leibowde84
Veteran Member
Ok. Why would that support your argument. We evolved from primitive primates. It wasn't like all of a sudden one primitive primate had a human child. Now that would be nuts.
-
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
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Of course there was a deception - you said that fresh squid ink was found in a fossil, but the article you gave as a citation said that the ink was not fresh, it had to be ground up and mixed with ammonia. Then you use that deception to argue for the Noah Story being factual. How can people believe you?
So what? The earth was not smooth as a billiard ball in the Noah story, the world described in that story has mountains. You know that, you know that the story even refers specifically to mountains (like Mt Ararat) and so why argue for a billiard ball earth, when that contradicts the story you are trying to defend?
To learn.
Last edited:
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
I've given up on my argument a long time ago that God recreated the Earth 6,000 years ago to make way for the first human souls such as Adam and Eve.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Besides the mountainous geological evidence or archaeological evidence against a world-wide flood having happened anytime in human history, there is ample genetic evidence that every generation of humans have had at least 10,000 people. Proof That Quranic/Biblical Adam Did Not Exist | ReligiousForums.com
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
??
"Don't you dare partially agree with me!"
It takes some very specific circumstances for fossilization to occur, but nothing extraordinary. Most things that died in water are fossilized, so long as the current wasn't moving too fast and the sediment isn't too porous. It can happen anywhere that mud-slides are common. I have a ridge behind my mother's farm that rises from 600-1200 feet in less than half a mile. The majority of those layers are shale and mudstone. They're mostly Ordovician layers, preceded by Cambrian layers down below the rise of the ridge. Did I see those layers form? Nope. But I don't have to have seen them because the evidence for them is laid out, plain as day.
The only thing required for millions of fossils to be found in any number of strange positions is regular erosion and understood natural processes over very long periods of time. There's nothing else needed. There is no need to invoke God-caused mayhem in order to explain very normal phenomenon.
See my previous response...
Are you going to tell me that these layers were laid down in 40 days?
Joggins, Nova Scotia
Or what about this Angular Uncomformity?
The first set of layers had to be laid down vertically, which takes thousands to millions of years. Then, that entire base layer was shifted over in some geologic event. Then, the new layers formed on top of the tilted layers, which again took thousands to millions of years... And this is just a weak example. There are others that simply cannot have happened in less than 10 million years.
The Blue Ridge Mountains behind me contain rock that's almost a billion and a half years old, for crying out loud... It's some of the oldest rock in the world, having been pushed up prior to the complete closure of Pangea. Heck, even those slate layers I was talking about earlier (the several thousand layers of red stone) are laid over on their side today. For hundreds of feet, simply walking in a straight line means I'm passing millions of years worth of geologic time. I don't have to climb that mountain because the entire range has been laid over towards the west. The Appalachians, which once rivaled the scale of the Himalayas, are little more than big lush green bumps on the surface of the continent today.
Yet you're arguing that everything that we see in the geologic record was laid down in a few days because an angry god decided to kill everything and start fresh?....Really?
Essentially, you're asserting the hypothesis that all overturned folds are a result of the Genesis Deluge, among other things.
If what you say is true true, then why can you find overturned folds under other overturned folds?
Why aren't there fossils continuously found out of place?
If there had to be a billiards ball type surface to the Earth in order for the flood to take place, how to reconcile the fact that there is no evidence that the Earth was ever like that?
If geologic understanding is so incredibly flawed, then why does it accurately play out on other planets and moons in the Solar System?
Why is there no evidence that there's enough water to have ever covered all of the Earth's surfaces at once?
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
And education and knowledge.
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?
Did 'God' recreate it 6000 years ago...
...that is, the original source-creator...
...or a lesser 'god'? A Demiurge, perhaps?
The 6th iteration of the World-Matrix?
The 'One' comes every thousand years.
Phillip K. Dick describes the Biblical creation---
---"at some past time-point, a variable was changed, re-programmed as it were, and that because of this an alternative world branched off."
Just a thought experiment.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I am. Always... except when I'm not, 'cause then I ain't.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
1. I apologize for using hyperbole. You are right. I shouldn't have said "fresh ink".
2. I don't believe Noah wrote the Torah. I believe the mountains' present levels were due to catastrophism surrounding the Flood. The ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat (or at least the "mountains of the region") but that doesn't imply where the ark rested was topographically the same before the deluge.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
??
