Chimney Rock..if the earth is "old" why is it still here?

[Carbon]

Chimney rock rock didn't exist prior to the flood of Noah.

I found this.

Okay, but how soon after the flood did it exist?

 

[CrowCross]

Okay, but how soon after the flood did it exist?

The layers surrounding chimney rock...extending for miles and miles...eroded as the waters from the flood receded.

As the video pointed out the erosion due to of millions of years of weather between strata would have caused gullies...and we see none which tells us the strata was deposited quickly.
If you've ever been to the Grand Canyon you can see the same thing there.

 

[Carbon]

The layers surrounding chimney rock...extending for miles and miles...eroded as the waters from the flood receded.

You don't know that.

As the video pointed out the erosion due to of millions of years of weather between strata would have caused gullies...and we see none which tells us the strata was deposited quickly.
If you've ever been to the Grand Canyon you can see the same thing there.

 

[CrowCross]

You don't know that.

I'm applying flood geology.

Do you know that it wasn't?

 

[Carbon]

I'm applying flood geology.

Do you know that it wasn't?

Neither one of us knows.

 

[CrowCross]

Neither one of us knows.

I use what God tells us happened in the bible.

The earth isn't millions...billlions of years old and there was a world wide flood.

You can stick with falible mans science if you want.

 

[Frank Robert]

Flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to interpret and reconcile geological features of the Earth in accordance with a literal belief in the Genesis

The Bible's story of a global flood is not supported by scientific evidence. However, some researchers believe that a localized flood in the Middle East may have inspired the story.

Explanation

• Scientific evidence
  Geological, archeological, and paleontological evidence contradicts the idea of a global flood. Geologists don't see evidence of a global flood in the rock record.

• Interpretation
  Some Christians interpret the story as a local flood, or as an allegory rather than a historical event.

• Purpose
  The story's purpose may have been to communicate a message about God and humanity, rather than to provide a list of facts about the flood.
  
  * How Should We Interpret the Genesis Flood Account? - BioLogos

Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer

1. Fossils and Animals
2. Marine Fossils
3. Varves
4. Disease Germs
5. Fossil Sequence
6. Overturned Strata

Each of the six preceding arguments subjects a well-known creationist hypothesis to an elementary and obvious test. In each case, the hypothesis fails miserably. In each case, the failure is obvious to anyone not protected from reality by a special kind of blindness.-

 

[CrowCross]

The Bible's story of a global flood is not supported by scientific evidence.

There is no scientific support for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That never happened...right?

 

[Frank Robert]

There is no scientific support for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That never happened...right?

I believe Jesus is our Savior because he suffered, died and was resurrected to save us from our sins. My religious beliefs are based theology and philosophy

There is no reason to accept a young earth on belief because we are able to scientifically study the earth's past and present and able to make scientific predictions about the future through modern science. An example is Climate science.

While there are some claims made by proponents of a young Earth, they are generally considered to be based on misunderstandings or misinterpretations of scientific data. The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports an ancient Earth.

There is a wealth of evidence that strongly supports an ancient Earth. Radiometric dating of rocks, fossil evidence, ice cores, and geological layers all indicate a planet that is billions of years old. These methods have been rigorously tested and cross-validated in numerous ways.

 

[CrowCross]

I believe Jesus is our Savior because he suffered, died and was resurrected to save us from our sins. My religious beliefs are based theology and philosophy

Yet you use science to try and destroy other portions of the bible.

There is no reason to accept a young earth on belief because we are able to scientifically study the earth's past and present and able to make scientific predictions about the future through modern science. An example is Climate science.

Problem is...there are many contradiction to your old earthism science.
One example would be the soft tissue (biomaterial) found in some dinosaur bones that could not have survived for 65+ MY's. This points clearly to the fact dinosaurs are not as old as you have been indoctrinated into believing.

Another example was expressed in this short video....I found this.

As i said, there are many contradiction to your old earthism science. Trust your bible.

While there are some claims made by proponents of a young Earth, they are generally considered to be based on misunderstandings or misinterpretations of scientific data. The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports an ancient Earth.

So your narrative says...but has not established what you preach.

There is a wealth of evidence that strongly supports an ancient Earth. Radiometric dating of rocks, fossil evidence, ice cores, and geological layers all indicate a planet that is billions of years old. These methods have been rigorously tested and cross-validated in numerous ways.

