God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

Time has already told. Supporting the flood myth in the face of so much contrary evidence is clearly perverse.

No, denying the Holocaust in the face of so much contrary eyewitness and documentary evidence is perverse. Looking at data carefully that relies on assumptions atop assumptions is wise.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don't see how posting a comic strip making and ad hom is helping the discourse. Most creationist websites and magazines, not only show the facts but present how BOTH sides view the data, something we rarely find in Scientific American or etc. You are posting a canard here.

Most creationist websites and magazines (and indeed any creationist material that I have read) employs the same flawed strategy of "Begging the Question", as the comic suggests.

First, in Creationist studies, there is an assumption of Biblical accuracy.
Then, as data is compiled, it is interpreted through the lens of this assumption.
I have yet to read a creationist study which does not blatantly admit to this bias.

For reference, please see the last link that you provided from the Creationist computer science teacher at UNC who was attempting to discredit radiometric dating and geological understanding explicitly because he was a fundamental biblical literalist... More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
(And take another look at my break down of the folly of this source: God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago! | Page 43 | ReligiousForums.com

As I said before, you hold your position because you are theologically required to. You essentially admitted such in our previous conversation.
The same holds true of all other creationist forays into scientific endeavours - Because of their theology, they are forcing themselves to assume the accuracy of their faith before the first trowel ever touches the ground. Regardless of the sincerity of the individuals doing so, they're still committing a logical fallacy and founding their entire scientific study on a failed premise.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most creationist websites and magazines (and indeed any creationist material that I have read) employs the same flawed strategy of "Begging the Question", as the comic suggests.

First, in Creationist studies, there is an assumption of Biblical accuracy.
Then, as data is compiled, it is interpreted through the lens of this assumption.
I have yet to read a creationist study which does not blatantly admit to this bias.

For reference, please see the last link that you provided from the Creationist computer science teacher at UNC who was attempting to discredit radiometric dating and geological understanding explicitly because he was a fundamental biblical literalist... More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
(And take another look at my break down of the folly of this source: God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago! | Page 43 | ReligiousForums.com

As I said before, you hold your position because you are theologically required to. You essentially admitted such in our previous conversation.
The same holds true of all other creationist forays into scientific endeavours - Because of their theology, they are forcing themselves to assume the accuracy of their faith before the first trowel ever touches the ground. Regardless of the sincerity of the individuals doing so, they're still committing a logical fallacy and founding their entire scientific study on a failed premise.

This is a false dichotomy you're setting. Next you will say that scientists hold no biases and always follow the data and its interpretation toward truth.

A Christian need not feel "anxious" about these matters. God's Word is proved true and science tends to line up with the Bible more and more over time.

 

[viole]

This is a false dichotomy you're setting. Next you will say that scientists hold no biases and always follow the data and its interpretation toward truth.

A Christian need not feel "anxious" about these matters. God's Word is proved true and science tends to line up with the Bible more and more over time.

With the possible exception of evolution by natural selection.

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

This is a false dichotomy you're setting. Next you will say that scientists hold no biases and always follow the data and its interpretation toward truth.

I have never said such a thing. Scientists are humans and humans have biases. Science, however, has a defined method of reducing self-regulating the biases of people in order to ascertain the most accurate data. It has developed the best method for discerning truth.

Religion expects data to match its presupposed conclusions.
And it has no method for self-correcting errors in its information because it has already assumed that the conclusion which it presupposes supersedes any conflicting data... which is circular reasoning.

A Christian need not feel "anxious" about these matters. God's Word is proved true and science tends to line up with the Bible more and more over time.

...Except in the case of the Genesis Deluge, for which there is no scientific support.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have never said such a thing. Scientists are humans and humans have biases. Science, however, has a defined method of reducing self-regulating the biases of people in order to ascertain the most accurate data. It has developed the best method for discerning truth.

Religion expects data to match its presupposed conclusions.
And it has no method for self-correcting errors in its information because it has already assumed that the conclusion which it presupposes supersedes any conflicting data... which is circular reasoning.