"Don't you dare partially agree with me!"
It takes some very specific circumstances for fossilization to occur, but nothing extraordinary. Most things that died in water are fossilized, so long as the current wasn't moving too fast and the sediment isn't too porous. It can happen anywhere that mud-slides are common. I have a ridge behind my mother's farm that rises from 600-1200 feet in less than half a mile. The majority of those layers are shale and mudstone. They're mostly Ordovician layers, preceded by Cambrian layers down below the rise of the ridge. Did I see those layers form? Nope. But I don't have to have seen them because the evidence for them is laid out, plain as day.
The only thing required for millions of fossils to be found in any number of strange positions is regular erosion and understood natural processes over very long periods of time. There's nothing else needed. There is no need to invoke God-caused mayhem in order to explain very normal phenomenon.
See my previous response...
Are you going to tell me that these layers were laid down in 40 days?
Joggins, Nova Scotia
Or what about this Angular Uncomformity?
The first set of layers had to be laid down vertically, which takes thousands to millions of years. Then, that entire base layer was shifted over in some geologic event. Then, the new layers formed on top of the tilted layers, which again took thousands to millions of years... And this is just a weak example. There are others that simply cannot have happened in less than 10 million years.
The Blue Ridge Mountains behind me contain rock that's almost a billion and a half years old, for crying out loud... It's some of the oldest rock in the world, having been pushed up prior to the complete closure of Pangea. Heck, even those slate layers I was talking about earlier (the several thousand layers of red stone) are laid over on their side today. For hundreds of feet, simply walking in a straight line means I'm passing millions of years worth of geologic time. I don't have to climb that mountain because the entire range has been laid over towards the west. The Appalachians, which once rivaled the scale of the Himalayas, are little more than big lush green bumps on the surface of the continent today.
Yet you're arguing that everything that we see in the geologic record was laid down in a few days because an angry god decided to kill everything and start fresh?....Really?
Essentially, you're asserting the hypothesis that all overturned folds are a result of the Genesis Deluge, among other things.
If what you say is true true, then why can you find overturned folds under other overturned folds?
Why aren't there fossils continuously found out of place?
If there had to be a billiards ball type surface to the Earth in order for the flood to take place, how to reconcile the fact that there is no evidence that the Earth was ever like that?
If geologic understanding is so incredibly flawed, then why does it accurately play out on other planets and moons in the Solar System?
Why is there no evidence that there's enough water to have ever covered all of the Earth's surfaces at once?
It's hard to reply when you use straw men arguments like "40 days". I'm not saying you are willfully doing so, by the way. You may be unaware that the Bible teaches that:
1) The planet was shaken catastrophically during the Flood.
2) Only some of the waters came down via rain over 40 days.
3) Most creation scientists believe there was a post-Flood ice age as just one of many geology-altering events that followed in the wake of the Flood. In fact, there would have been centuries of upheavals, drastic changes, and likely, extreme volcanism.
outhouse
Atheistically
There are no credible ones.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
None of which have left traces corresponding to the supposed time. Why?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Hyperbole? It was a falsehood, not hyperbole.
No, but it does demonstrate that the earth had mountains before the flood - and thus that you billiard ball claim was also untrue.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Genesis 7 NIV
That's the whole of Genesis 7.
You can call it a straw man if you wish, but your source material clearly makes the claim that the "waters of the deep", along with heavy rainfall, released themselves over a 40 day period. The whole world was supposedly drowned for less than 6 months (150 days), and then everything went back to normal... So within a time frame of 5 months, all of this catastrophic upheaval took place
If, as you say, the mountains were washed away and/or seriously eroded, is this something that happened within those 150 days?
Are you also going to make the qualifying remark on the height of the waters being 23 feet above even above the highest mountains, or are you going to take the more rational stance that the entire flood was only 23 feet high, the latter of which poses very obvious problems for the claim that this flood killed everything...
And if, as you say, there is a complementary claim made by "Creation Scientists" which states that other catastrophes and highly volatile volcanic events happened in conjunction with this global deluge, then I'll happily address those as well. All those creationists have to do is support their claim with some physical evidence. All they need to do is show incredibly similar radiometric dates for geologic strata that are otherwise non contiguous...
