for relative time measurements. However, unlike tree-ring dating -- in which each ring is a measure of 1 year's growth -- no precise rate of deposition can be determined for most of the rock layers.
Radiation measurements
The discovery of the natural radioactive decay of uranium in 1896 by Henry Becquerel, the French physicist, opened new vistas in science. In 1905, the British physicist Lord Rutherford--after defining the structure of the atom -- made the first clear suggestion for using radioactivity as a tool for measuring geologic time directly; shortly thereafter, in 1907, Professor B. B. Boltwood, a radiochemist at Yale University, published a list of geologic ages based on radioactivity. Although Boltwood's ages have since been revised, they did show correctly that the duration of geologic time would be measured in terms of hundreds-to-thousands of millions of years.
The next 40 years was a period of expanding research on the nature and behavior of atoms, leading to the development of nuclear fission and fusion as energy sources. A byproduct of this atomic research has been the development and continuing refinement of the various methods and techniques used to measure the age of Earth materials. Precise dating has been accomplished since 1950.
A chemical element consists of atoms with a specific number of protons in their nuclei but different atomic weights owing to variations in the number of neutrons. Atoms of the same element with differing atomic weights are called isotopes. Radioactive decay is a spontaneous process in which an isotope (the parent) loses particles from its nucleus to form an isotope of a new element (the daughter). The rate of decay is conveniently expressed in terms of an isotope's half-life, or the time it takes for one-half of a particular radioactive isotope in a sample to decay. Most radioactive isotopes have rapid rates of decay (that is, short half-lives) and lose their radioactivity within a few days or years. Some isotopes, however, decay slowly, and several of these are used as geologic clocks.
Dating rocks by these radioactive timekeepers is simple in theory, but the laboratory procedures are complex. The numbers of parent and daughter isotopes in each specimen are determined by various kinds of analytical methods. The principal difficulty lies in measuring precisely very small amounts of isotopes.
The potassium-argon method can be used on rocks as young as a few thousand years as well as on the oldest rocks known. Potassium is found in most rock-forming minerals, the half-life of its radioactive isotope potassium-40 is such that measurable quantities of argon (daughter) have accumulated in potassium-bearing minerals of nearly all ages, and the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes can be measured accurately, even in very small quantities. Where feasible, two or more methods of analysis are used on the same specimen of rock to confirm the results.
Another important atomic clock used for dating purposes is based on the radioactive decay of the isotope carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5,730 years. Carbon-14 is produced continuously in the Earth's upper atmosphere as a result of the bombardment of nitrogen by neutrons from cosmic rays. This newly formed radiocarbon becomes uniformly mixed with the nonradioactive carbon in the carbon dioxide of the air, and it eventually finds its way into all living plants and animals. In effect, all carbon in living organisms contains a constant proportion of radiocarbon to nonradioactive carbon. After the death of the organism, the amount of radiocarbon gradually decreases as it reverts to nitrogen-14 by radioactive decay. By measuring the amount of radioactivity remaining in organic materials, the amount of carbon-14 in the materials can be calculated and the time of death can be determined. For example, if carbon from a sample of wood is found to contain only half as much carbon-14 as that from a living plant, the estimated age of the old wood would be 5,730 years.
The radiocarbon clock has become an extremely useful and efficient tool in dating the important episodes in the recent prehistory and history of man, but because of the relatively short half-life of carbon-14, the clock can be used for dating events that have taken place only within the past 50,000 years.
