Question for disccusion

[calmanly]

first, can you answer the survey below and then you can comment on your opinion

Microsoft Forms

The question is:
When God created the earth, did he create cliffs or did they just erode over time?
I would love to hear some opinions and as many answers to the survey as possible

 

[Sabertooth]

Your poll does not include, "I have no way of knowing."

 

[Tinker Grey]

first, can you answer the survey below and then you can comment on your opinion

Microsoft Forms

The question is:
When God created the earth, did he create cliffs or did they just erode over time?
I would love to hear some opinions and as many answers to the survey as possible

For non-believers, the survey's questions cannot be answered. "When God"? Yeah, I reject the premise.

 

[Yttrium]

Well, I think first you'd have to have the ground pushed up by plate tectonics or volcanic activity, then comes the erosion.

 

[Aussie Pete]

first, can you answer the survey below and then you can comment on your opinion

Microsoft Forms

The question is:
When God created the earth, did he create cliffs or did they just erode over time?
I would love to hear some opinions and as many answers to the survey as possible

A great deal of the topography we see now is the result of the worldwide flood that Noah survived. Weathering since that time also changes the landscape.

 

[keith99]

Did Adam have a belly button?

Serious question as far as this thread is concerned.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

erode over time

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Did Adam have a belly button?

Serious question as far as this thread is concerned.

No

 

[miamited]

first, can you answer the survey below and then you can comment on your opinion

Microsoft Forms

The question is:
When God created the earth, did he create cliffs or did they just erode over time?
I would love to hear some opinions and as many answers to the survey as possible

Hi calmanly,

I'm with @sabretooth that we really can't know with any surety how cliffs or mountains or any other topography came to be. Many of them may have been incorporated in the initial creation. Many of them may have developed when the springs of the deep opened at the flood. However, as a believer, what I am sure of is that whatever caused them, happened in the last 6,000 years.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Ophiolite]

These are the comments (in italics) I added within the poll when asked to "comment on my opinion".

It is not an opinion. It is a provisional* conclusion based upon the evidence minutely examined and rigorously tested by tens of thousands of scientists over two centuries or more. In the context of your poll, either the cliffs were made by erosion, or God created them so that they had all the characteristics we would expect if they had been made by erosion.
*All conclusions should be provisional, subject to change if no evidence, or new interpretations of existing evidence emerge.

I would add that if it is the last example then that suggests that God is deceitful. If the Christian God is as is portrayed in Scripture then he is not deceitful, therefore I completely reject the implied concept of a Young Earth as being against the underlying spiritual message of the Bible and against the evidence.

When I was a practicing Christian I perceived that God spoke to us in two important ways (setting aside personal revelation): by his word written through the efforts of selected people and by his word written in the majesty of the universe. To ignore either, or place one above the other was - in my view at that time - at best ignorant and at worst blasphemous.

 

[eleos1954]

These are the comments (in italics) I added within the poll when asked to "comment on my opinion".

It is not an opinion. It is a provisional* conclusion based upon the evidence minutely examined and rigorously tested by tens of thousands of scientists over two centuries or more. In the context of your poll, either the cliffs were made by erosion, or God created them so that they had all the characteristics we would expect if they had been made by erosion.
*All conclusions should be provisional, subject to change if no evidence, or new interpretations of existing evidence emerge.

I would add that if it is the last example then that suggests that God is deceitful. If the Christian God is as is portrayed in Scripture then he is not deceitful, therefore I completely reject the implied concept of a Young Earth as being against the underlying spiritual message of the Bible and against the evidence.

When I was a practicing Christian I perceived that God spoke to us in two important ways (setting aside personal revelation): by his word written through the efforts of selected people and by his word written in the majesty of the universe. To ignore either, or place one above the other was - in my view at that time - at best ignorant and at worst blasphemous.

Mountains and the Flood

Uplift of continents and mountains, and deepening of ocean basins in the closing stages of the Flood, help to explain that the water which temporarily covered the whole earth (after mostly coming from subterranean sources—the ‘fountains of the great deep’) is now in the oceans. Here is where God has ‘set a bound that they may not pass over, so that they do not turn again to cover the earth’ (Psalm 104:9).

If the surface features of the earth were totally flattened out, water would cover the globe to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). That is still much less than the height of Mt Everest (some 8 km [5 miles]) and other Himalayan mountains.

However, the Flood waters did not have to be this deep in order to cover ‘all the high hills that were under the whole heaven’ of the pre-Flood earth (Genesis 7:19). The Himalayas show clear evidence of having been pushed up after layers of fossil-bearing Flood sediments had been deposited. Thus the ‘high hills’ (mountains) before the Flood were different from those we see today, and were probably not much higher than 2 km (1.3 miles). Much of this pre-Flood mountainous mass may have been eroded away during that cataclysm.

There is evidence of long-ago ocean life embedded in the limestone at Everest's summit: fossils, including those of crinoids, ancient underwater animals with tentacles and cone-shaped shells. These fossils are found at 29,000 feet because the highest point on Earth was once under sea.

A different opinon

 

[Ophiolite]

Mountains and the Flood

Uplift of continents and mountains, and deepening of ocean basins in the closing stages of the Flood, help to explain that the water which temporarily covered the whole earth (after mostly coming from subterranean sources—the ‘fountains of the great deep’) is now in the oceans. Here is where God has ‘set a bound that they may not pass over, so that they do not turn again to cover the earth’ (Psalm 104:9).

If the surface features of the earth were totally flattened out, water would cover the globe to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). That is still much less than the height of Mt Everest (some 8 km [5 miles]) and other Himalayan mountains.