...Except in the case of the Genesis Deluge, for which there is no scientific support.

Religion has a method for self-correcting errors (like science, as much as possible). It's called hermeneutics and its study is available to you, even as a lay person.

I believe there is scientific support for the Deluge. We can start with deductive reasoning and the fact that observations in the modern era, e.g. at St. Helens, demonstrates that certain processes formerly believed to take thousands to millions of years could take months, even, in some cases, hours. In the light of St. Helens, it seems a little stuck to insist on lengthy pre-Flood era processes that might just be post-Flood rapid processes!

Look, I don't expect most people to be leaders or think outside their small boxes--but if we roll back the clock, you can keep telling Copernicus about the lack of scientific evidence for his model... but again, most people are the tail wagging the dog... and please don't retort how Copernicus received flack from the RCC. Small-minded people are small-minded, even if they are religious and even if they misinterpret/twist scripture as badly as the RCC!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Religion has a method for self-correcting errors (like science, as much as possible). It's called hermeneutics and its study is available to you, even as a lay person.

The problem being that multilple factions are formed out of this. Its not a self reflective process that actually ever admits they were wrong.

I believe there is scientific support for the Deluge. We can start with deductive reasoning and the fact that observations in the modern era, e.g. at St. Helens, demonstrates that certain processes formerly believed to take thousands to millions of years could take months, even, in some cases, hours. In the light of St. Helens, it seems a little stuck to insist on lengthy pre-Flood era processes that might just be post-Flood rapid processes!

Its not a problem of rapid process vs slow processes. Its an issue of the fact there isn't enough water on the planet to create a global flood and there is no physical evidence for a global flood.

Look, I don't expect most people to be leaders or think outside their small boxes--but if we roll back the clock, you can keep telling Copernicus about the lack of scientific evidence for his model... but again, most people are the tail wagging the dog... and please don't retort how Copernicus received flack from the RCC. Small-minded people are small-minded, even if they are religious and even if they misinterpret/twist scripture as badly as the RCC!

There is a difference between being open minded and gullible. As there is a difference between close minded and critical.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Religion has a method for self-correcting errors (like science, as much as possible). It's called hermeneutics and its study is available to you, even as a lay person.

I can't really say this any better than Monk did - There is not a cohesive agreement under the religious umbrella about hardly any form of interpretation of scripture. Religions simply break into factions and accuse the other factions of interpreting the literature incorrectly... That's hardly self-correcting.

Hermeneutics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe there is scientific support for the Deluge. We can start with deductive reasoning and the fact that observations in the modern era, e.g. at St. Helens, demonstrates that certain processes formerly believed to take thousands to millions of years could take months, even, in some cases, hours. In the light of St. Helens, it seems a little stuck to insist on lengthy pre-Flood era processes that might just be post-Flood rapid processes!

All of the deductive reasoning that you can muster still starts with the assumption that there was a flood, does it not?
There is no single case of these widespread, global, destructively creative forces ever happening that would amount to more than a regional occurrence. It it impossible, then, to reasonably extrapolate evidences for single, small-scale, regional events onto the global scale without having something else telling you to do so... ie, without first assuming that the Biblical flood is literally written and historically accurate.

You've also stated at least twice in this very thread that you are aware that there is not enough water in the entirety of the Earth's system to have caused such an event. By that very admission, you have to agree that your continued faith in a biblical global flood is not rational or based on any sort of reasoning, but rather that it is little more than faithful theological apologetics.

Look, I don't expect most people to be leaders or think outside their small boxes--but if we roll back the clock, you can keep telling Copernicus about the lack of scientific evidence for his model... but again, most people are the tail wagging the dog... and please don't retort how Copernicus received flack from the RCC. Small-minded people are small-minded, even if they are religious and even if they misinterpret/twist scripture as badly as the RCC!

