The Mid Ocean Ridge

[Stefcui]

In the middle of the ocean is the world’s largest feature. It is a mountain range that goes around the world 3 times. It is 70,000 kilometres long. According to NASA's seafloor dating, the ocean floor in no older than 180 million years old. Although I do not accept the long dates used in radiometric dating; this date shows that the ocean floor is extremely young compared to the (allegedly) 4.5 billion years of continent crust.

On Radiometric Dating, see Forbes Magazine:
Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/

The Mid Ocean Ridge (MOR) is responsible for the spreading of the ocean floor. This has been discovered by dating the ocean floor and noting that the floor reduces in age as you get closer to the MOR. Palaeomagnetism has also (allegedly) shown that the ocean floor has recorded magnetic pole shifts. Scientists, of course, date these pole shifts at 5-10 million years in duration; although renowned Geomagnetism expert, Robert Coe, has found instances of these “reversals” taking place in days, not millions of years.

The question is this…

Does the Mid Ocean Ridge fit in with the creation account, or the Flood?

Why does the MOR end at the base of Egypt?

Note: I do not think anything on earth requires an old earth creation... This is only required if you believe in evolution and do not believe in a Creator. The “Gap theory”, also, is science fiction. Unfortunately some Christians believe in this (some Christians also believe in evolution). In my opinion, both of these theories make a mockery of the sacrifice of Christ and creation. I do not count these views as an explanation of anything. Please do not flood this thread with either of these theories.

God Bless
Steve

 

[aspen]

I reject all acquisitions and attempts to label; including 'you are calling Jesus a liar!!' and 'you are making a mockery of the sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross!' simply because I believe evolution, based on evidence God placed on Earth.

 

[Stefcui]

Many Catholics agree with evolution. This is truly unfortunate. This false teaching has made life harder for everyone on earth, and as you said, you agree with this. Yes, I think this doctrine you hold does a great dis-service to the church of Christ, and it will be used by the Antichrist to initiate the final persecution against Christians... which you agree with. You only believe it because the Catholic church believes it. You don't appear to know what you believe until your church has given you an opinion. Would you disagree with your church if you disagreed with the science? No. Blindly following your church traditions comes first..., Christ comes second. "Because you are neither hot nor cold..." I reject your rejection... if the cap fits, wear it!

 

[aspen]

Many Catholics agree with evolution. This is truly unfortunate. This false teaching has made life harder for everyone on earth, and as you said, you agree with this. Yes, I think this doctrine you hold does a great dis-service to the church of Christ, and it will be used by the Antichrist to initiate the final persecution against Christians... which you agree with. You only believe it because the Catholic church believes it. You don't appear to know what you believe until your church has given you an opinion. Would you disagree with your church if you disagreed with the science? No. Blindly following your church traditions comes first..., Christ comes second. "Because you are neither hot nor cold..." I reject your rejection... if the cap fits, wear it!

Are you serious? Why is it that whenever I happen to agree with other catholics, I am following my church blindly? I happened to have taken basic biology and geology before I became Catholic.....


The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).
The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

You might want to actually understand what the RC teaches on the subject before you lash out with your typical 'catholics blindly follow their church' rhetoric. Thanks!

 

[Stefcui]

Many Catholic theologians and scientists are spearheading the evolution theory. They are not merely holding an opinion; they are steering it. The Catholic faith has always believed in social engineering the dumb sheep. Governments have followed this path; but they follow behind the Catholic administrators. This is no different to the Pharisees deciding that Jesus was not the messiah, and all of the Jews agreed with their leaders and rejected Jesus. This is why the churches are called to repent; and particularly the Catholic church... The Catholic church has lost its spiritual compass; it has lost its first love. They have become just like the Pharisees.

There is an immense amount of science and scientists who have adequately refuted the evolution theory. Every aspect of the theory; the fossils, radiometric dating, speed of light, magnetic field, geological column, sedimentation, salt deposits, position of the earth... all aspects of science has been upheld to demonstrate the Genesis creation. A person believes in evolution; not because of the science, but because it fits with their world view. That evolution fits so well with your world view says a lot about where you are coming from.

Tell me then, you who sit on the fence:

If Adam and Eve were not the first humans, then why is Christ’s genealogy important to us?

Are the genes of Christ (from Mary) evolved from a monkey?

Why was a virgin birth important?

Why is Christ the second Adam?

