God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

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?

I guess because you've so obviously shifted the goalposts away from the fact that you teach and believe uniformitarian, agonizingly slow processes and avoided even thinking, much less responding, about sudden catastrophic processes like those of Mt. St. Helens...

...That I realized you are simply not open-minded.

You have further shown objects of the solar system demonstrating they were created or evolved non-smooth because you are judging past reality by present appearance... hmmm... none of the objects you've shown ever colliding with any other objects or etc. right? Are there other areas in science where you will not entertain a hypothesis because you assume past happenings from present observations? You know, the way uniformitarians do, or the way atheists say there is no God because they personally are yet to encounter God?

Of course, you further show your closed-mindedness by refusing to entertain my hypothesis, the way an open-minded person would do. By that, I'm referring to what you should have written:

"Sure, if the Earth were smooth, more like a billiards ball from space than what it is, like an orange, there certainly would have been enough water to Flood the Earth... but, BILLIARDS BALL, if the Earth was that smooth, where did the water come from?" or any of 20 other posts you could have done...

...If you were open-minded. Perhaps we should leave this thread here, where I am thinking out of the box and you are making statements that are unacceptable to any peer review discussion, like your outrageous "How can you support such a thought when there is no evidence for it!" when there IS evidence for it!

Good luck to you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.



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.

Thanks, I was already aware of the Catholic apologetics for their spurning of the Decalogue. Were you aware they even redacted it in certain Bibles to eliminate the prohibition of idols, and then parsed the command about coveting into two commands to equal the count of ten commands?

Crazy.

 

[metis]

Thanks, I was already aware of the Catholic apologetics for their spurning of the Decalogue. Were you aware they even redacted it in certain Bibles to eliminate the prohibition of idols, and then parsed the command about coveting into two commands to equal the count of ten commands?

Crazy.

The Decalogue really are not mandatory to Christians unless they're Jewish, but obviously a gentile has a choice if (s)he wants to follow them. As far as the above in regards to idols and also the two Commands in regards to coveting, in which Bible was that done? I have a copy of the NAB, and it's rendered correctly, but maybe you're referring to a previous one?

 

[outhouse]

Of course, you further show your closed-mindedness by refusing to entertain my hypothesis

All credible academia and all of science refuses your guesses. You don't have enough credibility to call your guesses a true scientific hypothesis.

Its not closed minded, its accepting the truth many refuse due to their stubborn religious bias.

Closed mindedness would be those refusing credible academia and science in favor of mythology with no credible evidence to support their position.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I guess because you've so obviously shifted the goalposts away from the fact that you teach and believe uniformitarian, agonizingly slow processes and avoided even thinking, much less responding, about sudden catastrophic processes like those of Mt. St. Helens...

...That I realized you are simply not open-minded.

I addressed Mount St. Helens, if you would please refer to post #868
God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

I directly responded to your assertion that events like volcanic eruptions can create substantial environmental changes in a very short amount of time.
To refresh, I'll ask you again - exactly how much of the planet was affected by the Mt. Saint Helens eruption?
How much of the North American Continent?
How much of the Northwestern region of the United States?
How much of the state of Washington?

Since these kinds of events are only localized, what makes you think they magically happened all together, all over the world, just a few thousand years ago?

There is a big difference between being closed minded and simply being skeptical of people's unsubstantiated claims.

You have further shown objects of the solar system demonstrating they were created or evolved non-smooth because you are judging past reality by present appearance... hmmm... none of the objects you've shown ever colliding with any other objects or etc. right? Are there other areas in science where you will not entertain a hypothesis because you assume past happenings from present observations? You know, the way uniformitarians do, or the way atheists say there is no God because they personally are yet to encounter God?

No.
Everything in space collides with something - this happens all the time. Because the more primitive solar objects show differing stages of development on the way to planetary formation, we can quite accurately deduct that these same stages were followed by the Earth, and every other orbiting body in the solar system. From the primitive all the way up to the most largest Dwarf Planet, every single thing that we have ever observed has ridges and valleys, peaks and valleys, thousands of feet high. Nothing, anywhere in the solar system, presents the qualities that you suggest once existed on Earth.

You've accused me of assuming past happenings from present observations as if that were a terrible thing.
Assuming present conditions happened in the past seems valid.
Assuming past events have the ability to happen in the future seems valid.
So under what other conditions should we formulate probable happenings? Should we just use our imaginations like this Billiards Ball concept?
Should we just make stuff up that has no basis is reality?

If you think I'm just being dismissal, answer me this - do you have any current or past evidence that any planetary body anywhere in the Universe has ever been a perfect sphere?
If you have that, then your idea can be taken seriously. If you do not have an example of that, then your idea is nothing more than imagination and should be readily dismissed.

"Sure, if the Earth were smooth, more like a billiards ball from space than what it is, like an orange, there certainly would have been enough water to Flood the Earth... but, BILLIARDS BALL, if the Earth was that smooth, where did the water come from?" or any of 20 other posts you could have done...

1. Where did the water come from?
2. What Astronomical information do you have to suggest that anything has ever formed that way?
3. What Archaeological, Sociological, Anthropological, Geographical, Biological, or Geological evidence do you have that anything would live on a planet without constant geologic processes?
4. From your own scriptures, how did all the creeks and waters flow without topographic variation?

That's just 4. If you like I can post another 16 questions after you've answered those.

...If you were open-minded. Perhaps we should leave this thread here, where I am thinking out of the box and you are making statements that are unacceptable to any peer review discussion, like your outrageous "How can you support such a thought when there is no evidence for it!" when there IS evidence for it!

"Thinking out of the box" and "Inventing crazy realities so I can justify my delusion" are not the same thing...

You just said there was evidence for this Billiards Ball hypothesis - what is it?
What evidence do you have that anything has ever, in the history of the Universe, formed this way?

 

[gnostic]

Of course, you further show your closed-mindedness by refusing to entertain my hypothesis, the way an open-minded person would do. By that, I'm referring to what you should have written:

BilliardsBall, if what your claim is really a "hypothesis" - as in the "scientific" sense - then your claim that the Earth was perfectly spherical and smooth need to be FALSIFIABLE, MEANING the hypothesis can be "tested", "verifiable" and "refutable".

It not closed-minded of others, if you can present to us, any observable objects - planets, dwarf planets, satellites, asteroids, etc, in space that don't have ridges, elevations, valleys in their terrains, and they are smooth as a billiards ball.

Now, we have only presently or recently, being able to sent space telescopes out that give give us clearer images, not possible with terrestrial telescopes, or sending unmanned spacecraft that explore our solar system closer and observe closer than ever before. My point is that we are only just beginning to observe planets within and outside of our solar system. None of them planets or dwarf planets are shown to be perfectly smooth spheres.

Therefore, you do not have any evidence to support your billiard ball claim, which therefore make your claim a "hypothesis". It is not so much thinking outside of box, as trying to invent claim as if they were "fact".

So you should understand why people see your claim about the earth being a small ball, that can be easily flooded, as being as wildly imaginative, but not in any way verifiably provable.

That Genesis indicate that there were rivers and mountains before Noah's deluge, would already dismiss your claim of flat, smooth earth.

Your claim is just another desperate and empty creationist's ploy to distort both science and history, so why shouldn't your so-called hypothesis be dismissed?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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?

It simply isn't. Now I am sure there are some impossible/implausible things that have no evidence that one could try to guess at.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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?!

I actually don't know the depth that it would require to do such a thing. But if you use this argument the bible already defeats it as the Arc landed on a Mountain. So the world could not have been flat. And that mountain was specifically named as well, Ararat. That mountain exists today and even if you want to try and make the argument that it meant any such mountain in that region, it still means the Earth wasn't flat during that time.

 

[gnostic]

I actually don't know the depth that it would require to do such a thing. But if you use this argument the bible already defeats it as the Arc landed on a Mountain. So the world could not have been flat. And that mountain was specifically named as well, Ararat. That mountain exists today and even if you want to try and make the argument that it meant any such mountain in that region, it still means the Earth wasn't flat during that time.

And certainly never flat in human history of 200,000 years.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And certainly never flat in human history of 200,000 years.

