It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stratified rock

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Erm, I'm not hijacking anything. I'm just pointing out that the creation of the Hawaiian seamount chain - which consists of layers upon layers of lava (stratified rock!) - disproves the 6-day creation myth. And the Flood myth. They prove that the Earth is millions - billions - of years old. It's not my fault if this jars with your viewpoint.


I am sorry it doesnt jar anything.
You are welcome to believe that they are billions and trillions of years old if you want to.
My research on the matter suggests something more in line to my beliefs

Thats my research only recently
There is an alternative theory to yours.
Sorry


Care to share your research? Why are you so convinced that the research of volcanologists is wrong? We're talking about the passage of the Pacific oceanic plate over a 'hot spot', that allowed magma to reach the surface and form seamounts and islands. To create a chain that long in such a manner takes millions and millions of years.




posted on May, 30 2014 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch



Can't wait to see your research...

Just wondering if there really should be disclaimer on bible - 'Can't be taken as historical book!



So, please provide your research, so we can be all on the same page...



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


I dont believe that sedimentation proves the earth is old. I think that can of water and dirt explains simply why.


then do the experiment - and show us your results

then explain salt deposits



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


Pray.

What a clueless, insensitive, arrogant, self-satisfied gas-leak of an answer.

Didn't I just tell you I was once religious? Didn't I just tell you that I went through a spiritual crisis during that time? What do you think I was doing through all of that, if not praying? Juggling bananas?

Pray for what, anyway? Pray to have my brains taken away from me so that I become too stupid to understand evolution?



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: borntowatch


Pray.

What a clueless, insensitive, arrogant, self-satisfied gas-leak of an answer.

Didn't I just tell you I was once religious? Didn't I just tell you that I went through a spiritual crisis during that time? What do you think I was doing through all of that, if not praying? Juggling bananas?

Pray for what, anyway? Pray to have my brains taken away from me so that I become too stupid to understand evolution?


Just because some religious followings do not allow for strata and the billions of years for galaxies to form does not mean the Bible fails to allow for such time scales.
The creation story sets God creating in scales of "Days", which is impossible to be an earth time scale day, as there was no earth or sun to orbit around yet in the first "Day" of creation.

However long it took for light to burst forth into the universe, could be considered a God timescale of a "Day". As per big bang theory, hydrogen gasses would coalesce until the immense pressure would produce the first stars, the moment light burst forth in the universe. This is described in genesis,


3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


It wasn't until verse 14 that the earth day timescale is mentioned,


14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:


So a different literal approach to Genesis can happily include the beliefs of all atheists and scientific study.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: XxRagingxPandaxX
I'm just curious at to how the proponents of a 6,000 year old earth reconcile stratified rock formations?


They cannot.

Which is why scripture indicates the original creation of the Earth to be millions if not billions of years ago.

It also explains that it was re-created (re-fashioned, brought back to a state of life after having been made void of all life and full of chaos), for the purpose of the creation of mankind roughly 6000 years ago.

Genesis 1:1 took place billions of years ago (think big bang), then Genesis 1:2 was a result of a major rebellion in the spiritual realm (Lucifer turned against his creator to become the adversary, and convinced 1/3rd of his peers to join) in which the resulting war destroyed all life on Earth (think ELE, dinosaurs extinct)

Genesis 1:3 begins where the Earth (already in existence, BEFORE the first day of re-creation week!) was dead and no life existed upon its waters, no sun reached its surface, due to the fallout destruction experienced when 1/3rd of the angelic beings rebelled against their creator, and turned to destroy the Earth in an attempt to prevent the creation of mankind (no physical world, no physical beings created with the potential to rule over the angelic realm once they become Elohim).

God than re-created the Earth, so it would be suitable to sustain life in harmony with mankind, who He created on the 6th day of re-creation week.

This is the plain truth of what God says in His Word about creation.
edit on 30-5-2014 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElohimJD

originally posted by: XxRagingxPandaxX
I'm just curious at to how the proponents of a 6,000 year old earth reconcile stratified rock formations?


They cannot.

Which is why scripture indicates the original creation of the Earth to be millions if not billions of years ago.

