Evidence for an ancient earth

[BilliardsBall]

You are still avoiding my question, and you have very short-term memory.

When I talk about God don't know anything about nature or about the science of nature, I brought to the book of Job, YOU were the one about God knowing the Earth's circumference.

Since I was talking about Job, and you brought up the earth's circumference, so naturally I had assumed that you were talking about the passage in Job 38:4-5.

Although I quoted both verses, i was more interested in verse 38:5 than I am with 38:4, because it is the only time God brought up "dimensions" and "measured it".

My point to you, is that god never reveal actual dimensions, like how how many miles or kilometres is the Earth's circumference. I have asked you that God never really given any answer in Job, that he just bragging of things that he didn't know.

All God ever did, in 4 whole chapters, from 38 to 41, was rants and brags about thing he know or could do that Job didn't know or couldn't do?

None of the passages were valuable in knowledge, none of them were explanations. He doesn't explain what he know or how he know.

You mostly evade my question as to what god know about the circumference of the Earth, that you have claimed God knew about. And when you did answer my question, you stated God hides knowledge from men.

That's a weak excuse, and in complete contradiction to your claim that god know the answer as to the Earth's circumference.

So my question remain the same to you -

Did God really know the circumference or did you make this claim up?​

Stop beating around the bush, and just answer the above question.

I agree. God told Job He had measured the Earth but did NOT tell Job it's circumference using any math or numbers.

So, let's say God told Job, "Look what I know? The Earth's circumference is approximately 24,901 miles, Job!"

Job's responses would include:

1) Wow, how did you know?

2) What is a mile?

3) What do you mean by "circumference"?

4) What does the word "approximate" mean?

and finally, 5) I must agree with you, God, since I know of no man who has walked round the Earth and measured it.

Job was likely written hundreds of years before the Greek shadow experiments.

But I think your point is a little different . . . I think you are saying it would be awesome if God put the equivalent of 24,901 miles in the Bible as in the Hebrew, so that people like us in the modern era could totally believe the Bible . . .

To which I'd answer . . . there's a lot of cool stuff JUST like the above in "The Bible codes" of Bible numerics and just like the rest of the Bible, it requires open-minded, thorough investigation, not scoffing. The Bible isn't designed for EVERYONE to be saved. It is WELL designed for scoffers to go to Hell and the open-minded to receive Jesus as Savior. Did not Jesus say, "Seek truth and find me!"?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I will defend the proposition that the evidence for a very ancient earth (more than 4 billion years) is overwhelming

So we are informed that the moon recedes from the Earth at 38 mm per year,
and that the moon is (conveniently) 380 000 km from the Earth.

So lets see some arithmetic:

How long ago did the moon and Earth separate?

 

[Magus]

H

He knew that there was a point which eluded him. The point that the Big Bang theory could not have come from nothingness. The name God is the name given to what is yet the unknown 'something' to which all in existence owe their existence. The 'something' replied I AM. Tell them I AM sent you when Pharoah asks who sent you. Moses was told this.

It is the religious that claim something came from nothing, 'Create' is abstract, as it suggests 'out of nothing', you don't 'create' a wall out of nothing, you build it out of something, bricks and mortar, so did 'God' create 'Heaven' & 'Earth' out of nothing.

Have you ever read anything about the Big Bang, no physicists state ' out of nothing' and 'Nothing' exists
either, see the Quantum field theory.

 

[gnostic]

I agree. God told Job He had measured the Earth but did NOT tell Job it's circumference using any math or numbers.

So, let's say God told Job, "Look what I know? The Earth's circumference is approximately 24,901 miles, Job!"

Job's responses would include:

1) Wow, how did you know?

2) What is a mile?

3) What do you mean by "circumference"?

4) What does the word "approximate" mean?

and finally, 5) I must agree with you, God, since I know of no man who has walked round the Earth and measured it.

Job was likely written hundreds of years before the Greek shadow experiments.

But I think your point is a little different . . . I think you are saying it would be awesome if God put the equivalent of 24,901 miles in the Bible as in the Hebrew, so that people like us in the modern era could totally believe the Bible . . .

