Old Earth
#31
(01-02-2011, 08:54 AM)timoose Wrote: The Great Pyramid was built when the Sahara had rain. Look at the erosion at the butt end, it was caused by torrential rains. That is about 10,000 years ago. There are no Egyptian hieroglyphs in any of them, so that makes their construction with the Egyptians is doubtful. Geologists and Archaeologists are arguing about these facts. The science is on the side of the geologists.
tim

Perhaps this pyramid was built shortly after the Deluge before the climate leveled off, during the brief "Ice Age" period, which would have caused latitudes relative to Egypt to be more fertile and have more rainfall than today.  Still, this would place the construction of this pyramid no earlier than 3000 BC, which would be the latest possible date for the end of the Deluge.  Scientists base dating on faulty processes of carbon dating and geological queries, both are FAR from accurate.  As I have stated previously, when the scientific community ignores a past event as cataclysmic as a global flood, MAJOR errors or misunderstandings creep into science and society.
Reply
#32
The pyrimids are not as old or as Interesting as the find o Gobiki tepe which is a temple and must of been bult shortly after the fall. It is the earliest structure found. And is huge and it has some fascinating reliefs. It's so big I would of taken an organized society to construct. The pyramids though huge dot have the significance as tepe

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html?device=iphone&c=y

I don't belive the dating of it but re estemate but it had to have been bult shorttly after the fall and it's a temple. Perhaps ths reliefs are an attempt to saw adamic language I dunno
Reply
#33
(01-02-2011, 10:28 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The pyrimids are not as old or as Interesting as the find o Gobiki tepe which is a temple and must of been bult shortly after the fall. It is the earliest structure found. And is huge and it has some fascinating reliefs. It's so big I would of taken an organized society to construct. The pyramids though huge dot have the significance as tepe

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html?device=iphone&c=y

I don't belive the dating of it but re estemate but it had to have been bult shorttly after the fall and it's a temple. Perhaps ths reliefs are an attempt to saw adamic language I dunno

My personal belief is the hydroplate theory, which states that the global Flood devastated the world in such a way that anything upn the surface was buried under many feet of sediment, thus creating the fossil record.  The pre-flood world was greatly different than what we know today, and according to that theory which I hold to there would be absolutely nothing left from it that wasn't buried.  The pre-flood earth was of one supercontinent (not "pangea" as evolutionists proclaim, that doesn't even come close to fitting right).  The pre-flood earth, I believe, was divided along the lines of the mid-oceanic ridges, and slid from those ridges, lubricated from escaping water in subterranean chambers, to the relative positions which they lie today (hence the term "hydroplate").  Get a map that shows the mid-Atlantic ridge.  Notice how perfectly Africa, Europe and the Americas fit together against it.  This was one of the cracks in the earth that let out supercritical water from the subterranean depths, held at extreme pressure that burst forth, as Genesis states, "on one day."
Reply
#34
Indeed but Gobelin tepe was deliberetly buried after many years of use they burrows it completely. By rhe time o the flood it was already hurried and forgotten
I dunno
it such an interesting site. Also new grange pre dates the mayramids as does the massive site  in Malta
Anyhoooo
Reply
#35
(12-30-2010, 04:20 PM)James02 Wrote: I am not interested in the actual age of the Earth.  The important question is if the Earth is precisely 6,000 years old (whatever the exact literal bible translation is).  If you carbon date something to 15,000 years old, that is enough evidence to lose an argument with an atheist.  If you are required to hold to the literal creation story.  Are we required to hold to this?  It appears that the answer is "no", with regards to the age of the Earth.

You might want to read the Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis, from 30 June 1909 (Denz. 2121-2128).

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma22.php

As for the authority of the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

"Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions" (Pope St. Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae, 18 November 1907: Denz. 2114).
Reply
#36
Pyramids have also been found underwater off the coast of Japan.

http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html
Reply
#37
The use of sediments to determine age are now controversial. The science is challenged by some scientists. Scientists have experimented and shown they are not deposited in layers like a cake, but in a lazy S type of shape no matter what method of deposition. This means the fossils at the top are not necessarily older than the ones further down. It blows the normal method of dating, the scientists use, to smithereens.
tim

Reply
#38
anyone read "the Genesis question" by Hugh Ross?
Reply
#39
This is all very interesting, but it is also assuming that "time", by whatever measure that is made, is constant.  As we cannot be certain of this beyond the extant calendars (to the crudest, earliest calendars), then we cannot be sure.  If someone once lived to 900 years, then that means they lived through what we know identify as 900 complete transits around the Sun.  If the Earth was previously closer to the Sun (and the Sun was cooler, or the atmosphere thicker, or the magnetic field strong, etc, etc to protect life, assuming life was as vulnerable then as it is today), then one "year" would be much "shorter" that it it today.  Likewise, if the Earth traveled faster in transit than it does today, then a year would be shorter.  If the planet were further or slower, then the year would be longer.  We are assuming that the historical measure of time are in fact in "years" insofar as the movement of the sun/change of seasons.  We don't know this to actually be true, and we do not know that a previous year is equal in length of time to the current year.  We just assume.

There are so many assumptions, as others have pointed out (the assumed levels for carbon dating comparisons is just one).  We have no clue about any of this.  We are constantly subject to these perceptions of ours.  That is what makes the Word of God so valuable and indispensable: we KNOW that's true, period.  The rest?  Who knows.  We're all really good at imagining and lying and manipulating...and it is all rather irrelevant, anyway.  I don't even bother with arguments about the age of the universe or Earth or the flood or anything with atheists: you have to get them to believe in the concept of truth in the first place (something greater than their own opinions), because that is what starts faith (the belief in TRUTH). 

Just out of curiosity, does it add a person's sense of faith if there is evidence of the "old earth" or "young earth" or the like?  I, honestly, ask because I almost think it is an ego-trap: who are we to think we know these things anyway?  The only things we know to be true are the words of God, and that is it.  Other things, observations, theories, etc are only likely to be true...and all of them can be overwhelmed by God (through what we call miracles).  So, curiously, what advantage does it offer, I guess I'm asking?
Reply
#40
If you are trying to convert someone, and belief in a young earth is a major sticking point, and if this is NOT REQUIRED, then it matters.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)