Evidence for an ancient earth

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Why do you think that thousands of believing and skeptical scholars alike have pointed out that one story was the 30,000-foot overview and the other focused on man's creation (before the Fall and expulsion from Eden)?

You can lie about them however you like. It does not change the FACT that unless one or both are PARABLES?

THEY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER IN FATALLY FLAWED WAYS.

Ask the Jews-- it's their book, after all. They will be happy to explain what they actually meant by it.

And I don't care how many "christian scholars" you bring-- it's not their book-- they did not write it.

Heck-- I bet there are Jews here in this very forum! And if you ask nicely? I bet they'd give you their considerable opinion on the subject!

It is their book! I'll take the opinion of a layman' Jewish person, over the most "overqualified" christian, with regards to the Jewish writings, every time.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You know I'm Jewish, right? I know many of my people say it's just parables. I'm a Christian because I began with belief that the OT is more than just parables in form and content.

You cannot be both, silly! The two are mutually contradictory! The heretic Paul, for one thing, completely twisted the Jewish Heritage into something .... not-Jewish.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

. Prove the Bible wrong by talking with me about the facts.

LOL! You said "facts" and "bible" in the same sentence-- as if the two have any sort of meaningful relationship.... !

That's the funniest thing I've seen all week! Thanks! My eyes are blurry from laughing so hard.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Time dilation has nothing to do with distance. It has to do with relative speed. And, if you were right, then from the point of view of a distant star, we are the ones being billion years old.

And there isn't neither heavenly water (whatever that is) nor edges of the Universe. I wonder where you get these ideas.



Science says that all heavy materials the earth is made of, including oxygen (for H2O) are the by-product of supernova explosions. And it also claims that the sun is a second generation star.

Do you agree? Or do you just mark all those things as belonging to the set of findings that will be overruled when we know more?

My personal suggestion is to follow what Scientific hip believers do:

1) demote to metaphors and figurative language all the obviously wrong claims of the Bible
2) keep as literal only the parts that have not been disproved yet



Faint sun paradox? Look, i have a pretty dark office (I like it like that). My plants seem to prosper without a problem there.

Ciao

- viole

Time dilation has nothing to do with distance. It has to do with relative speed. And, if you were right, then from the point of view of a distant star, we are the ones being billion years old.

And there isn't neither heavenly water (whatever that is) nor edges of the Universe. I wonder where you get these ideas.

Speed and distance ARE related in this case.

Where did you get the idea that an edge(s) of the universe are disproven?

You understand that our telescopes only see/detect up to a finite distance?

You disbelieve the possibility that there are other universes/multiverses? You know for sure that their composition lacks water?

My personal suggestion is to follow what Scientific hip believers do:

1) demote to metaphors and figurative language all the obviously wrong claims of the Bible
2) keep as literal only the parts that have not been disproved yet

Here’s what is bothersome to you, that I don’t do that. So you are suggesting I trivialize things I don’t understand. I both understand and am accusing you of trying to demonize my position using special knowledge, knowledge so special, in fact, you’d be omniscient and a god! I’m growing tired of skeptics saying ignorant things like “the universe is infinite” or “there is no water in space” when there is water here in this timespace—in their bodies!

Faint sun paradox? Look, i have a pretty dark office (I like it like that). My plants seem to prosper without a problem there.

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia

 

[BilliardsBall]

That oxygen is created inside stars is sciece orthodoxy. The Big Bang did not produce elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. Do you deny that?



I have no clue whether it is infinite or not. Its empirical large scale flatness seems to entail it.

By the way, do you believe Mickey Mouse lives on Mars? If not, have you inspected any corner of that planet?

Ciao

- viole

I don't deny the science. You are denying the possibilities that our universe is a bubble inside another universe filled with water or more stars and hydrogen/helium or pink unicorns, but you tend to stop your gedanken where science stops--convenient since science inductively observes what and how without why, prescience, prophecy, love or authentication from original eyewitnesses!

 

[BilliardsBall]

No it does not. Please back up your word with an actual worked out theory.
And I meant incoherent. Absolute motion has been refuted by Einstein quite decisively.

Einstein argued that the general covariance of his theory of gravity supports Mach's principle, which would eliminate any "absolute motion" within general relativity. However, as pointed out by Willem de Sitter in 1916, Mach's principle is not completely fulfilled in general relativity because there exist matter-free solutions of the field equations. This means that the "inertio-gravitational field", which describes both gravity and inertia, can exist in the absence of gravitating matter. However, as pointed out by Einstein, there is one fundamental difference between this concept and absolute space of Newton: the inertio-gravitational field of general relativity is determined by matter, thus it is not absolute.

Miller, Dayton C. (1933). "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth". Reviews of Modern Physics. 5 (3): 203–242. Bibcode:1933RvMP....5..203M. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.5.203

 

[BilliardsBall]

I

There was no explosion, just a gradual accentuation of socio-technological sophistication over time. We have excellent archeological evidence of humans routinely grasses and managing wild herds of sheep and goats from 20000 BCE. The shift from mostly hunting/agro-forestry and some planting and husbandry to mostly planting and husbandry occurred very slowly over a 12,000 year period in the northern subtropical belt of human habitation where grasses formed a significant part of wild food resource. And this gradual transformation happened multiple times independently with strong region based cultural and technological continuity extending back to 25000 years before present. In short the transformation happened regionally and naturally over time with no discontinuity between what happened before and what happened after.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/may/china-agriculture-origins-050213.html

Why do you think pre-history (no documents) is approximately when many creationists think the Flood may have occurred?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, the Cambrian 'explosion' happened over a period of about 45 million years.

No, it is not the case that *all* major technologies happened at about the same time. Iron smelting, for example, was later than city-building. But there was a collection of technologies that seem to be associated, at least in the Fertile Crescent. Agriculture and the development of 'cities' (most of which would be small towns by today's standards) seem to be linked. Writing happened later.



Well, the term pre-history would encompass everything that was before history (i.e, written records). So, while I am sure that creationists think the flood happened in that time range, it is a pretty broad target.

My guess is that the flood myth in the Bible is derived from the epic of Gilgamesh, which was probably a legend from a local flood that we have evidence of that destroyed a number of towns (but not even all in the region).

Why do you think pre-history (no documents) is approximately when many creationists think the Flood may have occurred?

Why when we compare Gilgamesh to Noah is one far more sophisticated (size of boat, building time, materials, decks, covering, reaction of people, foodstuffs, storage capacity, etc., etc.?

Have you read studies indicating Gilgamesh's quest was to meet the living Noah?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. The CMB has a dipole aspect that shows movement through that CMB. After subtracting off that dipole, the rest is very nearly (to within 1 part in 100,000) uniform.


Motion is always relative. If the Milky way is moving closer to Andromeda, then Andromeda is moving closer to the Milky Way. The two statements are exactly equivalent. We can, if we want, discuss the two motions with respect to the CMB, but that isn't required or even helpful.


It isn't clear that either is the case. For that matter, it isn't clear that causality applies.

We can sum as "we are moving or we are not but cannot quite tell."

 

[BilliardsBall]

And god magic doesn't beg the question?

Please note faith without evidence is not logic

Faith IS evidence.

Hebrews 11:1 - Faith is the EVIDENCE of something hoped for but not yet seen. You can have inductive faith, deductive faith. I trust God because He has been continually faithful and trustworthy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am saying that movement and direction (assuming direction is relevant) is measured in comparison to the CBM

And it is predicted that Andromeda will collide with our galaxy in about 4 to 5 billion years. This is known because the two galaxies are converging at around 119 Kms per second.

One last time--deny that some non-Creationist scientists believe we are near the center and that all motion observed--as well as eliminating some pesky scientific anomalies--is described by being near the "center".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Read some of the papers and learn. Absolute is as meaningless up/down/left/right/x/y/z in the universe, speed and direction are measured relative to other objects and phenomenon, the cmb for example

Stop. Stop saying "read" things I read. Stop telling me I'm stupid. Stop.

Be respectful. I'm respectful of you despite your stubborn nature, denying that some reputable, non-Christian scientists agree with me and disagree with your layperson's regurgitation of the party line.

 

[BilliardsBall]

8

You claimed 8 people

There were 8 people on Noah's craft!

 

[BilliardsBall]

What do you mean, "no documents"? There are countless artifacts from thousands and thousands of years before the first written ones.

Just the ancient cave paintings alone, prove people had a kind of civilization thousands of years prior to your flood fairy-tale.

And by the way, those same paintings prove to 100% that the flood story never happened...

Documents with lettering/alphabets/words. You knew what I meant. Now answer the question.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay, basic physics lesson, here.

Let's pretend, for a second, that the earth's features were essentially flat. And that the magic flood changed those features from featureless plains into the mountains and valleys we see today.

In less than 2 years--- as your bible requires.

Let's also pretend that the energy budget for these processes was efficient to the tune of 99.9999999% efficient-- with a scant 0.0000000000001% energy loss...

How much excess heat do you think would be generated, to change the world to match it's current contours, from one that is essentially featureless (like a cueball)? Give my assumption, above?

(note: my assumption is incredibly generous-- MOST events that change the earth, are incredibly wasteful of energy-- take earthquakes, for example-- far less than 20% of the available energy actually goes into changing the landscape-- the rest is wasted on vibrations-- and HEAT... but nevermind that)

Here, I'll answer: Enough leftover heat, IF IT TOOK A MERE 2 YEARS, enough leftover heat to MELT THE WHOLE PLANET-- BOIL THE SEAS INTO STEAM-- KILLING ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

So. That is RIGHT OUT: It simply did not happen.

How does the Bible indicate two years? It would have taken, logically, physically, a thousand years or more of secondary upheaveal and etc. A post-Flood ice age from detritus in the atmosphere, for example. The water covered the tops of the mountains arisen shortly after the Flood, and these could have been 500 feet high.

Stop making strawmen of things the Bible does NOT say.

 

[BilliardsBall]

WRONG.

See my previous post-- the ENERGY needed to RESHAPE THE EARTH WOULD BOIL ALL THE OCEANS.

Killing everything on the planet-- even poor old incestuous Noah...

When did Noah have incest?

His children took wives, not sisters.

When did you feel I forgot basic history, geology, etc. when I became a Christian? I've read numerous books and papers on the issues. I've heard the boiled oceans theory and its refutations, just like the Jesus twin theory, Jesus swoon theory, Jesus fake theory, Jesus ahistorical theory, etc.

Stop talking to me like I have an eighth-grade education. Finishing my third college degree currently. You?

 

[BilliardsBall]

LIAR! He killed ALL THE KITTENS--- which is what I wrote!

ALL.

THE.

CUTE.

FLUFFY.

BABY KITTENS.

DEAD. DROWNED. MEWING THEIR FORLORN CRIES AS YOUR MONSTER-GOD DROWNED THEM.

Why?

WHY DO YOU HATE KITTENS?

God didn't kill all the kittens, either. There had to have been some on Noah's boat.

Bob, you don't read the Bible carefully, but you want me to trust your physics and geology advanced knowledge also?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Asking something about "what happened before time was even possible" is meaningless.

Time AND space are the same thing-- they are inseparable.

And that fact alone, utterly destroys your god-claims-- but nevermindthatrightnow.

You cannot "discuss what happened before the big bang" because it's meaningless.

If you had 1/2 a clue-- you would understand that....

Huh?

Reputable non-Christian scientists have posited multiverses, white holes as links, other dimensions, etc.

Watch, I'll help you:

In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth.

Before there was this universe and linear spacetime--when our beginning incepted with time and light - God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"natural assumption"? SERIOUSLY?

My NATURAL assumption for certain does not include a magic Sky Genie who grants Wishes (prayers)...!

I was born an ATHEIST-- until some well-meaning ******* lied to me over and over...

That's funny you say that, when I constantly see on forums "I'm an atheist and train my children the right way. What should I say when they ask me about God?"

And how did you get from "Someone created the Big Bang" to "prayers answered". Of course, one implies the power for the other... but you keep jumping around like there's something bothering you. Is there something I should know?

Either the universe is eternal or it is not eternal.

Either something preexisted the earliest we can see using cosmic background microwaves and etc. or nothing did.

We are made of matter and energy as people. We know inherently that we were made and our universe was made. Why go against the inner prompting that it is self-evident the universe cannot be eternal (conservation of matter/energy) but was created (by the Lord Jesus Christ).

Why does this bother you so much?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why does your Ultimate Creator ... require ... MONEY?

Seriously. Is your god so feeble, that it cannot manage to fix a simple LOTTERY game?

I mean... how WEAK is THAT?

Are you asking me why the church needs money or being rhetorical? I cannot tell, still.