[_ Old Earth _] Super Volcano!

[Sparkey]

I don't think there is a plate boundary there. Pretty sure there isn't. But I was just thinking about volcanoes. I know the big caldera area at Yellowstone (been there), and I was thinking about a volcano called "the tower" or something? I'd have to research it to know better. Then moving a bit west into Idaho, there's the 'Craters of the Moon' volcano. Both are considered dormant. How far from Wyoming to the Rockies? What about the Cascades? Yellowstone is situated (in the larger view) between some very powerful uplift forces. I'm trying to use my imagined "x-ray vision" to think about what's happening under our feet.

Here's more: America's Volcanic Past:
Rocky Mountains

I learn some of my best stuff when somebody asks a question. Thanks, Barbarian!
Look: Plate Boundary Map

Yellowstone Caldera chain:

Image by USGS.

"The current caldera at Yellowstone is the most recent in a series of eruptions that span millions of years. The North American Plate is moving west over a stationary hot spot. As the plate moves the hotspot produces an enormous eruption (and a large caldera) every few million years. This has produced regional basaltic lavas and a chain of rhyolitic caldera groups (circles, with ages in millions of years) along the track of the Yellowstone hot spot." Link: USGS: Articles/Caldera

[video=youtube;BBGmXsZHInw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BBGmXsZHInw#![/video]

 

[cupid dave]

Whoever said it was specifically 24 hours? The earth was created in 6 days of ordinary length, not thousands of years, or days that were exactly 24 hours in length. Besides, time is a man-made concept. God exists outside of time.

Quite frankly to debate whether the earth was created in six days, or six thousand years is really irrelevant considering God could have created in any time-frame He wished. To argue it is a waste of time. God does everything according to His good and perfect will, that is all we need concern ourselves with.

Then why not assume that the seven geological and cosmic events that are recorded in the rocks correspond with what cosmic evolutionists say?

I find no verse in Genesis that contradicts science, yet you church goers argue with the educated people in America, and insist that if they read the Bible, it must be understood to disagree with the facts.

 

[cupid dave]

Ahhhhh... dave? Maybe I missed something that may be crucial to your point. Maybe you've explained this observation away before, I can't say. You seem to think that the Word of God about creation was given at the exact time it happened. Like to Adam or something. My understanding is that the Holy Spirit inspired Moshe (Moses) and that he authored Genesis (historically speaking). With that understanding the whole "there was no day before the 4th day" observation falls to what Moses understood it to mean (using the Historic Method), or what God meant when He inspired the pen (using my method). We can't say that "days" didn't exist then (at the time of the writing), now can we? Further, when we consider the couple thousand times the word was used in the bible, only about 5% can be called anything but literal, single "Night/Day" cycles. Within those 5% we could trim out references to "The Day of the Lord" as well, and that would reduce the percentage number down significantly.

Simply asserting that an hour = an era, does not a doctrine make.

Especially when it comes to days that are spoken of in conjunction with ordinal numbers, as in "the first," or "the second" etc. When we look at biblical examples of these specific uses, there are zero (0) uses that do not convey a single night/day period. At least, none that I know of. Argument that makes specific conclusions based solely on general observation fail here. That's like saying, "You can't use any genealogies from the bible because they are all guilty of deliberately leaving out numerous generations then quoting Luke 18:38, "Jesus, son of David," as your supportive clause. Can you think of any specific instances where ordinals are used in conjunction with the word yom that don't mean night/day periods? The technical exclusion would of course include the time before the sun was created but that's not when the word was used, now is it?

This isn't really a topic about the age of the earth, nor do I intend to hijack too far it in that direction, but more about understanding Volcanoes (and maybe their creation). I'm just providing my two-cents because the two ideas coincide almost synonymously in the minds of many.

I tend to read Genesis without any other axiom than that I would interpret what I read to be true in accord with what I know to be true and restrained by my reading comprehension of whatb is inherent in the text itself.
I tend to give truth and fact weight to the best use of my choices when words like yowm, ("day"), are encountered.
But I look for hints and support in the style and literary art of the writers to help me, suchlittle hints like the rather strange and inordinate claim that the "evening came before the morning" of the first "day"

What a strange "day."

Now this is insufficient, of course, and "does not a doctrine make."

I marvel, nevertheless, that my training in Geology and Biology also recommends seven distinct long "days" or separate geological conditions clearly marking the History of the Earth.
That is hard to just dismiss, and if not corresponding to the intended message of the Genesis writers, not some sort of divine insight in itself, it is an remarkable "coincidence," one worthy of mention to bible lovers.

But, when I see that the bible writers explicitly give us note concerning Earth days, and man made calculations of time, telling us in the Old and New Testaments that "A yowm is like a thousand years to the lord," then upon that rock I accept the teaching and make it my doctrine thereafter.... because it SUPPORTS scripture, rather than set it up for atheists criticism.

 

[cupid dave]

It seems strange that the super volcano eruptions are not related to the mass extinction if the are the size as described by the article:

I ask again, why these super volcanos do not correspond to the mass extinctions?

The article stated that these are gigantic earth shaping events that cloud the skys and hence change the temperatures and threaten life, in general.
Did I read over the threatened consequences to quickly?

I see you ignored this incongruity so far, so i will go back to the OP and re-read it now.


(I also draw your attention o the six "days" between these mass extinction in the kist above which further supports seven geological/Biological major Historical Events comparable to what Genesis reports.)