The following is a group of rocks and materials that have dated by various atomic clock methods:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Sample[/TD]
[TD]Approximate Age in Years[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cloth wrappings from a mummified bullSamples taken from a pyramid in Dashur, Egypt. This date agrees with the age of the pyramid as estimated from historical records[/TD]
[TD]2,050[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CharcoalSample, recovered from bed of ash near Crater Lake, Oregon, is from a tree burned in the violent eruption of Mount Mazama which created Crater Lake. This eruption blanketed several States with ash, providing geologists with an excellent time zone.[/TD]
[TD]6,640[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CharcoalSample collected from the "Marmes Man" site in southeastern Washington. This rock shelter is believed to be among the oldest known inhabited sites in North America[/TD]
[TD]10,130[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spruce woodSample from the Two Creeks forest bed near Milwaukee, Wisconsin, dates one of the last advances of the continental ice sheet into the United States.[/TD]
[TD]11,640[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bishop TuffSamples collected from volcanic ash and pumice that overlie glacial debris in Owens Valley, California. This volcanic episode provides an important reference datum in the glacial history of North America.[/TD]
[TD]700,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Volcanic ashSamples collected from strata in Olduvai Gorge, East Africa, which sandwich the fossil remains of Zinjanthropus and Homo habilis -- possible precursors of modern man.[/TD]
[TD]1,750,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Monzonite.Samples of copper-bearing rock from vast open-pit mine at Bingham Canyon. Utah.[/TD]
[TD]37,500,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Quartz monzoniteSamples collected from Half Dome, Yosemite National Park, California.[/TD]
[TD]80,000,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Conway GraniteSamples collected from Redstone Quarry in the White Mountains of New Hampshire.[/TD]
[TD]180,000,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]RhyoliteSamples collected from Mount Rogers, the highest point in Virginia.[/TD]
[TD]820,000,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Pikes Peak GraniteSamples collected on top of Pikes Peak, Colorado.[/TD]
[TD]1,030,000,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]GneissSamples from outcrops in the Karelian area of eastern Finland are believed to represent the oldest rocks in the Baltic region.[/TD]
[TD]2,700,000,0000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The Old GraniteSamples from outcrops in the Transvaal, South Africa. These rocks intrude even older rocks that have not been dated.[/TD]
[TD]3,200,000,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The
Fossil records
As geologists continued to reconstruct the Earth's geologic history in the 1700s and early 1800s, they quickly recognized that the distribution of fossils within this history was not random -- fossils occurred in a consistent order. This was true at a regional, and even a global scale. Furthermore, fossil organisms were more unique than rock types, and much more varied, offering the potential for a much more precise subdivision of the stratigraphy and events within it.
The recognition of the utility of fossils for more precise "relative dating" is often attributed to William Smith, a canal engineer who observed the fossil succession while digging through the rocks of southern England. But scientists like Albert Oppel hit upon the same principles at about about the same time or earlier. In Smith's case, by using empirical observations of the fossil succession, he was able to propose a fine subdivision of the rocks and map out the formations of southern England in one of the earliest geological maps (1815). Other workers in the rest of Europe, and eventually the rest of the world, were able to compare directly to the same fossil succession in their areas, even when the rock types themselves varied at finer scale. For example, everywhere in the world, trilobites were found lower in the stratigraphy than marine reptiles. Dinosaurs were found after the first occurrence of land plants, insects, and amphibians. Spore-bearing land plants like ferns were always found before the occurrence of flowering plants. And so on.
The observation that fossils occur in a consistent succession is known as the "principle of faunal (and floral) succession". The study of the succession of fossils and its application to relative dating is known as "biostratigraphy". Each increment of time in the stratigraphy could be characterized by a particular assemblage of fossil organisms, formally termed a biostratigraphic "zone" by the German paleontologists Friedrich Quenstedt and Albert Oppel. These zones could then be traced over large regions, and eventually globally. Groups of zones were used to establish larger intervals of stratigraphy, known as geologic "stages" and geologic "systems". The time corresponding to most of these intervals of rock became known as geologic "ages" and "periods", respectively. By the end of the 1830s, most of the presently-used geologic periods had been established based on their fossil content and their observed relative position in the stratigraphy (e.g., Cambrian (1835), Ordovician (1879), Silurian (1835), Devonian (1839), Carboniferous (1822), Permian (1841), Triassic (1834), Jurassic (1829), Cretaceous (1823), Tertiary (1759), and Pleistocene (1839)). These terms were preceded by decades by other terms for various geologic subdivisions, and although there was subsequent debate over their exact boundaries (e.g., between the Cambrian and Silurian Periods, which was resolved by proposal of the Ordovician Period between them), the historical descriptions and fossil succession would be easily recognizable today.
