Posted on 07/14/2013 8:28:08 AM PDT by WXRGina
Have you ever wondered how the diverse and wondrous features of our planet came to be the way we see them today? Living in the beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota, I think about that a lot, especially on hikes.
Materialists and evolutionists have their ideas about these things, and they usually involve millions and billions of years of slow change. If you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old as such people claim (and there is really no solid scientific proof for such assertions), then some of their ideas make a certain sort of sense.
But the Bible makes other claims about how the earth came to be the way we see it today, and it involves a much shorter time frame with much more cataclysm involved during that time. Usually, what we see of our planet fits much better within the Biblical model than it does the evolutionist/materialist ideas.
This episode of Origins examines how the geology and geography of our planet was formed, according to what we know of history from the Bible. Having traveled a lot over not only the Black Hills but Wyoming and Montana, I’ve seen a number of the things scientist Michael Oard discusses here.
If you’re like me 15 years ago, what you see here will likely challenge many of your long-held assumptions about many aspects of science and history. But if you are committed to the Socratic principle of “follow the evidence wherever it leads” as I have been, you may just find that you’ve been sold a bill of goods by media and academia that is only guesswork mislabeled as “science.”
From the video description:
A variety of evidences for the receding of the Floodwater off the continents will be provided. Geological evidence is first presented for differential vertical tectonics to drain the Floodwater. As the Floodwater first drains as wide currents, great erosion occurs with the formation of planation surfaces and the long transport of resistant rocks. As more and more land is exposed above the Floodwater, the water becomes more channelized forming another set of unique landforms. Water and wind gaps, pediments, and submarine canyons will be described. All these features are very difficult, if not impossible, to explain by the uniformitarian paradigm, providing strong evidence for the reality of the Genesis Flood.
Michael Oard became interested in creationism after reading Whitcomb and Morris’s The Genesis Flood in the early 1970s. Having a focus on research, his interest grew to the point that he asked himself what he could contribute. That is when the idea of an Ice Age model started. The first paper on the Ice Age was published in 1979 in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Since then dozens of articles and about six books have been published on the Ice Age. Research on the Ice Age ignited an interest in glaciology, geology and geophysics, which he has been ardently studying for over 35 years.
Michael has a B.S. and M.S. degree in atmospheric science from the University of Washington. He was a research meteorologist for 6 years at the University of Washington. In 2001, he retired as a lead forecaster with the National Weather Service in Great Falls, Montana. Since then he has been doing full time research in creationist earth science. Over the years, he has learned to speak to lay adults and children on a variety of subjects in the earth sciences.
Michael has published eight papers or technical monographs in the secular technical literature of the American Meteorological Association and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Since becoming a creationist, he has published about 200 articles in the creationist technical literature and has authored, coauthored, or been editor of fourteen published creationist books for different ages on the Flood, the Ice Age, weather, geology, and National park guides. He is on the board of the Creation Research Society.
Video presentation: Shaping Earth's Surface, Part 2--Origins with Michael Oard
Yep! God’s creation is awesome.
Young Earth PING!
No thanks.
Yeah. Lots of people hate the truth.
“No thanks.
Why not?
Do you know something that rest of us don’t?
That does not comport with general relativity, which God also wrought. And what about the heavy elements, as I first mentioned in #11. One theory should be replaced with another. What’s yours?
And how come they removed your #17? It seemed alright to me?
You gotta love the selective censorship here. They leave the comment calling those of us who believe God’s account of creation “ignorant,” but they delete my perfectly true statement about Judgment Day.
God made the universe and all that is in it, including the heavy metals. If there is a “theory” of man that contradicts what God tells us, then the theory is flawed. For instance, as you may know, radiometric dating methods have been shown to be wildly inaccurate (see links in the column above).
Post 13 was removed for potty language which is not allowed on the RF, and 17 involved a cut-and-paste from 13. Please feel free to repost without such.
Oh, I see.
The heavy metals were fused inside stars that “burned” two or three generations before the Sun even came about. The “old universe theory” is more revealing of God to me in that everything has purpose and can be related to everything else.
You might enjoy Gerald Schroeder’s “The Science Of God” wherein he posits a creation scenario which, utilizing general relativity, actually makes six days and 15 billion years seem plausible together.
All God’s goodness to You and Yours....
No one can possibly prove that theory about the stars and sun, but it contradicts what God tells us in Genesis 1. Thanks for your recommendation.
Theories are not ironclad. If there’s a better one scientists, generally, are all ears. But until there’s a better one....
Seems like you’re wedded to the “celestial butler” concept. I would rather a conception of the universe “make sense” in that, again IMHO, God, what’s gravity?
Now there’s a question.
And I disagree that it can’t be proven. The Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki had it demonstrated pretty well for them.
What doesn’t make sense about God’s account of how He created the universe in seven days? A Being that is behind all we see is certainly able to do that.
Because it makes more sense for God to have common sense.
How could we continue lighting our cities without some general knowledge of quantum theory? Which opens up quantum electrodynamics and even quantum chromodynamics, both very well tested and at least fundamentally understood.
Why would God have made the universe this way?
As I sort’a indicated, I believe in the Old Testament very deeply. As for the New, I trust in it enough to realize that the United States could not have been founded without it.
Those views are fundamental - or, at least to me, what I can perceive as fundamental.
Perhaps I’m missing something obvious, but I don’t see what you’re saying. Are you saying God’s account in Genesis 1 is not how it happened?
Somehow (God!) life began on Earth when it was still very young, continually baffling scientists, though nonetheless, eventually giving rise to all of us. (The evoluted parts are yet very sketchy.) Though I remain convinced that's pretty much the basic outline.
"In the Beginning, God...."
Okay, thanks.
HAHAHAHA!!! Very important elements!
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.