Age of the earth

Duane Morse · Aug 15, 2002

Recorded, by whom?
Give me a break.

There is clear indication from the ice core graph that something dramatic happened in or around 1953 B.C.. The Bible says that at that time God turned the world updide down and split up the inhabitants over the face of the earth. Also, at the same time, God confounded the language and speech of the people.
The Chinese calander began in that year, and it stands to reason that the Chinese people came about through that action.

Genesis 10:25 - And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Peleg was around fifty years old in 1953 B.C.

Isaiah 24:1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

Clearly describing a physical pole-shift of the planet.

And the ice core graph clearly shows this and its aftermath.
LOOK at the graph. The first tall spike occurs at around 1953 B.C., shortly after that there are huge spikes and a lot of activity up until around 1200 A.D..

If you will look also at the climate during the past several thousand years you will see a direct corrolation. The planets climate warmed up and leveled off around 1200 A.D. to the climate we enjoy today. But before that was the dark ages. Huge climate shifts all over the planet.

Think about what would happen in an actual phsical pole-shift, with a single land mass prior to the shift. When the shift occurs it breaks up the land mass, sending the pieces in all directions at a fairly good velocity. As these land masses travel they slow over time, but the first ones to collide will generate the most energy, and cause some very high mountain ranges in the process. The first few spikes in the graph after the pole-shift are very large and longer lasting than the rest. Exactly what would be expected in this situation. Later they are smaller and smaller over time.
Volcanic activity is increased which also shows up like the second tallest spike that was the eruption of Krakatoa in 535 A.D.. You can pick out the spike for Vesuvius in 79 A.D. also.

Too many things line up to ignore, except maybe if you are not really interested in finding the Truth of the matter instead of merely defending a certain point of view.

The last recorded pole-shift was in the Bible, and it happened less than 4000 years ago just after the flood.
And there is physical evidence to support it.
That is, if you care to look at the DATA and not the OPINIONS.

LewisWildermuth · Aug 15, 2002

Where are the scientific articals on this?

Do you realise the massive destruction caused by a physical pole shift????

I doubt anyone would have survives a physical pole shift, magnetic ones sure, but a physical one???

Not even AiG will support this one...

Earths division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents. Commentators both before and after Lyell and Darwin (including Calvin, Keil and Delitsche, and Leupold) are almost unanimous that this passage refers to linguistic division at Babel and subsequent territorial division. We should always interpret Scripture with Scripture, and theres nothing else in Scripture to indicate that this referred to continental division. But only eight verses on (note that chapter and verse divisions were not inspired), the Bible states, Now the whole earth had one language and one speech (Gen. 11:1), and as a result of their disobedience, the LORD confused the language of all the earth (Gen. 11:9). This conclusively proves that the Earth that was divided was the same Earth that spoke only one language, i.e. Earth refers in this context to the people of the Earth, not Planet Earth.

Another major problem is the scientific consequences of such splittinganother global flood! This gives us the clue as to when the continents did move apart during Noahs Flood see below on plate tectonics.

---from AiG website.

Duane Morse · Aug 15, 2002

Well, obviously people did survive. I would imagine it would have depended on where you were living at the time. It sounds like a big event, but it may not have been violent enough to kill everyone.

I do not know of any scientific articles on it. But that does not mean it did not happen. Records of the time would be sparse. It would have been a very confusing time, and the change of languages may have attributed to the confusion.

The Bible also mentions another pole-shift that is supposed to occur in the future, near future I hope. And not everyone dies in that one either. Although most will wish they had.

I am up in Colorado, so we are right in the middle of a plate here on top of some pretty solid rock. I think it will be a fun ride, but I do not think my family in San Diego will feel the same way.

But I would like to be overlooking the ocean to see the great tidal waves that will be generated. Who knows, maybe I will have beach front property here soon;-)

LewisWildermuth · Aug 15, 2002

You scare me Duane...

Anyone that wishes death on billions, believers and non-believers alike...

You wish death on the world so you can get your reward a little faster? I know of one who did that in the bible, and now his name is almost a curse word to the world... Judas, who betrayed Christ in an effort to get him to smite the romans and all the other "evil gentiles" then and there.

Duane Morse · Aug 15, 2002

I do not wish death on anyone, much less my family that is near a coast.
I do not wish death on the world either, just on the worlds ways.
This is something that is foretold in the Bible leading up to the return of Christ. That is what I look for, as should all Christians. A lot will happen that will cause many to die, possibly myself and family. I do not look for death, death will find us all. And death is not a final end for any of us, so maybe I do not view death as you do.

I have tried to make sense of what is written in the Bible and to look for the signs of Jesus' return. If I find something interesting I will not bury my head in the sand in fear.

And I have found a few things that are very interesting and enlightening, the stuff about the pole-shift being one.

And Judas did not wish death on everyone, he betrayed Jesus. Maybe it is as you say and Judas wanted Jesus and His deciples to fight. Well, Jesus put a stop to that notion very quickly if I remember correctly. Killing and violence were not a part of His teachings to us, except to tell us not to.

sbbqb7n16 · Aug 16, 2002

Hey Duane... maybe the result of the Babel thing.. .remember that all the peoples had to move to new locations? Because no one could understand each other no more... could all the travel by multitudes of people during the same general time range create enough dust to be thrown into the atmosphere? Or is this just a guess that's way off-base. Just so you know... I don't know too much about the ice core and yes I saw the link, but never went to check it out myself...

And Dida... you kinda put us creationists in a box there....(and I know you're thinkin OH GREAT some guy tryin to argue with me) I just want to present my outlook on your statements from someone who doesn't fit into this "box."

Statement 1 -> "About theory" I do kinda fit in with that one, because most of it can't be proven and all the websites I have been to add one of the phrases "believed to be, estimated, best guess, hypothesized (sp?), etc" They all are very careful to use small phrases and the such to still get it out that they just don't know how/when/where it all happened, and that what they are doing is a guess at best. Even the "half-life" dates were the "currently accepted" dates, leavin it open for change.... not reliable enough IMHO...

Statement 2 -> "About Authority" Well you kinda misrepresent some things there... God said He made man from dust and woman from a rib, which is fairly clear to me what He meant. I've heard it said in here "look at nature" well looking at nature is all speculation... listening to the Word of God (even in the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic is best though) is much more reliable than "common intelligent man's" opinion "For my ways are not your ways nor my thoughts your thoughts" If you listen to what He says, everything else fits right in... and if "science" says differently... wait a couple of days "science" is always changing... it just hasn't caught up yet...

and last but not least statement 3 - > There are some of us who want the truth, therefore ask God, what His recorded Word says we believe and therefore have found the truth. Now if you want to twist the truth to make it fit into modern science, are you not twisting the truth as "the father of all lies" twists it? "Did God really say you shall not eat of any tree?....You shall not surely die!" "Did God really say He created it all in a day?... Surely you weren't made from dust, we know better now." Sounds kinda alike to me.

Now you don't have to pay much attention to my thoughts on this, but I wanted you to try and open your view of us creationists... I'm sorry if you took offense at anything I said, I assure you it was not my intention.

God bless you sir!

Freodin · Aug 16, 2002

sbbqb7n16, I don´t know what you do or where you live, but I can quite safely assume that you are using a computer.

How do you think computers (and all the supporting technic) came to be?

By people who "speculated" about nature?

Or by people who looked up the "much more reliable" word of God?

Duane Morse · Aug 16, 2002

sbbqb7n16,
How do you see that I am twisting the Truth?
What have I taken out of context?
Or was that just to "Dida"?

I do not think any amount of walking by people would create enough dust to put a spike on the ice-core graph. The dust that causes the spikes are huge events, like volcanic eruptions or meteor impacts. Things that throw dust up very high in the atmosphere to be circulated.

You mentioned Adams rib. You may not fully understand that one.
See my avatar thingy? The heart? Well, that is actually a representation of the soul. Yours, mine, Gods. It is the physical form that is the basis for all Life. It shows the male and female of the whole.
I call it the Divine Spiral.
It was a "rib" of the spiral that was removed from Adam. The two halves are split physically in the second segment, and that is the point at which Adam became Adam and Eve. That is what is meant by the term -
what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
That is why a man cleaves to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. In the fourth segment the halves are rejoined into a single physical body.

And if you look in nature you will find a variation of this pattern in all living things.

Be seeing you
Duane

npetreley · Aug 16, 2002

Originally posted by Duane Morse
This is something that is foretold in the Bible leading up to the return of Christ. That is what I look for [the return of Christ], as should all Christians.

