SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : Mountains and the age of the Earth

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread
drifter
Member



Joined: 2005/6/6
Posts: 645
Campbell River, B.C.

 Re:

I highly recommend watching Kent Hovind's seminar # 3 for more info on this subject.


_________________
Nigel Holland

 2014/10/6 14:00Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5343
NC, USA

 Re:

Twayneb--

Thx for the response. So are you saying the Alps and Himalayas are less than 6000 years old? What about the "mountains of Ararat?"

Lysa- great question but simple answer per young earth paradigm is that the Flinstones had it right. Perhaps Noah used dinos to haul logs for the ark. If earth is only that old anything is possible and the same would be true for the pyramids puma punko etc


_________________
Todd

 2014/10/6 14:15Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

For what it's worth:

This weekend I went to the Linville Caverns in mountains of North Carolina. While in there, our tour guide pointed out a fossilized sand-dollar hanging about 10-15 feet above our head. I even took a picture of it. Pretty clear. According to our guide, the cavern we were in... About 600 feet under ground... Once was buried in ocean water. He pointed to markings in the cave that where the salt water left its evidence of having been there. We also walked under a large crack that used to be an active tectonic plate years ago.

How one does or does not reconcile this apparent evidence of an ancient earth... I'm not sure I can say. I believe the scripture teaches a young earth and Paul's theory of atonement is clearly at odds with evolutionary theory. I won't say the earth is only 6,000 years old, as that is not something the bible ever asserts. But it can't be much older than 10 or 20,000 from a scriptural reasoning.

But the apparent evidence for evolution seems very strong.

I will say this, I am happy living and accepting what some would call a paradox. That is... Two views that are apparently contradictory, yet true at the same time, I accept the bible teaches a literal 7 day creation and fall of man. But I also accept the preponderance of evidence indicates the world is much older than anything the bible alludes to. It's not a tension I care to live with, but in all sincerity, this seems to be the case. I'm a much better theologian than I am natural scientist. So I'll stick to teaching what I feel I know the Bible teaches. And I'll let brighter minds than me try to reconcile the two points of view.

I'm content with that.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2014/10/6 17:36Profile
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3392
East TN (for now)

 Re:

Quote:
by drifter on 2014/10/6 14:00:41

I highly recommend watching Kent Hovind's seminar # 3 for more info on this subject.


And herein is the great divide, drifter.... Astrophysics (Hugh Ross) vs young earth (Kent Hovind & etc)!! There really shouldn't be a great divide between to the two but there is.

I will stick with Hugh Ross anyday, but that is just my opinion!!

God bless,
Lisa


_________________
Lisa

 2014/10/6 17:36Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1401


 Re:

Hi Lysa
Dinosaurs lived during the 6000 yrs Here is an extract from the webpage below
............................................................
After the close of the Old Testament , flying reptiles were mentioned by Aristotle, Josephus and Herodotus. The first century naturalist, Pliny, wrote about animals bigger than elephants living in India . When the Spaniards arrived in South America in the 1500's they found that the Inca Indians had carvings of what we clearly know today as dinosaurs, but these carvings were done at least 300 years before modern paleontologists described them from the fossil evidence. Accounts of dragons and flying reptiles are found in the literature of Persia , Scandinavia and England from the third to the 16th century A. D. The most famous of these references being St. George and the Dragon.

The story of St. George clearly depicts a Christian man rescuing a king's daughter from being sacrificed to a dragon in the late third century A. D. He gave the glory to Jesus Christ for his victory over the beast. His action and testimony convinced the local people to become Christians and to be baptized. He became the patron saint of England in 1350.

