ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
I've been watching the History, Science, Discovery, Nat Geographic etc shows animation and explanation of geology and how the Earth was made.
From the shows, the new information to me seems clear that the Earth is in fact old.
This of course has shattered my earlier simplistic notion of a literal Bible telling of a young Earth. Since I was a fundamentalist/literalist, the contradictory information changed me from a Christian to an agnostic, which gelled with some other information.
A liberal Christian who accepts the Genesis accounts as mythological or allegorical stories and accepts Christianity and an old Earth seems to have a different belief system than the ones who wrote the Bible and therefore not an option to me. I hope you do not derail this discussion.
So speaking to literal Biblicists/ young Earth creationist, could you try to either explain some of the following geological features or answer the following question for me and "win" me back. Honestly, I would like to readjust my thinking back, I was quite happy as a Christian, but new information has compelled me.
Geological features:
1. The 3 or 4 huge impressions of calderas from the Yellowstone super volcano. If it actually went off within the last 6,000 years, something that dramatic would have been written about by the few remaining humans or we probably would not be here.
2. Russia and/or India lava fields. Same issue as #1.
3. Ice age glacier impressions left behind. The huge scrapes, hills, rock issues in the ground like, but not in anyway limited to just the Great Lakes.
4. Why would the Earth's plate tectonics be at work now, and have the appearance of working in the past long before 6,000 years?
5. Hawaiian islands chain moving over a hot spot working now and shows a pattern for it working in the past which would definitely be longer than 6,00 years ago to form.
6. Massive landslide section of Hawaii now under water. Chinese history would have picked up on that surely with such a massive tsunamis bigger than anything in human history.
7. The appearance at some of the extra large volcanoes of erupting several times in the past. If they actually did within 6,00 years, then could so many have happened in such a short period of time without killing us off and happen all before people were writing history down?
If these cannot be explained away then I ask:
Why God, if he created a young Earth of let's 6,000 years old, would he create it with markings of an old Earth?
(Let's not derail the thread on discussing how trustworthy a channel like History channel or one of the others are. They all showed video of the geological features I mentioned. Video doesn't lie, the features are there. Stay focused on the geological features, please. The source is inconsequential.)
(And lastly, no discussion of evolution of animals, another time. Thanks.)
I know this has been discussed before but evolutionary issues muddied the geological discussion. So just geology, thanks.
Sorry this is long but wanted to set the issue up first properly.
I've been watching the History, Science, Discovery, Nat Geographic etc shows animation and explanation of geology and how the Earth was made.
From the shows, the new information to me seems clear that the Earth is in fact old.
This of course has shattered my earlier simplistic notion of a literal Bible telling of a young Earth. Since I was a fundamentalist/literalist, the contradictory information changed me from a Christian to an agnostic, which gelled with some other information....
...So speaking to literal Biblicists/ young Earth creationist, could you try to either explain some of the following geological features or answer the following question for me and "win" me back. Honestly, I would like to readjust my thinking back, I was quite happy as a Christian, but new information has compelled me.
If you are so easily persuaded by some flashy computer animations on TV then I would question whether or not any so called "conversion back" would be genuine. It would be temporary until the next flashy computer animation came along and un-converted you from your self titled "simplistic" belief in what the Bible says.
If you are so easily persuaded by some flashy computer animations on TV then I would question whether or not any so called "conversion back" would be genuine. It would be temporary until the next flashy computer animation came along and un-converted you from your self titled "simplistic" belief in what the Bible says.
Oh please. Attack the person doesn't answer the issue at hand.
BTW, do all threads here start with a challenge to someone's faith and the response is: Your a loser. Your ugly. You must be from the devil to even ask such a question. Attacking the person is ridiculous.
Does it make you feel better if I left the shows out and said (which is true) that I did take a Geology class in college?
The shows just refreshed my thinking on the topic and made me consider it more seriously.
And yes, I have read many books since then, read internet sites, and seen pictures of the geological features.
I became at a loss for a young Earth explanation for the features. Thus I seek it out like at this forum.
So I am the exact opposite of being easily persuaded. I am very well informed that these features do exist. However, I keep an open mind to explanations.
Now do you deny that these features exist at all?
Are you avoiding the discussion because you have no rational explanation of the geological features?
Address the topic or leave!
And I am not trying to bait anybody in a pointless discussion where I am firmly set. I am trying to get a reasonable explanation of these geological features from the young Earth crowd. I am sincere that I let the evidence take me where it does. I do not hide from the challenging questions concerning faith. So stay on topic and provide an explanation, please, or move along.
