If God is real and created the Earth then young earthers are wrong to deny the evidence of what the creation shows: an ancient Earth. [Spirituality & Religion]

@Carazaa about a god that created the world...

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo]

@Marceline

This guy Stephen Fry is totally clueless of God's standards and how wicked people are!!

"God tells us "[b]the heart of man is desperately wicked, who can know it"[/b]

He is minimizing his own sin to blame God for judging people. He doesn't understand that God knows the heart of every person. and we are like ants, or like grass to God. Does this pompous self righteous guy step on ants? How dare he do that if he dare to judge God for killing us. He thinks he is somebody special, someone more special than an ant, or grass in the field? Unbelievable, that people can be this ignorant of peoples state.

Does he love the child molester, or the thief who steals his car? Of course not! That person who attacks his wife he has no empathy for, not realizing that God judges sinners, including kids who don't repent. He has no knowledge of God's rightousness.

God is forgiving all sin and is unbelievably gracious to get tortured for our sins, when he doesn't have to take our sins on his own shoulders at all. Jesus is more loving than this fellow.

@Carazaa

For us to look upon creation and be without excuse it means that god's signature is written in his creation. That means what the creation appears to show [i]is what god meant it to show.[/i]

That means that god [i]meant [/i]you to know that the earth was ancient and that he had created the miraculous mechanism that is evolution.

To deny the evidence of what the real world shows us in favour of an interpretation by men of a manuscript translated and altered, an interpretation not even agreed upon by the people who believe it IS the word of god... is absurd.

You are without excuse not to accept the truth of what the world reveals to us about the nature of creation.

@Marceline

I'm inclined to side with Stephen Fry.
Although he's more principled than i am because while i do think god displays some monstrous, psychotic, unforgivable behaviour, if i did believe he was real i would want to get me some of that sweet eternal life lol

@Pikachu True. True. False. False. False. 🙂 I am glad you want to make smart choices though, and you are much brighter than than Mr. Fry fellow! Making a choice to totally follow Jesus is hard, why? Because it involves turning your back to the life you've had, kind of like how we might not want to get rid of that comfortable old shirt that's ripped and faded that we didn't realize was a wash until we get a new fresh beautiful one that fits perfectly and the colors pop your blue eyes. And you wonder why did I not throw that old shirt away sooner? Why did I not realize how terrible I looked, ragged and dirty. And then you notice all those people wearing old shirts, and you wish that they would just throw them out and get new ones. You feel so good that you want to buy them all shirts. Well, maybe it sounds a little over the top exaggeration but it's like that times a thousand being saved.

How dorky it sounds, "being saved"
it sounds like a person is a total dork. But you are a happy dork, and you realize that you gain a whole new family, a family of God. and then you realize that you forgot to pray about something but God made it turn out great anyway just for you, and when something bad happens in your day you realize that it was all because God wanted you to slow down and eat, because you forgot to eat. And slowly, slowly you begin to trust that he has your back and even plans bad things to turn out for good. And the more you trust him the more he helps you, and the stronger your faith gets. It was all a faith journey.

So that's how it is. And then you get heaven thrown in the mix too! Its really super!

@Carazaa

[quote]. False. False. False[/quote]

Nope.
The fact is that if god created then his creation speaks for itself and what it shows is an ancient earth and evolution of the species.
These are conclusions reached from various independent fields of research from around the world all converging on the same answers over and over and over again. The same fields that billion dollar industries rely upon to be accurate in order to make money. The same fields that can tell look at your DNA and tell you that you are your father's biological daughter. The same fields
And the only people who [i]deny[/i] them are people like who aren't paying attetion to what is plain to see.
God's creation is made in such a way that there can be no excuse not to recognize his hand in it. That means what it appears to be IS WHAT IT IS.
What you're doing when you ignore the self-evident nature of his creation in favour of your personal preference for the interpretation of the bible is saying that god's handiwork is not obvious.
You're ignoring the evidence that god placed all around us and relying on the interpretation of an every shrinking sub-sect of Christianity,
That's the cold hard facts.

"When things are good that's god helping you, when things are bad, that's god helping you"

I don't doubt that you can reframe everything to be god helping you if you get in the habit of it.
But in my heart of hearts is just don't believe he's real.
Can't be helped.

@Pikachu

The creation speaks, yes, but how to interpret what we see is important, and we can't ignore the Bible. Like why the earth looks old. God made it to look old, Adam was a grown man and yet was only a second old if the word is true. When God cursed the earth it aged quickly, and when the world was under water it aged even more, and settled in layers. These things can't be ignored if we are Biblical scholars, and most scientists do, but not all thank goodness. I don't understand how the words "And the morning, evening the sixth day" in Genesis can be interpreted other than in 6 days God created the world.

I think God wants us to take a stand. Do we trust His word? It's when we trust it with our lives that He rewards us. He really appreciates faith. When the apostles asked Jesus "why can't we cast out demons like you." Jesus said, [b]"You of little faith[/b]" And I think I can actually understand the conclusions of some scientists, because how research is funded, and rewarded, that's how. And then the people just blindly accept it. I am not going to say what some people say about those who disagree with me, that they are stupid, no the truth always comes out in the end, and I can shut my mouth with any judgement. It serves no purpose.

You can say I flippantly say "all things turn out for good." And believe that I am sugar coating my experiences because I want to believe God did it. But it is one thing to read those words in the Bible but quite another to experience them on a daily basis in my life. There are really no bad things at all in my life. When I say a bad thing happened I talk about things that turn out great and I "thought" they were bad at the time. But "atheists" think we are insane and so they pay no attention to our stories. I don't twist stories to have "happy miracle endings" But God rewards faith and obedience and I wont gamble with my future. The stakes are too high, in this life , and the next.

If I am wrong and stupid I take that chance. I don't think there is another good choice. I don't think there is any lasting joy in anything but Jesus. So I take a stand with Gods word. And then I listen to scholars like Derek Walker who is so amazing with his studies of the Bible and I have posted many videos of his. He was a math teacher, with a Masters Degree in Math from Oxford University. God saved him and he is figuring out hidden things in the Bible and is a creationist and young earther. Is he stupid? He is [i]not[/i] a dumb person. God tells us to search out scriptures for truth. And that's an exciting thing to do. It is truth. I love it!

@Carazaa

[quote]but how to interpret what we see is important[/quote]

Yes, and it turns out that things like the earth getting aged by being underwater" have no basis in actual fact or the scientific understanding of the planet.
It turns out that, as i pointed out: the overwhelming majority of both secular AND Christian scientists recognize the various independent lines of evidence which all point to an ancient earth and evolution.
You have to bend over backwards in order to torture the evidence into a shape you can force into a young earth model and only people who have a preconceived, close-minded worldview do that.
Again, even most Christians don't deny the clear evidence in god's creation.🤷‍♀️

[quote]God made it to look old[/quote]

Exactly. And why would god deceive you.
He made it look old because that's what it looks like when it's been around for a long time😉

@Pikachu

I'm not closed minded😛!

God is not trying to deceive anyone. He does ask us to search out scripture for truth though, not just analyze a rock. Rocks can be deceptive.

You have often questioned the flood, but you don't think that if the flood happened it would affect the earth?

How do you explain the layers of the earth?

@Carazaa

[quote]I'm not closed minded[/quote]

Very few people who are close minded think they are close minded. But you discount out of hand the evidence gathered from multiple fields of study and agreed upon by virtually all scientists around the world both secular and religious because you think [i]your [/i]interpretation of the bible is right and damn the evidence....
I don't know what else to call that.

[quote]You have often questioned the flood, but you don't think that if the flood happened it would affect the earth?[/quote]

lol i think the Egyptians question the flood too given that their millennia old civilization didn't appear to notice that they were all drowned...
Of course a global flood would affect the earth. We'd see evidence of it for starters....but we don't. We don't have anachronistic fossils mixed together, we don't have a single layer laid down by one flood at one time, there's nothing.
And it certainly wouldn't make the earth "look older".
It would account for one layer...and we don't even see that.

[quote]How do you explain the layers of the earth?[/quote]

Layers of sediment and minerals laid down by wind and water and volcanic eruption.
Water is certainly one of the ways in which strata can be formed but certainly not the only one and not one that can account for all the kinds of layers we see.
From Quora:

[quote]Rock layers (Strata) are formed differently depending on the type of rock they are made of. I will try to describe this very briefly:

In the case of Sedimentary Rocks:

Clastic sedimentary rocks are formed from consolidation of clasts or detritus. Then, these rocks are deposited horizontally, they might get tilted or faulted or not. The end result is that they get squeezed down by the pressure of the load on top of them.

Chemical and Biochemical sedimentary rocks are formed from precipitation from solutions. Sometimes, enclosed water that is highly saline might evaporate resulting in the formation of evaporite layers.

Biogenic sedimentary rocks or strata occur when animals/ shells/ marine crusty animals die in groups. Entire layers would form mainly of their shells getting squeezed together forming a layer.

In the case of igneous layers:

When volcanoes erupt they eject significant volumes of ash and volcanic projectiles :) those rocks and dust particles settle down in the form of layers and that is what you see. As well, volcanoes that result in magma flows form layers that are called Pahoehoe or A'A' ...they look pretty cool.

