The Hawaiian Islands are composed of 52 islands that are spread out over 2,400 miles, each island is volcanic in origin and rise up from the bottom of the ocean about 6000 to 10,000 meters. Each island was cause by one hot spot as it moved across the continnental shelf over the last 27 million years. How does the 6000 years creationist explain how old they are? arlan
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How does a 6000 yr. creationist explain the Hawaiian Islands
- Thread starter Arlanbb
- Start date
rocketman
Out there...
I'm not aware that they address that question specifically, but they do look occasionally at some of the more general principles on related items, such as here. Appeals to incredulity aside, they are right in showing that we don't necessarily have all the answers.
Interestingly, back in the late 80's, a scientist named Emil Silvestru put forward the idea that some of the volcanic hot-spot features in places like Hawaii were triggered by an asteroid impact. The theory caught on and is still popular with many today, though less so with Silvestru, who went on to become a creationist, and now says that the flood model fits in with his work equally as well.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Riddle me this: what makes you think that a creationist would answer this question logically?
Angellous ~ I really didn't expect a 6000 yr. creationist to answer the question. The question was put out there for all those other people that have questions about a creation time line and how illogical a short time span is when you have all those 52 islands to build from scrach. arlan
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Preaching to the chior, then?
tomspug
Absorbant
The only logical answer is that: modern science does currently not support the Biblical description of the age of the Earth, from a geological standpoint. However, it does not invalidate creationism itself. A creator God could have created the earth at the slow pace of millions of years (like science has concluded) or he could have created the earth in 6 days, by the same process as science believes it has, but at an accelerated rate.
Creationism should be interested and accepting of science, not pitted against it like an enemy. In my mind, it is only more fascinating to know exactly how everything that is comes about. Did it take six days or six million years? Who cares. It's still AMAZING!
Creationism should be interested and accepting of science, not pitted against it like an enemy. In my mind, it is only more fascinating to know exactly how everything that is comes about. Did it take six days or six million years? Who cares. It's still AMAZING!
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
How then can "creationism" have any meaning? The scientific method itself precludes the involvement of God at all.
I consider myself a creationist in the sense that I recognize God as the ultimate Creator... science is the study of Creation. But I understand the term "Creation" as "nature," the object of science. So I can accept the naturalistic assumptions of science in a way that some creationist can't.
Heneni
Miss Independent
This earth has been created and re-created several times. In Genesis we read...
1In the beginning (the beginning wasnt 6000 years ago) God created the heavens and the earth. (Here you have a heaven and an earth already)
And then....
2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Something happened to the earth, It was in a formless and empty. So he re-created it.
The bible does not say that god created the water or the land, it simply says that he started to seperate them. It was already there.
1In the beginning (the beginning wasnt 6000 years ago) God created the heavens and the earth. (Here you have a heaven and an earth already)
And then....
2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Something happened to the earth, It was in a formless and empty. So he re-created it.
The bible does not say that god created the water or the land, it simply says that he started to seperate them. It was already there.
Angellous ~ Being a TheoEvolutionist I feel that God is involved completely in the scientific method. God created the earth we are not sure when, he created all the different animals many over millions of years ago, and all the different vegatables and trees many millions of years old also etc.. Whatever God did I think he had a plan behind it, we may not understand his plan but why should we. We don't think like God. arlan
rocketman
Out there...
Sounds a bit like you are talking about gap-theory. Very interesting, Heneni.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Sounds like god ain't so all knowing and perfect. (or motivated now that I think of it.)
"Awe dangit... I have to start all over again. I really don't want to make everything all over... well I guess I could always recycle."
NO wonder things are so screwed up.
wa:do
"Awe dangit... I have to start all over again. I really don't want to make everything all over... well I guess I could always recycle."
NO wonder things are so screwed up.
wa:do
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
How convenient, isn't that just like saying "we have no idea what's going on and science is too complicated so why don't we just say God is responsible?"