If we cannot believe the details about Adam and Eve, how can we trust anything in the bible?

If man evolved from monkeys, why is there a moral requirement placed on man?

If the earth evolved from crashing meteorites, how is God the creator?

What is the point of being on a Christian forum when nothing of Christianity has any foundations?

This list could go on forever. This is why I made my statements about evolutionists… You make a mockery out of God and the crucifixion when you agree that man evolved by accident, and not by the hand of the creator.

Steve

 

[prism]

So let me get this straight. Adam's body 'possibly' is the product of an evolutionary process whereas Eve's body was more or less quickly formed from Adam's side.?
In any case I can see where someone has sided with the liberal theologians in denying the literalness of Scripture. Is Genesis just a metaphor? Jesus didn't think so, speaking of Adam and Eve..."But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
(Mar 10:6)

 

[justaname]

1 Corinthians 1:19

For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”;
and again, “The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.”
1 Corinthians 4:1
Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.

What I find interesting is how Christians will side with science on such a manner, yet the scientists completely reject Christianity. Is it for us to bend on our beliefs handed down through Gods providence for a belief in the big bang? And what is that firecracker of a theory but, in the beginning there was nothing, and out of this nothing everything suddenly appeared and, being unstable, exploded. First law of thermodynamics! They explain ex nahilo in their theory, and deny it in their so called science. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! The entire thing begs for a creator.

 

[Stefcui]

1 Corinthians 1:19
For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.”

1 Corinthians 4:1
"Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God."

What I find interesting is how Christians will side with science on such a manner, yet the scientists completely reject Christianity. Is it for us to bend on our beliefs handed down through Gods providence for a belief in the big bang? And what is that firecracker of a theory but, in the beginning there was nothing, and out of this nothing everything suddenly appeared and, being unstable, exploded. First law of thermodynamics! They explain ex nihilo in their theory, and deny it in their so called science. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! The entire thing begs for a creator.

Amen!

 

[Stefcui]

The attached file is a picture of the ocean floor. The MOR image shows the ocean floor with the Mid Ocean Ridge protruding above the ocean floor around the earth. It is the whitish line that is in the center of the oceans. Notice that the ridge follows the shape of the continents, and that the end of the ridge leads up into Egypt. The Mid Ocean Ridge is 2-3 kilometers WIDE in places.

Steve

 

[aspen]

Many Catholic theologians and scientists are spearheading the evolution theory. They are not merely holding an opinion; they are steering it. The Catholic faith has always believed in social engineering the dumb sheep. Governments have followed this path; but they follow behind the Catholic administrators. This is no different to the Pharisees deciding that Jesus was not the messiah, and all of the Jews agreed with their leaders and rejected Jesus. This is why the churches are called to repent; and particularly the Catholic church... The Catholic church has lost its spiritual compass; it has lost its first love. They have become just like the Pharisees.

There is an immense amount of science and scientists who have adequately refuted the evolution theory. Every aspect of the theory; the fossils, radiometric dating, speed of light, magnetic field, geological column, sedimentation, salt deposits, position of the earth... all aspects of science has been upheld to demonstrate the Genesis creation. A person believes in evolution; not because of the science, but because it fits with their world view. That evolution fits so well with your world view says a lot about where you are coming from.

Tell me then, you who sit on the fence:

If Adam and Eve were not the first humans, then why is Christ’s genealogy important to us?

Are the genes of Christ (from Mary) evolved from a monkey?

Why was a virgin birth important?

Why is Christ the second Adam?

If we cannot believe the details about Adam and Eve, how can we trust anything in the bible?

If man evolved from monkeys, why is there a moral requirement placed on man?

If the earth evolved from crashing meteorites, how is God the creator?

What is the point of being on a Christian forum when nothing of Christianity has any foundations?

This list could go on forever. This is why I made my statements about evolutionists… You make a mockery out of God and the crucifixion when you agree that man evolved by accident, and not by the hand of the creator.

Steve

What fence am I sitting on? And since when are you an authority on the RC? You obviously have a low opinion of my church and my faith, based on your negativity whenever I disagree with you....

None of your clever questions are even relevant if God decided to create the universe through evolution because it would be considered all good. I am not foolish enough to declare Christianity groundless if the Creation story happens to by a mystical vision or an inspired story rather than literal.

The doctrine of the Trinity, which is the true nature of God and the dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy, not an unscientific account of creation.