For the record, I haven't brought up the fact that your source material also claims that the protagonist was 600 years old at the time, just to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Correct. The rest of flood waters supposedly came from under the Earth, right?
Still, however, it was over a 40 day period according to your source material.
Would you contest your source material?
Either way, in your defense of this creationist deluge story, you've already readily admitted that there isn't enough water anywhere in this closed system of a planet to cover the Earth at any depth, let alone the great claim made by the actual story in the Bible...
Out of curiosity, how do the Creation Scientists deal with this apparent statistical conundrum?
If there was a flood, but there wasn't enough water, how was there a flood?
Oddly enough, we know when the last few ice ages occurred and we know how they altered the landscapes. We know when, where, and how glaciation affected the local geology and we know this because we can observe it's effects. We can hop in a car, right now, and drive to places to study the marks left of the face of the Earth from the most recent Ice Age. We can dig down a little bit, or travel to places where natural erosion has exposed the remnants of Ice Ages prior to that one... Is it safe to assume, based on your arguments, that the Global Biblical Deluge (which couldn't have happened as described because there isn't enough water anyway) happened during one of these known time periods?
110,000 - 12,000 years ago... There's plenty of evidence of animal life before, during, and after that time period. I'll go to back yard this afternoon and dig up some evidence to show you if you don't believe me.
Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations
This link will be helpful.
Regardless of whether or not you say yes or no to the question of if the Global deluge took place just before these most recent Ice Ages, there are some serious and obvious contradictions to your source material that will have to be addressed...
You know, I have a cousin who revealed last Thanksgiving that he was a YEC. He jumped himself into a conversation that my sister (an Archaeologist) and I were having about some ancient native peoples out in Arizona. The conversation drifted towards my memories from visiting Badlands, NM and the Grand Canyon a few years ago and then obviously into the age of strata and layers and so on. He piped up with his not-on-topic rationalization about how Dinosaurs were just regular lizards that didn't die for hundreds or thousands of years. Lizards don't stop molting, he said, and have no limit to the size they can grow. So dinosaurs are little more than just really aged reptiles. He also argued that there have only ever been 3 triceratops found and that means that there's no evidence that more could have ever existed. He also said that there used to be an extra layer to the atmosphere, made of nothing but water, that God kept there just in case something bad happened and that he popped that layer at the time of the flood, thus adding to the totality of water necessary to completely flood the earth. All of that water then sank deep into the Earth, just below where our sensors can detect water today. He also said that all of the polar ice caps melted in a matter of seconds, which , if you ask me, is more a magical feat than taking 40 days to flood the whole place. The amount of global warming required to cause such a calamity would have baked Noah and his little boat faster than bacon under the broiler... His arguments were similar to yours, the only difference being that he was more true to his source material...
The point I'm trying to make is this:
Faith is not dependent on factual events. As such, for your own credibility, I suggest you stop attempting to jump through so many mental hoops in order to make the argument that these fantastic events were actually historically factual... Don't be like my cousin and make yourself look like a loon at dinner.
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
What about my Himalayas? Were they covered with the flood waters. What about Sagarmatha? How come the puny Mount Ararat was the first to come out?
I'm going to go out on a limb and propose that the writers of that ancient tome had no idea that the Himalayas even existed... but I digress.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I appreciate your persistence, but I've witnessed to you several times now that it was hyperbole and not deliberate falsehood. I'd like you to please accept my apology and move on rather than call me a liar again. Like you, I delight in getting my good facts out in a debate and rely less on ad homonym to "win" a debate. I can with a clear conscience tell you that I wasn't lying, and your conscience will be cleared as well should you choose to accept my apology and move on.
As for the mountains existing pre-Flood in the Bible in this passage, why not use Occam's Razor? Some centuries after the Flood, Moses wrote, in part:
"And then the ark came to rest upon (what we people call today) the mountain range of Ararat..."
Further, there could have been mountains pre-Flood, just fewer of them and/or less high, as well as shallower ocean basins pre-Flood, to satisfy Flood conditions. you may have a different interpretation, which is your prerogative.
Thanks.