Interesting science can give us a great idea about the earth and what's happened in the past, bassalt rocks can show us the polarity of the earths magnetic field and volcanic activity shows us the nature of the formation of some continents.
Unfortunately there is still missing links, small but critical since its the only hope creationists have to hold onto their biblical theories.
rocketman
Out there...
I don't think so. I can't speak for Heneni but if we are talking about gap-theory, then pretty much 99.999% of science is accepted under that one. The one major exception would be that humans were (somehow) deliberately brought into existence, and not necessarily 6000 years ago either.
The question holds a bright light to one of the less exploited weaknesses of creationism/ID. These ideologues focus on what they believe are flaws in the evolutionary explanation of the diversity of the species. They are hopelessly ignorant (deliberately so, one assumes) of how much evidence for evolution there is, but if one expands the scope of study to include the platform on which evolution took place, they are doubly ridiculous.
Plate techtonic theory is relatively new (emerged in the 1960s) but it is an example of how a good theory can establish itself in short order when it explains virtually everything in its field. Not only does plate techtonics explain geologic formations such as the Hawaiian Islands and the shapes of the coastlines of S. America and Africa, and the mid-Atlantic ridge, it explains phenomena that religion has always resorted to as divine retribution of sins: earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves and so on. And the geological events explained by Plate Techtonics also helps explain the diversity of species, as continents separated at various points in history, stranding species to evolve independently from that point on.
The only geological resource the Bible offers the creationists is the Flood. So everything geological is explained by the flood, from fossils to shapes of land masses. The difference in explanitory power between plate techtonics and the flood should be enough to discredit the creationists (if their inability to explain the biological diversity were not already enough).
Plate techtonic theory is relatively new (emerged in the 1960s) but it is an example of how a good theory can establish itself in short order when it explains virtually everything in its field. Not only does plate techtonics explain geologic formations such as the Hawaiian Islands and the shapes of the coastlines of S. America and Africa, and the mid-Atlantic ridge, it explains phenomena that religion has always resorted to as divine retribution of sins: earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves and so on. And the geological events explained by Plate Techtonics also helps explain the diversity of species, as continents separated at various points in history, stranding species to evolve independently from that point on.
The only geological resource the Bible offers the creationists is the Flood. So everything geological is explained by the flood, from fossils to shapes of land masses. The difference in explanitory power between plate techtonics and the flood should be enough to discredit the creationists (if their inability to explain the biological diversity were not already enough).
rocketman
Out there...
No actually. Creationists accept almost every other geological mechanism in addition to the flood, the difference for them being the speed at which things are thought to have happened.
It was a creationist who first devised a modern concept of a supercontinent, continental drift, etc (Snider-Pellegrini 1859, decades ahead of Wegener) but it was drowned out by the excitement surrounding Darwins work of the same period. It would take almost another 100 years for the broader science community to fully run with the idea.
When secular scientists work on modelling tectonics, they often rely on the computer models pioneered and developed by a notoriously staunch creationist (Baumgardner), with the difference between the camps being those assumptions which are programmed in at the start. The creationsts know plenty about tectonics and use much of it's explanatory power in their models, rightly or wrongly.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
He uses a sheet of aluminium foil, a stick, some sticky tape and three marbles.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
How does someone post a question in which they know there is no logic or logical answer?
gnostic
The Lost One
henei said:
Ok, but then Genesis also says that God created the light first, but the sun, moon and stars afterward, on the 4th day.
And how do you expect to have light, called Day, and darkness called Night, without the Sun?
How do you explain that?
It's all pretty nonsensical to me. The Genesis' Creation have no logical in it.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
The geologist in me cries out to make one small clarification. It sounds like your saying the hot spot moved when in fact the theory is that the hot spot is stationary in the mantle and it was the movement of the Pacific Oceanic plate across the hot spot that caused the Islands to form.
Last edited: