Mountains and the age of the Earth

The Rockies and the Himalayas are sharp jagged mountains. The Appalachians are rounded and smooth.

Traditional geology says this is because the Rockies are much younger than the Appalachians and are therefore not as eroded.

How is this explained from a young earth perspective? Did the Rockies and Himalayas form after the flood? If so when were Appalachians formed and why do they look different? We know there were mountains at the time of the flood. If the earth is only 6000 years old how could the mountains have been eroded? The Great Pyramid is 4500 years old and still pointy.

I checked ken hams site and creation.com and could not find a succinct answer to this question.

I am told that the very same Appalachians mountains over here in Scotland, our mountains were eroded in the ice age under 3 miles of ice..

Something I see in Genesis is from Gen 1 to Gen 2-3 God creates the earth.

Then from Gen 2-5 he has to do some of it all over again...

Thats about as useful I can be on this subject...

Hi TMK
I think if you email Grady MCMurtry of www.creationworldview.org that he would give you a precise answer on this individual point.I hear him on tv and he seems to find the time to answer the individual.
When I look at the debate myself the overiding issue is that Jesus could not be saviour if sin and death had entered the earth before Adam.
On a personal note I noticed by the Holy Spirit I believe was this
Adam was created on the sixth day but later on in Genesis it says' All the days of Adam were ......
All the days were counted by the writer of Genesis in terms of years,actual jewish years.From this I know that the writer
1.included day six and seven in the term "all"because in the bible all always means all.
2.if the sixth and seventh day of the week of creation are literal the 1 to 5 must be literal as well
Yours Staff

Staff-- why must it refer to physical death-- why can't it be just spiritual death.

you might find this video interesting:

http://youtu.be/cKsEPVDbymc

Hi TMK
could you ask that question in a different way?Im a bit slow on the uptake Staff

Hi Staff-

Yes I was a tad terse in my comment. You said your big objection to an old earth is that you cannot see how sin and death had entered the earth before Adam.

My response is that it is spiritual death, and not physical, that Paul was talking about when he said that "death came through one man- Adam." After all, God warned Adam that on the day he ate from the wrong tree he would surely die; but he obviously did not die physically that very day- he died spiritually. Of course physical death was also a result- but not the pre-eminent result. If there were no humans prior to Adam (but just stuff like dinosaurs) there would have been no sinning therefore no spiritual death therefore no need for a savior-- yet.

I keep throwing out topics like this because I am trying to be more open to a "young earth" paradigm but it is very difficult. So I appreciate all your responses and they give food for thought.

But the thing about the Great Pyramid is mysterious to me, since it is almost as old as the earth (per young earthers) but is pretty remarkably preserved.

Maybe someone can answer this one off the top of their head-- per a young earth paradigm how long after Day 1 of creation was the great flood? I presume that the pyramid was built after the flood but it couldn't have been much after.

Hi TMK,
I think it is not possible to say that it was not physical death because the moment he ate the fruit from the wrong tree his body began to decay and cells began to die.
It could be said that it not possible to die Spiritually even though we have to be born spiritually.
Also Man and animals were made on the same day.
If Adam didnt bring death and sin into the earth why do animals die?
Another question that is important is why do christians argue other than a literal 7 day creation week?
The answer must be in my opinion that they want to marry up evolution in some way with word of God.
Yours Staff

No staff--

I absolutely do not believe in evolution- nor does Hugh Ross who is probably the most prominent Christian ancient earth proponent. I don't care if the earth is 20 billion years old- evolution is still not true. I do think, however that that is why some Christians are afraid to consider an ancient earth, because they feel it opens the door for evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reason that Christians (like me) have a hard time with a 6000 year old earth is because there is so much abundant evidence against it and I have a very hard time accepting that all that evidence is somehow biased for insidious reasons. I am not saying that there are not two sides to the issue. I obviously understand that.

I do believe that part of the curse (for humans) was physical death. But I also believe they died spiritually. Not sure what that means exactly but scripture seems to bear it out ("you were dead in your trespasses and sins").