In the case of metamorphic rocks:

Metamorphosed layers were basically either igneous or sedimentary rocks in their past life. They have undergone extremely high temperature and/or pressure resulting in the change of their mineral composition and changing them to look like different layers than their original appearance.[/quote]

Now you can either add that to your body of knowledge about how the world works or you can slam the doors of your mind closed and tell yourself "Nah, pretty sure it was a global flood".

@Pikachu
You proclaim it's truth, but its just one interpretation of the data that's all. And you realize you ignored the reason why the world looks older, right? Here below are a lot of references from scholars from many reputable Universities. like Columbia University. These are also close minded?

There is plenty of question about your "Quora" evidence. Here are some articles But
it is a rare thing for someone to publicly dispute the alleged "millions of years" age of the earth. When someone does they are often attacked or accused of being ignorant.
We can use critical thinking skills to rule out a millions or billions of years date for the earth.

We can not look at current rates of rock formation, erosion, etc to determine the age of the earth because there may have been factors in the past that are not happening in the present. In fact the Bible tells us just that. A flood covered the entire earth this would alter, shift and mix up the entire face of the earth. This flood also altered the rate of sediments laid down, the formation of sedimentary rock and also the rate of erosion.

Something that may take many years to form today (the Grand Canyon for instance) could have formed quite quickly during the flood.

The Bible even predicted that in the "last days" there would be those who scoff at the bible, and claim that "all things continue as they were from the beginning" (II Peter 3:3). This seems to say that there would be a predominance of uniformitarianism thinking. Mountains form slowly today, so they assume that they must have formed slowly in the past. The Creation model tells us that mountains formed quickly as the result of the flood.

No matter how old the earth is, Evolution is impossible

Everything we know of Science (entropy etc..) tells us that even if the world was millions or even billions of years old, evolution would still be impossible (a chapter on mutations will explain this I will copy shortly).

In the popular press we are led to believe that the antiquity of the earth is a proven fact. We are told that all Scientists believe the world is old, and that all of our dating methods confirm this.

The truth is, many well qualified Scientists, and lay people alike are well justified in their belief that the earth, and universe is quite young.

A secret they have learned is one that you may never have been told. It is this: Though a few assorted dating methods give the age of the earth in millions of years, there are far more that limit the age of the earth to a mere few thousand years.

- Why are we not told of these?
It is because they go against the politically correct notion of Evolution.


Evolutionists believe that the universe slowly began to form 20 billion years ago. They believe the earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

While many Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was Created instantaneously about 6 thousand years ago.

Both of these are [i]belief systems.[/i] Neither one can be proven because no one was there to witness the event, and it can not be repeated. But we can examine the evidence and decide which one is more plausible.



The Rocks

There are many layers of rock all over the world. These rock are separated into layers one on top of the other in what is called "rock strata".


We can tell how old the earth is by looking at the strata?

The layers of rock on the bottom would have to have been laid down before the layers on top. But how long before? This is one area that Creationists and Evolutionists disagree on.

Evolutionists believe that each layer represents a period of time.. or an era. Some references.
1. "Field Studies in Catastrophic Geology" by Carl R. Froede Jr.

2. "Sea Floor Sediments and the Age of the Earth" by Dr. Larry Vardiman

3. "Studies in Flood Geology" by John Woodmorappe

There are also some excellent videos:

1. "Biblical Geology: Properly Understanding the Rocks" by Dr Tas Walker

2. "Geologic Evidences for Very Rapid Strata Deposition in the Grand Canyon (DVD)" by Dr Steven Austin

3. "The Geology Book" by Dr John D Morris




The Grand Canyon

If you look at the Grand Canyon you will see thousands of layers of sedimentary rock. The Creationist and the Evolutionist can both look at the same evidence but come to different conclusions.

The evolutionist who believes in an ancient earth will look at these layers of rock and determine that these layers formed slowly over millions of years.

The Creationist who believes the Bible looks at the same evidence but comes to a different conclusion as to how these layers were formed. The Creationist knows that these layers could not have formed over millions of years. As there is little or no erosion between the layers. This is consistent with all the layers being laid down at the same time (the flood).

The Creationist interpretation is that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the flood. The receding flood waters would cut through the soft sediments, leaving the canyon. These soft sediments later hardened into their present form.

The canyon may have formed while it was solidifying, as the waters receded (possibly very quickly) it would cut through these layers like butter. Some people claim that it took a little bit of water (the small river) a lot of time (millions of years) to form the canyon. But it could have been the opposite.

A lot of water (the flood) and a little bit of time.

