God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[David M]

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.

Strange that all the people alive at the time don't seem to have noticed this. Human civilisations made it through that period without being destroyed.

 

[David M]

Yes, I do believe that sub-humans/(soulless-apes) did exist in the old Earth before the first human souls were created in Adam and Eve by God 6,000 years ago. I'm not aware of any civilizations with written texts or human languages that are believed to have existed earlier than 4,000 years before Christ.

The first agricultural societies that have been identified date back about 12,000 years (e.g.Tell Abu Hureyra). Organised society needs language.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No selection bias is taking specific data in order to fulfill a bias. So the bias would be the Biblical Flood is historic. One supporting this idea takes "flood stories" from other cultures as evidence. They use only selective data to support the case. Selective data would be the event, a flood. So due to there being other floods one puts forward these stories correlate with the Biblical one. However these stories also contain other details such as in Chinese flood stories in which the flood was ended by man not a god and never become global. One omits this data in order to meet their bias. The details do not matter, the narratives do not matter, the outcome of the story does not matter. The only thing that matters is that a flood happened. So while there are hundreds of flood stories most do not share any similarity to the Biblical one once the details are examined. As with the Epic of Gilgamesh the narratives details show a pattern of writing which is also in the Biblical story. The details show the story was lifted from Babylon/Sumeria and placed into the Biblical one due to the details rather than focusing on the ambiguous term of a flood. Minor details are changed such as the people, the scale of the event but the narrative remains the same in form. The epic matches a logical scenario as it limits the scale of the event. It does not put forward a complete destruction of humanity down to 8 people. This makes the story more plausible since it does not make absurd leaps in the narrative which has drastic implications in reality, such as there being only 8 people alive.

A non-flood example is "Ancient Aliens" theory. The presupposition is that humans were not capable of building various structures around the world; temples, pyramids, etc. To give this idea more credibility those that support the idea look for any text mentioning spirits, gods, angels, etc, from the sky. These texts are retrofitted into the theory thus these entities become aliens. They ignore the details and focus on entities from the sky coming to down to Earth. Every other detail is dismissed. Thus aliens did it. Supporters only select data which supports their view. Every piece of data that does not is omitted on purpose. Thus selection bias.

Bad examples. Ancient aliens theory revolves around the pyramids in large part, proof of ancient Egyptian slave labor. But we're not talking here about ancient aliens, which you believe in if you ascribe credence to any space seed evolutionary theory. We're talking about the near-universal myth among all ancient cultures of a flood for judgment, a few saved in a boat. An astonishing number of cultures have this mythos/origin story.

Also, I'll believe you if you tell me you have no anti-Bible selection bias that you employ in this discussion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your only providing what most claim as mythology. That goes directly against history, archeology, and geology.

I would ask why do you hate credible education and knowledge taught in every university around the world as fact?


Please show me where I have been rude so I can work on that. have you thought maybe you have a problem dealing with the truth the rest of the world lives by?

I don't hate knowledge, I adore it. I don't hate scientists, I recognize uniformitarian biases where they conflict with both scripture and the data. I'd say "the Bible talks of a worldwide Flood and the geologic data agrees that..."

Also, reputable scientists on both sides of the Bible are carefully looking at things like catastrophes and sudden plate techtonics. It's not all scientists who say, "case closed!" and I hope not you either, on most any subject!

 

[Shad]

Bad examples. Ancient aliens theory revolves around the pyramids in large part, proof of ancient Egyptian slave labor. But we're not talking here about ancient aliens, which you believe in if you ascribe credence to any space seed evolutionary theory. We're talking about the near-universal myth among all ancient cultures of a flood for judgment, a few saved in a boat. An astonishing number of cultures have this mythos/origin story.

Also, I'll believe you if you tell me you have no anti-Bible selection bias that you employ in this discussion.

No the example in spot on. AA theories have the presupposition that Humans are incapable of building these structures. So AA supports conclude it must be aliens so search for any data they can pigeon hole into "aliens". Space seed theory is not the same as AA. One is about evolution, the other is about construction. You do not even know what the basis for either idea is thus equivocate between the two. It is the presuppositions which are the point of the examples. They hold a prior view and make data fit this view. This is no more than religions presupposition which people take as fact thus fit the data to match the story.

Again the stories within each culture is different. You take taking a flood event and think it must be about your favorite story. You selectively find data to support your view. If you spent more than 5 minutes in researching your argument you would find each story has different details, different outcomes, different people, etc. Like Chinese flood myths as talked about. These stories are not global, these stories did not involve destruction of humanity to the point of almost being extinct. The flood was stopped. Also you must account for how inbreeding didn't lead to our extinction. Also you must account for the fact that geology holds not such ideas as a global flood. Most of these cultures with a similar narrative as the Bible are around the same region. This shows that the story was rehashed, assimilated, adapted and rewritten for certain populations. You seem to ignore this fact yet archaeology does not. It concluded decades ago that the Biblical story was plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh. You ignore these problems with your argument as your are more concerned about holding to your ideology and bias than facts and history

 

[Shad]

I don't hate knowledge, I adore it. I don't hate scientists, I recognize uniformitarian biases where they conflict with both scripture and the data. I'd say "the Bible talks of a worldwide Flood and the geologic data agrees that..."

Also, reputable scientists on both sides of the Bible are carefully looking at things like catastrophes and sudden plate techtonics. It's not all scientists who say, "case closed!" and I hope not you either, on most any subject!