It also explains that it was re-created (re-fashioned, brought back to a state of life after having been made void of all life ELE), for the purpose of the creation of mankind roughly 6000 years ago.

Genesis 1:1 took place billions of years ago (think big bang), then Genesis 1:2 was a result of a major rebellion in the spiritual realm (Lucifer turned against his creator to become the adversary) in which the resulting war destroyed all life on Earth (think ELE, dinosaurs extinct)

Genesis 1:3 begins where the Earth (already in existence, BEFORE the first day or re-creation!) was dead and no life existed upon its waters, no sun reached its surface, due to the fallout destruction experienced when 1/3rd of the angelic beings rebelled against their creator, and turned to destroy the Earth in an attempt to prevent the creation of mankind (no physical world, no physical beings created with the potential to rule over the angelic realm once they become Elohim).

God than re-created the Earth, so it would be suitable to sustain life in harmony with mankind, who He created on the 6th day of re-creation week.

This is the plain truth of what God says in His Word about creation.


And the basis for all of the above is what exactly?



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElohimJD

originally posted by: XxRagingxPandaxX
I'm just curious at to how the proponents of a 6,000 year old earth reconcile stratified rock formations?


They cannot.

Which is why scripture indicates the original creation of the Earth to be millions if not billions of years ago.

It also explains that it was re-created (re-fashioned, brought back to a state of life after having been made void of all life ELE), for the purpose of the creation of mankind roughly 6000 years ago.

Genesis 1:1 took place billions of years ago (think big bang), then Genesis 1:2 was a result of a major rebellion in the spiritual realm (Lucifer turned against his creator to become the adversary) in which the resulting war destroyed all life on Earth (think ELE, dinosaurs extinct)


This is all well and good, but there have been 5 mass extinction events in Earth's history. And the extinction of the dinosaurs wasn't even the worst one. The Permian-Triassic extinction event was the worst with something like 95% of all marine life going extinct and 70% of all terrestrial life going extinct. This happened BEFORE the dinosaurs showed up on the scene.

So going by the bible, if there have been five major extinctions, which one of those was the one were this supposed revolt of the angels against god took place?


Genesis 1:3 begins where the Earth (already in existence, BEFORE the first day or re-creation!) was dead and no life existed upon its waters, no sun reached its surface, due to the fallout destruction experienced when 1/3rd of the angelic beings rebelled against their creator, and turned to destroy the Earth in an attempt to prevent the creation of mankind (no physical world, no physical beings created with the potential to rule over the angelic realm once they become Elohim).


That's odd because not one of the major extinction events in the history of Earth left it barren of life. So I'm not sure how you can make this claim.


God than re-created the Earth, so it would be suitable to sustain life in harmony with mankind, who He created on the 6th day of re-creation week.

This is the plain truth of what God says in His Word about creation.


Except the major extinction events in our history don't follow this account. So I'm not so sure if the word "truth" is an appropriate descriptor for what you are claiming god says in genesis.
edit on 30-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
I would suppose that the basis for the "re-creation" is based of the word male'

www.blueletterbible.org...

Which can be translated to mean fill or refill depending on it's usage. I've read the argument for "re" but found it odd to simply change the usage of a word in one verse out of many to fit an argument.

Or playing of the verses of the earth being void, chaos, then re-creacted.(gaps)
edit on 30-5-2014 by drivers1492 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2014 by drivers1492 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

And the basis for all of the above is what exactly?


The Word of God.

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning (of physical existence; billions of years ago) God Created the Heavens (Universe) and the Earth."

Genesis 1:2
"And then the Earth was rendered over time into a state of chaos, and void of all life (Hebrew = Tohu wa Bohu) ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep (no sunlight reached the Earth's surface). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." - the Earth was already in existence before Genesis 1:3.

Genesis 1:3
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

God removed the chaos (debris, soot, ash, dust) blocking the suns light from reaching the surface of the Earth on the 1st day of re-creation week, that is how light was re-created on the Earth.

In Job and Isaiah we find that God can create "no thing" in "vain" (Hebrew = Tohu wa Bohu)!