Copernicus' model is known today because of the evidence. It advanced Astronomy, Science in general, and Philosophy because of the evidence. I don't see where you're going with this analogy unless you're trying to say that geological science is somehow suppressing the overwhelming evidence that you have for this supposed global catastrophe.... Like Copernicus, if you have the data to soundly support your claim then you should present it.

 

[metis]

... Small-minded people are small-minded, even if they are religious and even if they misinterpret/twist scripture as badly as the RCC!

Or is it they that got it right and you "misinterpret/twist scripture"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The problem being that multilple factions are formed out of this. Its not a self reflective process that actually ever admits they were wrong.

Its not a problem of rapid process vs slow processes. Its an issue of the fact there isn't enough water on the planet to create a global flood and there is no physical evidence for a global flood.

There is a difference between being open minded and gullible. As there is a difference between close minded and critical.

It takes out-of-the-box thinking like Copernicus to ponder the issues with more care. Under what conditions would the present volume of water indeed be enough to create a global flood?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I can't really say this any better than Monk did - There is not a cohesive agreement under the religious umbrella about hardly any form of interpretation of scripture. Religions simply break into factions and accuse the other factions of interpreting the literature incorrectly... That's hardly self-correcting.

Hermeneutics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



All of the deductive reasoning that you can muster still starts with the assumption that there was a flood, does it not?
There is no single case of these widespread, global, destructively creative forces ever happening that would amount to more than a regional occurrence. It it impossible, then, to reasonably extrapolate evidences for single, small-scale, regional events onto the global scale without having something else telling you to do so... ie, without first assuming that the Biblical flood is literally written and historically accurate.

You've also stated at least twice in this very thread that you are aware that there is not enough water in the entirety of the Earth's system to have caused such an event. By that very admission, you have to agree that your continued faith in a biblical global flood is not rational or based on any sort of reasoning, but rather that it is little more than faithful theological apologetics.



Copernicus' model is known today because of the evidence. It advanced Astronomy, Science in general, and Philosophy because of the evidence. I don't see where you're going with this analogy unless you're trying to say that geological science is somehow suppressing the overwhelming evidence that you have for this supposed global catastrophe.... Like Copernicus, if you have the data to soundly support your claim then you should present it.

I would respectfully disagree--I would start with the evidence, if it's pointing the way it must have been a local or a metaphorical flood...

...I addressed the water issue in another post.

I'm okay, by the way, with starting with "the Bible is right" because that in of itself was not an original assumption of mine. Being born again means starting as a skeptic and going from there--and if you disagree, ask yourself if you've ever heard a person say, "So someone told me I need Jesus and I just jumped right in there and..."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Or is it they that got it right and you "misinterpret/twist scripture"?

I suppose that could be, but as a Jewish person I can't imagine the RCC correctly interpreting the Decalogue to indicate other gods and idols are appropriate!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The vote is heartening.

 

[metis]

I suppose that could be, but as a Jewish person I can't imagine the RCC correctly interpreting the Decalogue to indicate other gods and idols are appropriate!

You're making quite an assumption that the RCC advocates the worship of other gods and idols.

 

[gnostic]

Its not a problem of rapid process vs slow processes. Its an issue of the fact there isn't enough water on the planet to create a global flood and there is no physical evidence for a global flood.

And certainly never, at any time in human history.

Clearly the bible is over-exaggerating when it say it cover the entire earth, including the highest mountain, and with its claim of killing all life on earth.

You are right, there isn't enough water for global flood. Even if the bible wasn't referring to all mountains around the world (like the mountains in the Swiss Alps, Himalayas or Andes), and more locally, like Mount Ararat, there still wouldn't be even enough water on earth to cover Ararat.

Some people (mostly creationists) think the Noah's flood was caused by the last ice ages. The thing is, the ice sheets of the last glacial period didn't cover of the world (it was only certain regions that have excessive ice sheets), so there wouldn't be enough melting of ice sheets to cause a global flood.

The fact is that many silly creationists have no facts and no evidences to support Genesis global flood, other than wishful thinking and great deal of misrepresentations of scientific facts or data (lying and propaganda).