You just provided evidence of your bias. If something does not match your scripture it must be wrong.

 

[outhouse]

I don't hate knowledge

Sure you do.

All credible knowledge goes against your opinion.

. I'd say "the Bible talks of a worldwide Flood and the geologic data agrees that..."

You can say what ever you want.

But only by apologist perverting evidence can you make that claim.

The geological evidence points against a flood as you describe.

If you cannot provide an exact date for your flood, then it did not happen. A geologic event as described would leave exact date down to the month and year.

So no date NO FLOOD.

 

[outhouse]

Also, reputable scientists on both sides of the Bible are carefully looking at things like catastrophes and sudden plate techtonics

This simply is not true.

Its why you only have opinion, and can never supply credible sources.

It's not all scientists who say, "case closed!"

Its all credible scientist.


You can always find biased apologetic scientist with a bible in one had trying force reality and the bible together. They don't carry any credibility though.


Provide and exact date, or no flood.

 

[outhouse]

Ancient aliens theory revolves around the pyramids in large part, proof of ancient Egyptian slave labor

Bringing AA into the debate is the same mistake as bringing the bible into a science or history call for a source book. It factually is not a credible source for either.

They did not have slave labor for the most part. They had been taken well care of and well paid and were given fancy burials.

They did have some slaves, we don't need proof we know all about it.

 

[outhouse]

Prehistoric crocodile discovered in Chatham County

Where are scientist wrong about his past species????

 

[BilliardsBall]

No the example in spot on. AA theories have the presupposition that Humans are incapable of building these structures. So AA supports conclude it must be aliens so search for any data they can pigeon hole into "aliens". Space seed theory is not the same as AA. One is about evolution, the other is about construction. You do not even know what the basis for either idea is thus equivocate between the two. It is the presuppositions which are the point of the examples. They hold a prior view and make data fit this view. This is no more than religions presupposition which people take as fact thus fit the data to match the story.

Again the stories within each culture is different. You take taking a flood event and think it must be about your favorite story. You selectively find data to support your view. If you spent more than 5 minutes in researching your argument you would find each story has different details, different outcomes, different people, etc. Like Chinese flood myths as talked about. These stories are not global, these stories did not involve destruction of humanity to the point of almost being extinct. The flood was stopped. Also you must account for how inbreeding didn't lead to our extinction. Also you must account for the fact that geology holds not such ideas as a global flood. Most of these cultures with a similar narrative as the Bible are around the same region. This shows that the story was rehashed, assimilated, adapted and rewritten for certain populations. You seem to ignore this fact yet archaeology does not. It concluded decades ago that the Biblical story was plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh. You ignore these problems with your argument as your are more concerned about holding to your ideology and bias than facts and history

Are you being serious or spurious? It's hard to tell. 150 (?) ancient peoples have a FLOOD story. Please recount to us all the variants on Floods in all the ancient creation/judgment stories of the ancient world. Tell us the many ancient earthquake and space alien myths, for example. It's not a bias, it's more like "Holy cow! The Bible is for real!"

 

[BilliardsBall]

You just provided evidence of your bias. If something does not match your scripture it must be wrong.

Of course I have a bias. EVERYONE has biases. EVERYONE, even judges and jurists. But your question and its tone reveal that yours is an anti-Bible bias. Not good.

 

[outhouse]

The Bible is for real!"

Yes it is real. It is a theology book written with mythology as a fact.

It factually is not a credible history or science book.

 

[outhouse]

Of course I have a bias

The problem is your bias goes against all credible education and knowledge by the worlds brightest minds.

Not one credible university teaches your opinion, they teach the exact opposite.

 

[outhouse]

ancient peoples have a FLOOD story

No, they have flood myths.

Because it floods every year on this planet in many different forms. Many state regional floods were massive floods.

YOU need to prove these floods all come from the same time period, and you refuse to do anything credible here.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The issue of exactly what is a "soul" and whether it actually even exists is quite contentious both theologically and scientifically. But one thing is quite apparent and that is that intelligence evolved quite gradually but not uniformly. There simply is no reason to suspect that a "soul" had anything to do with it, although there's also no way it could be disproven either.

There is no evidence that intelligence has increased over recorded history, it seems that there is no evidence that it has increased since the stone age either. What has increased is knowledge.

 

[Shad]

Of course I have a bias. EVERYONE has biases. EVERYONE, even judges and jurists. But your question and its tone reveal that yours is an anti-Bible bias. Not good.

Not anti-Bible. I am just pointing out that your ideological bias has forced you to reject anything that contradicts your ideology.

 

[outhouse]

Not anti-Bible. I am just pointing out that your ideological bias has forced you to reject anything that contradicts your ideology.

Which is also defined as Fanaticism

 

[Looncall]

Are you being serious or spurious? It's hard to tell. 150 (?) ancient peoples have a FLOOD story. Please recount to us all the variants on Floods in all the ancient creation/judgment stories of the ancient world. Tell us the many ancient earthquake and space alien myths, for example. It's not a bias, it's more like "Holy cow! The Bible is for real!"

Ho-hum, this again. A flood such as the one described, at the supposed time, would leave clear traces. None such are found. Ergo, Noah's flood never happened. No amount of collecting old campfire tales can contradict this.

 

[outhouse]

Ho-hum, this again. A flood such as the one described, at the supposed time, would leave clear traces. None such are found. Ergo, Noah's flood never happened. No amount of collecting old campfire tales can contradict this.

Yep, no exact date, no flood ever happened.