What better way to impress a woman of your courage and strength than to slay a fierce dragon on her behalf? Could it be that the extinction of the dinosaurs was nothing more than the competition between men trying to find a dragon to slay in order to get engaged? That is a fearsome driving force. Perhaps dinosaurs became endangered species from over hunting by men.
www.creationworldview.org
..........................................................
Also may I add here is an account from Explorer Marco Polo 13/14th century
.........................................................
Here are found snakes and huge serpents, ten paces in length and ten spans in girth [that is, 50 feet long and 100 inches in girth]. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, each with three claws, as well as eyes larger than a loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are of smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long
............................................................
Yours Staff

 2014/10/6 18:37Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7449
Mississippi

 Re:

A couple years ago we visited my brother in Colorado. One day we went four-wheeling up into the mountains - he lives in a valley (El. 7000 feet). We went to Summerville, I think it is called, a place where gold was mined many years ago. Today it is a ghost town. As we walked around it I found a rock with fossils of sea life. I considered it very interesting and worked to pry it from the soil so I could take it with me but it was so heavily embedded in that soil I could not even move it. I concluded this rock is a whole lot larger then I suspected.

What makes this so very interesting is its elevation - not sure what it is but suggest it could be around 12000 feet. To find a rock with sea creatures - now fossilized - this high up away from the sea was nothing short of amazing.

I am no expert on creationism but do note that many people are confused by the reading of Genesis 1:1,2. Some seem to think there was a created world that somehow was destroyed and God had to remake it. I have another idea: verse one introduces the reader what the topic is in subsequent verses and then backs up in verse two to share the details of how the earth, the universe came into being. In other words, verse one is what we could call the title to the rest of the chapter.

Dunno if this helps but I consider God the creator. He did a glorious job - no man with all his intelligence could ever begin to match what he did.

My understanding.


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2014/10/6 19:22Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 1988
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Thx for the response. So are you saying the Alps and Himalayas are less than 6000 years old? What about the "mountains of Ararat?"



That is exactly what I am saying. The issue of the age of the earth and creation is an issue of Biblical veracity and authority. In my opinion, when we begin to alter our interpretation of scripture so that it "better fits with secular science", then we concede that our view of scripture is lower than our view of man's current understanding of his world. We see scripture as less reliable than modern science. I think this is a poor view of scripture. I believe the Bible is accurate in every detail as it is the word of God. So, if science seems to contradict something I read in scripture, it is not the Bible that needs to be reinterpreted, but man's science that is inaccurate or incomplete.

Lysa mentioned dinosaurs. I am reminded of the discovery of a t-rex in Montana in the last 20 years or so that still had intact red blood cells in its bone marrow. This could only have happened had the animal died within the last few thousand years. Native art in the desert southwest routinely depicts creatures that we have labeled "dinosaurs". The people who drew these things inhabited their homes in the last few thousand years.

The bias of science toward long ages and millions of years is one of necessity for them, and as such they cannot and will not see it any other way. They must have millions or billions of years in order to maintain a purely naturalistic theory of origins. Their denial of God has driven their scientific theories.


_________________
Travis

 2014/10/7 15:47Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1401


 Re:

hi Twayneb,
Thanks for saying so correctly and elequently what I wanted to say.I agree with everything you say,
Yours Staff

 2014/10/7 17:29Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5343
NC, USA

 Re:

But that means people living in Asia saw the Himalayas rising right in front of them. I cannot wrap my mind around that.

Again I agree that science may not be exactly right about the age of the earth but how can they be THAT wrong? I mean radioactive dating may not be perfect but good grief.

And I think your statement that science must always bow to scripture is true if the scripture is talking about science and of course that Gen 1 must be interpreted absolutely literally. I don't think it has to be literal so I see comparing science to what is stated in Gen 1 and 2 as comparing apples and oranges.

Two persons with an equally high view of scripture can differ on how Gen 1 should be interpreted. In other words viewing Gen 1 as a more poetic passage than a scientific treatise does not make one a flaming liberal.


_________________
Todd

 2014/10/7 17:43Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1401


 Re:

Hi TMK,
I wonder what is the motivation to doubt what the bible simply says and not doubt what atheistic non christian science says in a complicated way.
It is usually one of two things
1.A person wants to marry up evolution to christianity
2.A person wants to marry up the age of the earth to a world dominated by a message of billions of years to make the bible seem more believeable
All the dating tools have proved to be totally incorrect.
Not just science but everything must bow to scripture.
God said he created what he created,he said he did it in 6 days and he delibrately gave detailed yrs of how long each generation lasted so we would not be skeptical of his word and that is good enough for me maybe not other people but its good enough for me
Yours Staff

 2014/10/7 18:17Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy