God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[dantech]

You know, according to the bible, God didn't create a newborn baby Adam. He created an adult who was able to procreate. The same can be said about anything else which was created. The trees were already barring fruits. Do you know of a tree which could be planted and give fruit in less than a week?

There's no reason he couldn't have created a billion year old planet, or recreated as a Kabbalistic teaching tells us. I'm not too familiar with it, but it says that God created and destroyed multiple worlds before settling with ours

This, of course, is for those that do wish to see the bible's account about the beginning as literal.

 

[Salvador]

Greetings, Dantech. Well, I tried to make the case that there was an Earth and sub-humans before Adam, but that Adam was the first human. However, I think that this premise is falsifiable. There seems to be plenty of genetic evidence that the modern day human population was never less than 10,000. There was never a population bottleneck of only 2 people. There never was one couple who were the parents of humankind.

 

[metis]

Greetings, Dantech. Well, I tried to make the case that there was an Earth and sub-humans before Adam, but that Adam was the first human. However, I think that this premise is falsifiable. There seems to be plenty of genetic evidence that the modern day human population was never less than 10,000. There was never a population bottleneck of only 2 people. There never was one couple who were the parents of humankind.

That's not what "bottleneck" means or implies in this context. It means that the farther back you go in regards to ancestry, the fewer people whom are directly related were involved. However, in a different context, it can mean what you say.

 

[Ouroboros]

You know, according to the bible, God didn't create a newborn baby Adam. He created an adult who was able to procreate. The same can be said about anything else which was created. The trees were already barring fruits. Do you know of a tree which could be planted and give fruit in less than a week?

Of course God could (if God exists, that is)... but, there's a problem with it.

To create a world that looks like it's older than it really is, and to leave traces of a world that all points to the same thing, old Earth, is a form of deception. Put it this way, I give you a book with the history of my family to you. It's very long. Contains 1,000 generations. Only problem, I invented it all. Does that show a character of honest, trustworthy, and truthful about me? Someone who wants to tell you the truth?

If God created the world in a "grown up" state, it means that all fossils, geological evidence, etc, that we do have is all false. All those artifacts and science is useless, because nothing of what the world is telling us is true. If this is how it is, then I can't trust God. Then the Gnostics were right, God is an evil god, not a good one.

There's no reason he couldn't have created a billion year old planet, or recreated as a Kabbalistic teaching tells us. I'm not too familiar with it, but it says that God created and destroyed multiple worlds before settling with ours

Supernova 1987A can be calculated to have happened about 150,000 years ago through trigonometry and speed of light. If God created the simulation of a supernova to make it look like it happened 150,000 years ago, then God planted misleading evidence. Why would a good God do that?

This, of course, is for those that do wish to see the bible's account about the beginning as literal.

Yup. But it means that they believe in a deceptive God.

 

[Baladas]

One of my old mentors also believed in a young-old Earth. He was very intelligent, and could not bring himself to accept the young Earth, but he also refused to accept that Genesis was not literal.

I think that, like Ourobouros said, this would imply a deceptive god. It reads like an apologetic gone wrong in it's attempt to promote the idea that the Genesis creation account is literally true.

 

[Ouroboros]

One of my old mentors also believed in a young-old Earth. He was very intelligent, and could not bring himself to accept the young Earth, but he also refused to accept that Genesis was not literal.

Also, if we can't trust God on the age of Earth and human history, then how can we trust God about salvation? If God is tricking us about the history, then we can't trust him about sin or redemption.

And why should we trust a vision given by God to Moses (who I never met, and have very dubious historicity, and had spent days on a mountain, eating mushrooms) but we should not trust 500,000 fossils, or research by hundreds of thousands of scientists for the past 200 years? We're to assume that nature is lying to us (God's creation), but Moses is telling the truth in a story.

 

[gnostic]

Also, if we can't trust God on the age of Earth and human history, then how can we trust God about salvation? If God is tricking us about the history, then we can't trust him about sin or redemption.

That's because God is the trickster.

And every one blame Satan, when the real trickster is God.

But seriously no. It is not Genesis being the problem, it is how some Christians, especially the creationists, interpreting the Genesis being the real problem.

They are attempting to mix what the Genesis say with science or history (or both), when the Genesis was never meant to be as real literal. So they (creationists) are the ones ended up being dishonest.

The Genesis is nothing more than allegory or myth, in which they had no sense or knowledge of how the Earth had formed or how humans came to be, so they did what other cultures and other civilisations did when they don't know about their distant history, make up stories that have become traditions; traditions then become legends or myths.

There is nothing wrong with myth, but there is something with people, when they try to blur the line between reality (and facts) and the supernatural.

 

[jpmohave]

Regarding Noah could all the animals of earth really fit on one boat, procreate, and continue on? Yet alone could Noah actually capture every animal? How did he get kangaroos on australia, bison in north america, the tiger in Asia and all the other animals that live on islands on his boat?

Truth be told, Gabrial was an extra terrestrial human, not an angel. Mary a virgin until Gabriel had sex with her and got her pregnant with Jmmanuel (Jesus) and the word God is a title given to a human with the highest level of knowledge and wisdom possible by a human being in physical form.........God of Wisdom, not god the creation. Jesus taught this same thing before revisions were applied to matthew by men in cape who would have Galileo killed for saying the earth went around the sun when they knew the opposite was true.........the sun went around the earth....obviously not correct. But this same mind was the mind that interpreted and revised the teachings of Jesus from his true teachings into stories of God and the Devil. Just as different humans live in different cities, countries, continents on earth, so do many humans live on other planets throughout the entire universe. The purpose and meaning of life is "Consciousness based evolution, and to evolve in love, wisdom, and knowledge".....>Jesus really said "Blessed are those are are rich in consciousness and recognize the truth, life will be theirs"........revised by priests who thought the earth was flat, killed red heads, and craved power and control.........revised to"""Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of god"..........whatever that means............background 18 years private school.......alter boy.........bible scholar.......researcher........college graduate...........see The Talmud of Jmmanuel document, upon which the Gospel of Matthew is based for the work of Professor James Deardorff on the subject.