To which I'd answer . . . there's a lot of cool stuff JUST like the above in "The Bible codes" of Bible numerics and just like the rest of the Bible, it requires open-minded, thorough investigation, not scoffing. The Bible isn't designed for EVERYONE to be saved. It is WELL designed for scoffers to go to Hell and the open-minded to receive Jesus as Savior. Did not Jesus say, "Seek truth and find me!"?

Sorry, but you have made claim that god know of the Earth's circumference, but it is clear that no dimension was ever given in Job or other parts of the bible.

And right now you are merely making excuses as to why no dimension was given.

If you are going to make the claim, then you should back it up. But you don't have one piece of evidence.

Why can you not admit that the bible provided no dimensions?

All you are doing is making excuses, move the goalpost around, and relying on sophistry. It make you looks less than honest.

 

[sayak83]

So we are informed that the moon recedes from the Earth at 38 mm per year,
and that the moon is (conveniently) 380 000 km from the Earth.

So lets see some arithmetic:

How long ago did the moon and Earth separate?

You do understand that Moon and Earth seperated violently due to a planetary collision, after which the moon coalesced into an initial orbit around the earth. After this tidal forces are causing the moon to slowly move away. I have not checked if the rate of movement is expected to be uniform or not. But let's assume for simplicity that it is.

Today's distance R = 380,000 km or 380,000*1000*1000 mm. = 38*10^10 mm
Rate of separation = 38 mm per year.
Age of earth around 4.2 billion years = 4.2*10^9 years
Assuming constant rate of separation, original radius at which moon formed
= 38*10^10 - 4.2*10^9*38 = (380 - 4.2*38) *10^9 mm = 220.4 * 10^9 mm = 220,400 km.

So 4.2 billion years ago, when moon formed from the debris of collision , earth and moon were separated by 220,400 km.

What is the problem here?

 

[Sapiens]

No, I challenged you to demonstrate how they are different from their original, yet undiscovered content.

Oh, now the actual content is "undiscovered." That's crap! The changes are well known to anyone who has looked into the field, try Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" and "The Bible with Sources Revealed" as well as R. E. Clements' "Century of Old Testament Study, and Robert J. Oden Jr.'s "The Bible Without Theology". Not necessarily for "fact" but rather for knowledgeable examination of the reality

Of course, the truth is different than you portrayed, and for most verses we have well over 99% of ancient extant texts in complete agreement--therefore, it is logical that we are looking at the original content, even in modern translations.

What ancient languages do you read and speak?

What can be authenticated is the scriptures.

May be it CAN be done ... but it never has been done.

What cannot be authenticated is your statement that they significantly differ, which they never do in all existing extant documents.

The authors noted above would disagree with you.

Further, the Masora were known as the most stringent copyists in man's history, so that we can compare Isaiah scrolls 1,000 years apart in writing and find in a 55,000-word document perhaps one or two words changed only, being indefinite articles that do not change meaning (if, the) so that I have a high degree of confidence when I read and study God's Word.

More horse puckey, even wiki recommends that you consult:

1. "Scholars seek Hebrew Bible’s original text – but was there one?". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
2. "Controversy lurks as scholars try to work out Bible's original text". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
3. Emanuel Tov (1992). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Rather than believing such foolishness.

The "confidence" you espouse is the result of the confidence game that you've bought into.

Do you have something to contribute to our debate other than name calling (claptrap)? Any facts? You sound rather as though you are making an emotional appeal (I don't like believers) rather than assuming the challenge of studying God's Word with an open mind.

There is no god, so there are no "words of god" ... just people pretending that they know better. You make unsupportable claims that are contradicted by many of the most reputable scholars and you toss of insults based on your judgments of "how I sound" rather than considering the soundness of your claims.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

You do understand that Moon and Earth seperated violently due to a planetary collision, after which the moon coalesced into an initial orbit around the earth. After this tidal forces are causing the moon to slowly move away. I have not checked if the rate of movement is expected to be uniform or not. But let's assume for simplicity that it is.

