God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[gnostic]

And it's been downhill ever since.

Downhill ?.

he's glass-half-empty kinda guy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I had never said that the bible provided dates. The bible provided any date whatsoever.

What the bible does provide are known number of years, in which anyone with half-a-brain, could use these years, add them up, to get some idea of the biblical timeline.

You have not understood anything I have said, have you?

There are no dates in the bible - true.

But the bible does say -

1. how long this or that king rule for,
2. at what age a patriarch sired his son,
3. at what age a person died,
4. and other listed numer of years of when something had happened (like Exodus 12:40-41 or 1 Kings 6:1)

All these years, can be calculated to get AM and BCE (or BC) timelines.

And the main reference-point that I had used to calculate BCE timeline is the known historical date for the fall of Jerusalem and the exile in Babylon - 587 BCE.

You are right that there NO DATES in the bible, but that doesn't mean it is not possible to work with the years found in the bible, to get estimated timeline.

Please don't make me explain to you again, how I work out the the timeline, because there is nothing worse than repeating myself to someone who is unwilling to learn.



Biological modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens) have been around at least 30,000 years ago, perhaps even longer.

The oldest human - Homo sapiens - have been around at least 200,000 years ago.

Modern human came out of the ice ages, as the only surviving species 10,000 ago, starting the Neolithic period.

Biologically, there are no differences between us today and that of the earliest Neolithic man, 10,000 years ago.

Modern man didn't start 6000 years ago or 4000 BCE. And there are no evidences global flood in the supposed 6000 BCE or that of about 1656 years with Noaẖ.

Your whole premise of 6000 years ago "re-creation" is nothing more than your conspiracy theory and deluded fantasy.

I'm afraid your response is typical of the straw man responses on this thread. Where did I say 6,000 years ago? What are you talking about?

I would certainly challenge, you, however, that your statement of 200,000 years for homo sapiens has nothing to do with how old the oldest painting, literature, agronomy, etc. is thought to be...

 

[jonathan180iq]

I would certainly challenge, you, however, that your statement of 200,000 years for homo sapiens has nothing to do with how old the oldest painting, literature, agronomy, etc. is thought to be...

I'm not sure how you would differentiate intelligence from non-intelligence just because we can't find paintings more than 75,000 years old. If identical skeletal structures are found, linking the people who made paintings 75,000 years ago to the first homo sapiens ~190,000 years ago, then you can very safely assume that the cognitive abilities of the 75,000 year old remains and the 190,000 year old remains are indistinguishable.

 

[outhouse]

I'm afraid your response is typical of the straw man responses on this thread

Looking in a mirror?


No date provided for a flood? then it never happened

 

[BilliardsBall]

Looking in a mirror?


No date provided for a flood? then it never happened

Can you tell me more about this logical argument you've made? We accept hundreds upon hundreds of historical persons -- even unto the last century, who don't have a date of birth on record. We say they were real persons, however.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not sure how you would differentiate intelligence from non-intelligence just because we can't find paintings more than 75,000 years old. If identical skeletal structures are found, linking the people who made paintings 75,000 years ago to the first homo sapiens ~190,000 years ago, then you can very safely assume that the cognitive abilities of the 75,000 year old remains and the 190,000 year old remains are indistinguishable.

That's not what I'm implying. I'm saying that the Flood wiped out all civilization that came before it, leaving a clean slate for new history.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Can you tell me more about this logical argument you've made? We accept hundreds upon hundreds of historical persons -- even unto the last century, who don't have a date of birth on record. We say they were real persons, however.

True, dating is a red herring. There are a lot of people whose precise dates are sketchy or nonexistent, yet there's corroborating evidence to support their existence. Jesus is one of those. The Gospel authors didn't know the date of his birth and couldn't even settle on a year (the range given covers nearly a decade), yet the consensus is that there's enough evidence to accept his existence without the need for precise dates.

The flood is a different matter. There's no evidence for it as a factual event whatsoever. It's really just a bunch of folks looking at a mythic tradition and deciding for some reason it must be literally true, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of how myth works and what it's for. Arguments from ignorance really don't help. Judaic myth also says there were giants roaming the earth prior to the flood, men whose divine ancestry caused them to grow to huge proportions. They're referenced in Genesis. In fact, they're implied to have been the cause of the Flood, which is confirmed in non-canonical literature such as 1 Enoch. Never seem to hear people arguing for their factual existence, though.

 

[outhouse]

We accept hundreds upon hundreds of historical persons -- even unto the last century, who don't have a date of birth on record. We say they were real persons, however.

Because we have evidence they existed outside literature.

Can you tell me more about this logical argument you've made?

The reason you do not have a date for a flood, is because it would have had to have happened. There is no credible evidence for a global flood because it did not happen.

No matter what date you pick, I can show you people that were not flooded out at that exact time. So you loose not providing a date, and you loose if you do provide a date.

Either way you have nothing considered credible for evidence outside mythology.

 

[outhouse]

That's not what I'm implying. I'm saying that the Flood wiped out all civilization that came before it, leaving a clean slate for new history.

But that factually did not happen

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Only Allah knows when the Earth was created.

 

[jonathan180iq]

That's not what I'm implying. I'm saying that the Flood wiped out all civilization that came before it, leaving a clean slate for new history.

