BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Yes, you are right. The recent Noah movie was drawn in large part from Gnostic source texts.
-
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
Yes, you are right. The recent Noah movie was drawn in large part from Gnostic source texts.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
And of the thousands of remains found from that time period. not a single one was as described by your book. Its almost as if it was 100% mythology.
I already mentioned that large tombs and burial locations are available if you'd like to look into the matter.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Why would anybody be open to the possibility that mythology is real? Bias? or does knowledge make it perfectly clear these ancient people wrote using myth.
Are you asking me or making a rhetorical post about my worldview? If a rhetorical post, there is neither a good point to be had in insulting my intelligence nor in assuming the text is mythology, unless you shore up your mind and do what I've done (several times) in assuming the text IS mythology and then CHECKING CAREFULLY. Salvation is in those pages!
outhouse
Atheistically
None of which have anything o do with the flood mythology
outhouse
Atheistically
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
One thing... don't mix the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud. Two different things.
Oort cloud is only hypothetical. That's true, but the Kuiper belt is known, because we've identified over a thousand KBOs.
And one sentence about Kuiper belt: "Since it was discovered in 1992,[6] the number of known Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) has increased to over a thousand".
Also on Wikipedia: "The Kuiper belt should not be confused with the hypothesized Oort cloud".
Again, yes, Oort cloud is hypothetical. The Kuiper belt is not. They're not the same thing. And they're not located at the same distance from the sun. And the Kuiper belt is not hypothetical, but is known to exist.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
The buried dwellings are just one part of the nail in the coffin for the idea of a literal Biblical deluge. We know the story of human origins. We know when we first appeared. We know how long we've been building houses and using tools. From our emergence onward, there is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. Bones are found where they are expected to be found. Homes and other structures are found where they are expected to be found (stand upright, mind you, and not completely washed away under a 6 mile high wall of water...) and tools and pottery are found along with those other finds. If there was such a catastrophic cataclysm, as you claim, there would be evidence supporting it.
No evidence. No flood.
You have yet to give a date, but you're making the claim that it actually happened. You don't have to give a date in order to still carry the burden or proof to show that it happened. As there is no evidence for it, on what grounds are you making that claim?
Since comets and asteroids are constantly passing around the sun, seeing as how they are in orbit around it, how much mass do you think they lose annually? I'll refer again to 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, which shows obvious erosion and wear patterns caused by lighter and softer materials on its surface being either melted away or blown off by solar activity... 67P completes a full orbit every 6.5 years, roughly. Are you going to claim that all of it's erosion have happened within just 1,000 67P orbits?
Is young comet theory the same as young grand canyon theory? Or young moon dust theory?
I've already given a very valid example of a Kuiper Belt object. You should probably stop claiming that it's only theoretical.
Is that quote most accurate just because the existence of the Oort cloud would tarnish your preconceived ideas about science, or because it would upset certain aspects of your theology?
I'll go ahead and explain it to you so you can stop these silly arguments and save yourself some embarrassment in the future.
Any object in our solar system with an orbital period longer than Pluto's has to, by definition, extend further out than Pluto. Pluto sits roughly 30-50 astronomical units away at any given time. By comparison, the Earth is basically 1 AU, since we use ourselves as the standard. Now, again, let's take Pluto's orbital period, which is almost 250 years, and compare that something like Hyakutake, which has an orbital period of 17,000 years. Now, there can be variables in things like relative velocity of an object and what have you, but are you going to make the argument that Hyakutake somehow orbits the Sun every 17,000 only because it's very very slow? What about Hale-Bop? Halo-Bop orbits every 2,500 years. Is it a super close solar object that just moves really slowly?
Not only that, but we've witnessed Kupier Belts and discs existing around other stars so we absolutely know that they are possible.
Kuiper Belt-Like Disks Around Two Nearby Stars
If you'd like to challenge the science behind any of this, please remember that the same science used to calculate these objects size, and their orbits, and their predicted locations throughout the solar system are exactly the same as those used to calculate when and where other solar objects are going to be at any given time. We know that the science works because we can send a spacecraft from Earth 10 years ahead of time and land on these freaking things!
I've already shown you 67P...
Here's Vesta
And Ceres
The Dawn orbiter was launched in 2007 and successfully achieved orbit around both objects over the course of the next 7 years.
Also, just released a couple of days ago, New Horizons is only a couple of months away from it's historic fly-by of Pluto.
New Horizons launched in Jan. 2006. It's obviously headed to the right place...
