New Earth/Old Earth

[al Hartman]

                   Hmmmnn-- a flat earth...
            could present some "edgy" problems!!!

[moonflower]

Just trying to help. It solves the problem of the "missing link", doesn't it?    

[Arthur]

Here is a question for Arthur.

Evidence of an old earth from Varves.

1. Varves are thin layers of sediment that form at the bottom of shallow lakes.

2. Lake varves often show a pattern of one color for summer layers, and another color for winter layers.  Each pair of layers form a varve.

3. Summer layers in varves contain fossilized pollen, demonstrating that these are annual variations.

4. Counting the varves indicates the minimum age of the formation.

5. The Green River Shale deposits of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado show several million successive varves.

6. The thickness of the varves shows the effect on rainfall of the 11 1/2 year sunspot cycles and the 12,000 year precession of the equinoxes.


Here is the question.  How do you account for these observed layerings, (by core drillings), from a 6000 year old earth perspective?

Thomas Maddux

Good question.  The main issue lies in whether or not the layers are indeed annual.

First of all, when you take some dirt and put it into a glass of water, shake it up and let it settle, what do you find?  Layers.  How long does it take for multiple layers to form in that glass of water?  A few minutes.

I believe that the layers that are found in the Green River of Wyoming, Utah were formed after the flood destroyed the world with water and then the dirt settled.  

An article at the following address that explains more on this may be found at http://www.icr.org/newsletters/drjohn/drjohnjan03.html

Here are some highlights from that article and responses to your points:


1. In no location do all the varves exist (i.e. there is not on piece of shale that has 6,000,000 layers).  The total is derived from combining different areas together.  

2.  Does each varve equal one year?  No.  
From the website: "Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes. Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the Green River Shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. "All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year. "

3.  Is there evidence that shows that the layers formed rapidly?  Yes.
Fossilized catfish are found, transversing many layers.  These catfish look very much like live catfish--except they're dead  Obviously, a dead, in-tact, catfish could not lie on the bottom of a lake without being scavenged or rotting for all those years while it waits to be fossilized in layers of dirt.  
Even more surprising than these catfish, bird fossils are also found in the same manner.  If a bird is even found in a lake at all, they usually float to the top when they are dead because of their low density, not lie dead at the bottom of a lake.  Yet there are a large number of birds fossilized through many layers at the bottom of this lake.
The evidence points to a catastrophic flood that buried these birds and fish in a whole lot of dirt in a short amount of time.

4. How is it possible that this lake remained calm enough for millions of years to be able to form the type of layers that it has?  No storms?  No local floods?  Just a calm lake for six million years?

5.  Actual catastrophic events (hurricane debris,90 mph mud-flow from Mt. Saint Helens) as well as laboratory experiments have documented rapid formation of varves.


There are other, similar such misunderstandings of natural formations.  For example, some evolutionists will say that the Grand Canyon was formed by a river over "millions of years".  However the river that enters the canyon is on the same level as the water in the canyon.  Water can not flow uphill, so how did the river jump up to cut out the top of the plateau on down to the level where it is today?  Rather than a little bit of dirt being cut away each year, a whole lot of dirt was washed out in probably 15 mintues by the flood.  That's how the Grand Canyon was formed.

When Mt. Saint Helens blew its top, a mudslide washed out a large section of land in a few minutes, and afterwards, a river was left flowing in at the bottom of the ravine that was created.  No doubt 100 years from now evolutionists would come by that area and say, "No you see kids, it took millions of years for this whole ravine to form by that river that you see there."  Um..no.


A question I have for you:  How is it that there were closed, petrified clams (they had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position) found at the top of Mount Everest?


Arthur

[Oscar]

Ok Arthur,

Here are a couple of answers.

1. Regarding layers.  You are correct in saying that dirt in a glass, (we always use jars at school) will form layers.
The problem is that the heavier stuff precipitates out faster than the lighter stuff.  So you don't get layers that look like varves, you get graduated layers.  Varves have alternating layers, not graduated layers.

In other words, in our fruitjar experiments we always got rocks, gravel, sand, and a few layers of different kinds of dirt, with the smaller particles on top, in that order.

2. The "One Big Flood" model has a problem in that it can't explain the pollen, twigs, bugs, and plant matter that is found in the varves.  Remember some of the layers are only millimeters thick.  So you would have the OBF laying down very fine layers of mud, sprinkling them with fresh pollen, (which comes from plants that can't grow in the water), then covering them up with another layer and repeating the process several million times.  Where is there an example of a flood doing this?