However, the Flood waters did not have to be this deep in order to cover ‘all the high hills that were under the whole heaven’ of the pre-Flood earth (Genesis 7:19). The Himalayas show clear evidence of having been pushed up after layers of fossil-bearing Flood sediments had been deposited. Thus the ‘high hills’ (mountains) before the Flood were different from those we see today, and were probably not much higher than 2 km (1.3 miles). Much of this pre-Flood mountainous mass may have been eroded away during that cataclysm.

There is evidence of long-ago ocean life embedded in the limestone at Everest's summit: fossils, including those of crinoids, ancient underwater animals with tentacles and cone-shaped shells. These fossils are found at 29,000 feet because the highest point on Earth was once under sea.

A different opinon

As I noted, I don't have an opinion on the matter. I have mountains of evidence. Let's take your Mount Everest example. Multiple lines of evidence, gathered by many hundreds of researchers have established the reality of plate tectonics, the collision of India with Asia and the subsequent uplift of the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau. That is what lifted the the crinoids from their warm tropical seas to the top of the world.

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Anyone who has seriously studied sedimentology, mineralogy, taphonomy, geomorphology, stratigraphy, palaeontology, geochemistry, historical geology and the like cannot reasonably entertain the possibility of a global flood. I advise you to stay away from such study if it is important to you to retain your current opinion.

Stay safe. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing.

 

[eleos1954]

As I noted, I don't have an opinion on the matter. I have mountains of evidence. Let's take your Mount Everest example. Multiple lines of evidence, gathered by many hundreds of researchers have established the reality of plate tectonics, the collision of India with Asia and the subsequent uplift of the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau. That is what lifted the the crinoids from their warm tropical seas to the top of the world.

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Anyone who has seriously studied sedimentology, mineralogy, taphonomy, geomorphology, stratigraphy, palaeontology, geochemistry, historical geology and the like cannot reasonably entertain the possibility of a global flood. I advise you to stay away from such study if it is important to you to retain your current opinion.

Stay safe. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing.

Plate tectonics is the theory that Earth's outer shell is divided into several plates that glide over the mantle, the rocky inner layer above the core

You've got theory .... not facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A great deal of the topography we see now is the result of the worldwide flood that Noah survived. Weathering since that time also changes the landscape.

No. Just no. Anyone that seriously and honestly studies the topic knows that is false. The story a morality tale. There never was a worldwide flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plate tectonics is the theory that Earth's outer shell is divided into several plates that glide over the mantle, the rocky inner layer above the core

You've got theory .... not facts.

Scientific theories explain facts. I am fairly sure that you do not understand the concept of a scientific theory. Gravity is a fact that is explained by the theory of gravity.

 

[Aussie Pete]

No. Just no. Anyone that seriously and honestly studies the topic knows that is false. The story a morality tale. There never was a worldwide flood.

I expect no other response from an atheist. I've satisfied myself that it is correct. So, yes, just yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I expect no other response from an atheist. I've satisfied myself that it is correct. So, yes, just yes.

You do not realize this but you claim that God is a liar with your beliefs. When I was a Christian I did not make that error. A person should be willing to test one's ideas to see if they are correct or not. A person with a strong faith will keep believing even if aspects of their beliefs are shown to be wrong. Bible literalism is the belief of those whose faith is not very strong.

 

[pitabread]

I expect no other response from an atheist. I've satisfied myself that it is correct. So, yes, just yes.

It really has nothing to do with atheism. It mostly has to do with whether one accepts basic physics.

Those who claim Noah's Flood shaped the world's geology ignore the physics that demonstrates that it wasn't possible.

 

[Ophiolite]

Plate tectonics is the theory that Earth's outer shell is divided into several plates that glide over the mantle, the rocky inner layer above the core

You've got theory .... not facts.

As others have pointed out, you do not appear to know what a scientific theory is. You would benefit from studying the concept with an open mind. The Wikipedia article is a good place to start. There is no shame in ignorance. There is shame in wilfull ignorance. I recommend avoiding it.

Your remark that I "got theory .... not facts", would be offensive were it not that it seems to be uttered in ignorance. It is offensive to the thousands of researchers who have gathered facts, built hypotheses upon them, tested the hypotheses - rejecting some, modifying and evolving others - and thereby building a powerful, self-supporting network of validated observation, experiment and testing, culminating in a detailed, elegant concept that explains those observed facts with an accuracy and a predicatability unrivalled by any other explanation. You can decry it if you wish, but that just makes you a blind man in a universe of brilliant illumination. A dumb choice in my book.

 

[eleos1954]

As others have pointed out, you do not appear to know what a scientific theory is. You would benefit from studying the concept with an open mind. The Wikipedia article is a good place to start. There is no shame in ignorance. There is shame in wilfull ignorance. I recommend avoiding it.

Your remark that I "got theory .... not facts", would be offensive were it not that it seems to be uttered in ignorance. It is offensive to the thousands of researchers who have gathered facts, built hypotheses upon them, tested the hypotheses - rejecting some, modifying and evolving others - and thereby building a powerful, self-supporting network of validated observation, experiment and testing, culminating in a detailed, elegant concept that explains those observed facts with an accuracy and a predicatability unrivalled by any other explanation. You can decry it if you wish, but that just makes you a blind man in a universe of brilliant illumination. A dumb choice in my book.

my my my .... do you feel better now? ROFL

There is shame in wilfull ignorance. I recommend avoiding it.

Interesting that's what the bible teaches regarding those who dismiss His teachings.

Your chosen screen title say's it all LOL

"Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape"