God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

I follow all of academia, you refuse completely ALL of academia below despite its factual status.

You might want to research REAL facts, not the mythology your peddling. Pseudoscience has no credibility.


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.

You do know that millions of Christians believe points 1-4, and that they find such views compatible with the Bible, right? What is your thought process here?

None of these facts you've cited have anything to do with this thread, the possibility or plausibility of one Flood. You don't get extra points for being "real scientific" here.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You do know that millions of Christians believe points 1-4, and that they find such views compatible with the Bible, right? What is your thought process here?

None of these facts you've cited have anything to do with this thread, the possibility or plausibility of one Flood. You don't get extra points for being "real scientific" here.

We have seen and can trace major bottleneck and extinction events. None of which have happened since humans have come into the picture with the exception of the humans causing it. There is no geological evidence of a global flood and if there really was one it would have had to have left evidence. It is physically impossible for the ocean levels to have risen to the height of the highest mountains. I have heard the argument that perhaps the earth was flatter than it is now and that still poses a problem as the Arc in the story landed on a mountain and we know that mountains have existed far before humans have ever existed.

 

[viole]

Human population roughly doubles (before the modern medical era) every 125 years or so. Work backward from 6 Billion and see how long in Excel it takes you to get to 8 people.

PS. The Bible describes three families of men coming from Noah's sons. Why couldn't one have been black, one Asian, one occidental? I think God can save someone on a boat who has diverse genetics between himself and his spouse. Plus the three sons each had a wife who might have been diverse.

So, let us start from Adam and Eve. How much time passed between them and the flood?

Was there enough time to evolve an Asian, an African and an Occidental from one couple, neglecting for the moment all other racial traits? I hope you are not telling us that Adam was half black and half white and Eve a little asian girl. Lol.

If there was enough time, then I do not understand your defense, considering that it was more or less the same time between the flood and us, if not shorter. Instead of postulating implausible interracial Noah families, why not saying that you can have fast forward human evolution?

If not, then, you are back on square one, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

You do know that millions of Christians believe points 1-4, and that they find such views compatible with the Bible, right? What is your thought process here?

Many Christians are known to be willfully ignorant due to severe fanaticism and fundamentalism. We have one of the worst problems on the globe with only Turkey beating us out for deeper fanaticism.

None of these facts you've cited have anything to do with this thread, the possibility or plausibility of one Flood.

We require honesty here.

I have factually addressed the true origin of flood mythology in this geographic region due to a local river flood on the Euphrates in 2900 BC in which all flood mythology in this geographic region originates.

Starts with King Ziusudra, then to the Akkadians river flood, then the Babylonian seal deluge, then the Israelites global deluge they claim originates from Mesopotamia, exactly where history shows its true origins are


You have no credible leg to stand on here.

 

[outhouse]

So, let us start from Adam and Eve. How much time passed between them and the flood?

He cannot give a date, because to have a date, it would have actually had to have taken place outside mythology.


He has to run from the fact, no civilization shows a break in its cultures anywhere near when this was supposed to take place.


He is forced to run from the reality no floods have taken place in many geographic locations EVER.

He is forced to run from academia taught worldwide as REAL education.


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

The Atacama Desert may be the oldest desert on earth, and has experienced extreme hyperaridity for at least 3 million years, making it the oldest continuously arid region on earth. The long history of aridity raises the possibility that supergene mineralisation, under the appropriate conditions, can form in arid environments, instead of requiring humid conditions.[12] Geological research suggests that in some sections of the Atacama Desert, such as in today's Chile, hyperaridity has persisted for the last 200 million years (since the Triassic).

This desert is so arid, many mountains higher than 6,000 m (20,000 ft) are completely free of glaciers. Only the highest peaks (such as Ojos del Salado, Monte Pissis, and Llullaillaco) have some permanent snow coverage.

 

[Shad]

You do know that millions of Christians believe points 1-4, and that they find such views compatible with the Bible, right? What is your thought process here?

Ad populum fallacy.

None of these facts you've cited have anything to do with this thread, the possibility or plausibility of one Flood. You don't get extra points for being "real scientific" here.

It actually does. It shows borrowed mythology that you take as a global historical event. This is backed by anthropology and archaeology.

 

[outhouse]

You don't get extra points for being "real scientific" here.

What is worse is the points taken away from you for using pseudoscience and hating academia and the credible facts it has in support of its teachings world wide as common knowledge not in dispute.

 

[David M]

Human population roughly doubles (before the modern medical era) every 125 years or so.

No it doesn't. We have sufficient records to show that for long periods before the modern medical era it was pretty often a flat growth rate and in some periods it decreased.

Until the advent of agriculture human populations would have been very stable other than for increases that came with expansion into previously unoccupied areas

PS. The Bible describes three families of men coming from Noah's sons. Why couldn't one have been black, one Asian, one occidental? I think God can save someone on a boat who has diverse genetics between himself and his spouse. Plus the three sons each had a wife who might have been diverse.

PPS The bible is wrong.

 

[`mud]

AMEN ??
~
'mud

 

[outhouse]

PPS The bible is wrong.

Factually in many places.

 

[leibowde84]

You do know that millions of Christians believe points 1-4, and that they find such views compatible with the Bible, right? What is your thought process here?

None of these facts you've cited have anything to do with this thread, the possibility or plausibility of one Flood. You don't get extra points for being "real scientific" here.

Shouldn't everyone get credit for allowing the evidence to present it's own conclusion rather than trying to fit the evidence into an already held belief? I mean, that's what science does, right?

 

[gnostic]

None of these facts you've cited have anything to do with this thread, the possibility or plausibility of one Flood. You don't get extra points for being "real scientific" here.

Scientific evidences mattered, especially if you want to know the facts, BilliardsBall.

Floods happened quite often, annually, from local to large regional flood.

Geologists can usually find evidences for local and or the larger regional flood, whether the flood involved river flood or tidal flood, and whether be recent or in antiquity.

And more importantly, geologists and archaeologists can distinguish damages done by flood, fire or earthquakes, and how extensive damages. But creationists seem to think they know more of experts than geologists and archaeologists, because they can cherry pick the bible.

If a global flood had happened as narrated in the Genesis, including covering mountains, then there would be evidences all around the world, at EXACTLY AT THE SAME TIME. And there are no such evidences.

According to Genesis, the height of the flood water was on the 150th day (7:24). Not only that, Noah didn't disembark his ark until 12 months later.

Considered this, if the water was above Mount Ararat, that would be about 5000 metres above sea level, even during the 3rd millennium BCE.

Do you know how much water, to cover 5-kilometre high mountain?

And Everest was only less than 30 metres shorter than today of +8000 metres.

And the deeper the water, the higher water pressures. It would have crush everything, like trees. Forests wouldn't survive being under water for so long and at depth greater than 5 km.

Do you have any idea what that mean, BilliardsBall?

Clearly, you don't.

Most modern submarines cannot even go below the crushing depth of 1000 metres before the hull collapse. What make you think that trees could survive at this depth for 12 months?

And where did all the flood water go?

The Genesis is nothing more than a myth that have been grossly exaggerated.

It is lunacy that creationists think that 8 people could repopulated the whole earth, in short amount of period, without destroying every single cultures and civilisations. There were no break in civilisations in the 3rd millennium BCE that indicated the CAUSE being a Flood.

Egyptian geography showed that it had no high mountains, like that of Mount Ararat. And yet, Egyptian civilisation have been around since 3400 BCE, and unbroken during the 3rd millennium BCE. Sure, the 1st Intermediate Period (after the 6th dynasty) had caused the Old Kingdom kingship and government collapsed, but it wasn't because of any flood, and this happened near the end of 3rd millennum BCE.

Had there being Flood of the magnitude of the Genesis myth, then there would be not enough manpower to continue to build pyramids, temples and palace for kings.

Historically, archaeologically and geologically, a global flood never happened in the 3rd millennium BCE.

 

[outhouse]

It amazes me, people 4000 years ago describe the same exact world we live in today.


Had the earth been different as YEC falsely believe, people would have described these massive changes and differences.


But magically the earth under the pyramids have not changed at all since the first one was built.

FACTUALLY No flood disrupted any aspect of any building in Egypt, other then known river floods.

 

[`mud]

And those people still believe in angels !
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

That could swim !
~
'mud

 

[BilliardsBall]

Scientific evidences mattered, especially if you want to know the facts, BilliardsBall.

Floods happened quite often, annually, from local to large regional flood.

Geologists can usually find evidences for local and or the larger regional flood, whether the flood involved river flood or tidal flood, and whether be recent or in antiquity.

And more importantly, geologists and archaeologists can distinguish damages done by flood, fire or earthquakes, and how extensive damages. But creationists seem to think they know more of experts than geologists and archaeologists, because they can cherry pick the bible.

If a global flood had happened as narrated in the Genesis, including covering mountains, then there would be evidences all around the world, at EXACTLY AT THE SAME TIME. And there are no such evidences.

According to Genesis, the height of the flood water was on the 150th day (7:24). Not only that, Noah didn't disembark his ark until 12 months later.

Considered this, if the water was above Mount Ararat, that would be about 5000 metres above sea level, even during the 3rd millennium BCE.

Do you know how much water, to cover 5-kilometre high mountain?

And Everest was only less than 30 metres shorter than today of +8000 metres.

And the deeper the water, the higher water pressures. It would have crush everything, like trees. Forests wouldn't survive being under water for so long and at depth greater than 5 km.

Do you have any idea what that mean, BilliardsBall?

Clearly, you don't.