 

[jonathan180iq]

Under what conditions would the present volume of water indeed be enough to create a global flood?

An unrealistic and unsubstantiated one...

I would start with the evidence, if it's pointing the way it must have been a local or a metaphorical flood...

Yes. Absolutely. I can even tell you with some degree of certainty which regional flood the Noahic mythos is founded on.
That regional flood, however, is not what we are discussing here. You've claimed that the flood of Genesis was global, and that it happened just a few thousand years ago - there's a very big difference between the former and the latter.

...I addressed the water issue in another post.

You addressed it by saying that if the world was entirely flat, like the surface of a billiards ball, then it would only take a little bit of water to flood the Earth...
But, again, what evidence do you have to support the idea that the Earth was ever entirely flat like a billiards ball?

You're begging the question because of your presupposition that the Bible is accurate and you even say as much in the next line:

I'm okay, by the way, with starting with "the Bible is right" because that in of itself was not an original assumption of mine. Being born again means starting as a skeptic and going from there--and if you disagree, ask yourself if you've ever heard a person say, "So someone told me I need Jesus and I just jumped right in there and..."

First of all, you're admitting to the logical fallacy that I accused you of, but you're dismissing this admission by saying that it wasn't originally your idea so that makes it ok...
Secondly, every single child that has ever "converted" to Christianity fits your last description. Someone tells them about sinners and hell and Jesus, and they just jump right in there and...

And then they start to formulate defenses for their faith as they learn more and more about the natural world. It's a constant battle for people of any faith to reconcile their beliefs with what they are told to be true by their religious leaders. Because of their acceptance of faith, they are forced to play this mental hoola-hooping game with logic, attempting to make wild and baseless assertions about how flat the Earth was just a few thousand years ago in order to fit their very irrational belief that there was ever a global flood that killed every single thing on the planet so that Noah could repopulate it with good, god-fearing, people...

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're making quite an assumption that the RCC advocates the worship of other gods and idols.

We are both Jewish? We have one God. Catholics have a trinity. Catholics claim they don't worship their icons, however, graven images aren't permissible for Jews. The Decalogue not only says "Don't worship other gods," it says, "Don't make images of them."

PS. Perhaps rather than defending heretical RCC practices, you will find more zeal for Judaism or Jewish Christianity? I hope so!

 

[BilliardsBall]

An unrealistic and unsubstantiated one...


Yes. Absolutely. I can even tell you with some degree of certainty which regional flood the Noahic mythos is founded on.
That regional flood, however, is not what we are discussing here. You've claimed that the flood of Genesis was global, and that it happened just a few thousand years ago - there's a very big difference between the former and the latter.


You addressed it by saying that if the world was entirely flat, like the surface of a billiards ball, then it would only take a little bit of water to flood the Earth...
But, again, what evidence do you have to support the idea that the Earth was ever entirely flat like a billiards ball?

You're begging the question because of your presupposition that the Bible is accurate and you even say as much in the next line:


First of all, you're admitting to the logical fallacy that I accused you of, but you're dismissing this admission by saying that it wasn't originally your idea so that makes it ok...
Secondly, every single child that has ever "converted" to Christianity fits your last description. Someone tells them about sinners and hell and Jesus, and they just jump right in there and...

And then they start to formulate defenses for their faith as they learn more and more about the natural world. It's a constant battle for people of any faith to reconcile their beliefs with what they are told to be true by their religious leaders. Because of their acceptance of faith, they are forced to play this mental hoola-hooping game with logic, attempting to make wild and baseless assertions about how flat the Earth was just a few thousand years ago in order to fit their very irrational belief that there was ever a global flood that killed every single thing on the planet so that Noah could repopulate it with good, god-fearing, people...

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to hijack the thread away from the Flood to theology--that's where this is going. Are you claiming expertise in biblical theology or in geology or both?

