Poll: How was the Earth made? (See notes below)

[Niemand]

Another poll adapted from a Christian website.

Notes: by creation here, I am including the notion that the Earth was reorganised from pre-existing matter, not necessarily as a planet. I am aware of the shortcomings of these labels in an LDS context. If you want to argue something else, please feel free to below.

Theistic evolution means evolution which is guided by God. This guidance means the development of this world took place over a long time. Old Earth creation below means a similar thing in terms of long timescales but with a creation not evolution.

Atheistic evolution means not guided by God (mainstream science). This is probably the user Whitesalamander's view.

Young Earth creation means that this world is only a few thousand years old but is down to God.

Old Earth creation means that this world is much older (tens of thousands of years over to billions of years) but still due to God.

There are other ideas on top of this such as simulation theory.

[mudflap]

I'm going to stick my neck out and argue for a "young earth creation", which I'll define as 6 one-thousand year creative periods. I'm arguing for this based on

1) Jesus caused a fig tree to "presently wither away" - right before his Apostle's eyes, according to the scriptural account. So why couldn't He create the earth in 6,000 years?

2) For my whole life almost, we were told that the Grand Canyon was created over "millennia" - millions of years. Then it switched to "a few thousand years", and now there's a good theory that it was in 3 months due to some kind of flood. So these erosion processes can happen quickly? Ok.

3) I don't know about dinosaurs, but I've heard there's a brook in England somewhere where you can hang objects in a waterfall, and within weeks (months?) the original object's material will be completely dissolved, and replaced by minerals in the brook - "petrified", just like the million-year-old dinosaur bones.

4) In the days of Peleg, the earth was divided. I consider this to be a literal division of the continents.

[Niemand]

1) Jesus caused a fig tree to "presently wither away" - right before his Apostle's eyes, according to the scriptural account. So why couldn't He create the earth in 6,000 years?

As far I'm concerned it could have been done in six miliseconds or six trillion years, but I agree with your point.

2) For my whole life almost, we were told that the Grand Canyon was created over "millennia" - millions of years. Then it switched to "a few thousand years", and now there's a good theory that it was in 3 months due to some kind of flood. So these erosion processes can happen quickly? Ok.

The volume of water needed to do that in three months would be vast. The only mainstream explanation I can think of would be a melting icecap from the Ice Age.

Having said that, I have a hunch that in the remote past that the North Pole was located away from its current position and somewhere in northern mainland Canada. This might account for Hudson's Bay, and the string of lakes going down to the Great Lakes themselves, because they had huge glaciers sitting on them.

3) I don't know about dinosaurs, but I've heard there's a brook in England somewhere where you can hang objects in a waterfall, and within weeks (months?) the original object's material will be completely dissolved, and replaced by minerals in the brook - "petrified", just like the million-year-old dinosaur bones.

Yes, I know the place you mean. Teddies and dolls get put in it. I think it takes longer for the inner material to be destroyed.

Despite what some people say it is actually hard for most things to become petrified or fossilised. With a tree or an animal carcass, fungus and scavengers will often rip the remains apart.

Most creatures have probably never been fossilised at all. There are some places where bodies are well preserved (peat bogs for example) and others where nature will destroy them quickly. Some scavengers such as hyenas and Tasmanian Devils have jaws which can crunch up solid bone.

[Silver Pie]

I voted Old Earth creation, not because I think it took God millions of years to create it, but because I think people have been on this planet for thousands upon thousands of years (not just 6,000). Maybe 18,000, maybe longer.

I've heard the theory that one round for this planet is the time it takes for the precession of the equinox to make a full circle (~26,000 years).

[Niemand]

A few pictures of Mother Shipton's Cave mentioned above.

[Baurak Ale]

I voted "Other" because my view is sort of a mix of the young earth and old earth models.

Simply put: the rocky sphere of the earth is possibly 450 million years old (or whatever the number is) but the sphere was garnished with life from other worlds in six days (very likely Kolob days—so 6,000 years—allowing for the selected vegetation and animal life to nicely beautify things in preparation for man). Then man could come down.

I also believe that carbon dating is flawed, as manifest by the recent discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils.

[madvin]

I think "other" too. I believe in the theory that the sun is electric and the topical features such as the grand canyon were created by "electrical storms" during the formation of the earth and not from millions of years of erosion. So I am inclined to a "young earth" theory. Furthermore, I think I will bring this up too. Dinosaurs are the creation of our fertile imaginings and is in error because the "jigsaws" that are dinosaurs cannot be possible due to the improbability of how these put together creatures can even exist due to their supposed anatomical support. Just like the mistaken idea that dinosaur remains devolve into oil. Tain't so. Why bring that up? Because we have no clue as to how any of this came about, so we come up with lame theories. I will subscribe to the fact that all this has been made possible by the creator (not on LDSFF) we call our Father.

[abijah]

in tolkien's legendarium, the equivalent of noah's flood is what marks the transition from a flat earth to a round earth.

idk man, something about that kinda resonates.

Flat ----> Round ---->

[Elizabeth]

Jesus Christ assisted by the Noble Spirits organised the creation of our Earth from existing materials.