God did not create the original Earth in "Tohu wa Bohu" as we read He can create "no thing" in such a manner. He created it for life, in perfection. And for millions of years it was perfect... until rebellion came in to the hearts of the angelic realm. There was a "war in heaven" in which the rebellion was subdued as Michael chained Lucifer (now known as Satan) and constrained his power in the physical realm.

The Earth being rendered chaos and full of death was a result of Satan's rebellion against God.

God had to re-create it, re-mold it, re-fashion it to be suitable for life again, and since scripture is only concerned with God's interaction with mankind, it starts with primarily with that time period, because it is where the story between the two parties began; not the story of God and the physically created universe, that story began billions of years ago as the Earth's stratus clearly displays.

God Bless,



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

This is all well and good, but there have been 5 mass extinction events in Earth's history. And the extinction of the dinosaurs wasn't even the worst one. The Permian-Triassic extinction event was the worst with something like 95% of all marine life going extinct and 70% of all terrestrial life going extinct. This happened BEFORE the dinosaurs showed up on the scene.

So going by the bible, if there have been five major extinctions, which one of those was the one were this supposed revolt of the angels against god took place?



God's Word does not go into detail about this, so I cannot conclude one way or the other, I chose the ELE for the dinosaurs as an example simply because it is the most well known in the modern age.

I do not know all things, I serve a God who does and has chosen not to reveal this to mankind currently for a purpose.



That's odd because not one of the major extinction events in the history of Earth left it barren of life. So I'm not sure how you can make this claim.


Or so the theory of Evolution requires you to believe.




Except the major extinction events in our history don't follow this account. So I'm not so sure if the word "truth" is an appropriate descriptor for what you are claiming god says in genesis.


You follow the traditions of men, I follow the Word of God. Truth will be known in time; not by your determination.

All are free to disagree with what is written in Genesis; it doesn't effect what is true.

God Bless,



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElohimJD
God's Word does not go into detail about this, so I cannot conclude one way or the other, I chose the ELE for the dinosaurs as an example simply because it is the most well known in the modern age.

I do not know all things, I serve a God who does and has chosen not to reveal this to mankind currently for a purpose.


If god doesn't go into detail then how do you know that you are correct?



Or so the theory of Evolution requires you to believe.


The theory of Evolution doesn't require me to believe that... Paleontology and the fossil record tell me that. The theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with the extinction events except to explain why genetic bottlenecks speed up Evolution. It says nothing about if, how, or why they occurred. Don't mix up scientific fields of study please.

There is literally ZERO gaps in the fossil record showing a period of time on Earth of ANY length of time (post-abiogenesis/biogensis) where there wasn't any life on it. So if you believe that dinosaurs existed on the Earth (because our evidence of such comes from the fossil record), you believe in our account of the history of life on Earth through the fossil record. You cannot accept dinosaurs as true then pretend like 100% of life on Earth was eradicated at some point in the planet's past. Because that is being selective with the evidence that the fossil record shows.



You follow the traditions of men, I follow the Word of God. Truth will be known in time; not by your determination.

All are free to disagree with what is written in Genesis; it doesn't effect what is true.

God Bless,


Cop out answer. The evidence says that YOUR account of Genesis is wrong. Now keep in mind, I never said (in this thread at least) that Genesis is incorrect. I am just saying that YOUR interpretation of that book of the bible is wrong. It could very well still be the truth, you are just reading it wrong.
edit on 30-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ElohimJD
Just a note. Tohu wa Bohu doesn't mean vain. At least not when paired together. Tohuw can and does in the right context, but your reference to god not making anything in vain doesn't have any bearing on the the earth starting out formless and void. Purely my opinion on personal reading of the subject of the gap theory.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I'm not sure why the debate is always about the how and never about the why.

How we got here is really moot in we are either intelligent design or not...that is it. The how can be in any direction with or with out God, so the real point is that for those who have faith then evolution or a snap of the fingers is all possible, and for those who do not have faith then we could be planted by a super advance alien race, or evolution just does its thing, or any other theory we might think of.

Once again we put way to much debate into the how...



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I'm not sure why the debate is always about the how and never about the why.