For more information read:

1)"Grand Canyon: A Different View" Compiled by Tom Vail

2) "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe" by Dr Steven Austin

Videos:

"The Grand Canyon Catastrophe: New Evidence of the Genesis Flood" by Keziah & American Portrait Films

"The Grand Canyon: Monument to the Flood" (VHS)

"Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe" (VHS) Dr Steve Austin

"The Grand Canyon: A Biblical View by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling

"Geologic Evidences for Very Rapid Strata Deposition in the Grand Canyon (DVD)" by Dr Steven Austin


Polystrate fossils

There are many fossils that go through several layers of rock, these are called polystrate fossils (the name polystrate means "many strata", pg 101 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D.).
Polystrate fossils are a problem for those who believe rock layers take millions of years to form. Look at the picture at the right for example. If each of these layers of rock formed over millions of years, then why are there trees standing straight up through several different layers?

A tree would have died, fallen over and rotted in just a short time. It is clear that the layers were laid down and hardened in a short period of time

volcano rock mistakes
by Colm Gorey

6 JUN 2018

Here is a Another article

Though one of the most essential tools for determining an ancient object’s age, carbon dating might not be as accurate as we once thought.

When news is announced on the discovery of an archaeological find, we often hear about how the age of the sample was determined using radiocarbon dating, otherwise simply known as carbon dating.

Deemed the gold standard of archaeology, the method was developed in the late 1940s and is based on the idea that radiocarbon (carbon 14) is being constantly created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays which then combine with atmospheric oxygen to form CO2, which is then incorporated into plants during photosynthesis.

When the plant or animal that consumed the foliage dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the environment and from there on in it is simply a case of measuring how much carbon 14 has been emitted, giving its age.

But new research conducted by Cornell University could be about to throw the field of archaeology on its head with the claim that there could be a number of inaccuracies in commonly accepted carbon dating standards.

If this is true, then many of our established historical timelines are thrown into question, potentially needing a re-write of the history books.

In a paper published to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team led by archaeologist Stuart Manning identified variations in the carbon 14 cycle at certain periods of time throwing off timelines by as much as 20 years.

Support Silicon Republic
The possible reason for this, the team believes, could be due to climatic conditions in our distant past.

Standards too simplified
This is because pre-modern carbon 14 chronologies rely on standardised northern and southern hemisphere calibration curves to determine specific dates and are based on the assumption that carbon 14 levels are similar and stable across both hemispheres.

However, atmospheric measurements from the last 50 years show varying carbon 14 levels throughout. Additionally, we know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the northern hemisphere.

To test this oversight, the researchers measured a series of carbon 14 ages in southern Jordan tree rings calculated as being from between 1610 and 1940.

“There has been much debate for several decades among scholars arguing for different chronologies sometimes only decades to a century apart, each with major historical implications. And yet these studies […] may all be inaccurate since they are using the wrong radiocarbon information,” Manning said.

“Our work should prompt a round of revisions and rethinking for the timeline of the archaeology and early history of the southern Levant through the early Biblical period.”siliconrepublic.com

[b]Here is another reference[/b]
Evidence for a Young Earth
By Eric Hovind|Beginner, Creation News

@Pikachu
Evidence of a global flood is plenty even though the age of the earth might be in question by some scientists.


[b]Evidence for a Flood
Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea
[/b]
By James Trefil
SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
APRIL 1, 2000
4544
"...The fountains of the great deep [were] broken up, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."

This quote from the Book of Genesis is part of a familiar tale — the story of Noah's flood. Scholars have known for a long time that the Bible isn't the only place this story is found — in fact, the biblical story is similar to a much older Mesopotamian flood story in the epic of Gilgamesh. Scholars usually attribute things like the worldwide occurrence of flood stories to common human experiences and our love of repeating good stories, but recently scientists have started to uncover evidence that Noah's flood may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place around the Black Sea some 7,500 years ago.


The scientific version of Noah's flood actually starts long before that, back during the last great glaciation some 20,000 years ago.

This was a time when the earth looked very different from what we are used to today. Thick ice sheets extended down from the North Pole as far as Chicago and New York City. All that water had to come from somewhere, so ocean levels were about 400 feet lower than they are today. In essence, water that evaporated from the oceans fell as snow (which was compacted into glacial ice) rather than rain (which would flow back and replenish the oceans as it does now). The East Coast of the United States was 75 to 150 miles farther out than it is today, and places like Manhattan and Baltimore would have been inland cities. During this period, meltwater from the European glaciers flowed down to the Black Sea basin, then out through a river channel into the Mediterranean. Because the Mediterranean is connected to the world ocean at Gibraltar, it was also 400 feet lower than it is today, so this flow of fresh water through the Black Sea was downhill.

