God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

Doesn't matter. It exists. And we have evidence that it exists. Disappointing size has nothing to do with if it exists or not. How can we know it's size is utterly disappointing unless we know? In other words, you're wrong when you're saying the Kuiper belt is just hypothetical. Your own words confirms its existence.

Put it this way. Does bacon flavored beer exist? Yes, it does. It's not in any means amazing. And most of them don't have much or any taste of bacon. But they do exist anyway, even if they're disappointing. So disappointment has nothing to do with its existence.

Just admit that the Kuiper belt exists, and we can move on. Stop claiming that it's just hypothetical. The Oort cloud is hypothetical, yes, but not the Kuiper belt. (This is the third of fourth post where I have to explain this. Can't you just admit that I'm right?)

Please do not misstate my words--I agree the Oort Cloud is conjectural, the Kuiper Belt isn't. However, a statement re: the Kuiper Belt in Wikipedia says that:

"Since it was discovered in 1992, the number of known Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) has increased to over a thousand, and more than 100,000 KBOs over 100 km (62 mi) in diameter are believed to exist."

There need to be, you see, 100 times more objects in it for it to function in the way we'd expect it to if the solar system is old. Change believed to "hypothesized" in the sentence above and you'll get what I'm saying here.

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If that was "true", then new civilisation (after the flood) would be different to the civilisation (and their culture) before the flood, wouldn't you say?

And yet, if the flood occur in Egypt as well as other part of the world, at some point in time of second half of 3rd millennium BCE, then you have different Egyptian culture.

Like I said previously in older replies, though the bible don't provide dates, it (the bible from Genesis to the end of 2 Kings) does supply the number of years in generations or the number of years between certain events (like 2 Kings 6:1, between exodus out of Egypt and 4th year of Solomon's reign), in which it is possible to calculate the estimated dates from the time of destruction of Solomon's temple and Jerusalem in 587 BCE.

I am not saying that a REAL GLOBAL FLOOD happened, because it didn't, but the OT bible does supply years in which we can work with. The date from Adam (his creation) to flood is 1656 AM, according any Masoretic-based text, and this turn about to be 2268 BCE, according to my calculations.

There have no been change in culture after 2268 BCE from before 2268 BCE, in Egypt, or from that of Sumerian-Akkadian civilisation or further east, in China. That mean the flood didn't occur.

A flood of that magnitude - a global - "destroying all civilisations", as you said, would have changed the world. The new world world - the new civilisations - should be different than the old world.

And yet, I n Egypt, they still have the same type writing systems (hieroglyphs and hieratic), same styles of art works, and still building same tombs for their rulers (pyramids). How is that even possible?

Also the Tower of Babel supposedly happened during Abram's time, when only one language existed before tower building, since the creation of Adam. And yet Old Egyptian spoken around the 2nd half of 3rd millennium BCE is different from that Sumerian and the Semitic Akkadian in Mesopotamia. This make the one language spoken before Genesis' Tower of Babel as mythological as that of Creation of Adam and Noah's Flood.

The Global Flood didn't happen.

You are setting up a straw man argument in two ways by setting up dates for a Flood and patriarchs that aren't recorded in the Holy Bible and then asserting that you are sure exactly when certain rather ancient Egyptian events occurred.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If you feel the Grand Canyon wasn't Flood created, you've raised your own issue--how then can it also be unique?

Long-term regional climate stability and long-term water source continuation, for one. When combined, those are two uncommon factors on the planet.

 

[metis]

The Grand Canyon certainly was not created by a flood as can rather easily be seen by the fact that the Colorado River cut and continues to cut its way through. A hypothetical worldwide flood would not have that same effect on the soft sandstone. There simply was never such a flood, and those who insist that there was one simply miss the messages of that narrative.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Please do not misstate my words--I agree the Oort Cloud is conjectural, the Kuiper Belt isn't. However, a statement re: the Kuiper Belt in Wikipedia says that:

"Since it was discovered in 1992, the number of known Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) has increased to over a thousand, and more than 100,000 KBOs over 100 km (62 mi) in diameter are believed to exist."

There need to be, you see, 100 times more objects in it for it to function in the way we'd expect it to if the solar system is old. Change believed to "hypothesized" in the sentence above and you'll get what I'm saying here.

Thank you.

So do you believe that the estimation of the 100,000 objects is just a wild-*** guess in attempts to validate a preconceived notion of an old solar system, or do you believe, as you should, that the data studied leads to that conclusion, irrespective of bias or religion implications?

There are some estimated guessed involved, certainly. But those guesses are made based on objects that have been factually discovered, the occurence of objects coming from the Kuiper belt that can only lead to the conclusion that there are more than what we've seen, and based on the implications derived from studying the existence of kuiper belts around other star systems.

 

[outhouse]

If you feel the Grand Canyon wasn't Flood created, you've raised your own issue--how then can it also be unique?

If you did not refuse academia in geology, you could answer your own questions.


Your under some kind of false impression there is a debate here. There is not. Its just you refusing credible education and knowledge.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Please share with us in lay terms some of the data that suggests it's more than simply hypothetical.

Sedna - http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/617/1/645/pdf/0004-637X_617_1_645.pdf

At perihelion Sedna is as "close" as 76 (+/- 4) AU. For reference, the distance between Pluto and Sedna is basically the same as Neptune is from the Sun.... That's an incredible distance. Far beyond the Kuiper Belt.

Another point of data, which makes it more than hypothetical, comes from models showing the immense gravitational influence of the Sun. Essentially, there is a question of how far out the Sun's influence can reach while still keeping objects inside of it's "bubble".

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6962/full/nature02068.html

Back i, 2002, Voyage broke through one of the proposed windows of this boundary at a distance of 85 AU. Note that this is another 5-10 AU past Sedna... If the Sun's influence can hypothetically extend at least that far, how much further can it go? We can make some predictions based on the it's overall mass, and that predictions comes out to basically a light year away. (50,000 AU possibly) If that is proven to be an overstatement, then it will be corrected. But even if it, that doesn't take away from the fact that all of the data supports the Oort Cloud.

And finally, for a better read, here's one of the original articles written by Oort himself.
1950BAN....11...91O Page 91

Essentially, when you study the axis of any of these major long term objects, and realize that their orbital axis pivots on the Sun, there is really no other possible explanation than for the existence of the Oort Cloud to supply these incredibly elliptical orbits. We've only had the ability to study the sky with this much accuracy for a few decades.

Give us more time to gather more data and you'll be amazed at what there is to learn out there.

 

[gnostic]

You are setting up a straw man argument in two ways by setting up dates for a Flood and patriarchs that aren't recorded in the Holy Bible and then asserting that you are sure exactly when certain rather ancient Egyptian events occurred.

I didn't say that BLOODY BIBLE have dates!!!!

I SAID that the books (Genesis, Exodus, 1 & 2 Samuel, and 1 & 2 Kings) it contained generations, the lengths of reigns, and years, IN WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE for me to calculate the dates with AN ACTUAL HISTORICAL REFERENCE POINT - the FALL OF JERUSALEM in 587 BCE.

Although, the years like that of Genesis and Exodus are questionable, I didn't make it BLOODY UP the years that the Bible have supplied. I used 587 BCE, to work backward to calculate the years.

You do understand the differences between YEARS and DATES, don't you?

The books in the bible do supply years, not dates. It is with those years that I can make a timeline. Is that really hard for you to grasp?

Do you know how to read and understand what I have written?

If you do, then why in the bloody 7-hell must I repeat myself. I DIDN'T SAY THAT THE YOUR BLOODY SH#@ BIBLE CONTAIN DATES!!!

I hate swearing, but when I have to repeat myself half-dozen times to the same person over the same matter, I get downright irritated that you don't bloody well understand what I am saying.

I doesn't take a bloody genius to some simple arithmetic of getting general picture of the timeline in the bible, and then comparing it with actual historical and archaeological events. The only things you need is to read what the bible say, and have some patience to work it out.

Did attending blood Sunday school dumb-down your general education?

 

[psychoslice]

Bloody's in the bible blood's in the book, if you don't bloody believe me then just take a look lol.

 

[gnostic]

As to Egypt, billiardsball, there are hundreds of tombs (especially pyramids), temples, and others buildings from the Old Kingdom period and 1st Intermediate Period, which are all datable - both historically and archaeologically. And most have names, inside the pyramids, in which anyone with half-a-brain, provide evidences of who rule when.

