God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[outhouse]

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.)

Means nothing what so ever. You flat refuse academia, and their findings, that makes you anti academic in so many areas its not funny.

You refuse most science, geology, dating methods, biblical history, Judaism, ect ect ect

The list of things you refuse is very very long.

 

[outhouse]

"I know scientists have the data right, just not some of their interpretations, when considering events deep in the past."

This is factual evidence of your anti academia.

 

[outhouse]

I do love the Bible also, yes

Then take a class and learn something about it.

You will find a literal interpretation is not supported by anyone with credibility of any kind.

 

[jonathan180iq]

With respect, and I mean that, your questions taken together form a circular argument.

What's circular about it?

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.

Exactly. It was first hypothesized to account for some gaps and then, upon testing the idea as best we can, there is data suggesting that it's more than simply hypothetical. It's certainly not purely driven on the basis of trying to prove an old solar system. The idea of a young solar system is nonsense based on basically every observation.

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"?

You're the one who made the claim, albeit via insinuation and omission, that these comets must have been enormous given their relative size now compared to their life-cycle. Why else would you have asked the question if not to try and make that claim? Here's the thing though. Unless you know exactly when an object left the outer system to join the inner solar system, and subsequently begin it's mass dissipation process, and unless you know what that loss rate of dissipation is, then you cannot make the insinuation that these objects must have been huge.... Do you see what I'm saying?

We know speed and trajectory. We can calculate for mass. We can combine all of that and ascertain the orbital period of pretty much anything within the Sun's sphere of influence. We know where these things are going and when they will come back around, given the known of the Sun's pull relative to mass and velocity of the objects surrounding them. Unless you have a number to fill for the variable of loss rate, then your formula for suggesting that these objects must have been enormous 15,000 orbits ago is just unsubstantiated. The data isn't there, at least that I know. So to make the suggestion that these objects must have insanely huge, and thus contradictory to old solar system perspectives, is amiss. You'll have to try a different approach.

 

[outhouse]

when considering events deep in the past."

That is the problem.

Your definition of deep in the past, is factually flawed.

Age of the earth by academia is considered fact.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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!

We don't know about the fossils yet because of obvious limitations with our instruments on the ground. There's certainly secondary evidence for biological life having been there. It's just a matter of having the tools to gather more data and to find it.

Regardless, however, the point is that the idea of geologic strata and layering being dispersed over short term periods doesn't hold up when you compare the study of the Earth with the study of other solar objects. Saying that there was a flood, but having no data in the strata, makes the flood claim bogus. Trying to work around that by saying that the strata were mixed up by the global flood, essentially hiding the evidence, doesn't hold up when compared to the fact that very similar geologic processes are obvious on all terrestrial surfaces... Trying to then work around that by saying that similar geologic processes shaped both planets undermines the first defense for the global flood... It's just a series of failed attempts at trying reconcile what is religious mythology with scientific data. It's a foolish endeavor. Why you're stuck on it I don't understand, as you seem intelligent enough to realize the folly of it.

Honestly, casting aside your affection for this particular religious text, what evidence is there for a global deluge; mental hoola-hooping aside.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Means nothing what so ever. You flat refuse academia, and their findings, that makes you anti academic in so many areas its not funny.

You refuse most science, geology, dating methods, biblical history, Judaism, ect ect ect

The list of things you refuse is very very long.

Why did you mention Judaism in your list? Are you an atheist? Are you Jewish?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What's circular about it?



Exactly. It was first hypothesized to account for some gaps and then, upon testing the idea as best we can, there is data suggesting that it's more than simply hypothetical. It's certainly not purely driven on the basis of trying to prove an old solar system. The idea of a young solar system is nonsense based on basically every observation.



You're the one who made the claim, albeit via insinuation and omission, that these comets must have been enormous given their relative size now compared to their life-cycle. Why else would you have asked the question if not to try and make that claim? Here's the thing though. Unless you know exactly when an object left the outer system to join the inner solar system, and subsequently begin it's mass dissipation process, and unless you know what that loss rate of dissipation is, then you cannot make the insinuation that these objects must have been huge.... Do you see what I'm saying?

We know speed and trajectory. We can calculate for mass. We can combine all of that and ascertain the orbital period of pretty much anything within the Sun's sphere of influence. We know where these things are going and when they will come back around, given the known of the Sun's pull relative to mass and velocity of the objects surrounding them. Unless you have a number to fill for the variable of loss rate, then your formula for suggesting that these objects must have been enormous 15,000 orbits ago is just unsubstantiated. The data isn't there, at least that I know. So to make the suggestion that these objects must have insanely huge, and thus contradictory to old solar system perspectives, is amiss. You'll have to try a different approach.

