God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[RangerluxHD]

Even uneducated people would believe that the earth was older
There is mass amount of proof
Our proof= Fossilisations+Compressed minerals
Your proof= A book

 

[BilliardsBall]

Except that the geological evidences are not circular reasoning.

Those who deny geological evidences, simply don't understand geology and stratigraphy...or they don't want to understand it because it conflict with their so-called scriptures.

Genesis does say global flood, and said to have cover the highest mountains, and every living things, other than those that were aboard survive. There is no getting around what the bible say.

Like you have said there are enough water in the world to cover the entire the earth, including the highest mountains.

And if there were such a global flood, then there should be geological and archaeological evidences found everywhere AT EXACTLY ONE POINT IN TIME...

Such a catastrophic event would point to date of when that happened, and that didn't happen.

If such event took place, there would be also evidence that all animals originate from mount Ararat. You could track their movements, by the animals dying, during their journeys away from mt Ararat. Slow-moving animals like wombats and kolas would have taken millennia to reach Australia, if they somehow escape from predators in their journey...which is highly unlikely, don't you think?

And there have been no evidences that wombats and kolas ever living in Eurasian continent.

You are open to interpret data as you see fit. Creationists are arguing that these evidences do exist and are in the data now prevalent/known.

The Bible says the Earth "shook" in the days of Noah. Along with catastrophic plate techtonics would come "quick" migrations of species--which is to say the land masses are moving them--there are land bridges between continents people are using, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But for what purpose? Why stick to a story that doesn't have support in geology only for the purpose of sticking to the story? And also, you have admitted to not reading other parts in the Bible literally, so why take the story literally?

My view is that I do think the story was based on a real event, however, it wasn't a global flood, but local, and his name wasn't Noah, and he didn't take all pairs of all species of the world either, but took his household, whatever he had and barely escaped a flood that destroyed his home and probably home city. We do have geological evidence of local floods in those areas. Some even larger than usual, so a massive local flood where only a handful of people managed to escape, that's a possible story.

I don't recall admitting to not reading the Bible literally (where it is using plain, not poetic, language)?

I agree with you--there is a conflict between a literal global Flood tale and modern geology. Ten minutes on Wikipedia would show you the basic areas in which creationists and secular scientists are looking to fill gaps in geology as well as interpret data accurately. However, a plain sense reading of Genesis 6-9 and other Bible passages that speak of Noah are clearly against any kind of local, not global Flood.

 

[metis]

Religious denominations become much less valid when their dogma is being used as a set of blinders. Both the ToE and basic geology point to an Earth that's billions of years old and has changed ever since, along with that which is found on it. Any religious approach that denies this is one that should be avoided like the plague.

 

[David M]

You are open to interpret data as you see fit. Creationists are arguing that these evidences do exist and are in the data now prevalent/known.

The Bible says the Earth "shook" in the days of Noah. Along with catastrophic plate techtonics would come "quick" migrations of species--which is to say the land masses are moving them--there are land bridges between continents people are using, etc.

"Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" would kill all life, even if it were possible in the first place. The energy released by plates slamming in to each other at such speeds and the accompanying release of magma as they move apart would boil the waters of all the oceans.

 

[outhouse]

Creationists are arguing

Of course they are. They juts don't have any credibility following pseudoscience.


NO DATE FOR A FLOOD = NO FLOOD

 

[shawn001]

All,

I'm sorry to disagree, but you are making some circular statements and assumptive statements. Example, and please take this in the kind spirit in which it is intended:



Assumptions in that bit alone include:

We know with certainty when Meteor Crater was formed
" " how Meteor Crater was formed
" " all the circumstances that brought mammoths and sloths to past extinctions
" " ranges as species
" " when humans first arrived in North America

I can accept conversation like "Yes, there isn't enough water to cover current land masses. Can we talk about rapid land mass formation?" more easily than I can accept "multiple assumptions in geology form a consistent body of dates for other assumed and/or real events".

I'm not a total idiot. I get ancient dating on catastrophes, geologic formations, cosmology, etc. I can see certain conflicts with the Flood story and modern geology. I do not think the contradictions are irreconcilable.

Posting illustrations and maps of past events on this thread makes it look as though you found ice age limits in Google Earth from satellite views taken months ago! Geology is exciting for the very reasons we're discussing, it is attempts to solve and come to reasonable conclusions on a myriad of past events.

you are using thew word assumptions here. All of your above points are already known. The date of that particular impact and how it was formed, the extinction by the mammoths and sloths the ranges and huimans in the Americas. The oldest being 16,000 years old.


"
Oldest Human Remains in North America Found
In 1959, the partial skeletal remains of an ancient woman estimated to be 10,000 years old were unearthed in Arlington Springs on Santa Rosa Island, one of the eight Channel Islands off the southern California coast. They were discovered by Phil C. Orr, curator of anthropology and natural history at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. The remains of the so-called Arlington Springs woman were recently reanalyzed by the latest radiocarbon dating techniques and were found to be approximately 13,000 years old. The new date makes her remains older than any other known human skeleton found so far in North America.

