The Genesis account does not describe a "young" earth. Adam is not an infant, trees have fruit on them, and Adam and Eve can talk. Nothing about the Creation account says that anything was 7 days old on the 7th day of Creation week. A Catholic priest came up with that idea that the earth is young and "Creationists" bought into the idea. None of the Apostles ever mentioned it.
Young Earth Creationism is the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, as opposed to an 'old' Earth, billions of years old.
I'm not influenced by your belief system that you surround yourself with.
Oh? Too bad. You could probably learn something from opening your mind a bit.
The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.
Lets just stick to the science. Nothing lives off the earth.
And I'm sure you'll continue repeating this, like a mantra, until the day scientists discover the life that almost certainly exists elsewhere in the cosmos.
As far as dreams of other life.....lets be practical. Multiply the odds of life, by the speed of light, and by the time you find this statistical-planet-possibility, your radio message of success will not reach earth before humans all turn to dust. And that assuming your traveling at the speed of light. If you do then humans you left behind will all be dust after the first moment anyway.
You don't even know what the actual odds of life are, do you? Or how odds work to begin with. Not to mention that you don't seem to understand how the speed of light works either. There are dozens of stars within a hundred light-years of Earth, several of which have been found to have planets which are probable candidates for life, and we're getting to the point where we can detect the presence of water on a planet remotely too. So we'd only have to check them, not go to each star in sequence. Not only that, but human civilization has existed for over 6,000 years. I highly doubt that humans would be 'dust' before an expedition could go to such a planet and send word back.
I have come to the realization that the scriptures are accurate.
But the descriptions of trees and fruit and such do not describe a seed 7 days old in soil.
Even if it did, what is soil?
So nothing is described as being created "young". Creation seems to be "mature" from day one.
That's why science does not disagree with the scriptures.
It disagrees with people who think the Bible requires a "young" earth, when it doesn't.
Which is totally irrelevant. As we've discovered with clones, something can only have existed a few months or years (its age), and yet be physically mature. You're playing with technicalities (and failing miserably).
Your being duped. There is none. People are duping you into such thinking by
talking about "water" here or there. Its a scam to get more funding.
We can't even create life here. How could it happen by natural causes elsewhere?
That's what these scientists - who you accuse of running a scam to get funding - are trying to discover. Because that's what science is about, discovering how things actually work and what actually exists, rather than ignorantly proclaiming things based on religious texts that were written by people who at least had some excuse for their own ignorance.
I disagree with Creationists who claim the earth should look to be only 10,000 yrs old.
I'm not clear if it DID happen around then, but the description of the finished result is
not one of a planet 1 week old, what ever that would look like.
So for Creationists to insist on a young earth is a waste of time. I believe what the scriptures say and
the scriptures don't describe a young earth.
Young Earth Creationists argue that God magically created the Earth - in its present form, more or less - a few thousand years ago. And yet you persist in declaring that because they talk about things being 'young', they must be referring to physical maturity, not age.
Like it or not, SkyWriting, you are a Young Earth Creationist, because you argue that the Earth was created in its present form and base it on what Scripture says.
No, we are just about finished. Traveling at light speed won't get us to another planet before life on earth is gone.
And we don't travel at light speed well.
Now you're just being silly. Civilization on Earth has existed for thousands of years. And yet you proclaim that we couldn't even make it to another planet, traveling at light speed, before humans die out? The nearest star system, Alpha Centauri, is only four light years away (I dunno if it has planets or not, but it's a good example). Traveling at light speed, it would only take eight years, round-trip. I realize that's probably a significant percentage of your life span, but I'm pretty sure humanity would still be here after such an expedition.
Now, the fact is that we don't know how to travel at light speed. We don't even know how to accelerate things to anywhere near light speed. So more than likely, those four light-years to Alpha Centauri would take a lot more to actually travel, using current technology and methods (for example, using orbital slingshot mechanics to gain speed beyond what would be possible through a conventional rocket, not to mention that once a rocket is accelerated, it stays accelerated unless acted upon by an outside force). But still, it's remarkably ignorant to say that humans would be dust before we returned.
You've been overexposed to a vacuum for so long that thoughts seem like they are alive.
If life could develop on it's own it would be common place on earth and would have a law of nature to support it.
It might read like any Frankenstein story: " Take organic material, warm it, add light, life forms".
Not that advanced of course, but there would at least be ONE observation that would lead to life.
And because it's so hard to really get things going....we've proven....then you should have millions of such
theories ad experiments going at all times. But we exist in a pure vacuum of facts and just the thought of water
makes scientific grown men tinckle in their pants about the possibility of life.
Given your apparent lack of understanding of things like biology and chemistry, you probably should stop trying to sound like you're knowledgeable about things like science. Especially since you think that the Creation described in Scripture is an accurate description of how things actually happened - even though there were no humans around to see the process happening, let alone able to record their stories accurately. Genesis is nothing more than an invented story to try to explain why humans exist, not much different from the dozens of other creation myths that other people have come up with.
But it's not reasonable that we spend time and energy we don't have on the effort.
We don't have a million years just to find a worm on another planet.
We probably wouldn't need a million years. We might not even need a thousand, at the rate at which technology is developing.
You say you're not a Young Earth Creationist, yet you declare that Scripture is accurate and describes how things really happened. That means you probably believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that life was created in a mature form, and so on. Well, that's Young Earth Creationism to a T. Young Earth Creationism doesn't declare that organisms and things created by God during the 'Creation' were created through natural processes - it declares that God magically poofed them into existence, in fully mature forms. They did not exist before God did this, according to Genesis. That means no matter how old they look, their actual age would only have been a day on the day after 'Creation'.
And that's why you're still a Young Earth Creationist. Because you believe in an Earth that is only a few thousand years old, as opposed to an Earth that is billions. A 'young' Earth, as opposed to an 'old' one.