Since at this point I do believe that animals lived and died prior to the fall, I don't think that aspect of the curse applied to animals. I do however believe they were subjected to the curse in other ways (like getting killed for clothing).

Hi TMK,
How old do you think the earth is then?
Animals were made the same day as Man so how could they die before Man except if a day is not a day but later in Genesis we see that the writer is including day six and seven in the age of Adam.
Even if they died what was the purpose of their death? and also God saw that it was "good" which is hard to believe if they could die.
When you take out fossils as evidence there is not much else that cant be accounted for.
When asked Fossils are as old as the rocks and rocks are as old as fossils but no dating mechanism is anyway accurate.
Your position altough not believing in Evolution it is a stepping stone that allows others to take a step or two further towards evolution.Also if some Christians are not trying to marry up with Evolution they are trying to Marry up with what the people of the Earth currently believe so as not to look crazy.But our faith is crazy in the eyes of the world but its power is in how radical it is.Thats why we find it so hard to follow because it is so removed from what the world says.Yours Staff

Hey staff--

I get what you are saying-- if the earth is only 6000 years old it is definitely not what the world thinks!

Do do you thing that mainstream geologists etc are lying about the science or simply mistaken about the science? This would go for astrophysicists as well.

I have said it before here- I could see scientists being 10, 20, or even 50% wrong about the age of the earth. But is the earth is really 6000 years old and mainstream science says it is 6 billion years old that is like a million percent wrong. Is that possible?

Hi TMK
I think that mainstream Geologists etc are under a strong delusion and do not question evolution but taken it as a given.
If they took the starting point as Gods plain and simple word then they would look at things with the correct starting point.
For isntance the amount of a. silt at the mouth of the worlds major rivers which you count
b.fossils are found in sedamentary rock
c.the moon moves 3-4 cm per year which means 1m every 25 yrs
or 40m every 1000yrs or 240m in 6000yrs which is all fine but when you get to 1 million years it would be 4km and 1 billion the moon would be right on top of the earth.This means the environment for evolution would not exist.
They are a 100% wrong because they believe in a religion called Evolution/Atheism.They are deluded which is main effect of all religions.
Its just religion....
Staff

Hey staff---

How can science be so wrong about the age of the earth/universe and not everything else? We have made some pretty incredible advances I've the past 100 years. Are you suggesting that the delusion only applies to geology and astrophysics?

Hi
The delusion is religous.The age of the earth is a religous issue for them not a scientific one.
Also you said that you dont believe in Evolution:
LOOK how wrong they got that! despite all the advances.Even in your own beliefs you can see how wrong they get things.100% wrong according to what you believe.
People from 100 years believed in the right thing and our generation despite all the scientific tools believe in the wrong thing.
We might go down as the stupidest generation of people in 6000 yrs.
Yours Staff

The only difference is that the evidence for evolution is exceedingly weaker than the evidence for an ancient universe.

Hi
I disagree there is no evidence for evolution.I dont believe in it at all!There is no strong or weak evidence for evolution.Staff

When I was working on my master as a geology [IN Univ], I thought the apparent difference in aging (due to the topography of the ranges)could be attributed to the climate on the west vs the east coast. Not putting any time into this idea, it could be fairly easily evaluated by comparing other mountain ranges under differing climatic settings. That being said, we should remember that dramatic shifts in climate in very recent history can be ascertained in the written records of Herodotus, Scripture, and other sources noting that areas that were once extremely fertile (again within historical times), and now completely desert and barren. This is verified by archaeological studies in many now desert.

Although we might be tempted to attribute the structural difference of the Rockies and the Appalachians to the differing tectonic on the coast, the obvious factor is one of weathering and erosion, not the mode of mountain building.

To recap, more weathering (Appalachians) could indicate a greater age in an old Earth, or a consistently wetter climate in the eastern continent in a young Earth scenario.