Please share with us in lay terms some of the data that suggests it's more than simply hypothetical.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is the problem.

Your definition of deep in the past, is factually flawed.

Age of the earth by academia is considered fact.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Have I said the Earth is younger than 4.5B years since joining these forums a while ago? We are discussing Noah's Flood and now, the age of comets within our solar system. However, in no way have I suggested that comets teach us the Earth is 6,000 years old or whatever you think I'm thinking. Please ask me in the future rather then setup straw man arguments.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Have I said the Earth is younger than 4.5B years since joining these forums a while ago? We are discussing Noah's Flood and now, the age of comets within our solar system. However, in no way have I suggested that comets teach us the Earth is 6,000 years old or whatever you think I'm thinking. Please ask me in the future rather then setup straw man arguments.

What is your argument then?

As far as the flood goes there would be massive evidences of a flood which there are none. The grand Canyon which is often hoisted as an example of evidence of a global flood fails to provide reason why it is the only one of its kind in the whole world. Had there been a global flood we would see canyons like this all around the world.

And there really isn't a problem with Comets. What is the issue especially if you don't consider them to be evidence of a young earth.

 

[outhouse]

Why did you mention Judaism in your list? Are you an atheist? Are you Jewish?

Because you refuse how Judaism tells you haw to read and interpret their books.

In favor of some literal faith based interpretation with no credible backing.

 

[outhouse]

We are discussing Noah's Flood

That's the problem, your following flood mythology as if there was a global flood. There was no such flood.


Had their been a global flood, we would have an exact date down to the exact year it took place. We don't because it factually did not happen as written.


And by placing your faith in this mythology, you factually denounce academia in many different places. Geology, Paleontology, cultural anthropology, Biology, evolution, physics and chemistry.

The amount of academia you refuse is literally appalling.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Doesn't matter. It exists. And we have evidence that it exists. Disappointing size has nothing to do with if it exists or not. How can we know it's size is utterly disappointing unless we know? In other words, you're wrong when you're saying the Kuiper belt is just hypothetical. Your own words confirms its existence.

Put it this way. Does bacon flavored beer exist? Yes, it does. It's not in any means amazing. And most of them don't have much or any taste of bacon. But they do exist anyway, even if they're disappointing. So disappointment has nothing to do with its existence.

Just admit that the Kuiper belt exists, and we can move on. Stop claiming that it's just hypothetical. The Oort cloud is hypothetical, yes, but not the Kuiper belt. (This is the third of fourth post where I have to explain this. Can't you just admit that I'm right?)

 

[gnostic]

That's not what I'm implying. I'm saying that the Flood wiped out all civilization that came before it, leaving a clean slate for new history.

If that was "true", then new civilisation (after the flood) would be different to the civilisation (and their culture) before the flood, wouldn't you say?

And yet, if the flood occur in Egypt as well as other part of the world, at some point in time of second half of 3rd millennium BCE, then you have different Egyptian culture.

Like I said previously in older replies, though the bible don't provide dates, it (the bible from Genesis to the end of 2 Kings) does supply the number of years in generations or the number of years between certain events (like 2 Kings 6:1, between exodus out of Egypt and 4th year of Solomon's reign), in which it is possible to calculate the estimated dates from the time of destruction of Solomon's temple and Jerusalem in 587 BCE.

I am not saying that a REAL GLOBAL FLOOD happened, because it didn't, but the OT bible does supply years in which we can work with. The date from Adam (his creation) to flood is 1656 AM, according any Masoretic-based text, and this turn about to be 2268 BCE, according to my calculations.

There have no been change in culture after 2268 BCE from before 2268 BCE, in Egypt, or from that of Sumerian-Akkadian civilisation or further east, in China. That mean the flood didn't occur.

A flood of that magnitude - a global - "destroying all civilisations", as you said, would have changed the world. The new world world - the new civilisations - should be different than the old world.

And yet, I n Egypt, they still have the same type writing systems (hieroglyphs and hieratic), same styles of art works, and still building same tombs for their rulers (pyramids). How is that even possible?

Also the Tower of Babel supposedly happened during Abram's time, when only one language existed before tower building, since the creation of Adam. And yet Old Egyptian spoken around the 2nd half of 3rd millennium BCE is different from that Sumerian and the Semitic Akkadian in Mesopotamia. This make the one language spoken before Genesis' Tower of Babel as mythological as that of Creation of Adam and Noah's Flood.

The Global Flood didn't happen.

 

[gnostic]

Why would buried dwellings that are thousands of years old disprove an ancient Flood? Did I give a date for Noah's Flood that you are aware of?

