Posted on 02/16/2005 4:43:26 PM PST by DannyTN
The fact that I'm proposing such theories, shows that I haven't bought into a billions year old earth. And that I don't presume that all soil came from rock.
Hillary Clinton as president.
As old as evolutionists may think she is, I still do not believe she is much older than 6000 years.
Suffice it to say that it bears no relationship to what DannyTN said in his posts. I'm a conservative, evangelical Christian who believes that the Bible is the accurate word of God. However, I don't believe that the Bible teaches a 6,000-year old earth any more than I believe that it teaches a flat earth or that Christians should practice snake-handling.
Do you believe in the flood?
Yes, I do. If it's taught in the Bible, I believe it.
So your only objection to this article is it's reference to a young earth, not to some mountains being formed as a result of the flood?
No, the whole article is bad. It's dishonest, misleading, and plain bad science -- not to mention being based on an attempt to force the Bible into a Dark Ages (literally) interpretation.Do a word study on the Hebrew word olam and its use in the Bible. Seriously, you'll find that there's no conflict at all between good science and good theology.
The Chinese came from New Zealand. Who Knew?
How is it dishonest? How is it misleading? What about it is bad science?
You claim to believe in the flood, but you object to people trying to model what happened during the flood?
Don't you realize that many if not most of the evolutionists deny the flood also? I get a much higher emotional reaction from the evolutionists for posting flood articles than I do for ID or creation articles.
I have a book called "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch" that basically states that ALL the modern mountain ranges were created during the great flood.
In a nutshell, he hypothesised that the flood was caused by a Mars sized planet coming close to the earth and revolving around it a few times, ripping up mountain ranges with every revolution. This planet also brought an ice moon that came close enough to the earth to reach what he called the roache limit, where it's own gravity broke down and it fell apart. Most of it fell on the poles, giving us our current ice caps. The remainder either fell through the atmosphere and eventually became "rain," or dissipated into space, since we are too close to the sun to maintain ice rings like Saturn.
He also saw the great flood as more of a massive tidal wave.
Anyway, I have hit just the high points.
The book was printed in the 1960's.
the 1960's....that would explain it.
A tidal wave wouldn't last a year.
Uplifting Ping
>>A tidal wave wouldn't last a year.<<
He didn't say it did. He was talking about tides in the oceans sweeping over the earth and tides in the magma creating mountain ranges. The other planet only did a few revolutions, according to his book, based on the evidence as he saw it.
You can google the title btw.
Observational evidence? We don't need no stinking "observational evidence." We've got a philosophy and we're stinking to it. And our philosophy says the universe has operated the same way for billions of years as it operates today. Period. /s
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.