Today's distance R = 380,000 km or 380,000*1000*1000 mm. = 38*10^10 mm
Rate of separation = 38 mm per year.
Age of earth around 4.2 billion years = 4.2*10^9 years
Assuming constant rate of separation, original radius at which moon formed
= 38*10^10 - 4.2*10^9*38 = (380 - 4.2*38) *10^9 mm = 220.4 * 10^9 mm = 220,400 km.

So 4.2 billion years ago, when moon formed from the debris of collision , earth and moon were separated by 220,400 km.

What is the problem here?

38*10^10mm divided by 38 mm
certainly does not yield a number starting with the digit 4 for the number of years
for earth-moon separation, instead
that would yield earth-moon separation of ~10 billion years.

Estimates of age of moon and earth are geophysical,
so its only the surfaces that solidified ~4 billion years ago.

To assume that the moon achieved its orbit due to collisions of celestial bodies,
would imply that all the moons in the solar system also did this.

That would be a preposterous coincidence for them all (bar one) to
end up orbiting on the ecliptic in the same direction due to vastly similar collisions.

 

[sayak83]

38*10^10mm divided by 38 mm
certainly does not yield a number starting with the digit 4 for the number of years
for earth-moon separation, instead
that would yield earth-moon separation of ~10 billion years.

Estimates of age of moon and earth are geophysical,
so its only the surfaces that solidified ~4 billion years ago.

To assume that the moon achieved its orbit due to collisions of celestial bodies,
would imply that all the moons in the solar system also did this.

That would be a preposterous coincidence for them all (bar one) to
end up orbiting on the ecliptic in the same direction due to vastly similar collisions.

No. Moon formation is an unique event. None of the other Rocky inner planets have a moon of any comparable size. There is a lot of evidence that moon formed through collision. See below,
How Was the Moon Formed?
How the Moon Formed: Violent Cosmic Crash Theory Gets Double Boost

Your concept of earth and moon gradually separating out is physically ridiculous. There would necessarily be an initial radial distance between the earth and moon (or between any planet and its satellite), after which tidal motions will slowly alter its radius. This would be true even if earth and moon formed as a binary planet system.

The giant planets have sufficient mass to get their moons through gravitational capture.
Captured moons of the giant planets
Obviously that does not work for earth. Too little mass.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but you have made claim that god know of the Earth's circumference, but it is clear that no dimension was ever given in Job or other parts of the bible.

And right now you are merely making excuses as to why no dimension was given.

If you are going to make the claim, then you should back it up. But you don't have one piece of evidence.

Why can you not admit that the bible provided no dimensions?

All you are doing is making excuses, move the goalpost around, and relying on sophistry. It make you looks less than honest.

Wait a sec--are you saying that you accept that 100% of all God's knowledge is only in the Bible?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh, now the actual content is "undiscovered." That's crap! The changes are well known to anyone who has looked into the field, try Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" and "The Bible with Sources Revealed" as well as R. E. Clements' "Century of Old Testament Study, and Robert J. Oden Jr.'s "The Bible Without Theology". Not necessarily for "fact" but rather for knowledgeable examination of the reality
What ancient languages do you read and speak?
May be it CAN be done ... but it never has been done.
The authors noted above would disagree with you.
More horse puckey, even wiki recommends that you consult:

1. "Scholars seek Hebrew Bible’s original text – but was there one?". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
2. "Controversy lurks as scholars try to work out Bible's original text". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
3. Emanuel Tov (1992). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Rather than believing such foolishness.

The "confidence" you espouse is the result of the confidence game that you've bought into.

There is no god, so there are no "words of god" ... just people pretending that they know better. You make unsupportable claims that are contradicted by many of the most reputable scholars and you toss of insults based on your judgments of "how I sound" rather than considering the soundness of your claims.

I'm unsure what to discuss next, the scholars who feel they have proven there was no original Bible--a proof of a negative according to extent texts, or your assertion, not that you doubt God's existence, a fairly normal assertion by most persons, but that no God exists, a proof of a negative.

Which negative do you think you can prove concretely? Choose one and let's discuss it.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm unsure what to discuss next, the scholars who feel they have proven there was no original Bible--a proof of a negative according to extent texts, or your assertion, not that you doubt God's existence, a fairly normal assertion by most persons, but that no God exists, a proof of a negative.

Which negative do you think you can prove concretely? Choose one and let's discuss it.

One can not prove a negative.

Discussion with you is a waste of time, best to just point out, with references, where you're demonstrably wrong.

 

[gnostic]

Wait a sec--are you saying that you accept that 100% of all God's knowledge is only in the Bible?

I am saying that the bible provide no real knowledge about nature, and about the science of nature.

Can the bible teach me basic anatomy or physiology of human body? Like for instance, how the heart function? What does the liver do?

Can the bible teach me how to build a house, what materials and tools are required? The power and the plumbing?

Does the bible explain what is lightning? Can it explain to me about what cause lightning and more importantly HOW electricity is discharged?

None of the things listed in Genesis about creation or god bragging about his powers in JOB, explain anything.

Believing anything that god can do, is relying on personal faith and worse, on superstition.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am saying that the bible provide no real knowledge about nature, and about the science of nature.

Can the bible teach me basic anatomy or physiology of human body? Like for instance, how the heart function? What does the liver do?

Can the bible teach me how to build a house, what materials and tools are required? The power and the plumbing?

Does the bible explain what is lightning? Can it explain to me about what cause lightning and more importantly HOW electricity is discharged?

None of the things listed in Genesis about creation or god bragging about his powers in JOB, explain anything.

Believing anything that god can do, is relying on personal faith and worse, on superstition.

Respectfully, I disagree. The Bible provides wonderful gems about science, the mind, nature, etc. that went unproven until modern times and modern science.

But I guess the other concern I have is that the Bible, which is a healing and encouragement and perseverance and salvation book, to you must be a science text. Why is that?

 

[Polymath257]

38*10^10mm divided by 38 mm
certainly does not yield a number starting with the digit 4 for the number of years
for earth-moon separation, instead
that would yield earth-moon separation of ~10 billion years.

Estimates of age of moon and earth are geophysical,
so its only the surfaces that solidified ~4 billion years ago.

To assume that the moon achieved its orbit due to collisions of celestial bodies,
would imply that all the moons in the solar system also did this.

That would be a preposterous coincidence for them all (bar one) to
end up orbiting on the ecliptic in the same direction due to vastly similar collisions.

First, the rate of separation is not uniform.

Second, we know that most moons are much smaller than their parent planets. Ours is much closer in size to the Earth than any other moon. So it is reasonable to think the origins may be different.

Third, the moon is not perfectly in the ecliptic. That's why we don't get eclipses every month.

Fourth, the composition of the moon is similar enough to the Earth that a collision is a better explanation than coalescence, which is what we see for other moons (or capture in the case of some).

 

[gnostic]

Respectfully, I disagree. The Bible provides wonderful gems about science, the mind, nature, etc. that went unproven until modern times and modern science.

Science is supposed to explain in details of two main questions:

1. WHAT it is?
2. and HOW it work?

Third important question would be - HOW can it be used - once you have managed to answer the first two questions.

The bible never answer these question, and certainly don't provide anything useful on how nature work.

Saying "God did it" is not an answer, nor is it logical. That sort of answer is nothing more than baseless superstition.

But I guess the other concern I have is that the Bible, which is a healing and encouragement and perseverance and salvation book, to you must be a science text. Why is that?

Jesus miraculously healing people, with a touch or with words, have done more harm to Christianity because we have a lot of fraudulently claims of healing.

There are certainly no evidences to support this healing powers.

How about the miracle of Speaking in Tongues, after Jesus' ascension? We have modern claims of this gift, from one of the churches, where we see a bunch of idiots, making incoherent noises.

No Jesus' miracles have made people make false claims of performing miracles themselves, make the New Testament looks like frauds.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No. Moon formation is an unique event. None of the other Rocky inner planets have a moon of any comparable size. There is a lot of evidence that moon formed through collision. See below,
How Was the Moon Formed?
How the Moon Formed: Violent Cosmic Crash Theory Gets Double Boost

Your concept of earth and moon gradually separating out is physically ridiculous. There would necessarily be an initial radial distance between the earth and moon (or between any planet and its satellite), after which tidal motions will slowly alter its radius. This would be true even if earth and moon formed as a binary planet system.