The discovery challenges the popular belief that the first colonists to North America arrived at the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago by crossing a Bering land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska and northwestern Canada. The earlier date and the location of the woman's remains on the island adds weight to an alternative theory that some early settlers may have constructed boats and migrated from Asia by sailing down the Pacific coast.

The Arlington Springs woman lived during the end of the Pleistocene era when large herds of bison and woolly mammoths roamed the grassy plains and other extinct native American animals such as camels, horses, and saber-toothed cats were still around.

The remains of Pleistocene-era animals have been discovered on Santa Rosa Island where the Arlington Springs woman was found. In 1994, the world's most complete skeleton of a pygmy mammoth, a dwarf species, was also excavated here.



Oldest Human Remains in North America Found http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779260.html#ixzz3Yl4UBO1E


Pygmy mammoth

Pygmy mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You also skipped right over the places it hasn't rained in millions of years and the fact ice core samples proved without any doubt no global flood. What your calling assumptions are multiple lines of very detailed lines of science and evidence from all disciplines.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Religious denominations become much less valid when their dogma is being used as a set of blinders. Both the ToE and basic geology point to an Earth that's billions of years old and has changed ever since, along with that which is found on it. Any religious approach that denies this is one that should be avoided like the plague.

There is a difference between a stance that is anti-intellectual/anti-academia/anti-science and saying things like "Mainstream scientists and scientific creationists look at the same data and disagree on the interpretation" or "The Bible says there was a universal flood and geology agrees that..."

 

[BilliardsBall]

you are using thew word assumptions here. All of your above points are already known. The date of that particular impact and how it was formed, the extinction by the mammoths and sloths the ranges and huimans in the Americas. The oldest being 16,000 years old.


"
Oldest Human Remains in North America Found
In 1959, the partial skeletal remains of an ancient woman estimated to be 10,000 years old were unearthed in Arlington Springs on Santa Rosa Island, one of the eight Channel Islands off the southern California coast. They were discovered by Phil C. Orr, curator of anthropology and natural history at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. The remains of the so-called Arlington Springs woman were recently reanalyzed by the latest radiocarbon dating techniques and were found to be approximately 13,000 years old. The new date makes her remains older than any other known human skeleton found so far in North America.

The discovery challenges the popular belief that the first colonists to North America arrived at the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago by crossing a Bering land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska and northwestern Canada. The earlier date and the location of the woman's remains on the island adds weight to an alternative theory that some early settlers may have constructed boats and migrated from Asia by sailing down the Pacific coast.

The Arlington Springs woman lived during the end of the Pleistocene era when large herds of bison and woolly mammoths roamed the grassy plains and other extinct native American animals such as camels, horses, and saber-toothed cats were still around.

The remains of Pleistocene-era animals have been discovered on Santa Rosa Island where the Arlington Springs woman was found. In 1994, the world's most complete skeleton of a pygmy mammoth, a dwarf species, was also excavated here.



Oldest Human Remains in North America Found http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779260.html#ixzz3Yl4UBO1E


Pygmy mammoth

Pygmy mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You also skipped right over the places it hasn't rained in millions of years and the fact ice core samples proved without any doubt no global flood. What your calling assumptions are multiple lines of very detailed lines of science and evidence from all disciplines.

The key word in your post is "estimated".

 

[metis]

There is a difference between a stance that is anti-intellectual/anti-academia/anti-science and saying things like "Mainstream scientists and scientific creationists look at the same data and disagree on the interpretation" or "The Bible says there was a universal flood and geology agrees that..."

The creation accounts, if taken literally, cannot and do not match what geologists have long known, namely that Earth is almost 5 billion years old. Also, they are well aware of the fact that there has not been a universal flood. Facts are facts, and trying to squeeze the creation accounts into what is known about Earth's geological history is nonsensical.

 

[outhouse]

anti-intellectual/anti-academia/anti-science

So the real question becomes.

Can you show that YEC does not apply to the above statement?


Or does it factually apply, and its not even in dispute?

 

[jonathan180iq]

We know with certainty when Meteor Crater was formed

Are you suggesting that people who study these types of things for a living are completely wrong in their dating methods simply because it doesn't mesh with Biblical narratives and timelines?

" " how Meteor Crater was formed

....By a meteor...

all the circumstances that brought mammoths and sloths to past extinctions

We'll never "all" but we know enough to make some very educated and accurate claims.

ranges as species

Unless you have evidence that they existed outside of the proposed ranges, then there is nothing else to go on but unsubstantiated guesses... Also, what does this matter? What do the ranges of Mammoths have to do with Meteor impacts and ages? I simply mentioned their existence on the planet at the time for reference to how long ago it was.

when humans first arrived in North America

Again, unless you have evidence that there were humans on the continent before 20,000 years ago at the latest, then you've got nothing to go on.