 

[Knotical]

Then why not assume that the seven geological and cosmic events that are recorded in the rocks correspond with what cosmic evolutionists say?

I find no verse in Genesis that contradicts science, yet you church goers argue with the educated people in America, and insist that if they read the Bible, it must be understood to disagree with the facts.

Because evolution is an unproven theory that is based on more assumption than anything else. I completely dismiss evolution as much as I do your "theory" about creation.

 

[cupid dave]

Because evolution is an unproven theory that is based on more assumption than anything else. I completely dismiss evolution as much as I do your "theory" about creation.

True, you do dismiss the facts of science, and you do accept some theology that has come down from one of the meremen who intiated the church where your medieval understanding of what that man said dtill rings in your mind and founds your Faith in what he said then.

I do not know which of the men, whether it be Cambell, Luther, Wesley, Alexander, Russell, Smith, Henry VIII of the EPISCOPALIANS, Knox, Williams, or von Below,... but your Faith in their erroneous teachings holds back the glory of a Genesis that corresponds with amazing accuracy to facts.

 

[Knotical]

True, you do dismiss the facts of science, and you do accept some theology that has come down from one of the meremen who intiated the church where your medieval understanding of what that man said dtill rings in your mind and founds your Faith in what he said then.

I do not know which of the men, whether it be Cambell, Luther, Wesley, Alexander, Russell, Smith, Henry VIII of the EPISCOPALIANS, Knox, Williams, or von Below,... but your Faith in their erroneous teachings holds back the glory of a Genesis that corresponds with amazing accuracy to facts.

And of course by "facts" you are referring to the, again, unproven theory of evolution. Which has been based more on assumption and leaps of logic than anything else.

Science is just man's way of trying to explain things they don't understand by taking God out of the equation.

 

[cupid dave]

And of course by "facts" you are referring to the, again, unproven theory of evolution. Which has been based more on assumption and leaps of logic than anything else.

Science is just man's way of trying to explain things they don't understand by taking God out of the equation.

But is n't it a fact also, that you depend for your belief about Genesis on Faith in what one of these mere mortal men deemed as rational interpretation for genesis, too??

What these men who started these major maoinstream churches of the moment believed is what you have bought into, because you have Faith in them as opposed to Modern Science, right?

 

[Adam]

Then why not assume that the seven geological and cosmic events that are recorded in the rocks correspond with what cosmic evolutionists say?

.

Because there aren't seven geological or cosmic events recorded in the rocks.

Stop loading your questions.

 

[Adam]

I marvel, nevertheless, that my training in Geology and Biology also recommends seven distinct long "days" or separate geological conditions clearly marking the History of the Earth.

What exactly would that training be? You don't seem to have any education of insight into the subject matter whatsoever.

You can't appeal to your own authority in an argument, especially when you have been such a doubtful source.

 

[Knotical]

But is n't it a fact also, that you depend for your belief about Genesis on Faith in what one of these mere mortal men deemed as rational interpretation for genesis, too??

What these men who started these major maoinstream churches of the moment believed is what you have bought into, because you have Faith in them as opposed to Modern Science, right?

I would rather put my faith in the God inspired words written in the most important book in the world, than a bunch of unproven "assumptions" purported by men to try to find "rational explanations" for what God has done.

 

[Adam]

I would rather put my faith in the God inspired words written in the most important book in the world, than a bunch of unproven "assumptions" purported by men to try to find "rational explanations" for what God has done.

What are the determining factors that tell you there is any difference?

 

[Knotical]

What are the determining factors that tell you there is any difference?

The Holy Spirit.

 

[Adam]

What are the determining factors that tell you it is the Holy Spirit?

 

[Knotical]

What are the determining factors that tell you it is the Holy Spirit?

I will answer that with a question. As a Christian, how do you experience the Holy Spirit?

 

[Adam]

I asked a question first. I'll answer without dodging after you answer without dodging.

 

[Knotical]

No dodge here. Everyone experiences the Holy Spirit in different ways. How do you experience the Holy Spirit?

 

[Knotical]

No dodge here. Everyone experiences the Holy Spirit in different ways. How do you experience the Holy Spirit?

 

[Adam]

Chapter and verse that says that everyone experiences the HS different ways.

You said "I would rather put my faith in the God inspired words written in the most important book in the world, than a bunch of unproven "assumptions" purported by men to try to find "rational explanations" for what God has done."


Now, I want to know why you are following unproven assumptions regarding how one experiences the HS, if it is not written in the bible.

 

[cupid dave]

I would rather put my faith in the God inspired words written in the most important book in the world, than a bunch of unproven "assumptions" purported by men to try to find "rational explanations" for what God has done.

That has been my recommendation, that you read Genesis with the hope to correlate it to what we now conclude seems to be the Truth and set aside the ideas passed down through your particular church or the doctrines of these ten or twelve men of the past who headed up and started these mainstream denomnational churches of today that sell anti-scientific interpretations of Genesis.

Look at what God wrote.
See that things just discovered, like Pangea, were already mentioned in the scriptures:



There WAS one ocean, once,where all the waters had been collected together around Pangaea.





Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature,the first cause), God, said, Let the waters under the heaven be gatheredtogether unto one place, (Panthalassa), and let (Pangea/Rodinia),the dry land appear: (composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates):

1. North American Plate,

2. Pacific Plate,

3. South American Plate,

4. African Plate,

5. Eurasian Plate,

6. Anartic Plate,

7. Australian Plate),...



...and it was so.



(Gen 1:9)



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/superocean.jpg