Overwhelming Evidence for an Old Earth

[Jazer]

I do not understand how people can believe in a Young Earth when there is Overwhelming evidence for an Old Earth. For example look at the Grand Canyon. Young Earth people say it was carved out in recent history, in the last 13,000 years. Ok, I can accept that, but look at what was carved out. The Grand Canyon is made in layers that obviously took a very long time to be formed. In fact often layers had to be broken down from a solid rock to a very fine partical, so it can be layed down as a layer. Geological evidence shows this earth has been around for a long time. The young earth theory has been shown not to be true for over 100 years now. Often it was Christians trying to show a young earth that discovered that the earth is actually very ancient.

 

[Tim Myers]

"I do not understand how people can believe in a Young Earth when there is Overwhelming evidence for an Old Earth."

Because, in the 17th century, an Anglican Archbishop named James Ussher wrote "Annales Veteris Testamenti, a Prima Mundi Origine Deducti" and the Church thought it sounded great and people have bought into it ever since......

 

[juvenissun]

I do not understand how people can believe in a Young Earth when there is Overwhelming evidence for an Old Earth. For example look at the Grand Canyon. Young Earth people say it was carved out in recent history, in the last 13,000 years. Ok, I can accept that, but look at what was carved out. The Grand Canyon is made in layers that obviously took a very long time to be formed. In fact often layers had to be broken down from a solid rock to a very fine partical, so it can be layed down as a layer. Geological evidence shows this earth has been around for a long time. The young earth theory has been shown not to be true for over 100 years now. Often it was Christians trying to show a young earth that discovered that the earth is actually very ancient.

True, until one started to know the Bible.

Many places in the Bible say that what we see is only a "shadow" of the truth. Do you see the shadow of you (or the fuzzy image of you in a bronze mirror)? Is that you? Is that not you? Are you going to argue on one or another by the so-called evidences?

 

[realtruth101]

I'm a bit different from most Christians, I have no problem accepting any date you want to put on any rock or geologic formation, alot of Christians will like to argue with you about such things, many of these Christians forget the fact that when God created Adam he was a man, Adam never was a child and grew into adulthood, he was created pre-aged. My theory is God is alot bigger than people give Him credit for, He can create things brand new, or completely aged. just as we could recreate a model T in full working order, God can create an earth with all appearences of age just as Adam though he was brand new, he was created pre-aged adult.

 

[Assyrian]

Many places in the Bible say that what we see is only a "shadow" of the truth. Do you see the shadow of you (or the fuzzy image of you in a bronze mirror)? Is that you? Is that not you? Are you going to argue on one or another by the so-called evidences?

Those references to 'shadows' refer to our understanding of God and his word and the revelation in scripture itself. The mistake creationists seem to make is thinking their understanding of scruipture that is infallible while dismissing the evidence of science we can see and test.

True, until one started to know the Bible.

Unfortunately we have only started.

 

[ghendricks63]

I'm a bit different from most Christians, I have no problem accepting any date you want to put on any rock or geologic formation, alot of Christians will like to argue with you about such things, many of these Christians forget the fact that when God created Adam he was a man, Adam never was a child and grew into adulthood, he was created pre-aged. My theory is God is alot bigger than people give Him credit for, He can create things brand new, or completely aged. just as we could recreate a model T in full working order, God can create an earth with all appearences of age just as Adam though he was brand new, he was created pre-aged adult.

Pre aged is a nice way to say lied don't ya think? If you want to believe God formed Adam as a grown man man fine...but what you won't find in that grown man is history. No scars from childhood, no memories of growing up, etc. This is simply not the case with the age of the earth and universe. To find evidence of events that happened long before you believe God created the heavens and the earth is make God out to be a liar. Super novas we have witnessed that we know happened hundreds of thousands of years ago would literally have to be lies God built into the tmeline of light travel. Earth geologic and fossil history would mean God has set up His entire creation as a huge deception...a sham if you will. "Appearence of age" is different than actual history written by God and placed in His creation. God is not a liar. Young Earth/Universe theories though demand that we accept that He is exactly that.

 

[realtruth101]

Pre aged is a nice way to say lied don't ya think? If you want to believe God formed Adam as a grown man man fine...but what you won't find in that grown man is history. No scars from childhood, no memories of growing up, etc. This is simply not the case with the age of the earth and universe. To find evidence of events that happened long before you believe God created the heavens and the earth is make God out to be a liar. Super novas we have witnessed that we know happened hundreds of thousands of years ago would literally have to be lies God built into the tmeline of light travel. Earth geologic and fossil history would mean God has set up His entire creation as a huge deception...a sham if you will. "Appearence of age" is different than actual history written by God and placed in His creation. God is not a liar. Young Earth/Universe theories though demand that we accept that He is exactly that.