You are open to interpret data as you see fit. Creationists are arguing that these evidences do exist and are in the data now prevalent/known.

What's their argument then, that we just interpret the data differently because it fits their presupposed Biblical narrative better?
You must see the problem with that approach to science.

Are we likewise supposed to interpret geological data within the framework of Hindu creation mythologies? How about Nordic? Surely we can make one of these creation mythologies line up with the data if we only interpret the data differently...

The Bible says the Earth "shook" in the days of Noah. Along with catastrophic plate techtonics would come "quick" migrations of species--which is to say the land masses are moving them--there are land bridges between continents people are using, etc.

Is there any evidence at all that suggest that "catastrophic plate tectonics" is something that can happen in a matter of 40 days?
Anything at all?

Since there is not, you have to again rely on presupposing an answer from an ancient book just because you're biased towards it. This is specifically what science attempts to avoid.

However, a plain sense reading of Genesis 6-9 and other Bible passages that speak of Noah are clearly against any kind of local, not global Flood.

Exactly... That's precisely why people can't take claims from these religious books seriously, because they are not supported by any natural evidences. As I've said in previous posts. There is plenty of evidence for some pretty serious localized floods in the Semitic regions of Mesopotamia. There is no evidence, however, for a connected global flood of any sort. In order to assume or claim that there is, you literally have to reject vast amounts of physical evidence and replace it with logical limbo games and mental hoola-hooping... It's not academic. It's not founded in observable reality. There is simply no reason to believe that it happened outside of pious faith.

If there was sufficient evidence for anything of the sort, science would accept it. There is no conspiracy against your interpretation of Genesis. If the event happened, there would be evidence that it happened. If there is no evidence of something, then it very obviously didn't happen.

If I told you I owned a 35,000 acre corn plantation, and there was no evidence of a 35,000 acre corn plantation anywhere on Earth, you could very adequately suggest that I was not telling you the truth. It's very simple.

 

[outhouse]

scientific creationists

There is no such thing.

That is fanaticism and fundamentalism refusing credible academia and refusing credible scientific findings based on theological bias and motives known as pseudoscience.

 

[outhouse]

you have to again rely on presupposing an answer from an ancient book just because you're biased towards it

And with him.

If he cannot produce a date for when the flood happened, then it never did happen.

Had a flood as described happened, it would be dated exactly.

 

[jonathan180iq]

And with him.

If he cannot produce a date for when the flood happened, then it never did happen.

Had a flood as described happened, it would be dated exactly.

Precisely.

If flying saucers came to Earth from planet X, they would leave evidences of their visit.
I make this argument a lot: I find it very interesting that the pseudo-scientific belief in Ancient Aliens has more evidence supporting it than YEC or any form of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[outhouse]

It amazes me that within written history, only one book describes this exact global flood.

And amazingly, no cultures around the world show any evidence at all since the ice age of any disruption in their cultures what so ever.

So billiardballs, how do you explain the FACT that cultures all over the globe since the last ice age show no break in any aspect of their cultures???????????


How do you explain the aborigines not having any disruption what so ever, as described in the bible?


How do you explain that in China who has had forms of writing going back thousands of years, has no break in cultures when the bible says their was a flood?



NO DATE! NO FLOOD!

 

[outhouse]

I find it very interesting that the pseudo-scientific belief in Ancient Aliens

Give me and you 5 minutes on public TV with ole messy hair, and the show would be over. LOL

 

[jonathan180iq]

Give me and you 5 minutes on public TV with ole messy hair, and the show would be over. LOL

 

[`mud]

Somewhat close to the OP.
I always get to the need of when humans developed the ability to speak.
Not only to each other, as is a neccessary ingredient, but eventually,
to many other types and colors of their given types.
When did the Aborigninal Australians, before they were invaded by Britain,
start speaking to each other.
And the Huns, coming down through Europe to destroy everything.
And the Africans who didn't know a language beyond their own borders.
And on and on.
That makes me wonder.
Just a thought that's not mentioned much !
The Americas, South and North are an excellent example.
I think they migrated from China originally.
But......who was the first ??
Where did the first "ugh goo" come ?
~
'mud

 

[metis]

Somewhat close to the OP.
I always get to the need of when humans developed the ability to speak.
Not only to each other, as is a neccessary ingredient, but eventually,
to many other types and colors of their given types.
When did the Aborigninal Australians, before they were invaded by Britain,
start speaking to each other.
And the Huns, coming down through Europe to destroy everything.
And the Africans who didn't know a language beyond their own borders.
And on and on.
That makes me wonder.
Just a thought that's not mentioned much !
The Americas, South and North are an excellent example.
I think they migrated from China originally.
But......who was the first ??
Where did the first "ugh goo" come ?
~
'mud

There's some evidence that they came out of s.e. Asia, migrated northward, but then went eastward towards the Bering maybe because of pressure from the Mongolians. The Inuit came much later, mostly from northern Mongolia and eastern Siberia.