The giant planets have sufficient mass to get their moons through gravitational capture.
Captured moons of the giant planets
Obviously that does not work for earth. Too little mass.

The mass of the parent planet has no affect on the shape of the orbit.
Ellipses are the same regardless of the mass of the parent, its just the
period of the orbit that is increased with the increase in mass.

The gravity of a single body alone will not 'capture' a moon.
The mass of the moon hardly affects its orbital structure around the Earth,
so to exclude the examples of Phobos and Deimos is pointless.

And you simple fail to address the question of why almost all the moons
in the solar system just happen to be on the same plane going in the same direction.

Its really pointless disclaiming the religious dogma of the origin of the universe,
and then replacing it with nihilist dogma on gravity.

Perhaps you need to build computational algorithms to prove those claims
as they are certainly false. It would make more sense to just insist that
the entire solar system was constructed by an advanced alien species
4000 years ago, as a nihilist theme park. With all the fossils placed
deliberately to confuse the local population in a cynical act of black comedy.

There is nothing illogical about that scenario. Whereas claiming that a large body
can just 'capture' moons shows zero examination of the nature of gravity and orbital shapes.
That they should all just happen to be going in the same direction on the same
elliptical plain out of sheer coincidence is wonderful comedy.
I'm sure the aliens are laughing hysterically at your nihilist dogma.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

First, the rate of separation is not uniform.

Second, we know that most moons are much smaller than their parent planets. Ours is much closer in size to the Earth than any other moon. So it is reasonable to think the origins may be different.

Third, the moon is not perfectly in the ecliptic. That's why we don't get eclipses every month.

Fourth, the composition of the moon is similar enough to the Earth that a collision is a better explanation than coalescence, which is what we see for other moons (or capture in the case of some).

1)
Well the rate of separation I have never heard of quoted as anything other than 38mm per year
without any mention of change in that rate. There is no decimal, so the margin of error is quite large.
It may or may not be uniform. But the speculation as to what causes this, I can prove to have never been
clearly thought through as well.

2)
I do not at all see why our moon has to have a 'special' origin just because its a bit comparatively larger.
Some moon has to be the largest, comparatively.

3)
The point about the ecliptic was never about exactness. Most of the solar system is systematically very close
to the ecliptic with only minor exceptions of only small amounts. Thus the source of the planetary bodies
must have been almost exclusively the same, with that direction of orbit an inherent part of those masses
before they were in their current orbits: they all have the same origin or else they would be at a variety
of angles, distributed far from the ecliptic in highly elliptical shapes (like comets).

4)
The similarity of composition surely suggests a common origin, and they're not all that similar anyways.

5)
My own algorithms prove that the only way for the solar system to form with all bodies orbiting in the
same direction on the ecliptic plane is that the sun had a twin which went nova. The debris
formed the planets and their moons with the inner planets at one point being moons of Jupiter.
See the link following for graphics, free downloadable algorithms, and explanations:
How the solar system formed

 

[sayak83]

The mass of the parent planet has no affect on the shape of the orbit.
Ellipses are the same regardless of the mass of the parent, its just the
period of the orbit that is increased with the increase in mass.

The gravity of a single body alone will not 'capture' a moon.
The mass of the moon hardly affects its orbital structure around the Earth,
so to exclude the examples of Phobos and Deimos is pointless.

And you simple fail to address the question of why almost all the moons
in the solar system just happen to be on the same plane going in the same direction.

Its really pointless disclaiming the religious dogma of the origin of the universe,
and then replacing it with nihilist dogma on gravity.

Perhaps you need to build computational algorithms to prove those claims
as they are certainly false. It would make more sense to just insist that
the entire solar system was constructed by an advanced alien species
4000 years ago, as a nihilist theme park. With all the fossils placed
deliberately to confuse the local population in a cynical act of black comedy.

There is nothing illogical about that scenario. Whereas claiming that a large body
can just 'capture' moons shows zero examination of the nature of gravity and orbital shapes.
That they should all just happen to be going in the same direction on the same
elliptical plain out of sheer coincidence is wonderful comedy.
I'm sure the aliens are laughing hysterically at your nihilist dogma.