It seems as if you have misunderstood or misinterpreted the history contained in the geological column deposited by the world wide flood of Noah.

 

[Frank Robert]

There is no scientific support for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That never happened...right?

There is no connection of belief in Jesus our Savior with science. The Bible supports for our beliefs.

The Bible doesn't explicitly state whether the earth is young or old but we have do have scientific evidence for an old earth. Even so, no one is questioning your entitlement to believe in an young earth.

Catholics and many mainline Protestant denominations tend to accept the compatibility of evolutionary biology with their faith, which implies an old Earth.

What you may think is up to you but I would appreciate the courtesy of you not questioning religious beliefs just as I do for you.

 

[CrowCross]

There is no connection of belief in Jesus our Savior with science. The Bible supports for our beliefs.

The Bible doesn't explicitly state whether the earth is young or old but we have do have scientific evidence for an old earth.

Bishop Ussher...long time ago added up the generations back to Adam.

Even so, no one is questioning your entitlement to believe in an young earth.

Catholics and many mainline Protestant denominations tend to accept the compatibility of evolutionary biology with their faith, which implies an old Earth.

What you may think is up to you but I would appreciate the courtesy of you not questioning religious beliefs just as I do for you.

I question you when you present BioLogos as biblical fact.

 

[Frank Robert]

Bishop Ussher...long time ago added up the generations back to Adam.

Bishop Ussher Goofed​

Alice C. Linsley
Young Earth Creationists use Archbishop James Ussher’s chronology to date the age of the earth. They believe that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are chronological, enabling them to arrive at an approximate date of creation of the whole universe. They calculate the earth's age at 6000 years on the basis of ages assigned to these rulers. Ussher failed to recognize that the so-called "genealogies" are King Lists. These are not the first humans on earth, but rulers of the Afro-Asiatic Dominion.

The Genesis 4 and 5 lists represent a time of kingdoms, laws, warriors, weapons, settlements, shrine cities and numerous technologies associated with the Neolithic Period. This places these earliest rulers of Genesis between 10,200 and 3000 B.C., millions of years after the appearance of archaic humans.

Ussher's scheme is not accurate because these lists are not generational, but regnal, and the reigns of some kings coincided. Tubal-Cain (Gen. 4) and Methuselah (Gen. 5) ruled at the same time. Tubal-Cain's sister married Methuselah. (See diagram below.)

Each of Ussher's errors reflects ignorance of the marriage and ascendancy structure of Abraham's ancestors as that is revealed in Genesis 4, 5 and 11. This same pattern characterizes Moses' family and Samuel's family. It is the distinctive pattern of the ancient Habiru (Hebrew), a caste of ruler-priests.

Let us examine the problems with Ussher's scheme error by error.... I leave that up to you to do so if you want.

I question you when you present BioLogos as biblical fact.

Of course you do, just as I question the creationism sites and their dismissal of science. Again, we have varying Christian beliefs.

BioLogos is considered a reputable Christian website by many, particularly those who support the idea of theistic evolution, but it is often criticized by more conservative Christians.

Again, each of us are entitled to our Christian beliefs which can stem from varying interpretations of the Bible, as well as different understandings of authority and doctrine. I am a Catholic and the Catholic Church does not hold a definitive position on creationism.

 

[Carbon]

Again, each of us are entitled to our Christian beliefs which can stem from varying interpretations of the Bible, as well as different understandings of authority and doctrine.

Amen to that!

 

[CrowCross]

Bishop Ussher Goofed​

Alice C. Linsley
Young Earth Creationists use Archbishop James Ussher’s chronology to date the age of the earth. They believe that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are chronological, enabling them to arrive at an approximate date of creation of the whole universe. They calculate the earth's age at 6000 years on the basis of ages assigned to these rulers. Ussher failed to recognize that the so-called "genealogies" are King Lists. These are not the first humans on earth, but rulers of the Afro-Asiatic Dominion.

OK, I think I'm done with you...you just presented an article that said the bible is wrong and Adam wasn't the first man.

Thanks for your previous participation.

Get off the fence.

 

[Carbon]

OK, I think I'm done with you...you just presented an article that said the bible is wrong and Adam wasn't the first man.

Thanks for your previous participation.

Get off the fence.

Agreed, that is seriously wrong. But maybe he does not realize that teaching in the article? Let's see @Frank Robert ??