How we got here is really moot in we are either intelligent design or not...that is it. The how can be in any direction with or with out God, so the real point is that for those who have faith then evolution or a snap of the fingers is all possible, and for those who do not have faith then we could be planted by a super advance alien race, or evolution just does its thing, or any other theory we might think of.

Once again we put way to much debate into the how...


It doesn't help either that the religious tend to mix up the debate as well. Evolution is an answer to how while creationism is an answer to why. Creationists who disbelieve evolution tend to make this argument, "Your answer to how life came to be what it is today is incorrect, therefore my answer to why life came to be what it is today is correct." When in reality both could be correct, both could be incorrect or one could be correct and the other incorrect and there is NO conflict in logic.

This is why it baffles me that certain Christians have problems with evolution and other scientific theories using religious reasons, since none of them explicitly say that they being true disproves god. God and those theories can co-exist easily and there would be nothing wrong with your logic reasoning. Yet these Christians insist that this isn't the case and that these scientific theories DO say that god cannot exist.
edit on 30-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

If god doesn't go into detail then how do you know that you are correct?



God did go into detail about what I shared, it was revealed through the office of an Apostle of the God of Creation, Genesis 1:3 begins the re-creation week, after the original creation (undisclosed billions of years ago) was brought to chaos and void of all life.

God did not go into detail as to why mankind has determined there to have been 5 ELE events in their fossil record.




The theory of Evolution doesn't require me to believe that... Paleontology and the fossil record tell me that. The theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with the extinction events except to explain why genetic bottlenecks speed up Evolution. It says nothing about if, how, or why they occurred. Don't mix up scientific fields of study please.

There is literally ZERO gaps in the fossil record showing a period of time on Earth of ANY length of time (post-abiogenesis/biogensis) where there wasn't any life on it. So if you believe that dinosaurs existed on the Earth (because our evidence of such comes from the fossil record), you believe in our account of the history of life on Earth through the fossil record. You cannot accept dinosaurs as true then pretend like 100% of life on Earth was eradicated at some point in the planet's past. Because that is being selective with the evidence that the fossil record shows.



The theory of Evolution does require the belief that life was never fully eradicated on Earth, if it was, life would have stopped evolving.

You are correct in that your personal belief in this personal evidence stems from the fossil record and paleontology findings, however that does not render my comment invalid; I simply stated something not directly relevant to your understanding, but might be to others reading our exchange.

From The Fossil Record Website: www.truthinscience.org.uk...

"The fossil record is the cause of ongoing debate between evolutionists. On one side geneticists and theoreticians stand for Darwinian “gradualism.” They continue to claim that the lack of intermediate forms is due to the rarity of fossilisation and the imperfection of the fossil record. Thus, the fossil record is something which needs to be explained away – it is not good evidence for Darwinian evolution.

On the other side, those with a more first-hand knowledge of fossils stand for “punctuated equilibrium”: evolution occurs mainly in sudden bursts, with long periods of little change. This explains why intermediate forms are not found in the fossil record. They were around for such relatively short times that the chance of their being fossilised was very low. However, punctuated equilibrium lacks a clear mechanism. How was biological change produced as fast as the fossil record seems to require? This is still debated. (And here is your point on how the 5 ELE lead to accelerated evolution according to your understanding)

This has led some scientists to say that both evolutionist explanations are wrong, and that all life has not evolved from a common ancestor. Intermediate forms are not found in the fossil record, because they have never existed. In the view of these scientists, unlike evolutionists, the fossil record is a very good source of evidence about past organisms.

Non-evolutionists agree with one another that the fossil record is an accurate portrayal of species in the past, and that intermediate forms never existed. But they disagree on the timing of the fossil record. Some accept the conventional dating of millions of years, and propose that a designer intervened at different moments to modify or create organisms. Others propose that all organisms were created at the beginning, and that the fossil record is due to their deaths at different times in catastrophic events. (this is closer to what I understand to be true)

So rather than being straightforward evidence for evolution, the fossil record is the subject of a great deal of scientific controversy. "


The Fossil Record is the subject of a great deal of scientific controversy... from scientists mouths.




