Evidences given for a young-earth

[PruePhillip]

That is not true. Archaeologists look at the Bible as a mixture of history and myth. So it is myth, Genesis, Exodus, Job, Jonah, and other tales. There are also aspects that are historically correct.

And yes, you do ignore the parts that do not fit. If you did not do so you would realize that Genesis is myth. You keep grasping at straws and try to fill the gaps caused by your square pegs and round holes. Meanwhile ignoring the gross errors of Genesis.

And aren't you ignoring the gross facts of the first Genesis account?
Seems like it. I can't get you to even acknowledge the correlation
between verse2 and the science.
Not sure how you "know" Job is a myth. No-one else knows much
about the book or the man.

 

[PruePhillip]

I've already explained how that's nonsense. Nothing they predicted was improbable - it was all easily observable. And the parts that aren't don't take a wild guess to get right.

Your argument is nonsense.


Which has nothing to do whatsoever with the claim being unlikely.

Again: the sun starting to shine at some point is not a 1 in 10 claim. It's plain and obvious to any normal human, even those living at the time, that the sun may have NOT been around at some point in the past. That's literally all it claims.

Again, your ridiculous probability estimate is based on nothing, and the predictions of the Bible are just based on very plain observations that ANYBODY could have made.

So, people saw continents rising out of the sea?
What were they standing on when they saw this?

And the wild guesses? You might get one right,
but the sequence starts stacking up. Where did
I get to when I mentioned this --- oh... 1 in 10,000
chance of getting the sequence continent stage.
And what's the chance of knowing life emerged
of itself on land, and then in the ocean? If it's 1
in a 100 then the odds are now 1,000,000.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And aren't you ignoring the gross facts of the first Genesis account?
Seems like it. I can't get you to even acknowledge the correlation
between verse2 and the science.
Not sure how you "know" Job is a myth. No-one else knows much
about the book or the man.

Funny how you know so much, but can demonstrate nothing. I accept that you believe these things, but you have offered nothing for others that is significant for them to accept your personal belief as valid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And aren't you ignoring the gross facts of the first Genesis account?
Seems like it. I can't get you to even acknowledge the correlation
between verse2 and the science.
Not sure how you "know" Job is a myth. No-one else knows much
about the book or the man.

As to Job, are you sure that you want to paint your God as being immoral?

And I really don't care about either Genesis account. One is so vague as to be worthless and the other is flat out wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, people saw continents rising out of the sea?
What were they standing on when they saw this?

And the wild guesses? You might get one right,
but the sequence starts stacking up. Where did
I get to when I mentioned this --- oh... 1 in 10,000
chance of getting the sequence continent stage.
And what's the chance of knowing life emerged
of itself on land, and then in the ocean? If it's 1
in a 100 then the odds are now 1,000,000.

There is no evidence to support life originating on land and in the sea, both. You are forcing the evidence to fit your preconceived view. Unfortunately, it is never obvious to the one doing it, just everyone else.

 

[gnostic]

Don't know where you are coming from here, other than blanket skepticism.
I didn't say people saw oceans - this was before people, and there was no land.
Absence of light meant the sun did not shine on the earth for millions of years
And continents ROSE out of the sea - continents are made of granite which is
lighter and less dense than basalt.

As I have repeatedly stated earlier, the Earth’s crust and atmosphere would have to come first before water and wind.

And when water did come, IT DIDN’T COVER THE ENTIRE CRUST.

So, land or the continent didn’t have to rise out of the primeval sea.

And, Genesis isn’t the only myth that supported dry lands rose out from primeval ocean.

According to the Heliopolitian myth of Creator sun god first Atum and then later of Ra, was the god who cause the first mound to rise out of the primeval ocean Nu (or Nun). This sacred mound was supposedly the first dry land, located at I͗wnw, which the Greeks would later call it Heliopolis (Ήλιούπολις), naming after their own sun god, Helios.

The ancient Sumerian called their primeval waters Abzû (freshwater ocean) and Nammu (salty water ocean), which the Akkadians (later Assyrians and Babylonians) called them respectively as Apsû and Tiamat (read Enûma Elish, “Epic of Creation”).

Tiamat appeared in Babylonian myth as a monster or as a dragon, whom Marduk slain in Enûma Elish, and Marduk became ruler of the gods, but the older Sumerian Nammu never appeared in these forms, and was never slain by Marduk. Marduk cut up Tiamat’s body to create the sky and lands.

In Sumerian literature, unlike Enûma Elish, there were no war between the old gods and the new gods .In Sumerian myth, Marduk was only a minor god, and his name don’t even appear in the Akkadian/Old Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh.