By the 1830s, fossil succession had been studied to an increasing degree, such that the broad history of life on Earth was well understood, regardless of the debate over the names applied to portions of it, and where exactly to make the divisions. All paleontologists recognized unmistakable trends in morphology through time in the succession of fossil organisms. This observation led to attempts to explain the fossil succession by various mechanisms. Perhaps the best known example is Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Note that chronologically, fossil succession was well and independently established long before Darwin's evolutionary theory was proposed in 1859. Fossil succession and the geologic time scale are constrained by the observed order of the stratigraphy -- basically geometry -- not by evolutionary theory.
Stratigraphic
In places where layers of rocks are contorted, the relative ages of the layers may be difficult to determine. View near Copiapo, Chile.
At the close of the 18th century, careful studies by scientists showed that rocks had diverse origins. Some rock layers, containing clearly identifiable fossil remains of fish and other forms of aquatic animal and plant life, originally formed in the ocean. Other layers, consisting of sand grains winnowed clean by the pounding surf, obviously formed as beach deposits that marked the shorelines of ancient seas. Certain layers are in the form of sand bars and gravel banks -- rock debris spread over the land by streams. Some rocks were once lava flows or beds of cinders and ash thrown out of ancient volcanoes; others are portions of large masses of once molten rock that cooled very slowly far beneath the Earth's surface. Other rocks were so transformed by heat and pressure during the heaving and buckling of the Earth's crust in periods of mountain building that their original features were obliterated.
Between the years of 1785 and 1800, James Hutton and William Smith advanced the concept of geologic time and strengthened the belief in an ancient world. Hutton, a Scottish geologist, first proposed formally the fundamental principle used to classify rocks according to their relative ages. He concluded, after studying rocks at many outcrops, that each layer represented a specific interval of geologic time. Further, he proposed that wherever uncontorted layers were exposed, the bottom layer was deposited first and was, therefore, the oldest layer exposed; each succeeding layer, up to the topmost one, was progressively younger.
Today, such a proposal appears to be quite elementary but, nearly 200 years ago, it amounted to a major breakthrough in scientific reasoning by establishing a rational basis for relative time measurements. However, unlike tree-ring dating -- in which each ring is a measure of 1 year's growth -- no precise rate of deposition can be determined for most of the rock layers.
E
Stratigraphic Principles and Relative Time
Much of the Earth's geology consists of successional layers of different rock types, piled one on top of another. The most common rocks observed in this form are sedimentary rocks (derived from what were formerly sediments), and extrusive igneous rocks (e.g., lavas, volcanic ash, and other formerly molten rocks extruded onto the Earth's surface). The layers of rock are known as "strata", and the study of their succession is known as "stratigraphy". Fundamental to stratigraphy are a set of simple principles, based on elementary geometry, empirical observation of the way these rocks are deposited today, and gravity. Most of these principles were formally proposed by Nicolaus Steno (Niels Steensen, Danish), in 1669, although some have an even older heritage that extends as far back as the authors of the Bible. A few principles were recognized and specified later. An early summary of them is found in Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology", published in 1830-32, and does not differ greatly from a modern formulation:
These geological principles are not assumptions either. Each of them is a testable hypothesis about the relationships between rock units and their characteristics. They are applied by geologists in the same sense that a "null hypothesis" is in statistics -- not necessarily correct, just testable. In the last 200 or more years of their application, they are often valid, but geologists do not assume they are. They are the "initial working hypotheses" to be tested further by data.
Using these principles, it is possible to construct an interpretation of the sequence of events for any geological situation, even on other planets (e.g., a crater impact can cut into an older, pre-existing surface, or craters may overlap, revealing their relative ages). The simplest situation for a geologist is a "layer cake" succession of sedimentary or extrusive igneous rock units arranged in nearly horizontal layers. In such a situation, the "principle of superposition" is easily applied, and the strata towards the bottom are older, those towards the top are younger.