Giza is not the only necropolis in Egypt. Other places, just as important is Saqqara, Dashur and Abydos, and the capitals, like Memphis.

 

[.kaleb]

There simply was never such a flood, and those who insist that there was one simply miss the messages of that narrative.

why in your opinion then did God see fi to have the account of the worldwide flood recorded in the holy scriptures?

 

[gnostic]

why in your opinion then did God see fi to have the account of the worldwide flood recorded in the holy scriptures?

Who said that God had anything to with writing the book of Genesis?

There are every indication that Genesis was written in the 1st half of 1st millennium BCE, not the 2nd half of 2nd millennium BCE, when Moses supposed lived.

There are actually no evidences that to support that Moses ever existed or that the Israelites were ever slaves in Egypt - historically speaking.

And according to tradition, Moses supposedly wrote the Genesis, along with other books (Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus) in the Torah.

Not to mention that the Genesis is also historically inaccurate.

It say that there were only one language spoken before the Flood and before the Tower of Babel, but the historically there were many languages.

That Egypt only existed only after the Flood (son of Ham), but that's also not true, because culturally and archaeologically Egypt have been around before the unification of Egypt in 3100 BCE. Genesis also say that Nimrod, Ham's grandson, had found a number of cities in Sumer (or Babylonia) and Assyria, but that's also historically and archaeological inaccurate, because the city of Uruk (or Erech in KJV) is one of the oldest city in the Mesopotamia, with settlement as early as 5000 BCE, and Uruk truly flourished in the 4th millennium BCE.

The bible is not history book, so it shouldn't be treated as one.

It is now consensus that the Genesis' Flood myth had borrowed ideas of the Flood, Noah and Ark, were borrowed from earlier myth and legend from Babylonians, who (referring to the Babylonians) borrowed it from an even civilisation of the Sumerians.

Evidences to support this, is that fragments of tablets of the epic of Gilgamesh can be found in the mid-2nd millennium BCE, in Megiddo in Canaan, Ugarit (in northern Syria) and Amarna in Egypt.

 

[Curious George]

Didn't read the whole thread but, if it has not been said, nearly all to all of the earth was likely covered in water. However this was a hell of a lot longer than 6k years ago.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you feel the Grand Canyon wasn't Flood created, you've raised your own issue--how then can it also be unique?

How can it be unique? Simple it was a local event. If it were global it would NOT be unique. If it was specific to an area it would be unique. We already know how it was created. All you need to do is google it.

 

[metis]

why in your opinion then did God see fi to have the account of the worldwide flood recorded in the holy scriptures?

Allegory. In our traditional form of writing, allegory, metaphors, parables, etc. are commonplace. Typically, they are written as if they actually had happened or were about ready to happen.

Even in the early church there was discussion over Jesus' use of parables as to whether they were real events or narratives with symbolic values, and the consensus was they they were the latter. "Revelations" is full of these forms of symbolism.

The importance of the Flood narrative isn't whether it actually happened, but what are the teachings found within the narrative, and those can be rather easily pulled out if one reads them carefully.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Long-term regional climate stability and long-term water source continuation, for one. When combined, those are two uncommon factors on the planet.

I don't recall saying the Canyon is Flood-resultant, and personally find it to be not so. I am saying that it is invalid to say, "If the Canyon is Flood made, how come it is unique?" without first logically considering, "If it is made by common geological processes, why is it unique?"

I agree the answer has to do with lake and river formation and pre-Canyon states.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So do you believe that the estimation of the 100,000 objects is just a wild-*** guess in attempts to validate a preconceived notion of an old solar system, or do you believe, as you should, that the data studied leads to that conclusion, irrespective of bias or religion implications?

There are some estimated guessed involved, certainly. But those guesses are made based on objects that have been factually discovered, the occurence of objects coming from the Kuiper belt that can only lead to the conclusion that there are more than what we've seen, and based on the implications derived from studying the existence of kuiper belts around other star systems.

