Flood Geology V. Uniform geology

NewCreature · Post by **NewCreature** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:57 pm

What's the evidence for each? Uniform Geology would suggest building up layers from sediment over hundreds of millions of years. Flood geology would suggest building up layers in a year.

I can hardly think of observations that would be suggested by two so different theories.

This link talks about the evidence for Flood Geology.

http://lordibelieve.org/time/discussions/Thread_2a.htm

I was just wondering what people's thought were on this issue.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:03 pm

I think currently our knowledge points to an old earth. Not saying this might not be overturned by new discoveries, but other thread here have discussed this. Plenty of different evidence that supports an old universe.

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:50 am

I think currently our knowledge points to an old earth

but what about the option of creation with age?' {for sake of discussion}

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Tue May 01, 2007 3:05 am

Quick response, then I might have time later.

Feel that creation with age (apparent age?) is placing more deception on God. God's creation is a testamomy to Him and is trustworthy. Don't think He would place the starlight, fossils, and geologic evidence there without it being true. It would be as if somebody recreated a crime scene wothout that crime hacing happened and in fact another crime took place. I think scripture reveals that He is not a deceptive God.

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Tue May 01, 2007 6:05 am

God's creation is a testamomy to Him and is trustworthy. Don't think He would place the starlight, fossils, and geologic evidence there without it being true.

good point though i don't think it would make God look deceptive, it could be that the dating systems are off, which i consider them to be.

i happen to lean towards a gap theory myself as the implication of Gen. 1:1 seems to indicate such an event. if true, then it would account for some of the age on the earth and in the universe, while accomodating other thinking.

it is quite possible to have the details created about 10,000 years ago which would account for the archaeological evidence.

bizzt · Post by **bizzt** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:38 am

Have you read any notes off the Main Page? It gives some good notes on the Gap, Young Earth, etc... Also some many notes in general about Christianity. You can view here
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.php

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Tue May 01, 2007 5:31 pm

archaeologist wrote:
God's creation is a testamomy to Him and is trustworthy. Don't think He would place the starlight, fossils, and geologic evidence there without it being true.
good point though i don't think it would make God look deceptive, it could be that the dating systems are off, which i consider them to be.

i happen to lean towards a gap theory myself as the implication of Gen. 1:1 seems to indicate such an event. if true, then it would account for some of the age on the earth and in the universe, while accomodating other thinking.

it is quite possible to have the details created about 10,000 years ago which would account for the archaeological evidence.

Let's assume that the dates are off and the earth is Young. Apparent age proposes that the evidence we see of age is incorrect. That God placed these pieces of incorrect evidence? The God in scripture is true to His testimony. I just don't think God does this. I would be akin to saying that Christ's hands just had the appearance of holes, which we know to be false. His is true to His evidence.

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Thu May 03, 2007 5:22 am

That God placed these pieces of incorrect evidence

why would it be incorrect evidence? using wisdom, being practical and using foresight God would know what was needed to begin life on the planet.

the determinating factor lies with what was meant by 'in the beginning...' was moses referring to the very beginning long before God decided to create man and the details of the planet or did he mean in the beginning of human existence?

either way it is really not important because the age of the earth is not germane to the story. it is another distraction to take away what God wants His creation to learn.

job 38 is very clear that God did not use evolution to do His work for Him and that is what is important: the fact that God did it.

as i said, i lean towards the gap theory which would satisfy both OEC's & YEC's. i could be wrong but again when is not the issue, the fact that God did it, is.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri May 04, 2007 6:04 pm

I definitely vote for "D: None of the above".

a. global flood for one year, geology does not work.

b. Uniform geology, discounts the Word of God as it has been interpreted for thousands of years.

c. I definitely care, even they who say they do not, would come running if the announcement was made, "Noah's ark has been found at last!" (for real this time

)

d. there must be other possibilites which explains our observations and upholds the word of God; and other proposals have been published

Evidence for God from Science

Flood Geology V. Uniform geology

Global Flood Geology or Uniform Geology?

Flood Geology V. Uniform geology