But you hit the nail on the head, and rather than "converting" to Christianity we need thinking people to convert to Christianity. Yes, thank you.

PS. Evidence that the world was flat, closer to a billiards ball, would be the fact that unlike you, I seem to believe that mountains weren't all "created" but evolved, along with other features of depression and elevation on the Earth. You don't think the Earth was created with all its mountains and depressions at the current heights and depths? Do you really? Really?!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Are you claiming expertise in biblical theology or in geology or both?

As a lay person with collegiate education in Biblical studies and at least a working knowledge in Geology, I am not claiming to be an expert in either field. But I know enough about both fields to completely disavow any literalist understanding of Genesis.

we need thinking people to convert to Christianity.

There are thousands, if not millions, of thinking people who have converted to Christianity. They are able to maintain their faith without assuming the fallacy of literal Biblical innerancy.

PS. Evidence that the world was flat, closer to a billiards ball, would be the fact that unlike you, I seem to believe that mountains weren't all "created" but evolved, along with other features of depression and elevation on the Earth. You don't think the Earth was created with all its mountains and depressions at the current heights and depths? Do you really? Really?!

...... No. Please pay attention.
I'm the one who explained Orogenies to you.

Let's find the most primordial piece of the Solar System that we have an image of and see if that object is flat, and devoid of ridges, valleys, cliffs, or mountains:

Are these devoid of elevation? Nope

Are these devoid of elevation? Nope.

Is Comet 67-P devoid of elevation? Nope

How about Proto-planets Ceres and Vesta?

What of Vesta's topography? It appears to be incredibly spherical, yet it has a mountain on it nearly twice the height of Mt. Everst. The highest point on Vesta is 12 miles above "sea" level...
Is this proto-planet devoid of elevation? Nope.

And Ceres, another and quite larger proto-planet, which would have been one of the stops in the development of the primordial Earth, is it devoid of elevation and spherical like a billiards ball?

See that little pimple right in the middle? It rises 5 kilometers from the surface. The other impressions that you see range anywhere from a few hundreds feet below sea level to thousands of feet in elevation. So no... Ceres is not devoid of elevation nor able to be completely flooded. Nothing with a solid surface in the known Universe exhibits the properties that you propose had to exist in order for the Biblical Flood to occur...

So if nothing else in the entire Solar System is perfectly round and flat like a billiards ball, and they are all readily observable, factual, examples of the different stages of planetary development, is it rational or logical to assume that Earth was any different from these objects? I mean, if we are only talking about the facts, and how the facts lead to a conclusion, then we have to admit that the Billiards Ball hypothesis is not based on evidence or facts at all, don't we?

Since there is absolutely no evidence for the Billiards Ball hypothesis, why do you continue to entertain it?

So, again I'll ask you, on what are you basing the idea that at some point in it's history Earth was as round and smooth as a billiards ball?

At which point in the History of the these other solar objects were they ever perfectly spherical, and as smooth-surfaced as a billiards ball?

 

[metis]

We are both Jewish? We have one God. Catholics have a trinity. Catholics claim they don't worship their icons, however, graven images aren't permissible for Jews. The Decalogue not only says "Don't worship other gods," it says, "Don't make images of them."

Even though I do not agree with the trinitarian concept, it does posit one God. As for "graven images", there has long been a dispute within Jewish circles as to exactly what does that mean? If you look historically back in Jewish artistic expression, there was statuary and icons of animals, for example.

In the RCC tradition, a statue of the "Virgin Mary", for example, is not an idol since she is not viewed as a deity nor worshiped. Catholics will pray through Mary, much like I can pray for you and you can pray for me, but she is viewed just as an intercessor. BTW, trust me, I could use a lot of prayers.

PS. Perhaps rather than defending heretical RCC practices, you will find more zeal for Judaism or Jewish Christianity? I hope so!

You're assuming that it is they who is being "heretical", but some may see you as being heretical as it all depends on one's perspective. So, what I'm doing is not "defending" the RCC but merely pointing out how they look at things in this arena.