My God is just bigger than your God, your god has rules and laws of physics that He must follow, My God doesn't have to answer to anyone or anything, time is nothing for my God He is neither hindered nor bound by it. your just stuck with what you can fathem. your God is in a box, and you have set limits and boundries,rules and laws that somehow the creator of the universe has to appease your grasp of creation, who are you to say God lies or has lied, nothing in scripture makes God a liar with what is written in Genesis.

 

[crawfish]

My God is just bigger than your God, your god has rules and laws of physics that He must follow, My God doesn't have to answer to anyone or anything, time is nothing for my God He is neither hindered nor bound by it. your just stuck with what you can fathem. your God is in a box, and you have set limits and boundries,rules and laws that somehow the creator of the universe has to appease your grasp of creation, who are you to say God lies or has lied, nothing in scripture makes God a liar with what is written in Genesis.

So, rather than lying in scripture God lies to us through nature?

 

[Mallon]

I do not understand how people can believe in a Young Earth when there is Overwhelming evidence for an Old Earth.

The same way they reject evolution when there is overwhelming evidence for it.

 

[ghendricks63]

My God is just bigger than your God, your god has rules and laws of physics that He must follow, My God doesn't have to answer to anyone or anything, time is nothing for my God He is neither hindered nor bound by it. your just stuck with what you can fathem. your God is in a box, and you have set limits and boundries,rules and laws that somehow the creator of the universe has to appease your grasp of creation, who are you to say God lies or has lied, nothing in scripture makes God a liar with what is written in Genesis.

That is the biggest bunch of rubbish I have heard in a long time...LOL

Why does your "bigger" God lie? You sidestepped my point about the evidence GOD HIMSELF left for us in the heavens and the earth. How is allowing that He created exactly the way He has revealed Himself to us through that creation a box? The real box is the one in which you try to tell God exactly how He created based on a faulty reading of scripture. Accept the beautiful allegorical rendition of creation in Genesis and stop telling God that your human understanding (superstition really) MUST be the way He did things.

Wow - Talk about calling your black white and vice versa...

 

[Clockstopper]

I do not understand how people can believe in a Young Earth when there is Overwhelming evidence for an Old Earth. For example look at the Grand Canyon.

Been there. Done that.

What you are saying is utter nonsense.

Engineers canyon, so named by the Army Corps of Engineers after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington state in 1980. It was one of two canyons carved out by the volcanic blast and it took less than a day to form.

Varves, 25 ft deep and hundreds of layers thick that evolutionists claim are laid down one yr at a time over millions of years took only hours to form at Mt. St. Helens.

Evolution is such a huge joke that after Christ returns people will only laugh at those who ever believed in such a stupid theory.

 

[ghendricks63]

Been there. Done that.

What you are saying is utter nonsense.

Engineers canyon, so named by the Army Corps of Engineers after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington state in 1980. It was one of two canyons carved out by the volcanic blast and it took less than a day to form.

Varves, 25 ft deep and hundreds of layers thick that evolutionists claim are laid down one yr at a time over millions of years took only hours to form at Mt. St. Helens.

Evolution is such a huge joke that after Christ returns people will only laugh at those who ever believed in such a stupid theory.

You have just revealed a profound ignorance of geologic science. You really should read up a little before you repeat these silly and long debunked claims by young earthers. The fallacy of this comparison can easily be taught to high school kids in basic geology class.

 

[Papias]

ghendricks wrote (to clockstopper) :

You have just revealed a profound ignorance of geologic science. You really should read up a little before you repeat these silly and long debunked claims by young earthers. The fallacy of this comparison can easily be taught to high school kids in basic geology class.

Indeed, not only is ghendricks right, and that what Clockstopper wrote is yet another creationist PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), but in addition to that, clockstopper could simply have read the sillyiness of his claim at this site, endorsed by major scientific organizations, Universities, and the Smitsonian:

CH581.1: Mount St. Helens canyon and the Grand Canyon

Basically, clockstopper's comparison is silly because the canyon he cites is tiny, and eroded in soft sediment (not hard rock like the Grand Canyon), which shows it eroded quickly. Even a freshman in a geology college know that.