My understanding is despite searching via different varieties of telescopes and etc. that the number of objects is disappointing. By a scale of 10,000% (100 times) there aren't enough objects to sustain a very old solar system. The 100th factor does sustain a younger solar system (that could still be millions, not 6,000 years old).

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you did not refuse academia in geology, you could answer your own questions.


Your under some kind of false impression there is a debate here. There is not. Its just you refusing credible education and knowledge.

Better than accusations about my mindset or knowledge is to come with facts contrary or seemingly contrary to my statements. Others are doing this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sedna - http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/617/1/645/pdf/0004-637X_617_1_645.pdf

At perihelion Sedna is as "close" as 76 (+/- 4) AU. For reference, the distance between Pluto and Sedna is basically the same as Neptune is from the Sun.... That's an incredible distance. Far beyond the Kuiper Belt.

Another point of data, which makes it more than hypothetical, comes from models showing the immense gravitational influence of the Sun. Essentially, there is a question of how far out the Sun's influence can reach while still keeping objects inside of it's "bubble".

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6962/full/nature02068.html

Back i, 2002, Voyage broke through one of the proposed windows of this boundary at a distance of 85 AU. Note that this is another 5-10 AU past Sedna... If the Sun's influence can hypothetically extend at least that far, how much further can it go? We can make some predictions based on the it's overall mass, and that predictions comes out to basically a light year away. (50,000 AU possibly) If that is proven to be an overstatement, then it will be corrected. But even if it, that doesn't take away from the fact that all of the data supports the Oort Cloud.

And finally, for a better read, here's one of the original articles written by Oort himself.
1950BAN....11...91O Page 91

Essentially, when you study the axis of any of these major long term objects, and realize that their orbital axis pivots on the Sun, there is really no other possible explanation than for the existence of the Oort Cloud to supply these incredibly elliptical orbits. We've only had the ability to study the sky with this much accuracy for a few decades.

Give us more time to gather more data and you'll be amazed at what there is to learn out there.

Perhaps. Or we can say something else since time and telescopes, etc. have been found wanting. It's the Cloud of the gap. Also, I think if you were more open-minded, you might not say statements I find inflammatory such as "all the data" supports the Oort Cloud. Not being able to see a Cloud of objects happens to be a big piece of data not in its favor!

What you are really saying is, "Although Billiards Ball supports a 13.7 Billion year universe, he is calling to question a younger solar system, say, millions of years. This might also touch on his and my interpretation/understanding of religion, so I will assume the naturalist explanations for all solar system cosmology should bear fruit in due time, rather than say, allow that the solar system was created via intelligent design."

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't say that BLOODY BIBLE have dates!!!!

I SAID that the books (Genesis, Exodus, 1 & 2 Samuel, and 1 & 2 Kings) it contained generations, the lengths of reigns, and years, IN WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE for me to calculate the dates with AN ACTUAL HISTORICAL REFERENCE POINT - the FALL OF JERUSALEM in 587 BCE.

Although, the years like that of Genesis and Exodus are questionable, I didn't make it BLOODY UP the years that the Bible have supplied. I used 587 BCE, to work backward to calculate the years.

You do understand the differences between YEARS and DATES, don't you?

The books in the bible do supply years, not dates. It is with those years that I can make a timeline. Is that really hard for you to grasp?

Do you know how to read and understand what I have written?

If you do, then why in the bloody 7-hell must I repeat myself. I DIDN'T SAY THAT THE YOUR BLOODY SH#@ BIBLE CONTAIN DATES!!!

I hate swearing, but when I have to repeat myself half-dozen times to the same person over the same matter, I get downright irritated that you don't bloody well understand what I am saying.

I doesn't take a bloody genius to some simple arithmetic of getting general picture of the timeline in the bible, and then comparing it with actual historical and archaeological events. The only things you need is to read what the bible say, and have some patience to work it out.

Did attending blood Sunday school dumb-down your general education?

1. Clearly you don't hate swearing.

2. It is hard for you to read all my posts? I've stated and am forced to repeat:

* Not only does the Bible lack Flood and Creation dates but "son of" can also mean "notable descendant of". The Messiah was called "The Son of David" dozens of times in scripture. There are 27 generations between David and Jesus, or approximately 1,000 years IF you do what you do and simply count years and "son ofs".