Count me in. I can think of few, if any things to which I look forward more than the return of Christ, no matter what else that may bring.

npetreley · Aug 16, 2002

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
Now if you want to twist the truth to make it fit into modern science, are you not twisting the truth as "the father of all lies" twists it? "Did God really say you shall not eat of any tree?....You shall not surely die!" "Did God really say He created it all in a day?... Surely you weren't made from dust, we know better now." Sounds kinda alike to me.

One of the most hilarious (and yet sad, too) things I ever heard was an interview with Frank Peretti, who drew a similar comparison. It went at least a little something like this...

"Did G~d REALLY say you shall not eat of any tree? And even if that's what it says in black and white, how do you know that's what He REALLY meant? I mean, it could be allegory. And it might not even be accurate. After all, it's been translated SO MANY times..."

Duane Morse · Aug 16, 2002

To me the best way is always try to find the literal meaning first.
There is usually a symbolic meaning also, but as far as I can see everything is literal if you know how to understand it.

Didaskomenos · Aug 16, 2002

I tend towards the most obvious meaning having considered outside evidence. Reading simply based on the passage itself often does give a literal interpretation, and it's also much more likely that I will mangle the facts with presuppositions. I shouldn't base any interpretation just on a surface reading (which, again, is most often literal).

Duane Morse · Aug 16, 2002

Ezekiel 7:7 - The morning is come unto thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is near, and not the sounding again of the mountains.

So what do you make of this passage?
What do you think the sounding of the mountains means?

Didaskomenos · Aug 16, 2002

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
And Dida... you kinda put us creationists in a box there....(and I know you're thinkin OH GREAT some guy tryin to argue with me) I just want to present my outlook on your statements from someone who doesn't fit into this "box."

Statement 1 -> "About theory" I do kinda fit in with that one, because most of it can't be proven and all the websites I have been to add one of the phrases "believed to be, estimated, best guess, hypothesized (sp?), etc" They all are very careful to use small phrases and the such to still get it out that they just don't know how/when/where it all happened, and that what they are doing is a guess at best. Even the "half-life" dates were the "currently accepted" dates, leavin it open for change.... not reliable enough IMHO...

Don't you realize the same thing is the case with your creationist view? "I believe God created the world in six days," "He created the world like I think he did because he said so in the Bible," and the like. It's no more empirical than believers in an old earth, and far less scientific. At least they use scientific evidence to believe what they do. You (and I) just say that we believe in the Bible because - we do! There's no real problem. Why should the old earth people have to prove their belief system any more than you can prove yours?

Statement 2 -> "About Authority" Well you kinda misrepresent some things there... God said He made man from dust and woman from a rib, which is fairly clear to me what He meant. I've heard it said in here "look at nature" well looking at nature is all speculation... listening to the Word of God (even in the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic is best though) is much more reliable than "common intelligent man's" opinion "For my ways are not your ways nor my thoughts your thoughts" If you listen to what He says, everything else fits right in... and if "science" says differently... wait a couple of days "science" is always changing... it just hasn't caught up yet...

There you go: "which is fairly clear to me what He meant." Your authority is you. You read it your way, and there's no room for discussion. I'm not going to argue again the multitude of reasons why I believe that what you think "He meant" isn't right. I will say that "the original Hebrew" etc. argue for my point. The style of early Genesis is meant to be taken as a story, but not necessarily a historical story. You won't agree with me, and that's fine. But for the record, if his ways are not your ways, nor his thoughts your thoughts, what makes you think that your surface reading of Genesis as literal has properly conveyed his thoughts and ways to you? Did God make an exception for you when he said that?

and last but not least statement 3 - > There are some of us who want the truth, therefore ask God, what His recorded Word says we believe and therefore have found the truth. Now if you want to twist the truth to make it fit into modern science, are you not twisting the truth as "the father of all lies" twists it? "Did God really say you shall not eat of any tree?....You shall not surely die!" "Did God really say He created it all in a day?... Surely you weren't made from dust, we know better now." Sounds kinda alike to me.