This orientation is not an assumption, because in virtually all situations, it is also possible to determine the original "way up" in the stratigraphic succession from "way up indicators". For example, wave ripples have their pointed crests on the "up" side, and more rounded troughs on the "down" side. Many other indicators are commonly present, including ones that can even tell you the angle of the depositional surface at the time ("geopetal structures"), "assuming" that gravity was "down" at the time, which isn't much of an assumption.
In more complicated situations, like in a mountain belt, there are often faults, folds, and other structural complications that have deformed and "chopped up" the original stratigraphy. Despite this, the "principle of cross cutting relationships" can be used to determine the sequence of deposition, folds, and faults based on their intersections -- if folds and faults deform or cut across the sedimentary layers and surfaces, then they obviously came after deposition of the sediments. You can't deform a structure (e.g., bedding) that is not there yet! Even in complex situations of multiple deposition, deformation, erosion, deposition, and repeated events, it is possible to reconstruct the sequence of events. Even if the folding is so intense that some of the strata is now upside down, this fact can be recognized with "way up" indicators.
No matter what the geologic situation, these basic principles reliably yield a reconstructed history of the sequence of events, both depositional, erosional, deformational, and others, for the geology of a region. This reconstruction is tested and refined as new field information is collected, and can be (and often is) done completely independently of anything to do with other methods (e.g., fossils and radiometric dating). The reconstructed history of events forms a "relative time scale", because it is possible to tell that event A occurred prior to event B, which occurred prior to event C, regardless of the actual duration of time between them. Sometimes this study is referred to as "event stratigraphy", a term that applies regardless of the type of event that occurs (biologic, sedimentologic, environmental, volcanic, magnetic, diagenetic, tectonic, etc.).
These simple techniques have been widely and successfully applied since at least the early 1700s, and by the early 1800s, geologists had recognized that many obvious similarities existed in terms of the independently-reconstructed sequence of geologic events observed in different parts of the world. One of the earliest (1759) relative time scales based upon this observation was the subdivision of the Earth's stratigraphy (and therefore its history), into the "Primary", "Secondary", "Tertiary", and later (1854) "Quaternary" strata based mainly on characteristic rock types in Europe. The latter two subdivisions, in an emended form, are still used today by geologists. The earliest, "Primary" is somewhat similar to the modern Paleozoic and Precambrian, and the "Secondary" is similar to the modern Mesozoic. Another observation was the similarity of the fossils observed within the succession of strata,
Sorry this very long post but in order for you to understand things of God you must know that all math,science,engineering is how he creates life throughout the universe that's why he inspires people to learn these things because it's his design we learn even the elements that make up my computer I'm typing on is from his design..
Much of the Earth's geology consists of successional layers of different rock types, piled one on top of another. The most common rocks observed in this form are sedimentary rocks (derived from what were formerly sediments), and extrusive igneous rocks (e.g., lavas, volcanic ash, and other formerly molten rocks extruded onto the Earth's surface). The layers of rock are known as "strata", and the study of their succession is known as "stratigraphy". Fundamental to stratigraphy are a set of simple principles, based on elementary geometry, empirical observation of the way these rocks are deposited today, and gravity. Most of these principles were formally proposed by Nicolaus Steno (Niels Steensen, Danish), in 1669, although some have an even older heritage that extends as far back as the authors of the Bible. A few principles were recognized and specified later. An early summary of them is found in Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology", published in 1830-32, and does not differ greatly from a modern formulation:
- The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
- The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
- The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
- The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
- The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
- The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.
These geological principles are not assumptions either. Each of them is a testable hypothesis about the relationships between rock units and their characteristics. They are applied by geologists in the same sense that a "null hypothesis" is in statistics -- not necessarily correct, just testable. In the last 200 or more years of their application, they are often valid, but geologists do not assume they are. They are the "initial working hypotheses" to be tested further by data.
Using these principles, it is possible to construct an interpretation of the sequence of events for any geological situation, even on other planets (e.g., a crater impact can cut into an older, pre-existing surface, or craters may overlap, revealing their relative ages). The simplest situation for a geologist is a "layer cake" succession of sedimentary or extrusive igneous rock units arranged in nearly horizontal layers. In such a situation, the "principle of superposition" is easily applied, and the strata towards the bottom are older, those towards the top are younger.
