Evidence for God from Science

New article..

"Does the earth look young? Parts of it do look young. However, it is only necessary to show that parts of the earth are old, in order to falsify the young earth hypothesis. I am convinced that those who think the earth looks young must live in cities. Once one gets out into nature, there are plenty of examples of the antiquity of the earth. Although young earth creationists say that one must put on "biblical glasses," the Bible says that the reality of creation can be "clearly seen" from what God has made. The earth looks old because it is old. God thought humanity was worth the effort of investing billions of years of His design to adequately prepare the earth for habitation by spiritual being created in His image."

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... s_old.html

Maybe. Does mt st helens look young or old? Multiple sedimentary layers. Rocks dating to old ages. Canyons.

could you please define what Old is? From what i know, 100,000 yrs is old, 500,000 yrs is old.... 1mill yr is old, 4 bill yrs is really old, lol

It isn't actually that difficult, consider tectonic plates beneath us, they are moving, and the most prominent effect of theirs is the Himalayan mountain ranges that affects the world's climate, makes the monsoon and provides rainfall to 1/3 of the entire Earth's population. The Himalayas are the youngest mountain chain on earth and when I say young I mean at-least 50-70 million years old. Those tectonic plates still push the Himalayan range higher and higher, current rate is around 5mm per year, making them active and being responsible for the seismic activity in that region.

If the earth is young say, 50000 or lets say 100000 or 500000 or even 1 million years old, that does not explain the Himalayas.

when I say young I mean at-least 50-70 million years old.

Out of curiosity, can i ask how you came up with that conclusion? Or at least, what scientific technique does one use to approximate the age of those mountains?

you can simply recreate its traces by calculating the force that is plunging the Australian Indo plate into the Eurasian Plate. Sedimentary rocks at the bottom of the ocean are a good way to know that the plate that moved from the far pacific into the Indian continent was volcanically active and thus the soft rocks crumbled down to the bottom of the ocean as a result of its volcanic activity. Carbon dating can be used but for rocks the "Uranium-lead dating method" is best with an error margin of only 2 million years in 2.5 billion years.

I'm still skeptical about it all, but i see your point, thanks for sharing,

I'm still skeptical about it all, but i see your point, thanks for sharing,

You are welcome as always bro. Just a side note, not all dating methods or theories are wrong, I know a lot of them change with time, a lot doesn't. Of course I do not mean that what I am saying proves the earth is old. But that it being new, doesn't explain some things quite as well as they would if it were old.

For those who believe the earth is 6000 years old, I have some interesting math:
Africa and South America are now more than 3000 miles away, but they used to touch.
Let's just use 3000 miles to make it simple. 3000 miles in 6000 years, that half a mile per year.
Half a mile is 2640 feet, divided by 365 days that's more than 7 feet a day ! Wow that's really fast.
The estimated speed is 4 inches per year

xnardo wrote:For those who believe the earth is 6000 years old, I have some interesting math:
Africa and South America are now more than 3000 miles away, but they used to touch.
Let's just use 3000 miles to make it simple. 3000 miles in 6000 years, that half a mile per year.
Half a mile is 2640 feet, divided by 365 days that's more than 7 feet a day ! Wow that's really fast.
The estimated speed is 4 inches per year

Now that is good...
-
-
-

I lean mostly on God's word than what man says is true.I know as Christians we all say we believe the bible but sadly people are lazy in their biblical studies and it is easy to just say I believe the bible.But if you truly study the bible like you claim you believe the bible tells and reveals to us the heavens and earth are old.This we can know from studying the bible and looking at it from a whole.The bible does not tell us exactly how old it is though as far as I know but the bible tells us the heavens and earth are old and not young.If people understood the bible they would know that as time goes on God's word proves itself true and without our help or interpretations and when it reveals itself true we must be willing to repent and change our mind to line up with it instead of just keeping on with what you have been teaching for years protecting your dogmatic interpretation.Young earth creationists mean so well and they are not wrong about everything they believe except that the heavens and earth are young.It has caused the bible they defend to look wrong and they must deny evidence and reality to believe it and it has closed off much dialogue from scientific minded people when it is not necessary.

About continental drift. At one stage not long after the flood God separated or divided the earth.
In fact, one of our ancestors was named Peleg - meaning "division" (of the earth).
You can work out what time he lived by the genealogies. Genesis 10:25. In those days a sea faring family emerged who helped establish all the old shipping trade routes. The ships of Tarshish or Tharshish, by Javan and his descendants.

So while there may be slight continental drifts today, there was a time when things moved a little quicker. The ocean bed shows that this is done by the earth folding inwards in some places and expanding or folding outwards in other places, causing the earth's crust to be recycled underneath the sea bed, and the continents drifting along as if on a giant conveyor belt.

Starhunter wrote: So while there may be slight continental drifts today, there was a time when things moved a little quicker. .

If we're ascribing to YEC here (which I'm assuming due to the hint about genealogies), you're talking that the continents were moving several miles a year for a thousand some years ( I could make a christmas list of catastrophic events that would be a biproduct of this, or better yet explain the geographical impossibility of it) before slowing down to it's current rate (which would over the period of 6k years be a pretty sudden reduction).

I was under the impression that YEC denied plate tectonics and that the landmasses were made after the flood waters receded; Perhaps I'm misinformed, i'll admit my mistakes if I am.