God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

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 recently posted facts 1-4, and I recently responded that millions of Christians believe all four points. Your response?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

To underscore the limitations of uniform assumptions, a professor showed his class a dripping faucet, the current rate of drip and the current level of water in the beaker, then asked his class to tell him how long the faucet had been dripping--they ran their calculations and conclusions before he turned the faucet to drip faster and then slower... do you get the point of the exercise?

I try to keep calm about such things, but just to let you know, the reason why Christians get annoyed at this sort of "We've been watching the weather carefully since the 1860s so we know what the weather was like 300,000 years ago" stuff is God's reproof to Job:

“Who is this who darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3 Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
9 When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
10 When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
11 When I said,
‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’
12 “Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?
14 It takes on form like clay under a seal,
And stands out like a garment.
15 From the wicked their light is withheld,
And the upraised arm is broken.
16 “Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?
17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you?
Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18 Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this.
19 “Where is the way to the dwelling of light?
And darkness, where is its place,
20 That you may take it to its territory,
That you may know the paths to its home?
21 Do you know it, because you were born then,
Or because the number of your days is great?
22 “Have you entered the treasury of snow,
Or have you seen the treasury of hail,
23 Which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
For the day of battle and war?
24 By what way is light diffused,
Or the east wind scattered over the earth?
25 “Who has divided a channel for the overflowing water,
Or a path for the thunderbolt,
26 To cause it to rain on a land where there is no one,
A wilderness in which there is no man;
27 To satisfy the desolate waste,
And cause to spring forth the growth of tender grass?
28 Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth?
30 The waters harden like stone,
And the surface of the deep is frozen.
31 “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades,
Or loose the belt of Orion?
32 Can you bring out Mazzaroth in its season?
Or can you guide the Great Bear with its cubs?
33 Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?
Can you set their dominion over the earth?
34 “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
That an abundance of water may cover you?
35 Can you send out lightnings, that they may go,
And say to you, ‘Here we are!’?
36 Who has put wisdom in the mind?
Or who has given understanding to the heart?
37 Who can number the clouds by wisdom?
Or who can pour out the bottles of heaven,
38 When the dust hardens in clumps,
And the clods cling together?
39 “Can you hunt the prey for the lion,
Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
40 When they crouch in their dens,
Or lurk in their lairs to lie in wait?
41 Who provides food for the raven,
When its young ones cry to God,
And wander about for lack of food?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Would I know who robbed the house if I was not there when it was robbed? Would I know how they got in, how long they were in the house and what they took before I did a thorough inventory of my home?

At that point, as with Flood theory, evidence means quite a lot more than nothing to me! There is evidence that seems to say there is no Flood. There is also evidence that seems to say there was a Flood. The same goes for the gospel:

The evidence that we may not now enter Heaven is this--we're imperfect and would completely mess up a utopia. For you and I to be there, we must exist there, always and forever, without conflict, or it is a dystopia.

There is evidence from both of us on this very thread that we are both imperfect and cannot be in Heaven.

Religion has much in common with science. It can tell you you're ill without offering a cure--for imperfection.

Whoever trusts in what Jesus Christ did for them on the cross, taking our sin, guilt and shame, has their imperfections covered.

I'm telling you all this because I expect if you trust in Jesus, you would believe in a Flood--or at least be motivated, as I'm motivated to consider both sides of the argument and the evidence. If you sit here with the typical "No creation scientist is a true scientist" tale, you won't believe in a Flood if I post here, either.

 

[outhouse]

evidence means quite a lot more than nothing to me!

No there is not. Its why you cannot post ANYTHING credible

 

[outhouse]

You recently posted facts 1-4, and I recently responded that millions of Christians believe all four points. Your response?

What is your problem then?


Many accept these facts I have posted, your OWN kind laughs at what you call evidence.