[Silver Pie]

Dinosaurs are the creation of our fertile imaginings and is in error because the "jigsaws" that are dinosaurs cannot be possible due to the improbability of how these put together creatures can even exist due to their supposed anatomical support.

I dunno. I'm pretty sure some dinosaur skeletons were found whole - in the form they had in life. But, I do agree that some of those shapes make me wonder (tyrannosaurus rex, for example. Tiny arms, huge everything else. I think they put together bones that probably didn't really go together).

Also, the Old Testament talks about a behemoth - one that lives in water - one whose sneezings emit fire. I'll see if I can find that. Anyway, they sound like dinosaurs to me. Also, our stories about people and dragons . . . I'm pretty sure those dragons were dinosaurs. So are komodo dragons.

[Silver Pie]

Land animal -
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
Job 40:15-24


Water animal -
CANST thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? Canst thou fill his skin with barbed iron? or his head with fish spears?

Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. [In other words, if you lay a hand on him to do battle, you will get killed by him] Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me? Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion. Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

Who can open the doors of his face? His teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

By his neesings [sneezings] a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. [Not sure this is right in light of everything else. Perhaps it should read that joy is turned into sorrow.]

The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

Job 41:1-33

[Niemand]

Dinosaurs are the creation of our fertile imaginings and is in error because the "jigsaws" that are dinosaurs cannot be possible due to the improbability of how these put together creatures can even exist due to their supposed anatomical support.

I dunno. I'm pretty sure some dinosaur skeletons were found whole - in the form they had in life. But, I do agree that some of those shapes make me wonder (tyrannosaurus rex, for example. Tiny arms, huge everything else. I think they put together bones that probably didn't really go together).

Also, the Old Testament talks about a behemoth - one that lives in water - one whose sneezings emit fire. I'll see if I can find that. Anyway, they sound like dinosaurs to me. Also, our stories about people and dragons . . . I'm pretty sure those dragons were dinosaurs. So are komodo dragons.

Madvin is right in the sense that some ancient creatures are pure speculation. Entire body forms have been extrapolated from a jawbone or even a single tooth!

However, as you say, there are certain skeletons which give a very good idea of what an ancient creature looked like. When I go into the city I sometimes pass a fossil shop and i love to look in the window. Some of the fossils are very easily recognisable – for example he has some fish which are embedded in rock... they are the kind of thing you wouldn't bat an eyelid at if you saw them swimming around today. There are other creatures in there which look very little like what we have today. For example he had the skull of some creature for sale at some huge sum, the nearest modern analogy would be to a crocodile's skull, except the face was more fishlike.

Ancient peoples certainly were aware of these creatures and i know there is argument as to whether some of them lived far more recently than claimed. Either way, we do know that they saw their remains in caves and cliffs, because you can still see them with your own eyes. Near where the forum member Robin Hood* lives, at a place called Robin Hood's Bay (!), there is a place in the cliff where you can see fossils all over the place and you can practically pick them out by hand. Mostly sea creatures. I took one or two back home with me.

p.s. The normie explanation is that the behemoth is the hippopotamus and leviathan is the crocodile, but I do not accept either of these. Leviathan sounds more like the world serpent of Norse mythology.

*

[Silver Pie]

Madvin is right in the sense that some ancient creatures are pure speculation. Entire body forms have been extrapolated from a jawbone or even a single tooth!

That is so true! Imo, ancient creatures are the construct of a vivid imagination if only a tooth or jawbone or foot is found.

I also believe that when they discover bones scattered about, they try to put them together as if they are one animal, when they may be several animals. So, I mostly agree with Madvin, but not completely - because of the two scriptures in Job, our history of dragons (and not just in European countries), and the very few dinosaur skeletons found whole.

[madvin]

I dunno. I'm pretty sure some dinosaur skeletons were found whole - in the form they had in life.

From what I have read, only about 50% of a whole skeleton was ever found.

[Silver Pie]

p.s. The normie explanation is that the behemoth is the hippopotamus and leviathan is the crocodile, but I do not accept either of these. Leviathan sounds more like the world serpent of Norse mythology.

I laugh at the idea that the behemoth is the hippopotamus. Have you ever seen a hippo's tail? No way is it "like a cedar." And I don't think their "bones are as strong pieces of brass; [and] bones are like bars of iron."

And I've never seen a crocodile that can do this:
By his neesings [sneezings] a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

So, unbelieving people (or people who think that our modern paradigms are all the truth and that stories from the past are all myth because ancient peoples were stupid and we are incredibly intelligent) explain away what is right there in front of us from those who have lived in the past - and who, quite possibly, knew exactly what they were talking about!

[Silver Pie]

I dunno. I'm pretty sure some dinosaur skeletons were found whole - in the form they had in life.

From what I have read, only about 50% of a whole skeleton was ever found.

Now you have me curious as to what the truth is.

[Silver Pie]

Who woulda thought? The one dinosaur I thought was never found whole . . .