Perhaps are better question for clockstopper is:



"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer. Yet geologists find that the dates by many different methods confirm each other, over hundreds of samples, and thousands of tests, all giving answers consistent with the 4.55 billion year age of the earth. The age of the Earth is better established than is the fact that the American Civil War happened.


for more details, See Post #10, here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/#post53775303

Have a good day-

Papias

 

[Clockstopper]

You have just revealed a profound ignorance of geologic science. You really should read up a little before you repeat these silly and long debunked claims by young earthers. The fallacy of this comparison can easily be taught to high school kids in basic geology class.

Don't give me that nonsense. I gave you the facts and you just revealed how much respect you have for facts. So you believe in that Darwinian hogwash concerning occurrences you have never observed, but you don't believe in those occurrences (i.e. Mt. St. Helens) that have been both observed and timed by empirical investigation.

You keep your childish ridicule to yourself because it means nothing to me.

Well here are far more facts for you to chew on:

Drama in the Rocks (with Dutch subtitles)#

I hope you will have the courage to view the entire program. I've never seen anything that blows away evolutionary 'geology' like these creationist geologists did.

 

[Clockstopper]

ghendricks wrote (to clockstopper) :



Indeed, not only is ghendricks right, and that what Clockstopper wrote is yet another creationist PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), but in addition to that, clockstopper could simply have read the sillyiness of his claim at this site, endorsed by major scientific organizations, Universities, and the Smitsonian:

CH581.1: Mount St. Helens canyon and the Grand Canyon

Basically, clockstopper's comparison is silly because the canyon he cites is tiny, eroded in soft sediment (not hard rock like the Grand Canyon), and other features (such as the 45 degree sides) show it eroded quickly. Even a freshman in a geology college know that.

Perhaps are better question for clockstopper is:



"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer. Yet geologists find that the dates by many different methods confirm each other, over hundreds of samples, and thousands of tests, all giving answers consistent with the 4.55 billion year age of the earth. The age of the Earth is better established than is the fact that the American Civil War happened.


for more details, See Post #10, here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/#post53775303

Have a good day-

Papias

Don't lay that PRATT nonsense on me. You are just one more of the Darwinians on this website I will not debate with because your mind is closed tight to the truth of creation nor will you honestly consider the facts against your position.

Feel free to post someone else because I will NOT waste time trying to convince someone whose mind is shut down as yours is.

 

[ghendricks63]

Don't give me that nonsense. I gave you the facts and you just revealed how much respect you have for facts. So you believe in that Darwinian hogwash concerning occurrences you have never observed, but you don't believe in those occurrences (i.e. Mt. St. Helens) that have been both observed and timed by empirical investigation.

You keep your childish ridicule to yourself because it means nothing to me.

Well here are far more facts for you to chew on:

Drama in the Rocks (with Dutch subtitles)#

I hope you will have the courage to view the entire program. I've never seen anything that blows away evolutionary 'geology' like these creationist geologists did.

It's a good thing all them thar scientific types with all them thar degrees got you around to educate em. Lordy I hate it when people who have studied thar enteer lives have to be schooled on rocks by folks with yar edukashun.

 

[Clockstopper]

It's a good thing all them thar scientific types with all them thar degrees got you around to educate em. Lordy I hate it when people who have studied thar enteer lives have to be schooled on rocks by folks with yar edukashun.

Oh, I'm impressed. That 32 minute video hasn't been available for more than 5 minutes but the genius of Darwinism has already determined that the scientists who made it are ignorant.

He's really interested in the facts, now isn't he?

Bye, ghendricks.

 

[ghendricks63]

Oh, I'm impressed. That 32 minute video hasn't been available for more than 5 minutes but the genius of Darwinism has already determined that the scientists who made it are ignorant.

He's really interested in the facts, now isn't he?

Bye, ghendricks.

Even your use of the term "Darwinism" reveals your silliness.

Bye bye

 

[ghendricks63]

For anyone searching for "facts" pertaining to science perhaps a little advice. If you want to learn about science then I suggest you turn to real scientists who write peer reviewed articles that are openly challenged by the scientific community. Stay away from propaganda pieces that are simply designed to prey on the weak minded.

 

[crawfish]

Don't lay that PRATT nonsense on me. You are just one more of the Darwinians on this website I will not debate with because your mind is closed tight to the truth of creation nor will you honestly consider the facts against your position.

Feel free to post someone else because I will NOT waste time trying to convince someone whose mind is shut down as yours is.

Well played, sir! You've successfully avoided dealing with any of his hard questions and I don't think anybody has noticed!