I have yet to see a YEC on this site answer Dembski's challenge - if you didn't have a presupposition to believe in a literal biblical interpretation of the age of the earth, where would the evidence lead you?
It's like the question doesn't exist or something. I would think it an interesting one to consider if I were YEC, but apparently that's not the case.
Oh please. Attack the person doesn't answer the issue at hand.
BTW, do all threads here start with a challenge to someone's faith and the response is: Your a loser. Your ugly. You must be from the devil to even ask such a question. Attacking the person is ridiculous.
Slogan/motto:
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
Isaiah 1:17
Reputation:
May 2nd, 2010, 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Arms
This of course has shattered my earlier simplistic notion of a literal Bible telling of a young Earth. Since I was a fundamentalist/literalist, the contradictory information changed me from a Christian to an agnostic, which gelled with some other information.
I am really sorry to hear this. This is why I think strict YEC brand literalism is so dangerous. Its a great atheist/agnostic maker.
Quote:
A liberal Christian who accepts the Genesis accounts as mythological or allegorical stories and accepts Christianity and an old Earth seems to have a different belief system than the ones who wrote the Bible and therefore not an option to me. I hope you do not derail this discussion.
I do not want to derail your discussion but I think you are narrowing your options too much, and have misjudged the "liberal Christian" position.
I do not think you will find YECs that can clearly explain the issues you raised. I ran into some of the same issues in an oceanography class in college, however I did not give up my faith over the conflict.
Quote:
If these cannot be explained away then I ask:
Why God, if he created a young Earth of let's 6,000 years old, would he create it with markings of an old Earth?
Why? Who knows, it does not make sense to me but it is a possibility that the earth was created 6000 years ago with the appearance of age. Then again it could have been created 5 minutes ago with the same "appearance of age". I think the 6000 years is an incredibly narrow reading of Genesis, however.
"you are so easily persuaded"..."question whether or not any so called "conversion back" would be genuine."
"It would be temporary"
If that is not a personal attack then you are dense.
Loser, ugly, devil is an example of an equivalent personal attack that shows how absurd such lame responses are like yours.
I just read what you wrote and commented accordingly. You said that you were a fundamentalist...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Arms
Since I was a fundamentalist/literalist,,,,
that was persuaded from your simplistic Bible beliefs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Arms
...my earlier simplistic notion of a literal Bible telling of a young Earth.
by watching some animations on the History Channel and National Geographic...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Arms
I've been watching the History, Science, Discovery, Nat Geographic etc shows animation and explanation of geology and how the Earth was made.
From the shows, the new information to me seems clear that the Earth is in fact old.
and now want to be won back.
I was merely pointing out that if watching a computer animation was enough to persuade a self proclaimed Biblical literalist, then any evidence put forth in this forum would not be that persuasive.
The next time you saw a better flashy computer animation then you would probably be de-converted all over again.
Here is a flashy computer animation from a Young Earth Creationist.
Hey Chatmaggot, want to explain how the energy of 300 trillion h-bombs (as per the hydroplate theory) was dissipated without seriously disrupting life on earth as we know it? The flood would be entirely superfluous.
Also, why don't you try addressing some of the points as listed in the OP? And, while you're at it, answering Dembski's question?
Hey Chatmaggot, want to explain how the energy of 300 trillion h-bombs (as per the hydroplate theory) was dissipated without seriously disrupting life on earth as we know it? The flood would be entirely superfluous.
Also, why don't you try addressing some of the points as listed in the OP? And, while you're at it, answering Dembski's question?
I could care less what Walt's theory is or how many h-bombs of energy his theory would require. The point was to include an animation (any animation) and see if Open Arms would be persuaded as easy as he was after watching one on the History Channel.
My point was that if someone considers themselves anything yet is persuaded by a cartoon, then one must question how committed they were.
Let's suppose you didn't believe that bears could drive flying cars and project rainbows from their abdomens. Here's a snazzy animation about that very thing.
Then there are the older nucleotide dating methods, and how they also form their own consiliences. It's at about this point that YEC researchers like Baumgardner start invoking non-biblical miracles.
I am sure that you are aware that there are plenty of Christians who have no trouble reconciling Christianity with modern science. Although I'm nominally an atheist, most of the time at least, I don't think Christianity and science have to be incompatible. Obviously, you must figure things out for yourself, but a fading belief in YEC need not be a stumbling block to faith.
You may be interested to read the former creation geologist Glenn Morton's story. He was a youth earth geologist researcher who almost lost his faith when he began his observations as a geophysicist, but then found a way to reconcile his beliefs.
Linear Mode