We don't often realize that there were more globally catastrophic events than Noah's flood. Scripture describes Earth originally created with one continent/one Ocean, the Pangaea/Tethys Sea of science. Scripture also refers to the division of Earth in the time of Peleg, which we normally assume to be a societal division, not a continental division as well. We might see hints, too, of the ice age, in the various mention of famines in the times of Abraham, Joseph, and ancient secular histories, such as in the Histories of Herodotus (et al). This last evidence might seem to be too von Daniken-ian to be credible, but if we look at the overwhelming evidence for rapid changes in Earth it becomes credible.

There separate dramatic global changes are clearly undeniable: the existence of a single continent undergoing violent structural damage (Flood), separation of the continents creating mountain range and basins of deep deposition (Peleg / Babel), and ice ages (global famines, sea level changes, desert formation, dramatic loss of species). The basic difference between a scientific v Biblical interpretation of geological evidence is a matter of time (billions v thousands of years) and paradigms (atheistic scientific v Scriptural). Sadly creationists began by failing to recognize the other major, but separated events of the division of Earth, and the rapidly ensuing major climate changes, and that created confusion as to just how much and in how many different ways the earth has been altered, so our interpretation of the geological data was skewed and incorrect, making our overall conclusions rightly vulnerable to scientific scrutiny.

During my time in geology, I found a curious fact. Very often when a geologist was converted, it was an easy step for them to abandon the evolutionistic old Earth paradigm for a young Earth creation view. And the same went in the other direction. This showed me the inherent spiritual nature of how our beliefs change with our spirit.

I dropped virtually al my interest in this debate, after I discovered the powerful apologetic tool used by Christ and focused on that: the work of the Spirit in His works of Love by healing us in body, soul, and spirit.

Eternal Blessings

Hi Myst,
Hi as to the importance of the whether the Earth is what the bible carefully counts out or older enough to encompass evolution the debate is right up there at the top of the list.
Stemming from evolutionary thinking comes all sorts of problems.Jesus didnt negate the importance of other subjects when he focused in on the works of Love but dealt with them as well.Nothing is greater than Love but it doesnt mean we stick our heads in the sand.

I dont agree with your statement below creationists do get into the division of Earth and Climate change etc.Grady McMurtry www.creationworldview.org
The problem with scientific scrutiny is it is dominated by a group of people that do not believe in God and like all unsaved people are influenced by demonic forces in some shape or form.It is a religion like all other religion it is controlled by Satan to one degree or the other.
You are right our belief changes with our Spirit but also with correct teaching.I have never met yet a born again believer truely saved changing to an evolutionary old earth view because they changed not to believe in God.
...........................................................
Sadly creationists began by failing to recognize the other major, but separated events of the division of Earth, and the rapidly ensuing major climate changes, and that created confusion as to just how much and in how many different ways the earth has been altered, so our interpretation of the geological data was skewed and incorrect, making our overall conclusions rightly vulnerable to scientific scrutiny.
..........................................................
Also in conclusion the way to change minds of non Christians is to change their Spirit which can only be done by leading them to Christ because when the Spirit of Truth comes in he does not tell us foolish lies but plain and simple truth.Yours Staff

To answer the OP, this is my own understanding for what it is worth.

We do not fully understand all of the geologic processes that preceded the flood or that followed the flood. We do know that there was rapid movement of the plates that make up the earth's crust. The Rockies and the Himalayas were post flood events as is evidenced by flood remains found high in these mountains. So we would not expect them to be rounded or show great erosion. It is possible that the Appalachians were, for the most part, submerged when they were pushed up and were eroded as the flood waters flowed off of them. The pyramids are post flood structures built in the same time frame that Israel was in Egyptian captivity. They are in a pretty dry climate, so the greatest agent of erosion, rain, has not had the same effect on them as it would on a structure in a wetter climate.

staff wrote:
jewish years.From this I know that the writer
1.included day six and seven in the term "all"because in the bible all always means all.
2.if the sixth and seventh day of the week of creation are literal the 1 to 5 must be literal as well

Just a question:
When within the last 6000 years did dinosaurs live?