And by flat I think meant by totally and near perfectly spherical. And if it was then why wasn't there a flood....always?

 

[BilliardsBall]

All,

I don't appreciate the attempts of some of you to demonize me as an opponent. From memory, the Earth if was a billiard ball would be covered by a water for a depth of two miles! I was tolerating a parody of my view. So we don't need Everest to be Death Valley--the important thing is that we're all so sure it couldn't have been a somewhat smoother Earth than now because--well, darn it, it just couldn't, and we like screaming at people there isn't enough water to cover the Earth so there couldn't have been a Flood... there for darn sure couldn't have been a Flood 6,000 years ago--and um, when much of the Earth was covered by snow 100,000 years ago from precipitation that froze, there couldn't have been a catastrophism like a meteor impact that impacted Earth's climate so profoundly that the water melted and ran off into the oceans, you know, like globally, because, well, that would upset the whole thing...

...And double-darn it, look at objects in the Solar System! Sure, they weren't made 7,000 years ago--and they've been hit by meteorites, comets, even other objects, for eons, but darn it--look at them! No, look at them! They couldn't have been billiard balls... they just couldn't have been, you know, spherical, when they were first formed by gravitational attraction and materials accretion to become, you know, spheres and ellipses... they just couldn't... now, someone give me my milk bottle! I'm thirsty!

Question of the week...

...How tall was Mt. Everest before?

 

[outhouse]

I don't appreciate the attempts of some of you to demonize me as an opponent.

We don't appreciate those going against credible academia and knowledge currently established as fact, and taught in every major university around the world.

 

[`mud]

hey Bill,
that was somewhat entertaining,
but you're still full of crap,
as far as the age of Earth is,
amongst a lot of other stuff !
But....entertaining.
~
'm

 

[jonathan180iq]

From memory, the Earth if was a billiard ball would be covered by a water for a depth of two miles!

Why wasn't the Billiards Ball Earth always flooded then?
What kept Billiards Ball Earth from simply being a perpetual Sea World, since there were no elevation changes?
How could humans develop on Sea World Earth?
How would they survive without gills, or at least some boats?

Also, is there any evidence anywhere in the Universe that planetary objects form in this Billiards Ball way?

the important thing is that we're all so sure it couldn't have been a somewhat smoother Earth than now because--well, darn it, it just couldn't

Is there any evidence anywhere in the Universe that planetary objects form in this Billiards Ball way?

there for darn sure couldn't have been a Flood 6,000 years ago

You're right. At least not a global one.

when much of the Earth was covered by snow 100,000 years ago from precipitation that froze, there couldn't have been a catastrophism like a meteor impact that impacted Earth's climate so profoundly that the water melted and ran off into the oceans, you know, like globally, because, well, that would upset the whole thing...

Most of the Earth was not covered by snow during the last glacial maximum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Glacial_Maximum

There was plenty of ground, everywhere, for people, plants and animals to keep on living out their evil, hedonistic ways.

They couldn't have been billiard balls...

You're right.

they just couldn't have been, you know, spherical, when they were first formed by gravitational attraction and materials accretion to become, you know, spheres and ellipses...

Is there any evidence anywhere in the Universe that planetary objects form in this Billiards Ball way?

...How tall was Mt. Everest before?

Everest is currently about 29,000 feet tall. (That's 348,000 inches)
It's growing at a rate of .15 inches per year.
If we go back only 6,000 years, Mt. Everest would only be 900 inches shorter than it is today... That's only 75 feet less than right now.

So, 6,000 years ago, when your Biblical Flood happened on the Billiards Ball Earth, Mt. Everest was a measly 28,925 feet high...
Heck, let's just take it back something crazy, like 25,000 years!

25,000 years ago, Mt. Everest would have been a very floodable 25,250 feet in elevation.

Using current growth rates, which are really all we have to measure this by, Everest would have been at 0ft in elevation 2.3 Million years ago.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why wasn't the Billiards Ball Earth always flooded then?
What kept Billiards Ball Earth from simply being a perpetual Sea World, since there were no elevation changes?
How could humans develop on Sea World Earth?
How would they survive without gills, or at least some boats?

Also, is there any evidence anywhere in the Universe that planetary objects form in this Billiards Ball way?