Scientists have revealed the world’s first ever complete T-rex skeleton – found after it fell to its death in a deadly duel with a triceratops. … The pair – nicknamed the ‘Dueling Dinosaurs’ – are preserved together in what is thought to be a predator-prey encounter, where both fought to the death.

https://shelbylanderson.com/dinosaurs/y ... found.html

However, if "Sue" is what they named that dinosaur, then it isn't a complete dinosaur:

Previously discovered T. rex skeletons were usually missing over half of their bones. It was later determined that Sue was a record 90 percent complete by bulk, and 73 percent complete counting the elements. Of the 360 known T. rex bones, around 250 have been recovered.

https://shelbylanderson.com/dinosaurs/y ... found.html

There are no sources at that link, so I dunno about them.

ctk
Loads of fossils on Glamorgan coast and a whole dinosaur skeleton found on a beach near penarth recently. Also dinosaur footprints on same beach .
Posted 6 years ago
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topi ... with-kids/

Those are the only two things I found. Kinda makes me wonder if you're right.
I mean, I could go searching deeper and deeper to see what is there, but if searching for whole dinosaur skeletons yields only two hits actually talking about that, it makes me wonder. Why didn't National Geographic come up, for example?

[Niemand]

Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

The question is how much of this is poetic language.

If we look at known animals, whales produce smoke/steamlike spouts out of their blowholes.


The way some reptiles flicker their tongues in and out also reminds some people of flame.

By his neesings [sneezings] a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

This may be bioluminescence which is common among sea creatures and is often used to lure in prey.

[Silver Pie]

The question is how much of this is poetic language.

Beautiful pictures.

True that some of it could be poetic language, but-taking the descriptions as a whole-I don't see it describing any of those animals - or any we know about that are currently living.

[Niemand]

The question is how much of this is poetic language.

Beautiful pictures.

True that some of it could be poetic language, but-taking the descriptions as a whole-I don't see it describing any of those animals - or any we know about that are currently living.

The bioluminescence angle does interest me. If this is something which lives in the deepest parts of the sea, it could use light to catch its food.

[KingdomOfGoodHope]

Most of the opinions on this interesting and exciting question are bugged down in the profane sciences of the physical world. Indeed, in the modern philosophy and science, there is increasing ignorant "specialization" and little knowledge of meta-physics. There is little discussion of the meta-physical realm, and the possibility that God is above the physical world, at least in some respects, and that there are dimensions above and beyond space and time, just as there are dimensions beyond dots and lines. The elements are eternal. Atheistic evolution, and indeed any notion of materialism that rejects Intelligence, would seem to be ignoring the Law of Entropy. Then there is the Law of Conservation of Matter. We are eternal beings. That means that our "origin" and "destiny" are above and beyond time and the profane material world. The main theories in the sectarian and secularist world often argue over theories that do not stand up to the fullness of reality. Joseph Smith's King Follett Sermon is something that we should all read, and take to heart. Modern profane scientists are overwhelmingly ignorant of meta-physics, theology, and anything outside of their specialized realms, and tend to worship their "men in lab coats" as idols. They have studied so much in their compartmentalized fields, and have sought to make the narrowest of their knowledge go much farther than it does, and to be the only type of knowledge, and, generally speaking, are "modern" and "progressive" people who basically are hostile to any ideas that antedate Newton and Galileo, or sometimes even Einstein, and view the whole world before the "Enlightenment" as ignorance.

[Silver Pie]

The bioluminescence angle does interest me. If this is something which lives in the deepest parts of the sea, it could use light to catch its food.

I remember when I first heard about these creatures, and saw pictures of them. I was fascinated. They live so far down that there is very little or no light.

Sometimes I wish we could go to the bottom of the oceans and just walk around and explore the sea life down there for days and weeks and months, as well as the manmade ruins (that were either covered by the deluge/rising waters or fell in for whatever reason). I really hope there comes a time when the oceans are a lot smaller. We might discover so much that we had heretofore not supposed.

[Niemand]

The bioluminescence angle does interest me. If this is something which lives in the deepest parts of the sea, it could use light to catch its food.

I remember when I first heard about these creatures, and saw pictures of them. I was fascinated. They live so far down that there is very little or no light.

Sometimes I wish we could go to the bottom of the oceans and just walk around and explore the sea life down there for days and weeks and months, as well as the manmade ruins (that were either covered by the deluge/rising waters or fell in for whatever reason). I really hope there comes a time when the oceans are a lot smaller. We might discover so much that we had heretofore not supposed.

There is allegedly a massive city to the north west of Cuba... the only thing is that it's a long way down and the Cuban authorities don't like anyone investigating what's really down there (or not).

[BuriedTartaria]

I'm going with Young Earth but I'm not sure that entirely reflects my view. Not saying I reject evolution. But I think I agree with the fundamentalist take on the Bible's timeline of the earth's existence.

[Silver Pie]

There is allegedly a massive city to the north west of Cuba... the only thing is that it's a long way down and the Cuban authorities don't like anyone investigating what's really down there (or not).

Fascinating. I've not heard of that one.

I'm reading Underworld by Graham Hancock. He focuses more on Malta and India, but does mention a few other places (like Japan). The book is essentially about underwater ruins.