Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Well let's take this on shall we. It's been proven that scientists have proved that the Earth is much older then the Bible has told us it is since the days of Adam and Eve. I am going to direct attention now to Gensis and the first chapters of it. Expecially the days of creation. The day's of creation, well now here is where I would tackle the entire problem that may be seen by some. A day could of infact been either a reference to a day time frame to 'unknown' time, that might of been millions of years or even billions of years, in which either way god could progressively control time and super seed the factors of time without a problem. Since I do see god as one that is supreme above all and controls all. In which he controls time, and yet maintains the scientific references that we try to go by when analyzing the earth's soil topography.
I just want to clarify what you are saying so I understand you. You are suggesting God made the earth roughly 6000 years ago but has given it an "aged" appearance?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Look anomaly, this is a theory that gets tossed around occasionally, but in this context it doesn't really make sense to bring it up. The evidence presented directly contradicts a young earth (the theory that is being argued against). That the Bible can account for this time is not relevant here. This forum doesn't discuss atheism vs Christianity (as much as some would like to make it). This point MIGHT be applicable if you were trying to relate new evidence (the old stuff doesn't really work) with a Biblical passage, but as the Bible isn't being argued against, quoting it here also doesn't make sense.
__________________
“there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice,
but there should never be a time when we fail to protest.”
I did a field study a while ago in the west of Ireland, and I think my findings completely falsify the idea of a young Earth, i.e. the 6000 year figure that creationists are apparently so fond of. I'd like to present it here, and let you look over it - it's a bit hairy but I can explain the nastier bits if you want.
During the study, I had the fortune to examine a wonderfully complex geological area called Ballyferriter. In this area I saw at least five different environmental changes in a few square miles, as represented by the relevent geological formations. One formation caught my interest in particular - the central part of this formation consisted of about 30m of bright green mudstone, very soft and extensively layered, that contained hundreds of fossil beds, ripple marks and a type of cross-stratification that indicated a stormy environment.
It obviously represents a shallow marine shelf environment. The fossil layers alternated with the ripple marks and stratification, in a pattern that repeated itself throughout the formation. The fossils indicated a relatively still water setting, while the stratification indicated a storm setting. By conventional geology, this is nothing more than a changing environment pattern - but creationists interpret it as a result of the Flood.
So, during the Flood year (or whatever length of time it was), the environment changed several hundred times in this tiny, tiny section of Ballyferriter. Not only that, but the still water setting persisted long enough to allow vast networks of the trace fossil Chondrites to appear, which conventional geology considers to have happened slowly.
As well as this, the formations above and below this indicate a terrestrial volcanic environment, with desert conditions appearing briefly as well as rivers of various types. So, in the time of the Flood, the changes were absolutely radical in this area!
As if this wasn't enough, the area around Ballyferriter displays a completely different profile. Amazing, isn't it? Not to mention the incredibly complex faulting and deformational history of the area that shows a high level of displacement, overthrusting, and other features of an intense tectonic regime (It lies close to the Iapetus Suture; google for more info).
The field evidence is very powerfully against the Flood. I'm not talking about research done by someone else; I studied this area from scratch, and this is what I found. It indicates millions of years, with no mention of a Flood - unless creationists suggest that god fast-forwarded every geological process during the time of the Flood.
I've posted this before on EvCForum.net and ChristiansUnite.com - but surprise, surprise, I've never gotten anything close to a rebuttal. I'm hoping that there's a YEC geologist somewhere here that might be able to do it
The Rock Hound
OK Rock this is something I want to find out for myself..however I can't be limited to the time constraints as determined by the evos on this board..meaning I need to respond by x hours or x day..i have posted this question to some YECS who may or may not give an answer..if I don't answer within 2-3 weeks I'll concede that this is an issue that needs to be resolved by YEC geology..The reason I ask for the time frame is that I will be going on vacation for 5 days and will not view this cite..so yes I'll try to see what YECS response is to this..
I think that's 20 blessings I owe you JB, correct?
__________________ Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."
There are problems with an old earth (let me make it more specific: with the million of years as posed for the Cambrium to the present; all fossil bearing rocks. SOme bacteria have been found in Precambrium rocks, but this is not that important for the evolution-creation dispute)
There still is 14C (carbon 14) found in coals of the Carboniferous. This is impossible with the give age as found by dating techniques. As it has a half-life of 50.000yr it would be completely gone after the ~300Ma.
Real zero-values have only been found in pre-Cambrium rocks
There are problems with an old earth (let me make it more specific: with the million of years as posed for the Cambrium to the present; all fossil bearing rocks. SOme bacteria have been found in Precambrium rocks, but this is not that important for the evolution-creation dispute)
There still is 14C (carbon 14) found in coals of the Carboniferous. This is impossible with the give age as found by dating techniques. As it has a half-life of 50.000yr it would be completely gone after the ~300Ma.
Real zero-values have only been found in pre-Cambrium rocks
New carbon 14 can be created in coal, especially if it is near a radioactive source underground.
So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!
I am a creationist that believes in old earth. In my opinion i think it is old earth because the bible never metions anything about the earth being 6000 years old. the whole idea came around in the early 1800's when two guys were trying to understand and research the bible more
. They were doing it for attention. the methods they used were inaccurate and archiology proves more towards the old earth
Linear Mode