Is there any evidence anywhere in the Universe that planetary objects form in this Billiards Ball way?


You're right. At least not a global one.



Most of the Earth was not covered by snow during the last glacial maximum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Glacial_Maximum

There was plenty of ground, everywhere, for people, plants and animals to keep on living out their evil, hedonistic ways.


You're right.


Is there any evidence anywhere in the Universe that planetary objects form in this Billiards Ball way?


Everest is currently about 29,000 feet tall. (That's 348,000 inches)
It's growing at a rate of .15 inches per year.
If we go back only 6,000 years, Mt. Everest would only be 900 inches shorter than it is today... That's only 75 feet less than right now.

So, 6,000 years ago, when your Biblical Flood happened on the Billiards Ball Earth, Mt. Everest was a measly 28,925 feet high...
Heck, let's just take it back something crazy, like 25,000 years!

25,000 years ago, Mt. Everest would have been a very floodable 25,250 feet in elevation.

Using current growth rates, which are really all we have to measure this by, Everest would have been at 0ft in elevation 2.3 Million years ago.

Why wasn't the Billiards Ball Earth always flooded then?

Because it wasn't a billiards ball! Read my post again.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Because it wasn't a billiards ball! Read my post again.

Then what is your view?
Are you maintaining this belief in a global biblical flood or aren't you?

 

[outhouse]

Are you maintaining this belief in a global biblical flood or aren't you?

Someone who is forced to make a stand like this knows any answer provided places him in a logical corner he cannot escape.


I doubt you will get an answer. Its why he has always avoided placing even a rough date to the flood mythology.

 

[David M]

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.

Exactly which processes are these then?

No geologist has ever postulated that it takes thousands of years for water to cut channels through recently deposited volcanic ash. No observations from Mt St. Helens support your "deductive logic".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then what is your view?
Are you maintaining this belief in a global biblical flood or aren't you?

Why is it an either/or proposition, please? If it was a billiard ball, there would be enough water to cover the Earth to a depth of two miles. So the Earth could have had an average height globally on the land mass(es) of 9,999 feet above "sea level".

I'm (still) looking for possibility thinkers.

Is there a position you (all) have long held for years that you did a 180 on after your paradigm was altered by a new fact(s)?

Are the absolutes? Is it an absolute that non-religious scientists interpret data without biases? Is it an absolute that tenured Ph.D's who are religious interpret scientific data always with extreme biases?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Why is it an either/or proposition, please?

Because the Earth was either flooded on the global scale as per the Bible's narrative or it was not...

There is no reality in which a cup can be both full of water and not full or water the same time.

It is either one or the other.
Even a half-flooded world is not a global submersion.

So, which position do you hold?

If it was a billiard ball, there would be enough water to cover the Earth to a depth of two miles. So the Earth could have had an average height globally on the land mass(es) of 9,999 feet above "sea level".

If it was covered in Macaroni & Cheese then the ancient aliens could have never sampled the water table...

So what?

There is no evidence that anything forms in that way, so why is this Billiards Ball suggestion even worth entertaining?
Notice that you're not arguing for a Macaroni & Cheese Earth because there is no evidence of such a state of being, right? Because it's obviously ridiculous, right?

Why should your Billiards Ball Earth idea be taken more seriously than Macaroni & Cheese Earth, given that there is no evidence for it?

I'm (still) looking for possibility thinkers.

Is there a position you (all) have long held for years that you did a 180 on after your paradigm was altered by a new fact(s)?

Are the absolutes? Is it an absolute that non-religious scientists interpret data without biases? Is it an absolute that tenured Ph.D's who are religious interpret scientific data always with extreme biases?

Yes - it's a possibility in a completely different version of reality from the one we live in.
Find any evidence at all that planetary objects form in this Billiards Ball way and then your entire idea at least becomes worthy of the thought experiment you're trying to create.
Until you have some, your Billiards Ball Earth concept makes as much sense as Macaroni & Cheese Earth.

There are lots of positions, both personally and socially, that humanity has made an about-face on in light of new data.
Do you have data to suggest that the about-face made by Humanity on the historical validity should be reversed?