In Mormonism the earth IS 10,000 years old...

[_consiglieri]

Luckily for you, John was apparently not talking about the kind that eat Penguins of Peace.

This makes me sad.

Poor Moksha.

Poor, poor Moksha.

[_Drifting]

Wow, the cynics are still deeply entrenched i see.
Let us dismantle them (again) slowly so they may be able to follow (for i realize that they can only handle a diet of milk at this time):

1. It is clear that D&C 77 refers to God's dealing with man under the present time period (the collection of dispensations of the past several thousand years), and does not say anything about the time of the Creation or age of the earth, or even the antiquity of other humans.
"temporal existence"

2. The 7 seals clearly refer to things of God's "economy"...a term not seen anywhere else in the scriptures. Most educated people understand this theological term to be applied towards the "divine management of human affairs", not affairs of the earth.

3. The 7 seals use of economy also coincides with "continuance" which is not used in terms of totality in duration but rather as progress from earlier stages. Reference its usage in Ps. 139:16, Is. 64:5, and Rom. 2:7.

4. Revelations has never been considered to be a text of chronology, it can be viewed as separate 'scenes" and this is a widely accepted view.

5. Mormon doctrine is not as interpreted by the likes of "Drifting" or "DrW", most often they conclude incorrectly and cherry-pick their way to a distorted view, for which the rely on cynicism, bitterness, and sarcasm to convey it as "truth".

"...In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular....how long it's been organized is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As to the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant."
Brigham Young - Discourses of Brigham Young

"..the millions of years that it took to prepare the physical world.."
David O McKay - October 1956

"[the book of Abraham indicates]this system was 2.55 billion years old"
William Phelps - 1845
...etc

6. The word yom appears repeatedly in the Hebrew Scriptures with reference to a period longer than 12 or 24 hours.

7. There exists no official church doctrine as to how long the earth existed before Adam. And no doctrine exists that concludes how old the earth is or how old it could be.


Now
to those who consider that human intervention is not a valid form of "evolution" i can concede that you are no longer serious about the discussion of bears, horses, bugs, or any of this.
The glaring point is that with the list of bears no definitive timeline can be determined, the poster relies on tomfoolery, simply putting a list together and hoping that another simple-minded reader will look at it and say "gee, that is a big list, surely it takes millions of years to create 15 different types of bears, yup, millions sounds about right"
...no one knows how "long" it takes to diverge any number of species of bears from any other number of bears, especially throughout history. If 10,000 years is not satisfactory, who is to say that 50,000 is? or that 1 million is? or that 1.376 million is the least amount of time to get that list of bears?

Consider the Tarsier, or the Hyacinth Macaw, Bearded Reedling, etc...monotypic taxons which defy the logic purported in the "list of bears".
Whether humans intervened in the north american horse list or not has no relevance, the point is that several breeds can be created in a relatively short period of time. That is an actual fact. To isolate human activity, or any other notion, from the unsupported insistence that evolution must be a "slow" process is rather ridiculous and arrogant.
I mean we just discovered 208 new species in one year
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45641405/ns ... vS9CNQV00M
With species coming in and out existence and in/out of our discovery how can one not reasonably infer that species can diversify and disappear in relatively short periods of time. The amount of species that have been in existence is likely unfathomable no matter what protracted timeline one wants to put them on.

And yes, the horses listed on my list "evolved" in 500 years.

*smack*

Please stop smacking yourself, you'll bruise.

Subgenius, which of the following statements are not taught as literally true by the Church?

The Church specifies that the first man Adam fell circa 4,000 bc.
The Church specifies that Adam was created on the 6th day.
The Church specifies that one of Gods days is 1,000 years.

Bumpety bump...

[_Drifting]

More bumpage for subgenius...

[_bcspace]

BCSPace,

With some kind help from Drifting, below in quotes is an excerpt from the Lesson that Drifting was referring to in the OP.

You know what? For the life of me, I cannot see where he made a mistake in scriptural interpretation, lesson manual understanding, or math. Really.

What say you?

I say read the actual LDS doctrine on the subject. From the D&C Institute manual on Section 77:

D&C 77:6–7 . Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

Next, from the Old Testament Student Manual:

(2-3) How Old Is the Earth?

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79 ), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.

So once again we see that there is actually no LDS doctrine as to the age of the earth and if anything, the official doctrine supports a much older earth than Creationists would like to believe.

At this point Bcspace strategy is to leave the thread after evidence is presented showing him wrong in hopes that the thread will die out more quickly. I have seen him and a few others do this over and over again.

That is never my strategy. The most likely reasons are:

1. I participate in many many threads on many different boards and often lose track of some.
2. I post relevant arguments and evidences and am met only with invective so it's no longer worth my time. That makes the strategy of the critics exactly what you erroneously claim about me.
3. I post relevant arguments and evidences that are so strong and obvious that no one has ever been able to gainsay them in my long experience so it is no longer worth it to participate unless someone can come up with something I haven't heard before or considered and bring it to my attention.