Again, the same science that predicts the Oort Cloud, and the trajectories of these solar objects, is used to help us get our spacecraft to these closer objects. The fact that it took 7 years of travel at nearly 40,000 MPH constant velocity just to be able to get some pictures of Pluto should tell you all you need to know about why it's difficult to directly observe the Oort cloud.
Right, so it's all a big conspiracy that isn't at all supported by the evidence and data... C'mon, man...
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
How can I mix up the Belt and the Cloud? I mentioned them both to begin. But Google something like, not sure of the exact words you should search, perhaps "Kuiper Belt has only a fraction of the objects it needs for an old solar system/old comets"...
...and... are you are all bothered that there's a gigantic, I mean big, hypothetical entity out there to prop up the assumptions about the solar system? Shouldn't the Wikipedia page say "Oort Cloud THEORY"?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The buried dwellings are just one part of the nail in the coffin for the idea of a literal Biblical deluge. We know the story of human origins. We know when we first appeared. We know how long we've been building houses and using tools. From our emergence onward, there is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. Bones are found where they are expected to be found. Homes and other structures are found where they are expected to be found (stand upright, mind you, and not completely washed away under a 6 mile high wall of water...) and tools and pottery are found along with those other finds. If there was such a catastrophic cataclysm, as you claim, there would be evidence supporting it.
No evidence. No flood.
You have yet to give a date, but you're making the claim that it actually happened. You don't have to give a date in order to still carry the burden or proof to show that it happened. As there is no evidence for it, on what grounds are you making that claim?
Since comets and asteroids are constantly passing around the sun, seeing as how they are in orbit around it, how much mass do you think they lose annually? I'll refer again to 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, which shows obvious erosion and wear patterns caused by lighter and softer materials on its surface being either melted away or blown off by solar activity... 67P completes a full orbit every 6.5 years, roughly. Are you going to claim that all of it's erosion have happened within just 1,000 67P orbits?
Is young comet theory the same as young grand canyon theory? Or young moon dust theory?
I've already given a very valid example of a Kuiper Belt object. You should probably stop claiming that it's only theoretical.
Is that quote most accurate just because the existence of the Oort cloud would tarnish your preconceived ideas about science, or because it would upset certain aspects of your theology?
I'll go ahead and explain it to you so you can stop these silly arguments and save yourself some embarrassment in the future.
Any object in our solar system with an orbital period longer than Pluto's has to, by definition, extend further out than Pluto. Pluto sits roughly 30-50 astronomical units away at any given time. By comparison, the Earth is basically 1 AU, since we use ourselves as the standard. Now, again, let's take Pluto's orbital period, which is almost 250 years, and compare that something like Hyakutake, which has an orbital period of 17,000 years. Now, there can be variables in things like relative velocity of an object and what have you, but are you going to make the argument that Hyakutake somehow orbits the Sun every 17,000 only because it's very very slow? What about Hale-Bop? Halo-Bop orbits every 2,500 years. Is it a super close solar object that just moves really slowly?
Not only that, but we've witnessed Kupier Belts and discs existing around other stars so we absolutely know that they are possible.
Kuiper Belt-Like Disks Around Two Nearby Stars
If you'd like to challenge the science behind any of this, please remember that the same science used to calculate these objects size, and their orbits, and their predicted locations throughout the solar system are exactly the same as those used to calculate when and where other solar objects are going to be at any given time. We know that the science works because we can send a spacecraft from Earth 10 years ahead of time and land on these freaking things!
I've already shown you 67P...
Here's Vesta
And Ceres
The Dawn orbiter was launched in 2007 and successfully achieved orbit around both objects over the course of the next 7 years.
Also, just released a couple of days ago, New Horizons is only a couple of months away from it's historic fly-by of Pluto.
New Horizons launched in Jan. 2006. It's obviously headed to the right place...
Again, the same science that predicts the Oort Cloud, and the trajectories of these solar objects, is used to help us get our spacecraft to these closer objects. The fact that it took 7 years of travel at nearly 40,000 MPH constant velocity just to be able to get some pictures of Pluto should tell you all you need to know about why it's difficult to directly observe the Oort cloud.
Right, so it's all a big conspiracy that isn't at all supported by the evidence and data... C'mon, man...
I never said it was a big conspiracy. I'm saying that winds blow through science and against tenure and grant money and... but we both know that.
