The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[hugh_miller]

CONTINUED [Apparently this did not past the first time around so here it is now, I hope. If Genesis 7:19-20 from this bible is not recorded along with Young’s commentary pleast go to the web site.

**http://www.wasdarwinright.com/flood-f.htm#Everest flooded?

According to Genesis 7:19-20, every hill and mountain on earth were completely covered by the floodwaters. As evidence, Mount Everest has a wide band of marine limestone near its summit. The sedimentary rock had its origin beneath water, and is present in many mountain ranges. Igneous and metamorphic rock masses are also interspersed within mountains. Marine fossils such as shells and coral are common on the earth’s high mountain summits. According to Psalm 104:7-9, many high elevations were supernaturally thrust upward at the conclusion of the Flood as the ocean basins sank downward.

At Thy rebuke they [waters] fled;
At the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away.
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which Thou didst establish for them.
Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over;
That they may not return to cover the earth.
New American Standard Bible

Although the material that makes up Mount Everest was indeed covered by the floodwaters, the mountain itself may not have existed until after the Flood. As the earth’s crust was thrust upward, supernaturally or possibly due to colliding of continents, it carried underwater sediment along with it. Modern mountain ranges likely originated at this time. Genesis 7:19 explains that during the great Flood, all the high hills and peaks existing at that time were covered. Today’s highest mountains, however, may be post Flood features, far higher than pre Flood mountains".

 

[hugh_miller]

http://dailybail.com/storage/north dakoata badlands.jpg

Great photos. Where are these “ripples?”

 

[buffalo]

No surprise there – the world has lots of flood basins. None of this proves an ancient tale of a flood covering Mt. Everest.

The Himalayas were once under water. Fossils have been found near the summit of Everest. So what, you say.

The fossils - why are they still there? How did they survive landslides, erosion, snowslides etc… Why is the limestone on Mt Everest not eroded away?


Taphonomy: Death Is A Sure Bet, Fossilization Is A Long Shot
…Mix in chert (small pebbles and other abrasive material) and most thin shelled and soft tissued items do not last long (Prothero 1998 and Trueman and Benton 1997). Rapid burial is the key in either habitat for fossilization.

 

[itinerant1]

I see the geocentric, flat-earth thread is still active.

 

[buffalo]

Great photos. Where are these “ripples?”

The Badlands. Until the age of aerial photography many of these ripples were not distinguishable from the ground.

What is really amazing are the potholes. These are holes “drilled” in solid rock by intense water forces moving rapidly that create vortexes. These things were “drilled” 120 feet deep in less than a day.

Mystery of the Megaflood
NARRATOR: The rivers and lakes in the Scablands today could not have sculpted this landscape.
This water is part of a modern irrigation system and was not here when the Scablands were created. The only river big enough and old enough is the Columbia, which is 50 miles away. And there is no evidence it ever flowed through the Scablands.
But there’s another reason to rule rivers out: no river in the world can form what you are about to see. You will not find these anywhere else on earth. These enormous potholes are one of the strangest geological features of the planet.
VIC BAKER: If I was on the bottom of a big river like the Columbia, I might find some potholes that were maybe a few feet across, a few feet deep. But this feature, this rock basin—of which there are hundreds in the Channeled Scabland—is about ten times as big as the potholes that we find in even a large river like the Columbia. It’s very clear, just from the size of the feature, that this was not made by normal river processes.

Look at these features - lots of ripples.

Look at the potholes.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you buffalo. The information coming in about formerly junk DNA. shows by orders of magnitude, how much more complicated things really are. I am all for science but not the heavy accretions of materialism that accumulated on it over the last century or so. Perhaps a few good scientists will remove the ideology.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[buffalo]

Experiments In Stratification

 

[StAnastasia]

The Himalayas were once under water. Fossils have been found near the summit of Everest. So what, you say.

Sure they were, in the Tethys Ocean, 70 million years ago.

 

[rossum]

Ripples

As I said in my post, I have no problem with ripples forming underwater. What I do have a problem with is the claim that because some ripples form underwater therefore all ripples must form underwater and that they do not also form in air from sandstorms.

Similarly with the mudstone claim. Just because some mudstones form quickly does not mean that all mudstones form quickly. Some form quickly while others form slowly.

There is doubt about some books of the Bible, Protestants disagree with the inclusion of the Books of Maccabees. That does not mean that there is disagreement about all books of the Bible.

Like Dr Berthault, you are taking a result that applies to some situations and trying to apply it to all situations. That is an obvious error.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Sure they were, in the Tethys Ocean, 70 million years ago.

So despite millions of years of upheaval, wind, rain, erosion, landslides, snowslides are they still there?

 

[rossum]

So despite millions of years of upheaval, wind, rain, erosion, landslides, snowslides are they still there?

The Himalayas are there because the Indian plate is crashing into the southern edge of the Asian landmass. Since the Indian plate is still moving northwards the Himalayas are still being pushed up. You need to update your knowledge of plate tectonics.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The Himalayas are there because the Indian plate is crashing into the southern edge of the Asian landmass. Since the Indian plate is still moving northwards the Himalayas are still being pushed up. You need to update your knowledge of plate tectonics.

rossum

Hello - the question was - Why are the fossils still at the top of Everest?

 

[Philipp]

Sure they were, in the Tethys Ocean, 70 million years ago.

Here’s a little research project for the hard working discussion “crew” on this ship of origins: Since all the hills of today contain fossils and the tallest moutains of today also contain fossils up to a certain height near their peaks [At least Everest] then lets see if we can find the height at which sediments and fossils are on Everest and other high mountains. Then one would subtract the current height of the limestone (H2) or other type of sedimentary rock from the height of the peak (H1). That is: [H1 - H2 = Ho height of original hills or mountains].

 

[Philipp]

As I said in my post, I have no problem with ripples forming underwater. What I do have a problem with is the claim that because some ripples form underwater therefore all ripples must form underwater and that they do not also form in air from sandstorms.

Similarly with the mudstone claim. Just because some mudstones form quickly does not mean that all mudstones form quickly. Some form quickly while others form slowly.

There is doubt about some books of the Bible, Protestants disagree with the inclusion of the Books of Maccabees. That does not mean that there is disagreement about all books of the Bible.

Like Dr Berthault, you are taking a result that applies to some situations and trying to apply it to all situations. That is an obvious error.

rossum

The main point that sedimentologists are making is simply that none of the lab experiments up until the Indiana Un flume studies were able to produce floculents characteristic of mudstones and shales. The only hypothesis - formation in lake bottoms - which serves long ages for the formation of 2/3’d of the geologic sedimentary column could never be reproduced in labs.

Now since the flume studies they have learned that such flocules form in only moving waters at about the same meters/sec that sand is moved. This is another nail in the coffin of long ages and is supported by C-14 dating of shales, fossil wood and dinosaur bone collagen from Texas to Alaska as also has been reported in this thread.

Catastrophism and mountain building occured much more rapidly then claimed by long agers but on a much grander scale then noted by Buffalo in the Scablands of the USA.
The scablands were formed from the Missoula flood at the time of a very rapid Global Warming period that ended the ice age. I wonder what caused such a rapid warming period to melt several thousand feet thick ice sheets so quickly? Maybe you should ask Al Gore another great expert on Global Warming with his fantastic computer modeling techniques.

 

[Roy5]

Nobody seems to reply to the point I raised many postings ago. If we take seriously the ‘begats’ - the genealogical records found in Genesis 5, Matthew 1 amd Luke 3, humankind was created only a few thousand years ago - at the most.

Doesn't this raise questions about the accuracy of scripture? How do people who believe in Biblical accuracy handle this question unless they actually accept the 6000-year (or less) argument re the creation of the human species?  

 Now, I don't take the Bible literally so this is no problem for me. But what about other posters, Catholic or Protestant, who would, for example, defend the genealogical line and timetable of Jesus? And, also, why is it that the genealogy of Christ is traced through Joseph and not through Mary if Joseph was not involved in the conception of Jesus?

 Just wondering.

 

[buffalo]

Nobody seems to reply to the point I raised many postings ago. If we take seriously the ‘begats’ - the genealogical records found in Genesis 5, Matthew 1 amd Luke 3, humankind was created only a few thousand years ago - at the most.

Doesn't this raise questions about the accuracy of scripture? How do people who believe in Biblical accuracy handle this question unless they actually accept the 6000-year (or less) argument re the creation of the human species?  

 Now, I don't take the Bible literally so this is no problem for me. But what about other posters, Catholic or Protestant, who would, for example, defend the genealogical line and timetable of Jesus? And, also, why is it that the genealogy of Christ is traced through Joseph and not through Mary if Joseph was not involved in the conception of Jesus?

 Just wondering.

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

 

[Philipp]

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

From the above lilnk:

Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.

Fr. Patrick O’Connell in his book, “Science and the Problems of Genesis” puts the time of creation and flood even later, perhaps 8,000 and 17,000 years BP respectively.

I don’t think we will ever know from science other than it does NOT appear to be 4300 and 6010 years as Bishop Usher might claim but it’s not million and billions of years as we are learning from sedimentology, physics, chemistry, C-14 dating of the fossils and population genetics. Only God knows since he created everything “at once” [simul in latin] from Lataran Council IV in AD 1225.

 

[grannymh]

Nobody seems to reply to the point I raised many postings ago. If we take seriously the ‘begats’ - the genealogical records found in Genesis 5, Matthew 1 amd Luke 3, humankind was created only a few thousand years ago - at the most.

Doesn’t this raise questions about the accuracy of scripture? How do people who believe in Biblical accuracy handle this question unless they actually accept the 6000-year (or less) argument re the creation of the human species?

One of the possibilities for presenting a list of “genealogies” is that it indicates that what follows is really important so listen up folks. Thus, the important people are mentioned to give weight to the seriousness of the topic. While ordinary people are important in a precise record, in those days the ordinary people inbetween the greats were taken for granted.

As far as Catholicism, what is important is the accuracy of Divine Revelation in Scripture. For Catholic teachings, please use this handy link for the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the difficulties of the journey.

 

[buffalo]

One of the possibilities for presenting a list of “genealogies” is that it indicates that what follows is really important so listen up folks. Thus, the important people are mentioned to give weight to the seriousness of the topic. While ordinary people are important in a precise record, in those days the ordinary people inbetween the greats were taken for granted.

As far as Catholicism, what is important is the accuracy of Divine Revelation in Scripture. For Catholic teachings, please use this handy link for the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the difficulties of the journey.

I would add that the genealogies are true history complete with reference points.

 

[Farsight001]

Hello - the question was - Why are the fossils still at the top of Everest?

Because Everest used to be under an ocean. That should have been clear by his/her post. Uplift turned it into a mountain, but it used to be a sea floor.