Most modern submarines cannot even go below the crushing depth of 1000 metres before the hull collapse. What make you think that trees could survive at this depth for 12 months?

And where did all the flood water go?

The Genesis is nothing more than a myth that have been grossly exaggerated.

It is lunacy that creationists think that 8 people could repopulated the whole earth, in short amount of period, without destroying every single cultures and civilisations. There were no break in civilisations in the 3rd millennium BCE that indicated the CAUSE being a Flood.

Egyptian geography showed that it had no high mountains, like that of Mount Ararat. And yet, Egyptian civilisation have been around since 3400 BCE, and unbroken during the 3rd millennium BCE. Sure, the 1st Intermediate Period (after the 6th dynasty) had caused the Old Kingdom kingship and government collapsed, but it wasn't because of any flood, and this happened near the end of 3rd millennum BCE.

Had there being Flood of the magnitude of the Genesis myth, then there would be not enough manpower to continue to build pyramids, temples and palace for kings.

Historically, archaeologically and geologically, a global flood never happened in the 3rd millennium BCE.

I guess we will have to all respectfully agree to disagree.

I see a tension between me saying, "I love Jesus Christ, have followed Him for quite some time now. I was a skeptic on this issue of the Flood as a believer, and spent some time--and still spend time--looking at both sides of the evidence, with my rationalist brain, from a skeptical perspective... and that, if you are open to it, I think there is some excellent evidence that a Flood may have happened, and relatively recently, too..." and you (all) saying things like, "Do you even science? Science has already conclusively proven all kinds of stuff about the past--even without time machines!"

Honestly, science is evolving. Statements made like "Everest was x under 8,000 feet before, and I know!" make me want to ask,

"Were you there?"

 

[outhouse]

, I think there is some excellent evidence that a Flood may have happened,

And these are statements made from lack of education and knowledge, and severe bias to credible academia.

How can one accept what is NOT evidence in academia, is this only from willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty ?????????????

Academia says it is not credible evidence. How can you throw facts away in favor of mythology?

 

[outhouse]

You might want to research REAL facts, not the mythology your peddling. Pseudoscience has no credibility.


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.

 

[gnostic]

I guess we will have to all respectfully agree to disagree.

I see a tension between me saying, "I love Jesus Christ, have followed Him for quite some time now. I was a skeptic on this issue of the Flood as a believer, and spent some time--and still spend time--looking at both sides of the evidence, with my rationalist brain, from a skeptical perspective... and that, if you are open to it, I think there is some excellent evidence that a Flood may have happened, and relatively recently, too..." and you (all) saying things like, "Do you even science? Science has already conclusively proven all kinds of stuff about the past--even without time machines!"

Honestly, science is evolving. Statements made like "Everest was x under 8,000 feet before, and I know!" make me want to ask,

"Were you there?"

Sure, Everest have been under 8000 metres high. I have NEVER said that Everest was always above 8000 m high.

But Everest have never been under 8000 m in the last 5000 years, BilliardsBall.

Everest is all part of the Himalayas. A whole range of mountains that arose from the Indian subcontinent tectonic plate pushing into the Asian tectonic plate, causing the uplifting of terrains that we called the Himalayas. The Indian plate are still pushing, and the whole Himalayas, including Everest, are still rising mm by mm, each year (to be more precise Everest is rising by 4 mm per year). But it is not just moving upward, the Himalayas is moving more northeasterly each year, from 3 to 6 mm.

Everest is now 8848 metres above sea level, but in 1856, it was only about 8 metres shorter than it is now.

4 millimetres per year, BilliardsBall. You do the calculation and that would mean 5000 years ago, or 3000 BCE, Everest would have been 20 metres shorter than it is today, which is about 8828 metres.

For Everest to be under 8000 metres, that would mean going back in time of 212,000 years ago. This is well before the discovery of the earliest Homo sapiens.

And the time before the Himalayas, when the two tectonic plates was separated by the sea, you are looking at 70 million years ago.

If you look at the Australian tectonic, it is moving at slower than snail-pace of 5.6 cm per year. Comparing that to the Indian plate of 3.7 cm per year, the Australian plate is actually a sprinter.

 

[Looncall]

I guess we will have to all respectfully agree to disagree.

I see a tension between me saying, "I love Jesus Christ, have followed Him for quite some time now. I was a skeptic on this issue of the Flood as a believer, and spent some time--and still spend time--looking at both sides of the evidence, with my rationalist brain, from a skeptical perspective... and that, if you are open to it, I think there is some excellent evidence that a Flood may have happened, and relatively recently, too..." and you (all) saying things like, "Do you even science? Science has already conclusively proven all kinds of stuff about the past--even without time machines!"

Honestly, science is evolving. Statements made like "Everest was x under 8,000 feet before, and I know!" make me want to ask,

"Were you there?"

Would you call the police if your house were hurgled while you were away? After all, no one was there to see, and evidence means nothing to you.