While I probably did lose track of this thread, I think #3 is the case here because I note in my previous post that I referred to the exact same quotes I posted above. It does not matter that I did not actually quote the references like I did in this post because the information is easily available as the Church puts it's manuals online.

The doctrinal argument of the Church's doctrine (or lack thereof in this case) is so strong that nothing can gainsay it. I've responded to so many threads like this with this information and received nothing strong enough to gainsay it that it has become a truism. Official LDS doctrine is that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth and such doctrine actually allows for something much longer than Creationists would like. There is nothing else to answer unless you ask a different question or come up with new information.

The onus is on you, not me.

Q.E.D.

[_subgenius]

...
Subgenius, which of the following statements are not taught as literally true by the Church?

(emphasis mine)
as you put them here....."literally", all of them

The Church specifies that the first man Adam fell circa 4,000 bc.

"The trouble with some theologians - even including many of our own good people - is that they undertake to fix the date of Adam's transgression as being approximately 4000 years before Christ and therefore about 5932 years ago. If Adam was placed upon the earth only that comparatively short time ago the rocks clearly demonstrated that life and death have been in existence and operative in this earth for ages prior to that time"
-Elder James Talmadge

The Church specifies that Adam was created on the 6th day.

no argument here, except that it is becoming obvious that you neither understand Adam, nor the "days" of creation, nor any actual teachings of the LDS Chruch.

"There is no revealed recitation specifying that each of the " six days " involved in the Creation was of the same duration."
-Bruce R. McConkie

The Church specifies that one of Gods days is 1,000 years.

reference abraham 3:4-5, if the the throne of God is at the center of the galaxy, it is possible that 1 day is 220,000,000 years


bumpty bump bump * smack

[Guest]

The Church specifies that one of Gods days is 1,000 years.

bumpty bump bump * smack

So, which is it? Is a day to the Lord 1000 years to man as the scriptures claim - or do you now have some other revelation providing a different number of years as equal to one day?

reference abraham 3:4-5, if the throne of God is at the center of the galaxy, it is possible that 1 day is 220,000,000 years.

If the throne of God is at the center of the Galaxy, then it is beyond the event horizon of a massive black hole.

Sounds as if you have been reading from The Kolob Theorem
http://hiltonbooks.com/The_Kolob_Theorem.pdf

This Mormon author also puts the throne of God at the center of the Galaxy citing D&C 88:13 as his reason for doing so. This author also postulates superluminal travel for God and claims other deities for other galaxies.

by the way, do you have any idea just how ridiculous all of this "make it up as you go along" Mormon cosmology, physics and terrestrial natural history actually is?

[_Themis]

That is never my strategy. The most likely reasons are:

1. I participate in many many threads on many different boards and often lose track of some.
2. I post relevant arguments and evidences and am met only with invective so it's no longer worth my time. That makes the strategy of the critics exactly what you erroneously claim about me.
3. I post relevant arguments and evidences that are so strong and obvious that no one has ever been able to gainsay them in my long experience so it is no longer worth it to participate unless someone can come up with something I haven't heard before or considered and bring it to my attention.

Only in your fantasy world. How many times have you run away from threads after saying things like absence of evidence is not evidence of absence when people easily refute such incorrect statements?

[_Drifting]

"The trouble with some theologians - even including many of our own good people - is that they undertake to fix the date of Adam's transgression as being approximately 4000 years before Christ and therefore about 5932 years ago. If Adam was placed upon the earth only that comparatively short time ago the rocks clearly demonstrated that life and death have been in existence and operative in this earth for ages prior to that time"
-Elder James Talmadge

So, the published chronology in LDS scriptures states Adam at circa 4,000 bc. But to counter this you use Talmadges own ponderings.

Hmmm....do you think the chronology that the Church publishes is just flat out wrong?

Bumpety bump bump smack slap tickle...

[_Drifting]

So, which is it? Is a day to the Lord 1000 years to man as the scriptures claim - or do you now have some other revelation providing a different number of years as equal to one day?

Bump for subgenius...

P.s. here is what God tells us himself

 4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.
Abraham 3

[_subgenius]

So, which is it? Is a day to the Lord 1000 years to man as the scriptures claim - or do you now have some other revelation providing a different number of years as equal to one day?

pretty sure my response above is clear on the topic at hand.

If the throne of God is at the center of the Galaxy, then it is beyond the event horizon of a massive black hole.

sez you, and furthermore....so what if it does? are you proposing that the throne of God is subject to the physical laws (to the extent that you currently theorize and assume that they "work")?
seems like you still insist on talking about apples in the middle of an orange grove.

by the way, do you have any idea just how ridiculous all of this "make it up as you go along" Mormon cosmology, physics and terrestrial natural history actually is?

making it up as you go along is a basic tenet of the scientific method, the forever loophole of hypothesis and theory, wherein we see all myopic scientist-wannabes claim that "this works until we find something better". An actual reading-for-comprehension view of my post will clearly indicate that my response to the poster was accurate as supported by reference. The church does not "teach" what was stated as being taught.