Comets demonstrate a young solar system in that with each pass around the Sun they lose mass. I'm sure you are familiar with young comet theory and that the conjectural, yet-to-be-proven Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt support older comet theory. The first sentence on Wikipedia re: the Oort Cloud, which is an accurate sentence, says in part:

"The Oort Cloud... is a theoretical spherical cloud..."

Why a theoretical cloud? To support the older solar system view of older comets. Period.

Are you serious?

There are no doubt that Kuiper Belt existing. There are literally thousands of objects in the Kuiper Belt, including that of Pluto and Charon (Pluto's satellite), Eris, Makemake and Haumea.

The Oort Cloud may be hypothetical, but the Kuiper Belt is not.

 

[David M]

As far as the flood goes there would be massive evidences of a flood which there are none. The grand Canyon which is often hoisted as an example of evidence of a global flood fails to provide reason why it is the only one of its kind in the whole world. Had there been a global flood we would see canyons like this all around the world.

The Grand Canyon provides ample evidence that it's deposits were not formed by a Global Flood. The presence of layers that were not formed underwater and erosion at layer boundaries show that it was rock before the channel was eroded, as do the incised meanders which show that its path was cut through hard rock and not recent flood deposit.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The Grand Canyon provides ample evidence that it's deposits were not formed by a Global Flood. The presence of layers that were not formed underwater and erosion at layer boundaries show that it was rock before the channel was eroded, as do the incised meanders which show that its path was cut through hard rock and not recent flood deposit.

There are about fifty different angles to attack this so I tried a new one.

 

[jtartar]

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?

Salvador,
If you are truly a truth seeker, please, at least give consideration to my words.
The Bible is Univocal, meaning it tells only one story. Every scripture is related to every other scripture, Intertextualism, so every scriptures is Like a brush stroke of a master artist, it is a Magnum Opus, a masterpiece.
If you are a Christian you MUST believe what the Bible says, and not what some person says it says.
Consider the first two scriptures of Genesis.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then verse 2 starts telling about the process the earth went through to make it ready for mankind.
The time between the actual creation of the heavens and the earth and the time of preparing the earth are of different time periods. To many this is called, The Gap Theory. There can be billions of years that went by between the first and second verses of Genesis.
The Bible, being actually written by God, is above all other books, sententious, meaning filled with knowledge and wisdom.
First, notice the first verse, where it says, In THE beginning. The word the is usually meant to mean the very first of something,creation, in this context, but the actual word was A, In A beginning. When translating, often times, for continuity, the word the is used, and not to mean the very first of something. This is the case here. The beginning mentioned here was of the material universe, and not in the real beginning of God's creation in the universe.
The actual beginning of God's creating was the creation of Jesus, God's only begotten son, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14.
We understand this because The Bible tells us that EVERYTHING was created THROUGH Jesus and FOR Jesus, Col 1:16,17, Heb 1:2, John 1:3. Jesus is The WORD, John 1:1,14, Rev 19:13.
A very good point to remember is, Do not try to Dope Out answers by reasoning in your own mind. Trust in God's word, Prov 3:5,6, Ps 146:3,4, Gen 40:8, Jere 17:5-7. When you have all the scriptures that touch on a subject, you will be able to understand that subject.
Now concerning people that have lived on earth, the Bible says that Eve would become the mother of everyone living. This leaves out the possibility of someone living before Adam and Eve, Gen 3:20.
Concerning the SOUL. Contemplate what is actually said at Gen 2:7. Notice that Adam BECAME a living soul, he was not given a soul. By God forming him from the dust of the ground and blowing into him the breath of life, Adam became a living soul. The soul is definitely not immortal, Ezekiel 18:4,20, Ecc 3:18-20, 9:5,6,10.
As for the age of the earth.
Many times people want to believe something, or they truly believe something and they believe that the Bible says what they believe. If science has proven that what they believe is not true, they still want to hang onto this belief. This is called, Doctrinaireism, or Dogmatism. This makes religious people seem silly, because the facts have been proven by science. True science agrees exactly with the Bible!!?
Science believes that the Universe is 13 to 15 billions of years old and science can very well prove that the earth is around 4billion years old. Nothing written in the Bible disagrees with this. The Bible does not record dates of creation, so the dates science has put on it could very well be true.

 

[`mud]

And another version is exposed !
~
'mud

 

[BilliardsBall]

What is your argument then?

As far as the flood goes there would be massive evidences of a flood which there are none. The grand Canyon which is often hoisted as an example of evidence of a global flood fails to provide reason why it is the only one of its kind in the whole world. Had there been a global flood we would see canyons like this all around the world.

And there really isn't a problem with Comets. What is the issue especially if you don't consider them to be evidence of a young earth.

If you feel the Grand Canyon wasn't Flood created, you've raised your own issue--how then can it also be unique?