3. Another problem for the OBF model is that when layers of sedimentary rock are split, land dwelling fossils or their tracks, along with raindrop depressions, are found under hundreds or even thousands of feet of sedimentary rock.
This means that this had to be mud flats, ie on the surface, and then get covered up again.  There are lots of these layers, so you need to account for how a single flood could do this.

4. I noticed that the ICR article that you quote states that in one case, 360 layers formed in 160 years.  This is a problem?  Unusual rainfall patterns can do this, so I don't doubt that it is true.  But even you have 500,000 layers, and then claim that they were ALL deposited at a rate of four a year, you still have a formation that took 125,000 years to build up.  Doesn't provide much help in establishing a 6000 year old earth.

5. Regarding the Grand Canyon, (how did the river jump up on top of the plateau to dig the canyon), and the clams on Mount Everest. These arguments assume a young earth and then use it to "prove" that this could not happen gradually.  However, this commits the fallacy of Begging the Question.

Continental drift accounts for rise and fall of land masses.  The Himalyas have been observed to be growing at a rate of about 12" per year, so the land atop Everest could have been at the bottom of a sea only 40,000 years ago or so.
(I'm working from memory, but I'm pretty sure that's what the rate is.)

Here is a question for you.  Bible says that after the flood the water was blown away by the wind.  Where is the pile of water that contains enough to cover Mt. Everest, which is almost 30,000 feet above sea level?

In reality, all the water in all the seas, oceans, lakes, rivers, underground aquifers, and polar ice caps comes to about 1/6 enough to cover the entire earth to a depth of 30,000 feet.  

God bless,
Tom Maddux

[Arthur]

Ok, I'll get to your other questions in a bit, but before we continue, it seems that you are saying that you do not believe that there was a world-wide flood that destroyed the world.  Is that true?

I find that a bit confusing because it seems from your other posts that you believe in the Bible.  The Bible clearly states that there was a flood that destroyed the world.  Do you or do you not believe what the Bible says?

[Joe Sperling]

Al-----

As I mentioned before the discussion between Arthur and I is in fun.

I know that salvation does not depend on the age of the
earth.

I   don't    really    drink   much    coffee   I    just     like    to
discuss   things     that   interest     me.


I hope    you    are    able    to    understand   and    read   this   in   an   easy    manner.  I   am   not   trying    to   win

any  


contests  for   fillling   a                                        page
   


up.    Take        Care     and    God   Bless You.   J  O   E

[Joe Sperling]

Once again, i am not criticizing nor making light of anyone's personal interests.  i only ask what the value is of discussing them at length on a site which purports to exist to help Christians in need of spiritual direction?
    Beats me.

al Hartman

Al---I forgot to add that actually this thread began because Andrea Denner thought it very interesting and wanted it to continue on another thread solely for the purpose of discussing this item of interest. The thread wasn't created to help Christians in need of spiritual direction. A thread like "Tell us your Assembly experience" might be a better place to go for that. I bleieve this BB is open to those seeking spiritual direction, but I believe it is here for plain good old fashioned fellowship too. It's open for Humor, jokes, discussion of Iraq, sports and whatever you have on your mind that you can talk about with other Christians. I don't believe every thread has to be a "Holy Thread" filled only with the discussion of lofty heavenly things. So, kick back, have some coffee, and lay off the holy water.

These last two posts by the way are all in good fun. Dang!! I see that I forgot to use paragraphs again!!      --Joe

[Oscar]

OOOPS!!!    

I wrote

"Continental drift accounts for rise and fall of land masses.  The Himalyas have been observed to be growing at a rate of about 12" per year, so the land atop Everest could have been at the bottom of a sea only 40,000 years ago or so.
(I'm working from memory, but I'm pretty sure that's what the rate is.)"

I was working from memory when I typed this, and I guess memory failed me.

The rate of growth of the Himalaya Mts. is one CENTIMETER per year, not one foot as I said.

That gives  a growth rate of about one foot every 400 years, (a little less actually, but close enough for government work).  So to be pushed up to 40,000 feet  would take about 16 million years, not counting erosion.

Quite a while...yes.  But since the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, there has been plenty of time.

By the way, the same reversing magnetic stripes that are found in the igneous rocks on both sides  of the mid-atlantic ridge have been observed up in the Himalayas.  More evidence that these rocks were once on a sea bed.

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Ok, I'll get to your other questions in a bit, but before we continue, it seems that you are saying that you do not believe that there was a world-wide flood that destroyed the world.  Is that true?

I find that a bit confusing because it seems from your other posts that you believe in the Bible.  The Bible clearly states that there was a flood that destroyed the world.  Do you or do you not believe what the Bible says?

Arthur,

I am an innerantist.  I believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the original  writings.  I also believe that we have  highly accurate copies of them.

But the case for a world wide flood is not as open and shut as some folks think it is.

For example read Genesis 7 and it sure seems that that is what it says.  But then you read Genesis 8 and the plot thickens somewhat.

What I mean is this:
In 8:1- The wind blows and the water subsides.  So, where did it go?
In 8:2-The aquifers stop flowing and the rain stops.
In 8:3-the water continues to recede.
In 8:4-the ark hits ground.
In 8:5- the hilltops appear.  Land is visible.
Noah apparently doesn't see this, because then he sends out birds to take a look.  The raven doesn't come back.  

(by the way, there exists an ancient Sumerian record that mariners used ravens/crows to fly up so they could see over the horizon to find the direction of land.  The sailors would head in the direction the bird flew.  Sumeria dates to about 3500BC)

Then Noah sends out a dove, the dove just flies around for a while and, as verse 9 says:
"but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark; FOR THE WATER WAS ON THE SURFACE OF ALL THE EARTH."

Now the text says that the hilltops have already appeared, then it says that water covered all the surface of the earth.  So, what do we do?  Throw out the Bible because it contradicts itself?

I don't.  It seems pretty clear to me that the question is one of perspective.  From the dove's altitude, nothing but water could be seen.  But we know that the hilltops were already showing, so that gives us some insight into the meaning of the phrase, "...for the water was on the surface of all the earth...."

Now look what Noah does.  He sends the dove out again!  He waits seven days and sends it out.  It comes back with an olive leaf, so Noah "knew that the water was abated from the earth".

If after seven days "the water was abated from the earth" means ALL the earth, why didn't Noah just look out the window?

No, he had to send a dove out BECAUSE HE STILL COULDN'T SEE ANY DRY LAND.   The water was abated from the earth somewhere over Noah's horizon, otherwise, what need for the dove?

One other thing.  Do olive trees spring from seeds and grow leaves in seven days.  The dove plucked a leaf from a live tree.  The water had been there for many months, so all trees immersed in the water were dead.  This one was already sprouting leaves somewhere within a dove's range before Noah could see any dry land.

So yes Arthur, I do believe the Bible.  I just don't think it means what some folks say it does.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[4Him]

...
So yes Arthur, I do believe the Bible.  I just don't think it means what some folks say it does.
God bless,
Thomas Maddux

That's kind of the crux of the biscuit isn't it Tom?  If I don't believe that the Bible "means what some folks say" does that mean I'm wrong?  Especially, does it mean I'm not in the faith?  Glad you asked.  NO!  We need to be open to seeing that maybe God works in ways that don't fit into the boxes we're used to.  He is not a deceptive God that puts stuff out there tho throw us off.  He is the creator of physical laws and processes and I believe that He normally works within our understanding of them.

Do I understand it all?  By no means.  Do I believe that science disproves God's Word? No way. (In fact, quite the contrary.)

Its great to know that God is not limited by what I think or believe about the details of how he created things.

[Arthur]

Tom, read it again.

And read II Pet 3:3-7

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

II Pet 2:4-5
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly

Heb 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Job 22:15-16
Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden?
Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood

Isa 54:9
For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.


Tom, you have a picture of a scholar there for your avatar, and in your posts you try to teach from the Bible, yet you fail to grasp one of the basic truths of the Bible.  
When Jesus healed a man born blind from birth by making him to be able to see, the Pharisees were not able to grasp it.  Why?  Because they weren't smart enough, or didn't study enough?  No, rather because they refused to believe what was against their way of thinking.  They'd rather hold to their narrow little understanding that excluded God than accept the beauty of what God was doing in their very midst.  Jesus said they were blind guides.
I'm not saying you are a Pharisee or like a Pharisee, but I think it's remarkable that you do not understand what any child could tell you by reading the Bible.   I think perhaps you are blinded by the evolutionist myth (that which is falsely called "science") or something else, I don't know what.  

God destroyed the world once by a flood of water, through which only Noah and seven others were saved.  God will destroy the world again by fire.  

You believe that Jesus is coming again and that there will be a final judgement, right?

"The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's the book for me.  I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E."

Now, you asked some good questions about where the water came from and how could Mt. Everest be covered.  I'll get to those in my next post.  

[moonflower]

What's wrong with these people?? The earth is flat and Copernicus was wrong!! I smell excommunication here......

[karensanford]

This is a great topic, one of my most and least favorite to discuss.  I am one of those naughty worldly Christians   who believes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution probably occurred in some form or another.  I also believe in what the Bible says, though, to paraphrase Tom, I don't think it necessarily says what some think it does.