Cop out answer. The evidence says that YOUR account of Genesis is wrong. Now keep in mind, I never said (in this thread at least) that Genesis is incorrect. I am just saying that YOUR interpretation of that book of the bible is wrong. It could very well still be the truth, you are just reading it wrong.


This is a valid retort. You never said Genesis was wrong in this thread (but you have in exchanges with me in other threads of the past); so if you want to play devils advocate and claim you might believe Genesis to be accurate then I cannot retort in this manner at this time.

God Bless,



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: drivers1492
a reply to: ElohimJD
Just a note. Tohu wa Bohu doesn't mean vain. At least not when paired together. Tohuw can and does in the right context, but your reference to god not making anything in vain doesn't have any bearing on the the earth starting out formless and void. Purely my opinion on personal reading of the subject of the gap theory.


I agree.

The scripture I quoted has "vain" as the English translation; not my translation.

When paired together Tohu wa Bohu means Full of Chaos and Void of Life; not "vain".

My point was that God created no thing in "tohu"(translated as "vain" in Isaiah), so Genesis 1:2 is not a result of God creating (made) Earth in that manner.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ElohimJD

About your link Truth in Science:

Truth in Science (wikipedia)


Truth in Science is a United Kingdom-based creationist organization which promotes the Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" campaign, which it uses to try to get intelligent design creationism taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. The organization promotes the false idea that there is scientific controversy about the validity of Darwinian evolution, a view rejected by the United Kingdom's Royal Society and over 50 Academies of Science around the world.[1][2] The group is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, following its strategy and circulating the Institute's promotional materials.[3]


Truth in Science (rationalwiki)


Truth in Science is a British creationist organization which promotes the "teach the controversy" campaign.
They promote the idea that there is scientific controversy about the validity of Darwinian evolution, a view rejected by the UK's Royal Society and virtually every Academy of Science[1] around the world.
Truth in Science denies that they focus upon creationism, but instead claim to focus upon intelligent design.


Your source is just a Creationist website dressed up to look sciencey trying to push lies that there is some sort of controversy about evolution between scientists which isn't true. This isn't surprising since the information you posted about the fossil record that originated from that site is flat out wrong.

Evolution doesn't require the belief that life wasn't fully eradicated, it just says that all life came from a common ancestor. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be multiple common ancestors and life jump started several times throughout history after being eradicated off the planet (though the fossil record doesn't bare that out). Though you STILL haven't explained away why the fossil record doesn't show a gap where 100% of life on the planet disappeared.

As for your last part about Genesis possibly being true. I've always maintained that I am an agnostic. Anything could be true. I just put more weight behind claims that actually have EVIDENCE supporting the claims, which the bible has none of.
edit on 30-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ElohimJD

Then if you agree you have me confused. I don't use a translation in particular I do try and search for interesting terms and definitions outside of a biblical translation. Anyway since it says he created it Tohu wa Bohu and that is repeated several times in other biblical books I'm not sure how your coming to the conclusion that's not what happened.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t



This is why it baffles me that certain Christians have problems with evolution and other scientific theories using religious reasons, since none of them explicitly say that they being true disproves god. God and those theories can co-exist easily and there would be nothing wrong with your logic reasoning. Yet these Christians insist that this isn't the case and that these scientific theories DO say that god cannot exist.


It drives me crazy too, because science would be a part of God too. When I think about Adam and Eve it is a perfect story of the evolution of man. If the Garden of Eden represented the animal kingdom where there is only innocence, no good or evil, then when man (adam/eve) took a bite from the tree of knowledge they became self-aware and put cloth on and lost their animal innocence by understanding good and evil. Because of this they were kicked out never to return.

What a great way to explain the point of when man became man and lost his animal innocence.

It is the same way with the creation of earth...What is more all powerful, a God that starts a ball of hydrogen 14.7 billion years ago on a path to become a star and then heavier elements from a super nova to at some form the earth, sun other planets just to make man using a 4.7 billion years path of life evolving into man. Or God does just some simple parlor trick and we magically appear outside all the laws he created....I don't know about you, but I like the first one better.

As I said the bottom line is if you have faith then the how is really moot, because ANY how would be by the hand of God.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join