I'm also saying that I think through and continue to think through the data. Have you accounted for the age of the sun and its size and etc? Are you saying a long-period comet like Hyakutake, because it's no Halley's comet, only passes by every 17,000 years, so that in say, a billion years only, it has passed the Sun "only" 58,823 times and therefore must have been the size of... you tell me... on the first pass!
Think about it, please!
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
What I'm saying is that you're suggesting that both Kuiper belt and Oort cloud are hypothetical. They're not. The Oort cloud is hypothetical. The Kuiper belt is not hypothetical. You keep on talking about both as if they're both hypothetical. But, again, the Kuiper belt is *NOT* hypothetical, but real since we have found it!
outhouse
Atheistically
Yet your only showing examples of the opposite, your avoiding evidence and facts in favor of theology and mythology.
Everything you posit is anti academic
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Photo of the first discovered Kuiper belt object in 1992:
Nice and short read about the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud: Edge of the Solar System
Nice and short read about the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud: Edge of the Solar System
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
First, suggesting that the Oort Cloud is an invention simply to validate the belief that comets are old is, by definition a conspiracy theory. What, did all of the scientists get together and come up with the data in attempts to undermine one version of a monotheistic creation mythology??
Second, if you're going to ask me to estimate original size, you'll have to first give me the loss rate of comet mass. Also, tell me where you got your loss rate data from so I can validate it.
Unless you have a standardized (or at the very least some data representing an average) loss rate, what you're asking me to do is impossible. Likewise, what you're claiming is based on nonsense unless you have a loss rate
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Sure you are.
No amount of evidence will change your mind, no matter how factual the evidence is, or how well understood or accepted in academia. You will retain your faith.
As to where we will change our minds depending on what the evidence posits.
David M
Well-Known Member
No it can't. There is no way that a single cataclysmic global flood could produce what is seen in the fossil record unless you invoke magic. A single flood can't even explain the sedimentary deposits we see.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
If the geologic layers, and staggering of fossils within those layers, were supposedly formed by a global deluge that consisted of walls of water 6 miles high, then I'd like to ask why very similar layers are found on Mars...
Again, the same principles in geologic science on Earth seem to be functioning properly on the other planets as well. That would indicate to me that we know what we are doing.
EARTH
MARS
Again, the same principles in geologic science on Earth seem to be functioning properly on the other planets as well. That would indicate to me that we know what we are doing.
EARTH
MARS
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The Kuiper Belt is today taken anywhere between "disappointing in the scope of its objects" to "utterly disappointing" in that it contains a fraction of a fraction of what we might expect were meeting comet generator demands placed upon it by an older solar system.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
With respect, and I mean that, your questions taken together form a circular argument.
The Oort Cloud was absolutely suggested to account for the gaps in comet cosmology. That doesn't mean it's some Satanic conspiracy. It was prompted by the gaps in comet cosmology and not an anti-Bible sentiment.
And unless you have a standardized loss rate, what you're asking me to believe is impossible or at least unreasonable. If you were unaware of both loss rate (estimated) for average comets and why the Oort Cloud was conjectured, what are you accusing me of doing, exactly when I make simple statements like "How big do you think that sucker was before it circled the sun 15,000 times, burning off (some) each time"?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
If the geologic layers, and staggering of fossils within those layers, were supposedly formed by a global deluge that consisted of walls of water 6 miles high, then I'd like to ask why very similar layers are found on Mars...
Again, the same principles in geologic science on Earth seem to be functioning properly on the other planets as well. That would indicate to me that we know what we are doing.
EARTH
MARS
I would think similarities include (possibly) catastrophic volcanism, earthquakes, impacts from meteorites, plate techtonics, water evaporation, etc. Mars has a different mass and gravity than Earth.
I'm going to have an issue with your reasoning, however, if you tell me there are strata of fossils on Mars!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I'm the least anti-academic person I know. I still work in the university I matriculated at over 25 years ago, and I have two college degrees. My father was a teacher, my father-in-law was as well, and I teach a wide variety of subjects to classes and individuals for both pay and free of cost. I witness mostly on college campuses--there lies the future of this world! (And I'm typing this post while at the PC in my office on the university campus.)
I am entitled, however, to make statements like "I know scientists have the data right, just not some of their interpretations, when considering events deep in the past."
I do love the Bible also, yes, and the Bible itself represents a solid volume of data from a diverse range of passionate, principled authors.
But if you continue to make one- and two-sentence accusations about my mind and heart without using facts or reasoning, only attacks... I will cease to respond directly to you when posting. Please reconsider your manner and address me as if I'm not a cartoon character or closed minded.