All these myths predated Genesis. They were in the Bronze Age (3rd and 2nd millennia BCE, whereas Genesis was composed in the Iron Age, probably about the 7th century BCE at the earliest. And the myth of Gilgamesh was so popular in 2nd millennium BCE that tablets were spread as far west as Hattusa (Hittite capital), Ugarit, Megiddo (Canaan) and Amarna (Aktenaten’s cult centre in Egypt).

So what is found in Genesis, is hardly original.

 

[PruePhillip]

There is no evidence to support life originating on land and in the sea, both. You are forcing the evidence to fit your preconceived view. Unfortunately, it is never obvious to the one doing it, just everyone else.

Do you think life originated in outer space?

 

[PruePhillip]

So what is found in Genesis, is hardly original.

…

And I really don't care about either Genesis account…flat out wrong.

 

[gnostic]

View attachment 35377

The artist’s impression is the artist’s impression. They are neither scientists, nor historians, nor archaeologists, nor paleontologists, and so on.

So why do you keep posting that same pic up?

It has no value, except to art lovers and critics.

As to the message below, you are the one who brought up Genesis 1:2 verse, I have commented on it, and found it doesn’t disagree with science, on the Earth’s origin.

You are forget the last part of verse 2, which I have highlighted (the missing part) in red and bold:

2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

How can there be water and wind with no atmosphere?

And how can there be water with no Earth’s crust?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you think life originated in outer space?

Well, the Earth is in outer space. You did know that, right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you think life originated in outer space?

What an absurd question. There is no evidence of multiple lines of origination and certainly nothing indicating multiple independent origins of terrestrial and marine life.

 

[PruePhillip]

The artist’s impression is the artist’s impression. They are neither scientists, nor historians, nor archaeologists, nor paleontologists, and so on.

So why do you keep posting that same pic up?

It has no value, except to art lovers and critics.

As to the message below, you are the one who brought up Genesis 1:2 verse, I have commented on it, and found it doesn’t disagree with science, on the Earth’s origin.

You are forget the last part of verse 2, which I have highlighted (the missing part) in red and bold:



How can there be water and wind with no atmosphere?

And how can there be water with no Earth’s crust?

Thank you.
You can just make out the watermarks on the image - it's from a
science publication.
The proper translation is the spirit of God. Make of it what you like.
Meaning - God moves across His creation.

At verse 2 we are in Water World Mode.
No continents at this stage, maybe no land at all - save for a few
volcanos sticking out. The atmosphere is heavily methane, carbon
dioxide and nitrogen, no oxygen - massive amount of aerosols as
the earth is very volcanic.
Ocean is deep green and sterile. And deep as in depth, 3-4 kms.

THE PAINTING IS SIMILAR TO THE ACCOUNT IN VERSE 2.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well, the Earth is in outer space. You did know that, right?

You can say that the earth is in "inner space" as the earth is the center
of the universe. Remember, as Einstein put it, the OBSERVER is
supreme. Thus you can say the sun revolves around the earth, along
with lots of other things.

Thus, a lunar organism would see the earth rise and set. We see the
moon rise and set. Who's right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

View attachment 35377

Since it is not supported by evidence as being scientifically valid, there was no need to bring it up in the first place.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can say that the earth is in "inner space" as the earth is the center
of the universe. Remember, as Einstein put it, the OBSERVER is
supreme. Thus you can say the sun revolves around the earth, along
with lots of other things.

Thus, a lunar organism would see the earth rise and set. We see the
moon rise and set. Who's right?

It does not change the fact that the Earth is in space.

It also is orbiting the sun and not the other way around. Is your entire view based on absurdity or are we just getting a peak at the real gems?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can say that the earth is in "inner space" as the earth is the center
of the universe. Remember, as Einstein put it, the OBSERVER is
supreme. Thus you can say the sun revolves around the earth, along
with lots of other things.

Thus, a lunar organism would see the earth rise and set. We see the
moon rise and set. Who's right?

There are no known lunar organisms to view the Earth.

 

[PruePhillip]

There are no known lunar organisms to view the Earth.

Yeah, there's going to be an American woman on the South Pole there soon.
You are just being pedantic.

 

[PruePhillip]

It does not change the fact that the Earth is in space.

It also is orbiting the sun and not the other way around. Is your entire view based on absurdity or are we just getting a peak at the real gems?

Nah, I just remember what Einstein said about the centrality of the observer in space.

 

[PruePhillip]

Since it is not supported by evidence as being scientifically valid, there was no need to bring it up in the first place.

The painting represents the current scientific view of the early earth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, there's going to be an American woman on the South Pole there soon.
You are just being pedantic.

I have noticed you avoid responding to questions you don't seem to have answers for and you fail to agree with points that are obviously true with shifting of goal posts. How typically creationist tacticky of you.

There are no known living organisms on the moon. What may happen has not happened and does not refute that fact. A human visiting would not be a lunar organism anyway.

By all means, double down and shift the goal posts in response, since you seem to need to use those tricks.