Nothing in the above post makes an iota of sense.

 

[Polymath257]

The mass of the parent planet has no affect on the shape of the orbit.
Ellipses are the same regardless of the mass of the parent, its just the
period of the orbit that is increased with the increase in mass.

The shape depends on the velocity of the moon dependd on the velocity of that moon,
the mass of the planet, and the distance from the moon to the planet.
For a given distance, the period *decreases* with increased mass.

The gravity of a single body alone will not 'capture' a moon.
The mass of the moon hardly affects its orbital structure around the Earth,
so to exclude the examples of Phobos and Deimos is pointless.

Jupiter has several captured moons. In reality, the Earth-moon system is closer
to being a double planet.

And you simple fail to address the question of why almost all the moons
in the solar system just happen to be on the same plane going in the same direction.

Because the vast majority (although certainly not all) were formed at the same time and
from the same cloud as the planets themselves. But there are exceptions. Jupiter has
since captured asteroids and the event producing the Earth's moon was a collision
wih a Mars-sized object.

Its really pointless disclaiming the religious dogma of the origin of the universe,
and then replacing it with nihilist dogma on gravity.

Gravity at the solar syst is pretty well understood. And has been for centuries.

Perhaps you need to build computational algorithms to prove those claims
as they are certainly false. It would make more sense to just insist that
the entire solar system was constructed by an advanced alien species
4000 years ago, as a nihilist theme park. With all the fossils placed
deliberately to confuse the local population in a cynical act of black comedy.

There is nothing illogical about that scenario. Whereas claiming that a large body
can just 'capture' moons shows zero examination of the nature of gravity and orbital shapes.
That they should all just happen to be going in the same direction on the same
elliptical plain out of sheer coincidence is wonderful comedy.
I'm sure the aliens are laughing hysterically at your nihilist dogma.

Moon capture does require more than just the incoming moon and the planet.
But another moon added into the mix can take the excess momentum and
help the capture.

 

[Polymath257]

1)
Well the rate of separation I have never heard of quoted as anything other than 38mm per year
without any mention of change in that rate. There is no decimal, so the margin of error is quite large.
It may or may not be uniform. But the speculation as to what causes this, I can prove to have never been
clearly thought through as well.

The separation is mostly due to energy conservation coupled with tidal forces. As the rotation of
the Earth is slowed down by tides, the energy is compensated by an increased lunar distance.
Since the moon is so large compared to the Earth, this effect is much larger than, say, for Jupiter's moons.

Also, we expect larger tidal forces when the moon is closer, so the rate of separation should be decreasing
over time. The 38mm a year would have been larger in the past. Given the order of magnitude
agreement with a naive calculation involving simple division, there is no real problem here.

2)
I do not at all see why our moon has to have a 'special' origin just because its a bit comparatively larger.
Some moon has to be the largest, comparatively.

Ours is large enough that the Earth-moon system is closer to being a double planet. No other system
comes close to this.

3)
The point about the ecliptic was never about exactness. Most of the solar system is systematically very close
to the ecliptic with only minor exceptions of only small amounts. Thus the source of the planetary bodies
must have been almost exclusively the same, with that direction of orbit an inherent part of those masses
before they were in their current orbits: they all have the same origin or else they would be at a variety
of angles, distributed far from the ecliptic in highly elliptical shapes (like comets).

Yes, the vast majority were formed from the same cloud of dust and gas that formed the sun. The overall
rotation of that cloud became the principle direction of the motion in our solar system.

4)
The similarity of composition surely suggests a common origin, and they're not all that similar anyways.

Yes, the same cloud of dust and gas. The differences are mostly due to gravitational separation. So Mars
has slightly different isotopes than Earth.

5)
My own algorithms prove that the only way for the solar system to form with all bodies orbiting in the
same direction on the ecliptic plane is that the sun had a twin which went nova. The debris
formed the planets and their moons with the inner planets at one point being moons of Jupiter.
See the link following for graphics, free downloadable algorithms, and explanations:
How the solar system formed

Forgive me if I doubt your competence in formulating these algorithms.