 

[outhouse]

"No creation scientist is a true scientist"

PSEUDO science is not science.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you are repeating your objection. You feel it is a logical statement:

ALL, not MANY, not MOST, not SOME, not a SUBSET of creation scientists (scientists meaning they have received an advanced degree in some field(s) of science from a recognized, certified institution, and have defended their theses and credentials to their peers) are pseudo-scientists and should renounce their scientific credentials to remain honest.

That is a very sizable assertion you have there. How extensively have you researched it?

 

[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.

 

[outhouse]

creation scientists

There is no such thing. They are either REAL scientist or they are not.

Adding creation to title simply means they are free to use religion to force religion where it has no evidence in support.

That's means all of them have NO credibility.

 

[viole]

So you are repeating your objection. You feel it is a logical statement:

ALL, not MANY, not MOST, not SOME, not a SUBSET of creation scientists (scientists meaning they have received an advanced degree in some field(s) of science from a recognized, certified institution, and have defended their theses and credentials to their peers) are pseudo-scientists and should renounce their scientific credentials to remain honest.

That is a very sizable assertion you have there. How extensively have you researched it?

Creationist science is an oxymoron.

One of the rules of science is methodological naturalism. Which is the contrary of intentional agency. It is like playing chess with different rules than chess. It is another game. It is not chess.

Independently from who holds the keys to the truth, I suggest you guys give it another name. I appreciate the fact that you like to give a minimum of credibility to your clais by highjacking something that actually gives results like science, but I doubt that this is in line with intellectual honesty.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

I doubt that this is in line with intellectual honesty.

Which examples of this have been repeated ad nauseam.

How can one refuse facts and be intellectually honest?

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

And there is the problem, isn't it??? everybody can interpret scripture in a way that suits them. So you can believe whatever you like, but that does not make it so.

 

[`mud]

Ahhh...the recreations of recreations....
were does it stop,
what, or who, did the first recreation ?
And once again...from where did the water come ?
~
Circularity upon obtuse insanity !
~
'mud

 

[outhouse]

And once again...from where did the water come ?

It Is debated.

The chemicals for water exist in out mantle, volcanic outgassing could have filled the atmosphere with vapor.

Meteors, comets ect ect are full of ice, and we did go through the heavy bombardment period that scared the moon, close to this same time.


Sorry its vague at best.

 

[outhouse]

were does it stop,

It stops with scientific facts that show all creation mythology is simply literary creations of men who were ignorant of the world they lived on.


The problem is the religious fundamentalist who cannot accept facts education and academia, if their lives depended on it.

 

[`mud]

hey Out,
You got that right......
AMEN !
~
'mud

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no such thing. They are either REAL scientist or they are not.

Adding creation to title simply means they are free to use religion to force religion where it has no evidence in support.

That's means all of them have NO credibility.

I'm sorry, but I believe you've just stated categorically that no scientist may force religious views without evidence in support. Do you mean self-evident evidence? There is NO peer-reviewed literature that proves God exists, right? And there's no peer-reviewed literature that disproves God exists.

Most scientists... are theists... are religious persons. You are now definitely making an unsupported, dangerous statement. If I understand you right, not only are creation scientists the objects of your scorn, but you are asserting here that ONLY atheist scientists see science true and clear. You may retract your statement if you wish. You couldn't have meant such a thing...

 

[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'm sorry, but I believe you've just stated categorically that no scientist may force religious views without evidence in support. Do you mean self-evident evidence? There is NO peer-reviewed literature that proves God exists, right? And there's no peer-reviewed literature that disproves God exists.

That because theism is not falsifiable.

Science deal with what is falsifiable, or in another word - what is refutable or testable.

God is as mythological as fairies and unicorns. You won't find real verifiable evidences for the existence of deities any more than you would find them for unicorns, fairies, ghosts or giants.

With science every statements (hypotheses) are false by default, unless you can empirically prove or verify it to be true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Are you in a contest for "most times repeating the same post" or...?

I think we've already agreed:

* Many fine Christians state that these four facts you've mentioned are all TRUE facts

* You have a bias that states that only secular, atheist scientists are TRUE scientists

How do you feel, then, about the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science ...?