 

[veteran]

In the middle of the ocean is the world’s largest feature. It is a mountain range that goes around the world 3 times. It is 70,000 kilometres long. According to NASA's seafloor dating, the ocean floor in no older than 180 million years old. Although I do not accept the long dates used in radiometric dating; this date shows that the ocean floor is extremely young compared to the (allegedly) 4.5 billion years of continent crust.

On Radiometric Dating, see Forbes Magazine:
Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All

http://www.forbes.co...tant-after-all/

The Mid Ocean Ridge (MOR) is responsible for the spreading of the ocean floor. This has been discovered by dating the ocean floor and noting that the floor reduces in age as you get closer to the MOR. Palaeomagnetism has also (allegedly) shown that the ocean floor has recorded magnetic pole shifts. Scientists, of course, date these pole shifts at 5-10 million years in duration; although renowned Geomagnetism expert, Robert Coe, has found instances of these “reversals” taking place in days, not millions of years.

The question is this…

Does the Mid Ocean Ridge fit in with the creation account, or the Flood?

Why does the MOR end at the base of Egypt?

Note: I do not think anything on earth requires an old earth creation... This is only required if you believe in evolution and do not believe in a Creator. The “Gap theory”, also, is science fiction. Unfortunately some Christians believe in this (some Christians also believe in evolution). In my opinion, both of these theories make a mockery of the sacrifice of Christ and creation. I do not count these views as an explanation of anything. Please do not flood this thread with either of these theories.

God Bless
Steve

That proves nothing about the history of the earth per God's Word, and certainly cannot replace the evidence of fossil remains within the earth's strata formations.

 

[justaname]

A world wide flood can account for fossil remains. It is not believed that the present land masses as we know it today are the same land masses of the primordial time.

 

[Stefcui]

You obviously have a low opinion of my church and my faith, based on your negativity whenever I disagree with you....

There are some things I agree with the Catholics on, and there are some things I disagree with. I was a Roman Catholic, and I have studied into the faith more than you (it seems), so this allows me to be able to speak about them.

Most denominations, not just Catholics, think their leaders are right no matter what. This is the football team mentality. I like to be a little bit more objective than that. Blind allegiance disturbs me. I have personally checked on the origin of Christianity, the Roman Catholics, the formation of doctrine, ecclesiastical canons, creeds and decrees, papal bulls, the founders of the faith, the earliest authors and how they contributed to the faith. When I make statements it is because I have done my homework. I don’t believe the opinion of any institution unless that opinion can be strongly supported by scripture and history. This is where you and I differ. You don’t care whether history or scripture supports your views; your views are decided by other men. This, to me, is a child’s Christianity. Too afraid to step out on your own to ask the big questions, always needing to stay close to mummy’s apron strings.

That’s fine, so you’re a child… so why engage in adult conversations when you’re always going to give a child’s opinion. Why get so huffy every time your institution is questioned when you have never ventured to fully test it yourself?

That proves nothing about the history of the earth per God's Word, and certainly cannot replace the evidence of fossil remains within the earth's strata formations.

This was not meant to prove anything. I was posting a question.

You keep implying that you have this special evidence of the fossil record… Alright, let’s have it. What do you “know” about the earth’s strata that I don’t know?

 

[Stefcui]

A world wide flood can account for fossil remains. It is not believed that the present land masses as we know it today are the same land masses of the primordial time.

Agreed. When the earth changed its continental shape and form interests me... When the Mid Ocean Ridge was formed interest me. There are "fossil records" that make this change appear to be after the flood, as marine-land animal fossils (the Mesosaurus) were found in South America and West Africa which shows a common land pattern which links the two continents. There are several other fossils that formed the Continental Drift hypothesis… These fossils demonstrate that the continents were “bridged” during the creative days, so the Mid Ocean Ridge, which separated the continents, must have taken place after the animals were made. A catastrophe of this magnitude can only have been the flood, as far as I can see. It may be a reference to Peleg in Genesis…

“the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided…” (Genesis 10:25)

Steve

 

[veteran]

This was not meant to prove anything. I was posting a question.

You keep implying that you have this special evidence of the fossil record… Alright, let’s have it. What do you “know” about the earth’s strata that I don’t know?

Anybody seen one of these existing today???

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/DinosaurFossils/Tyrannosaurus-rex/Tyrannosaurus-rexb.htm

 

[Stefcui]

What exactly is your point. Do you think I've never seen a Dinosaur fossil before? What is it that this "proves"?

This is becoming boring...

 

[veteran]

A world wide flood can account for fossil remains. It is not believed that the present land masses as we know it today are the same land masses of the primordial time.

What the flood of Noah's days (which I believe per God's Word) does NOT... account for, is the huge amount of fossil remains of different species of animal life that once existed upon this earth, but became extinct, with the fossil record revealing no gradual transitions between them and species existing today (which disproves the theory of evolution).

“To explain discontinuities, Simpson relied, in part, upon the classical argument of an imperfect fossil record, but concluded that such an outstanding regularity could not be entirely artificial.” (Gould, Stephen J., “The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis,” 1983, p. 81.)

from - http://www.genesispa...ing-links/gaps/

Darwin and his early followers proposed that transitional fossils would eventually be found, proving the missing links of the gaps in the fossil record between extinct forms and later forms. Per quotes from scientists on that website, since today, there's still no evidence for gradual transitions in the fossil record which evolutionists have been searching for. So many of them have developed the idea that the fossil record isn't reliable enough to disprove the theory of evolution, when that's nothing but denial of real evidence against their theory of evolution, like saying, "Can't use the fossil record to prove evolution, so we'll prove it another way."

Another thing to note Biblically, is that the species on Noah's ark were species of all animals that existed PRIOR... to the flood of his days. And there's nothing written that Biblically supports dinosaurs having existed in Noah's days, nor thereafter. Yet there are some Christian brethren today, in their attempt to disprove evolution theory, and prove a Young Earth, that are trying to show how dinosaurs were created when Adam was formed, and that they continue to exist today.

Another thing some Christian brethren try to do with those like myself who believe the fossil record to be true evidence of an ancient earth which God left from when he ended the time of Satan's original rebellion, is by trying to link us to non-believers of God's act of creating the heavens and the earth. They have tried to link those who believe Genesis 1:1 to 1:2 reveals a gap of unknown time as being associated with Darwinists, which is totally unfounded. Their arguments are often not just scientifically unfounded, but Biblically unfounded also.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

there's nothing written that Biblically supports dinosaurs having existed in Noah's days, nor thereafter.

Neither is there any Biblical support for the existance of cats.

However, we understand from scripture that everything was created in the first 6 days of creation. after which God rested. We know that there is no "ancient earth" before those days because "in six day the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them".

 

[NicholasMarks]

Note: I do not think anything on earth requires an old earth creation... This is only required if you believe in evolution and do not believe in a Creator. The “Gap theory”, also, is science fiction. Unfortunately some Christians believe in this (some Christians also believe in evolution). In my opinion, both of these theories make a mockery of the sacrifice of Christ and creation. I do not count these views as an explanation of anything. Please do not flood this thread with either of these theories.

God Bless
Steve

Almighty God created science. The nearer science gets towards absolute truth the nearer they get to understanding God. It is just a question of how much irresponsibility they administer in the process. Science is slowly coming to realise that an invisible force they call 'dark matter' is the raw material God used to create the universe by whilst in Isaiah 40:26 God tells us about its/his 'mighty power'...a dynamic energy...from which every star, every atom, and every law controlling those stars and atoms are made by.

In Genesis we are told that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. He doesn't need to say that the planet had had a previous existence which supported life, before the planet became void, and that he chose to resurrect it. What he does tell us is that the planet wasn't spinning because darkness was on the face of the watery deep. This tells us that the side facing the sun was unapprouchable...and that he gave the planet a spin. The atmosphere was quickly restored as the waters evaporated into thick, dark clouds, before settling down into a viable, life supporting planet. He tells us that he created human life...brought livestock and allowed seed already in the Earth to grow. Such is the power of our God.

This also suggests a secondary reason for the 'great flood', because, besides being concerned about the disobedience of mankind God needed to make a slight orbital correction. This might be a need now...as a continuing, life supporting, strategy, due to global warming.

 

[Stefcui]

Another thing some Christian brethren try to do ... is trying to link us to non-believers...

I'm in the middle..., you obviously believe in something, but it's mostly science fiction.

We know that there is no "ancient earth" before those days because "in six day the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them".

Very good point. I hope the logic of this sinks in to Veterans very obstinate thinking.

Steve