My bottom line view is this: God gave us two powerful tools to reveal Himself to us: The Bible and the beautiful, magnificent Earth.  If we think the two are contradictory, maybe we need to look again at how it's possible that they do agree, after all.  God was the first scientist, and created the most awesome science project.    I don't believe that every scientific discovery is part of an atheist plot to discredit the Bible, but rather that the Lord is providing for the discovery and realization of His existence through scientific progress.

For anyone interested who happens to be in SLO, you should stop by the Geology department at Cuesta College and talk to Paul Bauer.  Or the Biology department, and talk to Evy Cheatham (conveniently, their offices are located in the same hallway).  These are very smart Christians who are also very knowledgeable scholars.  

[Arthur]

Points to Ponder about the Flood:
-from the www.drdino.com website


2 Pet. 3:3-8 tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are "willingly ignorant" of the Creation and the Flood. In order to understand science and the Bible, we must not be ignorant of those two great events in Earth's history.

1. Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis account.

2. Noah's ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere (where would he go?   Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts on them and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark need neither of those and therefore had far less torsional stress.

3. Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and I have a 21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, and food with room to spare.

4. The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything!)

5. The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.
The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.
The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.

6. The ark may have had large drogue (anchor) stones suspended over the sides to keep it more stable in rough weather. Many of these stones have been found in the region where the ark landed.

7. Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio.

8. God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. (They teach that "rocks can turn into people," given enough time!)

9. Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, "shall come to thee").

10. Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.

11. Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.

12. All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.

13. The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today. The longer lifespans, Adam's direct contact with God, and the fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.

14. The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. This is half the height of the ark. The ark was safe from scraping bottom at all times.

15. The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).

16. There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.

17. Many claim to have seen the ark in recent times in the area in which the Bible says it landed. There are two primary schools of thought about the actual site of the ark. Much energy and time has been expended to prove both views. Some believe the ark is on Mt. Ararat, covered by snow (CBS showed a one-hour special in 1993 about this site). The other group believes the ark is seventeen miles south of Mt. Ararat in a valley called "the valley of eight" (8 souls on the ark). The Bible says the ark landed in the "mountains" of Ararat, not necessarily on the mountain itself.

18. The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then.

19. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling beasts.

20. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

21. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

22. Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.

23. People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Pet. 3:3-8).

[Arthur]

This is a great topic, one of my most and least favorite to discuss.  I am one of those naughty worldly Christians   who believes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution probably occurred in some form or another.  I also believe in what the Bible says, though, to paraphrase Tom, I don't think it necessarily says what some think it does.

One question I have for you.  You say that:
1. you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution probably occurred in some form or another.
2. you believe what the Bible says.

The Bible says in Rom 5:12-14
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

My question for you is:

If there was no death in the world until Adam sinned, how is it that the evolutionary process could have taken place, since that process requires death and mutation?


Some more questions:
Do you believe that mankind is decendant from apes?  
If so, does that mean that your grandmother is a little more apelike than you?  And your child is a little more evolved than you?  What's the next step?  homo luminous?  homo superior?  Oh please!

Also, where did the apes come from?  And where did the ancestors of the apes' ancestors come from?

Do you believe that if we go back far enough, mankind orginially came from some protoplasm in a so-called "primordial soup"?

Where did that first single-celled organism come from?

Did life just spontaneously appear from....rocks?

Where did the rocks come from?

Where did the molecules from which rocks are composed come from?

Where did the stars come from?

Sooo...there was this mass of dirt that swirled real fast and then got squished and then exploded and now a few billions years later here we are?  OMG!  LOL!   ROTFL!  

Oh wait, but you change that a little bit, since you believe in the Bible, right.  And you exchange dirt for God to start it all, but then the rest is the same as what the evolutionists say?   Don't you see a problem with that?

They believe "In the beginning dirt..."
I believe, "In the beginning God..."

And Creationists are the silly billies?  I don't think so.

You see how silly the religion of evolution is.  I have stated, and I'll state again:  
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.  
And, for clarification, when I say "evolution" I mean:
cosmic evolution (origin of the universe),
chemical evolution (origin of complex molecules),
macroevolution (origin of species),
and any other meaning you want to attribute to that word "evolution" other than microevolution,
because microevolution (variation within kinds) is directly observable.  

My bottom line view is this: God gave us two powerful tools to reveal Himself to us: The Bible and the beautiful, magnificent Earth.  

I agree with you there.

If we think the two are contradictory, maybe we need to look again at how it's possible that they do agree, after all.  

Nope, not contradictory at all.  The evidence supports what God has said all along.  They fit like hand in glove.  It's just some people concocted this fantasy of evolution about 200 years ago and, for some odd reason, people have been trying to hang on to it for dear life rather than believe what God says and what the scientific evidence so clearly points out.

Arthur