Earth is well over 2 Million years old..........with higher states of matter and carbon recycling even older.

 

[`mud]

somewhat interesting:

The Talmud of Jmmanuel document, upon which the Gospel of Matthew is based
" Scholars beware: this web site includes
information showing the reality of
UFOs and their biblical connections"

I haven't read it yet, have to go, but I will, maybe !
~
and welcome aboard
~
'mud

 

[BilliardsBall]

No there's not. Only if you have no understanding of geology and are using mythological frameworks to interpret rocks.

That is grossly unfair. You make it sounds as though ALL of the thousands of geologic evidences point only to ice ages, for example, when many of the evidences indicate flooding and floodwater/moraine recession. And after all, ice is made of water.

No, the geologic evidence may well support a more recent flood followed by a recent ice age.

 

[`mud]

WOW......that's enough of that !
~
'mud

 

[gnostic]

That is grossly unfair. You make it sounds as though ALL of the thousands of geologic evidences point only to ice ages, for example, when many of the evidences indicate flooding and floodwater/moraine recession. And after all, ice is made of water.

No, the geologic evidence may well support a more recent flood followed by a recent ice age.

Did you know that we are still in the Ice Ages?

We just in the warmer Interglacial period that started around about 10,000 years ago.

But if we don't rectify what we have done to the climate, the climate change may become permanent, and that's really bad.

The glacial periods happened, so that it could replenish the planet, nature's way of redress the imbalances.

Us, humans have done serious damage to our planet, over-exploiting natural resources, causing extinction of many species.

I don't see myself as a greenie, but I am not blind to what is happening to the world around us. Just saying spade is a spade.

 

[Windwalker]

That is grossly unfair. You make it sounds as though ALL of the thousands of geologic evidences point only to ice ages, for example, when many of the evidences indicate flooding and floodwater/moraine recession. And after all, ice is made of water.

No, the geologic evidence may well support a more recent flood followed by a recent ice age.

Your argument was about a world-wide flood, not "any" floods. Of course there is evidence of those, when they actually occurred. There is however zero evidence of a world-wide flood. No credible geologists finds any support for that. That is entirely fair, and correct.

 

[Ouroboros]

And after all, ice is made of water.

Something interesting to know is that when water turns to ice, it occupy more volume. That's why it floats. Lower density. This means that if there was enough water in the ice to cover Earth, then there must be even more ice, more than enough to cover Earth. It doesn't. I think even during the hottest periods of our planet, the sea level was still "only" 400 m higher or so (which is plenty enough), but it's not like Mt Ararat (supposedly Noah's landing, if I remember right), which is about 5,000 m. And Mt Everest is even higher.

No, the geologic evidence may well support a more recent flood followed by a recent ice age.

Still, the higher sea levels before the ice age was not high enough to cover the whole Earth.

 

[outhouse]

the geologic evidence may well support a more recent flood

Factually none global. Only regional.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What is correct is that uniformitarian assumptions color geology, and that flooding can explain some of the many anomalies/mysteries in the record.

What is also true is that while I have a confirmatory bias (God tells only truth) those who are not believers have a confirmatory bias that current science is correct in most of its assumptions made from the data available, even if there are glaring holes in the theories as a result.

And no, the oceans cannot cover the highest mountains. But a uniformitarian will say those mountains were as high as they are now during a (relatively) recent Flood. One assumption colors the conclusion. Like I said, uniformitarian.

**
Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

 

[outhouse]

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Pitiful example of fanaticism.

Reusing credible education and knowledge is terrible in my opinion.


The credible education you have to deny in many different areas to come to this conclusion of yours is quite sad.

 

[Scott C.]

My take on how old is the earth... since I believe that an omnipotent God created the earth, he's surely capable of doing so in 3 seconds, 3 years, or 3 trillion years. He's also capable of doing so in 3 seconds, but leave a 3 trillion year imprint, since he can speed up or slow down the physical processes at will. Also, God does not live within time as we know it. All of this tells me that the question of "how old is the earth?" is not sensible, given the parameters in which God works. But, the evidence left for us to study and ponder indicates a very old planet. We should go with that for scientific purposes.

 

[outhouse]

(God tells only truth)

No god has ever written a word by all credible historical accounts. Only people have.


If you studied this history you would see the mythology has a historical core as a river flood in 2900 BC when the Euphrates overflowed its banks and caused massive destruction.

 

[outhouse]

My take on how old is the earth... since I believe that an omnipotent God created the earth, he's surely capable of doing so in 3 seconds, 3 years, or 3 trillion years. He's also capable of doing so in 3 seconds, but leave a 3 trillion year imprint, since he can speed up or slow down the physical processes at will. Also, God does not live within time as we know it. All of this tells me that the question of "how old is the earth?" is not sensible, given the parameters in which God works. But, the evidence left for us to study and ponder indicates a very old planet. We should go with that for scientific purposes.

Fanaticism is not a good way to determine anything let alone our past.

Your saying we should use your imagination to teach the past instead of factual data, that is not up for debate by anyone with credibility.

We know for a fact time has not changed in billions of years, and what time has changed we factually know.

You don't use religious fundamentalism to determine anything scientifically speaking.