There is all kinds of presumption here. I, too, pray about how to interpret the Scriptures. I, too, feel that I have been guided into my current belief system by God himself. So don't give me the "if you *really* knew God" argument. I'm not suggesting that we "twist" the Truth. I merely understand that Truth is not able to be completely contained in any person's interpretation of it, and I think we need to interpret the Truth in the Bible based on actual research and prayer, not just prayer and your initial take on it. It's pride to not even consider any possible clues besides what's in your mind when you try to figure out how to interpret it.

You don't have to apologize for critiquing my view of YEC. I still think it's spot on as far as stereotypes go, but you certainly don't have to agree with me. I understand, since I, too, prefer to believe better things about myself until I actually look at myself more objectively.

Sauron · Aug 16, 2002

Originally posted by Duane Morse
But God's not the one proposing the idea of altered DNA to explain languages at Babel.  That's YOUR idea.

So asking you is the proper thing to do.

The altered DNA is a possible explaination, and the only one I can think of that could hold water.

In order for it to 'hold water', you first need to show us some evidence that it ever happened.

Then you need to show that if this burst of radiation did occur, that it created the change in language ability that you are talking about.

Finally, you need to rule out other possible sources of languages changing.

The idea came from something I read a long time ago in a book called, I think, Molocules of the Mind. It was talking about the early days of the NMR scanners and an anomoly in there readings. It seems that sometimes when an atom flipped polarity it emmitted a short burst of radiation. The radiation was specific to the type of atom.

That is a long way from saying that a burst of radiation caused a change in human language ability. 

In the first place, the 'evidence' you cited here is of small amounts of radiation coming from the human brain - not coming from outside of it, from outer space or something.

In the second place, the evidence you cited here (of a short burst of radiation in the human brain) doesn't include any changes in human language ability.  In fact, it doesn't include any changes whatsoever.  The "NMR" you are talking about is an imaging technology used to view the human body - but not used to change it in any way

So, I theorized if the earth underwent a pole-shift it may emmit a similar burst of radiation.

Oh, please.  An atom flipping its polarity is emphatically NOT the same thing as the planetary pole shifting. 

Secondly, where is your proof that a planetary pole shift causes radiation anyhow?  If you don't have radiation after such an event, then it isn't going to help your idea out.

There seems to have been a pole-shift at the time of Babel, and if the earth emmitted this radiation it could be the mechanism that God used to change the single race into many.

I highly doubt there was a pole shift at the time of Babel.  In the first place, the various dates that bible literalists give for Babel makes it impossible to pin down.

Secondly, a shift of the poles would leave behind magnetic evidence of such a shift.

Evidence for this pole-shift at the time of Babel is in that ice-core record that was posted earlier. and it is at the exact time that the Chinese calander began in 1953 B.C.. It is the first very tall spike on the graph, and rather short lived.

I'll let the other dissect your idea of a pole-shift at the time of Babel, including the ice core.

However, we have evidence for multiple languages of humanity that predates 1953 BCE anyhow, from several parts around the world, including the Middle East.  Which means that there were already a "confusion of languages" among human beings, before this alleged "pole-shift" took place.

Sauron · Aug 16, 2002

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Well, obviously people did survive. I would imagine it would have depended on where you were living at the time.

There's nothing "obvious" about it at all, Duane.  So far the evidence is that such an event never happened.

I do not know of any scientific articles on it. But that does not mean it did not happen.

Click to expand...

So if you don't have any scientific articles to back you up, what does that mean - are you just making this up as you go?

 

The Bible also mentions another pole-shift that is supposed to occur in the future, near future I hope. And not everyone dies in that one either. Although most will wish they had.

Click to expand...

The bible does not mention pole-shifting anywhere in the text.  People like you read things into the text that are clearly not in the original

Sauron · Aug 16, 2002

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Ezekiel 7:7 - The morning is come unto thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is near, and not the sounding again of the mountains.

So what do you make of this passage?
What do you think the sounding of the mountains means?

Far-off thunder.

Or other poetic imagery.

Are you trying to tell us that from one little phrase in Ezekiel, you've deduced an enormous event like the magnetic poles of the Earth being shifted?

With creativity like that, you could probably deduce the entire human genome from the back of a cereal box, too. 