This orientation is not an assumption, because in virtually all situations, it is also possible to determine the original "way up" in the stratigraphic succession from "way up indicators". For example, wave ripples have their pointed crests on the "up" side, and more rounded troughs on the "down" side. Many other indicators are commonly present, including ones that can even tell you the angle of the depositional surface at the time ("geopetal structures"), "assuming" that gravity was "down" at the time, which isn't much of an assumption.
In more complicated situations, like in a mountain belt, there are often faults, folds, and other structural complications that have deformed and "chopped up" the original stratigraphy. Despite this, the "principle of cross cutting relationships" can be used to determine the sequence of deposition, folds, and faults based on their intersections -- if folds and faults deform or cut across the sedimentary layers and surfaces, then they obviously came after deposition of the sediments. You can't deform a structure (e.g., bedding) that is not there yet! Even in complex situations of multiple deposition, deformation, erosion, deposition, and repeated events, it is possible to reconstruct the sequence of events. Even if the folding is so intense that some of the strata is now upside down, this fact can be recognized with "way up" indicators.
No matter what the geologic situation, these basic principles reliably yield a reconstructed history of the sequence of events, both depositional, erosional, deformational, and others, for the geology of a region. This reconstruction is tested and refined as new field information is collected, and can be (and often is) done completely independently of anything to do with other methods (e.g., fossils and radiometric dating). The reconstructed history of events forms a "relative time scale", because it is possible to tell that event A occurred prior to event B, which occurred prior to event C, regardless of the actual duration of time between them. Sometimes this study is referred to as "event stratigraphy", a term that applies regardless of the type of event that occurs (biologic, sedimentologic, environmental, volcanic, magnetic, diagenetic, tectonic, etc.).
These simple techniques have been widely and successfully applied since at least the early 1700s, and by the early 1800s, geologists had recognized that many obvious similarities existed in terms of the independently-reconstructed sequence of geologic events observed in different parts of the world. One of the earliest (1759) relative time scales based upon this observation was the subdivision of the Earth's stratigraphy (and therefore its history), into the "Primary", "Secondary", "Tertiary", and later (1854) "Quaternary" strata based mainly on characteristic rock types in Europe. The latter two subdivisions, in an emended form, are still used today by geologists. The earliest, "Primary" is somewhat similar to the modern Paleozoic and Precambrian, and the "Secondary" is similar to the modern Mesozoic. Another observation was the similarity of the fossils observed within the succession of strata,
Sorry this very long post but in order for you to understand things of God you must know that all math,science,engineering is how he creates life throughout the universe that's why he inspires people to learn these things because it's his design we learn even the elements that make up my computer I'm typing on is from his design..
E
JackH fallen angels did not have sex with humans that false teaching indeed
[TABLE="width: 81%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 81%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"]
The first thing we need to confirm is that angels are not sexual beings. Jesus addressed this in Luke 20:34-36 when he answered the question from the Sadducees (who do not believe in the resurrection or Angels). Jesus said "The children of this world marry, but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (referring to heaven & the new earth), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are children of God, being the children of the resurrection" (Compare with Matthew 22:29-30 and Mark 12:24-25)
By looking at this statement, we find that Christ taught that the angels do not take part in sexual activity. We also see that we will be like the angels in this regard in the new earth because the earth will be filled with the redeemed: those who have fought the good fight and are victorious through Jesus Christ. So there really won't be a need to reproduce. Whatever God has planned for us will be better than anything we know of on this earth or anything we can even imagine! (1 Corinthians 2:9)In Genesis 6:2-6, we see that it refers to "the sons of God". Many have been confused about the identity of these "sons of God". This section of Scripture has puzzled and perplexed a great number of scholars and Bible students for centuries. Some immediately assume the "sons of God" must be fallen angels, but we have already discovered that the Bible teaches that this can't be talking about angels since they don't even have sex with each other, which means that they certainly don't have sexual intercourse with human beings either! It is true that the book of Job uses the phrase "sons of God" in connection with angels, but that is the only book in the whole Bible where this can be found. It's dangerous to build a belief on just one portion of the Bible; You need to compare Scripture with Scripture in order to get the whole meaning and idea of a certain teaching or principle.The phrase "sons of God" is used many times in the Bible to refer to men, but more specifically, God's followers here on earth (see Hosea 1:10). In Luke 3:38, Adam is called "the son of God" and throughout the new Testament, Christians are referred to as "the sons of God". Take for instance these familiar verses: "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:1-2) Notice that John uses this title twice in reference to believers in Jesus Christ. Again in John 1:12, we find him using it again in the same manner, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name". Paul also used this phrase the same way in Romans 8:15 and Philippians 2:5.So since the "sons of God" are the people on earth that serve and follow the Lord, it would make sense that "the sons of men" or "the daughters of men" could be a title for the wicked people that don't serve God. Does the Bible support this idea? Yes it does; In Genesis 11:5, those who had rebelled against God to build the tower of Babel were called "the sons of men" (NASB & RSV) or "the children of men" (KJV). In the Psalms, the wicked enemies of David were sometimes called "the sons of men" (Psalm 4:2 & Psalm 57:4). Other times, this phrase was used for the human race in a general sense, but it was a title for the wicked in certain cases.Now here in Genesis 6, we find these two opposing groups: the "sons of God" and "the daughters of men". It's important to note that the book of Genesis is a narrative that flows from chapter to chapter. In Chapters 4 and 5 we have two groups as well: the descendents of Cain and Seth. If we read Genesis and the story of how sin entered this world, we find that the sons of God are those who are faithful to God and His plan for salvation, from Adam to Abel and down to Seth. On the other hand, the sons and daughters of men are those who are the children of Cain. Genesis 4:15-16 states that the Lord put a mark on Cain and he went out from the presence of the Lord and was driven to the land of Nod on the East side of Eden. From here, there was a separation between Cain's descendants and those of Seth.Throughout the history of this world, we find God's people mixing with the "daughters of men" and we observe the outcome throughout the Bible - apostasy! The result is a leaving of God's plan for their lives and a yielding to sin. And unfortunately, that's happened here in Genesis chapter 6 and this is what led up to the flood (verses 5-7), which is one of the other reasons why we know that these "sons of God" were not angels. The judgment pronounced upon the earth was against "man" (verses 3 and 5). God would not punish man because of something the angels had done.
It's always been God's plan that believers should not be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14) The sons of Seth made the grave mistake of intermingling with the "heathen" women, and with these relationships came the influence for evil and compromise. Apparently, they chose worldly pleasure over the Lord and this resulted in Noah being the only righteous person left on the face of the entire earth! (Genesis 6:8-9, and 7:1)Who Were the Giants or Nephilim?What about these mighty men or giants found in Genesis 6:4? (The Hebrew word used in this verse is "Nephilim") Remember that just shortly before the flood, Adam lived, as well as Enoch (who was translated to heaven because he walked continually with God) and Methuselah. (Genesis 5). They lived over 900 years and some believe that these people were over 9 feet tall. So maybe giants weren't that uncommon in those days. Perhaps these growth spurts occurred because of the breeding that took place between these two formally isolated tribes. It's also interesting to note that the original Hebrew word "Nephilim" which is translated "giants" in this verse can simply mean "a bully or tyrant" (Strong's Concordance).In heaven we will grow up to the height God had originally envisioned for each of us!But Exactly Who or What are Angels?Angels are plainly revealed in the Bible: The connection of the visible with the invisible world, with the ministration of the angels of God (Hebrews 1:14), and the agency of evil spirits (Ephesians 6:12).Before the creation of man, angels were in existence; for when the foundations of the earth were laid, "the morning stars (angels) sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" (Job:38:7). Angels are in nature superior to men, for the psalmist says that man was made "a little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5).We are informed in the Bible as to the power and glory of these heavenly beings, as well as their connection with the government of God, and also of their relation to the work of our redemption: "The Lord has established His throne in heaven, And His kingdom rules over all. Bless the Lord, you His angels, who excel in strength, who do His word, heeding the voice of His word. Bless the Lord, all you His hosts, You ministers of His, who do His pleasure." (Psalm 103:19-21)It was an angel that delivered the news to Mary about the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:27-28) and it was with joy that the angels proclaimed the coming of the Messiah to the shepherds in the field: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, and goodwill towards men." (Luke 2:8-14)The book of Revelation gives us an idea of how many angels there are: "Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: Worthy is the Lamb who was slain To receive power and riches and wisdom, And strength and honor and glory and blessing!" (Revelation 5:11-12)These heavenly watchers shield the righteous from the power of the wicked one. Satan (who was once one of the highest angels before he sinned and was cast our of heaven, see Ezekiel 28: 14-19, Isaiah 14:12-15, and Revelation 12:7-9) himself recognized this when he said: "Does Job fear God for nothing? Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side?" (Job 1:9-10)The agency by which God protects His people is presented in the words of the Psalmist: "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and deliveretth them." (Psalm 34:7) The Savior said, speaking of those that believe in Him: "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father." (Matthew 18:10)So we find the Bible describing angels as our friends, helping to save and protect us from evil. They are called our "brothers" (Revelation 19:10) and one day, we will join them in heaven for eternity. Praise God for we know the end of His Book, when sin will finally be put away and we will live forever with our God! (Revelation 20:3-4)
By looking at this statement, we find that Christ taught that the angels do not take part in sexual activity. We also see that we will be like the angels in this regard in the new earth because the earth will be filled with the redeemed: those who have fought the good fight and are victorious through Jesus Christ. So there really won't be a need to reproduce. Whatever God has planned for us will be better than anything we know of on this earth or anything we can even imagine! (1 Corinthians 2:9)In Genesis 6:2-6, we see that it refers to "the sons of God". Many have been confused about the identity of these "sons of God". This section of Scripture has puzzled and perplexed a great number of scholars and Bible students for centuries. Some immediately assume the "sons of God" must be fallen angels, but we have already discovered that the Bible teaches that this can't be talking about angels since they don't even have sex with each other, which means that they certainly don't have sexual intercourse with human beings either! It is true that the book of Job uses the phrase "sons of God" in connection with angels, but that is the only book in the whole Bible where this can be found. It's dangerous to build a belief on just one portion of the Bible; You need to compare Scripture with Scripture in order to get the whole meaning and idea of a certain teaching or principle.The phrase "sons of God" is used many times in the Bible to refer to men, but more specifically, God's followers here on earth (see Hosea 1:10). In Luke 3:38, Adam is called "the son of God" and throughout the new Testament, Christians are referred to as "the sons of God". Take for instance these familiar verses: "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:1-2) Notice that John uses this title twice in reference to believers in Jesus Christ. Again in John 1:12, we find him using it again in the same manner, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name". Paul also used this phrase the same way in Romans 8:15 and Philippians 2:5.So since the "sons of God" are the people on earth that serve and follow the Lord, it would make sense that "the sons of men" or "the daughters of men" could be a title for the wicked people that don't serve God. Does the Bible support this idea? Yes it does; In Genesis 11:5, those who had rebelled against God to build the tower of Babel were called "the sons of men" (NASB & RSV) or "the children of men" (KJV). In the Psalms, the wicked enemies of David were sometimes called "the sons of men" (Psalm 4:2 & Psalm 57:4). Other times, this phrase was used for the human race in a general sense, but it was a title for the wicked in certain cases.Now here in Genesis 6, we find these two opposing groups: the "sons of God" and "the daughters of men". It's important to note that the book of Genesis is a narrative that flows from chapter to chapter. In Chapters 4 and 5 we have two groups as well: the descendents of Cain and Seth. If we read Genesis and the story of how sin entered this world, we find that the sons of God are those who are faithful to God and His plan for salvation, from Adam to Abel and down to Seth. On the other hand, the sons and daughters of men are those who are the children of Cain. Genesis 4:15-16 states that the Lord put a mark on Cain and he went out from the presence of the Lord and was driven to the land of Nod on the East side of Eden. From here, there was a separation between Cain's descendants and those of Seth.Throughout the history of this world, we find God's people mixing with the "daughters of men" and we observe the outcome throughout the Bible - apostasy! The result is a leaving of God's plan for their lives and a yielding to sin. And unfortunately, that's happened here in Genesis chapter 6 and this is what led up to the flood (verses 5-7), which is one of the other reasons why we know that these "sons of God" were not angels. The judgment pronounced upon the earth was against "man" (verses 3 and 5). God would not punish man because of something the angels had done.
It's always been God's plan that believers should not be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14) The sons of Seth made the grave mistake of intermingling with the "heathen" women, and with these relationships came the influence for evil and compromise. Apparently, they chose worldly pleasure over the Lord and this resulted in Noah being the only righteous person left on the face of the entire earth! (Genesis 6:8-9, and 7:1)Who Were the Giants or Nephilim?What about these mighty men or giants found in Genesis 6:4? (The Hebrew word used in this verse is "Nephilim") Remember that just shortly before the flood, Adam lived, as well as Enoch (who was translated to heaven because he walked continually with God) and Methuselah. (Genesis 5). They lived over 900 years and some believe that these people were over 9 feet tall. So maybe giants weren't that uncommon in those days. Perhaps these growth spurts occurred because of the breeding that took place between these two formally isolated tribes. It's also interesting to note that the original Hebrew word "Nephilim" which is translated "giants" in this verse can simply mean "a bully or tyrant" (Strong's Concordance).In heaven we will grow up to the height God had originally envisioned for each of us!But Exactly Who or What are Angels?Angels are plainly revealed in the Bible: The connection of the visible with the invisible world, with the ministration of the angels of God (Hebrews 1:14), and the agency of evil spirits (Ephesians 6:12).Before the creation of man, angels were in existence; for when the foundations of the earth were laid, "the morning stars (angels) sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" (Job:38:7). Angels are in nature superior to men, for the psalmist says that man was made "a little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5).We are informed in the Bible as to the power and glory of these heavenly beings, as well as their connection with the government of God, and also of their relation to the work of our redemption: "The Lord has established His throne in heaven, And His kingdom rules over all. Bless the Lord, you His angels, who excel in strength, who do His word, heeding the voice of His word. Bless the Lord, all you His hosts, You ministers of His, who do His pleasure." (Psalm 103:19-21)It was an angel that delivered the news to Mary about the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:27-28) and it was with joy that the angels proclaimed the coming of the Messiah to the shepherds in the field: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, and goodwill towards men." (Luke 2:8-14)The book of Revelation gives us an idea of how many angels there are: "Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: Worthy is the Lamb who was slain To receive power and riches and wisdom, And strength and honor and glory and blessing!" (Revelation 5:11-12)These heavenly watchers shield the righteous from the power of the wicked one. Satan (who was once one of the highest angels before he sinned and was cast our of heaven, see Ezekiel 28: 14-19, Isaiah 14:12-15, and Revelation 12:7-9) himself recognized this when he said: "Does Job fear God for nothing? Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side?" (Job 1:9-10)The agency by which God protects His people is presented in the words of the Psalmist: "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and deliveretth them." (Psalm 34:7) The Savior said, speaking of those that believe in Him: "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father." (Matthew 18:10)So we find the Bible describing angels as our friends, helping to save and protect us from evil. They are called our "brothers" (Revelation 19:10) and one day, we will join them in heaven for eternity. Praise God for we know the end of His Book, when sin will finally be put away and we will live forever with our God! (Revelation 20:3-4)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
JackH fallen angels did not have sex with humans that false teaching indeed
It is plagiarism to copy and paste like you have done in your last several posts without even giving attribution for the source of the information. It also likely is a copyright violation.
This is a discussion forum, not a copy and paste forum. I would suggest you respond briefly in your own words and provided links to support your position.
If I said what I really think about your "colorful" posts, I would be banned.