Two geologists at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have offered a new theory of what happened next. William Ryan and Walter Pitman, in Noah's Flood (Simon & Schuster), postulate that as time went on, the world warmed, the glaciers retreated and meltwater from the European glaciers began to flow north into the North Sea, depriving the Black Sea of its main source of replenishment. The level of the Black Sea began to drop, and most of the area around its northern boundary — the area adjacent to present-day Crimea and the Sea of Azov — became dry land. At this point, the level of the Black Sea was several hundred feet below that of the Mediterranean, and the two were separated by the barrier of the Bosporus, then dry land. This situation, with the world ocean rising while the Black Sea was falling, could not last forever. Eventually, like a bathtub overflowing, the Mediterranean had to pour through into the Black Sea basin.

The idea that ocean basins can flood catastrophically during periods of rising sea levels is nothing new in geology. Five million years ago, long before there were any humans around, just such an event occurred. The level of the Atlantic Ocean had dropped, or some tectonic event had occurred, with the result that water could no longer get through, and the Mediterranean gradually shrank down to a desert spotted with a few salty bits of ocean. Subsequently, when either the Atlantic rose again.

[b]Here is another article
[/b]
Evidence for a global flood are literally everywhere around the planet: Fossils found on top of the highest mountains, polystrate tree stumps pierce defiantly through millions of years of rock layers, coal bed graveyards, fossil forests, enormous sedimentary layers miles thick cover the continents, massive erosion spread over thousands of miles, rock layers (nonconformity) as evidence of the sorting of materials by flood waters, mountains made of bent rocks, and a planet surface that is more ...
GLOBAL FLOOD? IF SO, WHAT EVIDENCE? – Evolution is a Myth
www.evolutionisamyth.com/biblical/global-flood-what-evidence/

@Carazaa



Yes i'm well aware that there are people and sometimes even scientist (often in from a different field) who make certain claims.
Basically what these people can do is sound convincing to layman like you and me but when they're challenged by actual geologists their specious arguments are exposed for what they are.

Do you want me to post article after article after study for reasons we know the earth is old?
Do you want me to link you to literal hours of people telling you exactly why claims like the grand canyon was formed rapidly after a flood or that polystrate fossils are a problem or that ancient ocean beds on mountains can't be explained are so, SO wrong?
I can do that if you want.

[quote]Evidence for a Flood[/quote]

Um...did you read that article? It's saying there's evidence of a [i]local[/i] flood, not a global one and it's giving you dates like 20,000 years and five million years.
Surprise, real scientists are describing an old earth to you!

You're not being logical about this.
Try thinking about it logically:

You have a position you hold on faith which you have decided is true. You then proceed to gather the scraps of evidence which you feel support your position and throw out that MASSIVE bulk of the evidence from around the world.

Allow me to perhaps give you a new perspective on what you're doing here.

I read the bible and i interpret it to be saying that the earth is the center of the cosmos ([i]1 Chronicles 16:30: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.[/i]) with a literal dome above it ([i]Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so[/i]) and is indeed flat ([i]Isaiah 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle [not sphere] of the earth[/i]).

I have made up my mind that god's word says that the earth is indeed flat and so i disregard the MASSIVE bulk of the evidence from around the world and cling to the very few people (often religiously motivated) who contest the shape of the earth.
I say "well the globe is just one interpretation of the evidence". I say "You can't trust the interpretations of these scientists because they don't want to believe in god". I say "Look at all these sciency sounding reasons and anomalies which prove the earth is flat!"
And so on and so forth.

That's what it looks like to me when you post links to your creation apologetic websites and deny evolution and an old earth.

But virtually all scientists agree for very good reasons that the earth is not flat.
Similarly, virtually all scientists agree for very good reasons that the earth is old and evolution occurred.

If god made his creation so that we would RECOGNIZE it then it is what it appears to be: Old and Evolved.
Simple as that.

@Pikachu I am just saying that some scientists interpret their findings their way as "conclusive" and most people who aren't very analytical think it is truth, when it clearly isn't it is just a guess.

@Carazaa

[i]Some [/i]scientists?
Nah, let's not be dishonest here. The massive, overwhelming majority of scientists both secular and religious find the evidence to be conclusive for an old earth, evolution....and a globe earth.

And you want to characterize that as a guess lol.
I wonder why you're not nearly so *ahem* analytical when it comes to accepting as truth some of the claims made by your creationist peeps.

Like when you accept blindly that there are fossil shellfish on mountains because of a global flood. There's no way you actually looked into the arguments on both sides for that.