Duane Morse · Aug 16, 2002

The sounding of the mountains is a different issue.
Far off thunder shows no imagination whatsoever.
How about, before the flood, before the fountains of the deep burst, there was a layer of water below the crust. When the fountains of the deep burst forth, this water was released. But what happened to cause the breach?
If a meteor or comet struck the earth with this layer of water intact it could have produced a sound like a bell traveling through the crust and water.
Thus, the sounding of the mountains could have been the warning for Noah to begin building the ark before the destruction by flood.

A comet or meteor struck, cracking the crust. as the crack traveled around the planet it grew progressively worse until the water, the fountains of the deep, burst forth.

And the comet or meteor was probably a piece of Hale-Bopp comet in 2209 B.C.. That happened 105 years before the flood, and there is a very distinct spike in the ice core graph at that precise time indicating an impact.

And Noah began building the ark around 100 years before the flood.
He also had his three sons 100 years before the flood.
Such coincidence.

Sauron · Aug 16, 2002

Originally posted by Duane Morse
The sounding of the mountains is a different issue.

It is?  Then why did you bring it up?  I thought you were asking me what I thought it referred to.

Far off thunder shows no imagination whatsoever.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

That's because I don't try to use imagination when I look at the text, Duane.  When I said "imagination", I was referring to anyone who could take the phrase "sounding of the mountains" and read "changing magnetic poles of the earth" out of that phrase.

How about, before the flood, before the fountains of the deep burst, there was a layer of water below the crust. When the fountains of the deep burst forth, this water was released. But what happened to cause the breach?

Click to expand...

How about there's no evidence for any such flood in the first place?  And certainly no evidence for a layer of water below the crust?  And no evidence for "fountains of the deep"?

So before you can talk about "sounding of the mountains" being connected to all this stuff, you need to show that there is any evidence for such things.

If a meteor or comet struck the earth

Click to expand...

Another event that you just creatd out of the clear, blue sky?

with this layer of water intact it could have produced a sound like a bell traveling through the crust and water.
Thus, the sounding of the mountains could have been the warning for Noah to begin building the ark before the destruction by flood.

Click to expand...

"Begin building the ark"?  Nice idea, except that building the ark took decades (acc. to Genesis) and such a meteor would have cracked the earth immediately upon impact.  So the time interval between the meteor impact and any such cracked shell of earth flooding the land with water would be only a few days - not decades.

And except for the fact that such an event would not produce a sound like a "bell" anyhow.  when is the last time you thought that an atom bomb sounded like a church bell?

And except for the fact that the context of the original verse that contains the phrase "sounding of hte mountains" never points to Noah or the flood in any way;

And, such a meteor would have left a layer of iridium around the earth, which would be easily traceable.

A comet or meteor struck, cracking the crust. as the crack traveled around the planet it grew progressively worse until the water, the fountains of the deep, burst forth.

Click to expand...

Where are the cracks?

And the comet or meteor was probably a piece of Hale-Bopp comet in 2209 B.C.. That happened 105 years before the flood, and there is a very distinct spike in the ice core graph at that precise time indicating an impact.

Click to expand...

1. Except there was no flood.

2.  You have no such cracks to show everyone.

3.  There is continual human history all through this era - something that would be impossible if any such flood ocurred.

And Noah began building the ark around 100 years before the flood.
He also had his three sons 100 years before the flood.
Such coincidence.

Click to expand...

Such nonsense is a better way to describe it.

Duane Morse · Aug 16, 2002

Well, the thing about the sounding of the mountains was not in reply to anything you had said, but to Didaskomenos the previous poster.

And you do not know if there was water under the crust before the flood, or what the fountains of the deep are. And there is a crack around the planet, the plates are seperating from it. And how do you know the earth would have cracked fully, immediately? You know, the crack could have started out rather small, and grew.

I am not making up a comet or meteor strike. Comet Hale-Bopp passed by the earth in 2209 B.C., just 105 years before the flood. And there is evidence of it in that ice core record of a dust event at that precise time.
And 80 years to build the ark or 100 does not matter. Noah began the construction just after that event.

And yes there is evidence to support a worldwide flood in the fossil records. Sea creatures on the mountain tops, sediment deposits, etc.

An atom bomb would not make the sound now because the layer of water is gone. It is in the oceans. The sound would have only been possible with the layer of water under the crust to carry the vibrations and reverberate.

Age of the earth

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Well-Known Member

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

Well-Known Member

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Well-Known Member

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads