Scott C.
Just one guy
Did you read and understand my post? "...the evidence left for us to study and ponder indicates a very old planet. We should go with that for scientific purposes".
Last edited:
-
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!
God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!
- Thread starter Salvador
- Start date
Did you read and understand my post? "...the evidence left for us to study and ponder indicates a very old planet. We should go with that for scientific purposes".
Scott C.
Just one guy
I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - (Genesis 1:1-2)
I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?
Your interpretation is interesting and plausible. Is it accurate? I don't know.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone ask this question about the age of the earth where we stop to trying to define at what point are we talking about? Was there an exact moment when it became "earth"? Was it the first spec of stardust that met another speck of stardust, like the sperm and the egg at the moment of conception is considered by some to be a "person"? In the beginning, the earth was only 5 cm in diameter, giving a whole new meaning to the song, "He has the whole world in His hand"? At which trimester did this ball of dust become an "earth"?
Are we talking when it had a certain circumference and composition? If so which of the iterations of earth is the real earth? Will the true earth please stand up! Or are we to say its when the earth became stable and "creation" was finished? If so, that has in fact yet to happen. Earth is still being formed, every day. Life is still emerging. The composition is constantly being changed, etc. Nothing is "stable" in the sense of static.
The whole understanding of this is skewed and all the arguments about a Creator are working off of this 'steady state' universe. Why do we speak of creation as a past event? Isn't creation a continual moment to moment happening? I think the real question should be at what point did creation stop? I'll answer it never has. "In the beginning, Evolution began."
Are we talking when it had a certain circumference and composition? If so which of the iterations of earth is the real earth? Will the true earth please stand up! Or are we to say its when the earth became stable and "creation" was finished? If so, that has in fact yet to happen. Earth is still being formed, every day. Life is still emerging. The composition is constantly being changed, etc. Nothing is "stable" in the sense of static.
The whole understanding of this is skewed and all the arguments about a Creator are working off of this 'steady state' universe. Why do we speak of creation as a past event? Isn't creation a continual moment to moment happening? I think the real question should be at what point did creation stop? I'll answer it never has. "In the beginning, Evolution began."
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You are saying Peter was a "fanatic" when he predicted uniformitarian scoffing nearly two millennia before it became the pillar of modern science? Convenient, but implausible.
outhouse
Atheistically
Im not sure you wrote it in a way anyone could understand, but im glad you realize the earth is old.
It is sensible
outhouse
Atheistically
Did I mention peter?
What do you know about him?
Could you quote that for the rest of us?
Scott C.
Just one guy
Well ok then. By the way, I think you meant "you're" rather than "your" in a previous email. Can we try to be a bit more clear here??
outhouse
Atheistically
Thanks I screw that up all the time.
Glad you pointed out the weakest flaw in my argument
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The quotation from Peter is saying that scoffers will accrue in the end times both denying the Return of Jesus and "deliberately forgetting" the Flood.
outhouse
Atheistically
So you would rather believe ancient mythology instead of factual data by modern scientist, that no one with credibility argues with??????
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
That's a loaded question. There are credible scientists who are able to harmonize the geologic data with the Flood account in the scriptures (as well as the current uniformitarian schools of thought with Peter's dire and prophetic warning).
YOU could do it too but it involves being a little counter-cultural, like any great (paradigm shattering) scientist. I don't turn off my brain or close my science texts when I read the Bible and it's ENTIRELY the opposite in my case. I use logic and science so much I question whether I have any faith!
outhouse
Atheistically
No, there are not any credible scientist working on mythology that a global flood took place.
It factually did not happen
Here is all the evidence I need. It did not happen that long ago according to the biblical mythology, we know specific dates from these periods in history.
What was the exact date of this flood YOU speak of?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Give us the exact year or it factually never happened.
And once you give me that date, I will show you factually thousands of communities and cultures that lived at that exact date without a 5 minute disruption in their daily lives.
Then I will show you the history where the flood mythology originated from a river flood.
That's up for debate.
It looks like you do just that.
You have to denounce, so many credible scientific departments with biased fanaticism, its not even funny.
YOU factually refuse credible education and knowledge, by the truck load.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You are making some general statements that are unfortunate, since things like Catastrophic Plate Techtonics are being considered currently by geologists on both sides of the scriptures. I'm not saying CPT is how the Flood occurred, but scientists, conservative and liberal, Christian and atheist, are thinking through the issues. No one at RF.com will believe you if you say all credible scientists are anti-Bible than they'd believe that most people are atheists.
You further are accusing me of lying--or implying I am. I just wrote "I use logic so much..." so why call me a liar? That's not fair.
Also, I will give you a date for the Flood if you give me a date for the Creation (or the Big Bang). There is no date for the Flood in the Bible, and I know, 'cause I've read the whole book! So at least we've established I'm a Bible expert and you're not.
outhouse
Atheistically
NO they are not. Only biased apologist out of desperation are suckering those with no education on topics over their heads.
I don't think you lied. Its why I did not state that.
I think your misinformed, and believe all these things your not educated in. You have faith, and that's about all you have.
So it never happened then? I didn't ask what the bible said, I know exactly what it says and doesn't say.
There is no date for a lot of mythology.
Really? Do you teach any of these topics at a college or university?
No you wont. You know reality traps you in a box the second you provide one. NO matter what date you provide I will show you civilizations that went untouched during the period you claim.
Something would have actually had to happen for you to give an exact date. But since you implied you don' really know because your book was not specific about a mass murder, I doubt you can continue your game.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Uniformitarianism, huh? So we're dredging up 18th century controversies now? That ship done sailed a long time ago. Perhaps we'll be pointing out the inconsistencies in the-earth-isn't-hollow-ism and alluding to the many allegedly respectable scientists who dare to disagree with the current orthodoxy.
The framing of the issue is where the devil is, in this case. Saying that modern geology is colored by the assumption that the same physical laws that are in effect now were also in effect in the past is true. But that's rather like saying that basketball is colored by the assumption that gravity is a thing that happens. There is no reason for anyone to believe that different physical laws were in place a few thousand years ago. Empirical observations do not suggest that was the case. Of course, the whole point is to cast doubt on empirical observations.
To frame it a different way, what good reason would someone have to believe that different physical laws used to apply a few thousand years ago? After all, a claim of that magnitude would have a hefty burden of evidence. It's not as if there are in fact huge holes in geological theory that would all be resolved in that case--on the contrary, it would cause no end of problems and render much of the field's theory and methodology incoherent. As far as I can tell, the only reason one would want to go back to a good old 18th century catastrophist model would be to accommodate modern geological science to a particular ancient flood myth that some people have decided to regard as if it were historical fact. Not a very compelling reason, all things considered.
And it's always that one flood myth. If it were the Norse flood myth, in which the blood of the slain Ymir covered the world and drowned the race of frost giants (except for the house of Bergelmir who escaped on a ship), then it wouldn't be any more scientific, but it would at least be more metal.
The framing of the issue is where the devil is, in this case. Saying that modern geology is colored by the assumption that the same physical laws that are in effect now were also in effect in the past is true. But that's rather like saying that basketball is colored by the assumption that gravity is a thing that happens. There is no reason for anyone to believe that different physical laws were in place a few thousand years ago. Empirical observations do not suggest that was the case. Of course, the whole point is to cast doubt on empirical observations.
To frame it a different way, what good reason would someone have to believe that different physical laws used to apply a few thousand years ago? After all, a claim of that magnitude would have a hefty burden of evidence. It's not as if there are in fact huge holes in geological theory that would all be resolved in that case--on the contrary, it would cause no end of problems and render much of the field's theory and methodology incoherent. As far as I can tell, the only reason one would want to go back to a good old 18th century catastrophist model would be to accommodate modern geological science to a particular ancient flood myth that some people have decided to regard as if it were historical fact. Not a very compelling reason, all things considered.
And it's always that one flood myth. If it were the Norse flood myth, in which the blood of the slain Ymir covered the world and drowned the race of frost giants (except for the house of Bergelmir who escaped on a ship), then it wouldn't be any more scientific, but it would at least be more metal.
outhouse
Atheistically
Yes fanaticism and fundamentalism rears its ugly head again
If I wasn't bored at work, I would not engage, I hate having them think there is still a debate to be had.
I'd vote for whenever that other planet smacked into the original and the moon formed from debris of it. Or, basically "when it achieved roughly its current mass & shape".
shawn001
Well-Known Member
You are making some general statements that are unfortunate, since things like Catastrophic Plate Techtonics are being considered currently by geologists on both sides of the scriptures. I'm not saying CPT is how the Flood occurred, but scientists, conservative and liberal, Christian and atheist, are thinking through the issues. No one at RF.com will believe you if you say all credible scientists are anti-Bible than they'd believe that most people are atheists.
You further are accusing me of lying--or implying I am. I just wrote "I use logic so much..." so why call me a liar? That's not fair.
Also, I will give you a date for the Flood if you give me a date for the Creation (or the Big Bang). There is no date for the Flood in the Bible, and I know, 'cause I've read the whole book! So at least we've established I'm a Bible expert and you're not.
We can do a date for the big bang. Look up age of thew universe and Planck Satellite.
There was no flood for a fact, many things prove that without any doubt.
I studied Plate tectonics and vulcanism and you can skip any "Catastrophic plate tectonics" hypothesis and the flood.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Theia and they believe it was about the size of Mars.
Darwins son
"The first moon-origin theory to gain a solid foothold was put forth in 1878. That year, George Howard Darwin, son of the famous evolutionist, proposed that Earth spun so rapidly in its early years that the sun's gravity eventually yanked off a chunk of an increasingly elongated Earth; that chunk became the moon."
He wasn't right however.
NOVA Online | To the Moon | Origins
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Yes, I've taught the Bible in schools from grade school through presentations at universities, sororities, etc. No, I don't have "faith and that's all". I have a relationship with the author of a book you are disdaining, and enough knowledge of science to understand the many anomalies and gaps in present theories and the theories that compete with them. Did you research catastrophic plate techtonics before launching on more insults against my knowledge or "blind faith"? Of course not. It's easier and lazier to hurl misleading, untrue statements like "NO REPUTABLE scientist believes the Bible is true". Nonsense.