So where is the evidence for it?
And why do we have a very detailed understanding of human civilization from it's first emergence until now? There are plenty of civilizations that have been wiped out by cataclysmic events, yet we still have evidence for them.

Unless the Biblical flood also had magic water, which dissolved everything on the planet in a matter of just a couple months... But if that were the case, how did the fossilized remains of all of the organisms of pre-history not get destroyed?

There's just no two ways around it, man. The Genesis deluge never happened.

 

[outhouse]

Only Allah knows when the Earth was created.

Unsubstantiated. Your apologetic version makes people look ignorant, like we cannot think for ourselves. Its factually not the case.

Humanity develops science to tell you what is real and not real, as not everything exist in mythology and theology and in ancient books.

 

[BilliardsBall]

True, dating is a red herring. There are a lot of people whose precise dates are sketchy or nonexistent, yet there's corroborating evidence to support their existence. Jesus is one of those. The Gospel authors didn't know the date of his birth and couldn't even settle on a year (the range given covers nearly a decade), yet the consensus is that there's enough evidence to accept his existence without the need for precise dates.

The flood is a different matter. There's no evidence for it as a factual event whatsoever. It's really just a bunch of folks looking at a mythic tradition and deciding for some reason it must be literally true, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of how myth works and what it's for. Arguments from ignorance really don't help. Judaic myth also says there were giants roaming the earth prior to the flood, men whose divine ancestry caused them to grow to huge proportions. They're referenced in Genesis. In fact, they're implied to have been the cause of the Flood, which is confirmed in non-canonical literature such as 1 Enoch. Never seem to hear people arguing for their factual existence, though.

Some fairly large burial chambers and so forth have been found. But wouldn't most of the giants have been killed by the Flood? What remained of gigantism was mentioned in the writings about King David's time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So where is the evidence for it?
And why do we have a very detailed understanding of human civilization from it's first emergence until now? There are plenty of civilizations that have been wiped out by cataclysmic events, yet we still have evidence for them.

Unless the Biblical flood also had magic water, which dissolved everything on the planet in a matter of just a couple months... But if that were the case, how did the fossilized remains of all of the organisms of pre-history not get destroyed?

There's just no two ways around it, man. The Genesis deluge never happened.

What if we redact your statement to how did all those fossilized remains get created?

The last time an animal died in the woods nearby my home, it was devoured by internal and external scavengers. Please understand that modern fossil theory can be matched by simple mechanisms as caused by a Flood and post-Flood upheavals.

Also, you made a statement that I'd like to take polite exception to if I may:

Unless the Biblical flood also had magic water, which dissolved everything on the planet in a matter of just a couple months

Let's take my three-bedroom home and hit it with a wall of water six miles high. Better yet, let's use pre-Flood construction methods. No concrete, no asphalt, not even brass perhaps. Let's mix the floodwaters all around this planet and bury some of my home's remains under the continents or under great pressure in the bottom of the Marianas trench. Mix well, sift and wait thousands of years. What kind of Flood "evidence" are you hoping to find?

There is no "Flood Diary of Anne Frank" unless you want to read the account of the people who built an ark to escape the Flood, as recounted to (presumably) Moses and the NT authors. This account gives the reasons for the Flood, the source of the water, the source of the planetary upheaval(s) and etc. The duration of the torrential rains, the duration of the ark's passage, details on the number of survivors. If we trace modern man genetically ala the National Geographic genographic project, we have all mankind stepping off a boat in Africa and then heading straight for Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization as recorded in the Holy Bible. We can trace modern language etymologically to some root languages nearby, quite near the historic location of Babel as discussed in the Bible. There are dating methods used for agronomy, painting, ancient languages, etc. We can see the pyramids but not Atlantis. We can see the Great Wall but not space aliens landing in corn fields. There is every reason to accept the biblical Flood narrative except for uniformitarian assumptions regarding geology--which assumptions have a great bearing not only on theology but on finding oil deposits and other vital natural resources and so forth.

Are you open to there being a Flood? What would it do to your trust in people to learn that the sciences have wavered between being more or less religious or more or less skeptical, but always tending to persecute those who date violate the party line and say, "Look at this anomaly!"

If you want to discuss things for which there is little or no evidence, how about the Oort Cloud? How about the Kuiper Belt? If those go away, comets alone demonstrate a relatively young solar system, and that's the elephant in the room a lot of my scientist friends want to not see.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There is just all kinds of crazy in that post...

Let's take my three-bedroom home and hit it with a wall of water six miles high. Better yet, let's use pre-Flood construction methods. No concrete, no asphalt, not even brass perhaps. Let's mix the floodwaters all around this planet and bury some of my home's remains under the continents or under great pressure in the bottom of the Marianas trench. Mix well, sift and wait thousands of years. What kind of Flood "evidence" are you hoping to find?

So the fact that there are plenty of remains of mud-built structures, under layers of geologically age-appropriate sediment, that are still entirely discernible today after several thousand years, is of no interest to your apparent defense of a young earth and a Biblical flood?

You just made a claim that there was a wall of water 6 miles high... a 6 mile high wall of water, the miraculously appears out of nowhere, despite the fact that there isn't that much water within this closed system of a planet.... Anyway, a wall of water 6 miles high, spanning the whole planet, would leave traces of itself in relatively evenly distributed fashion within it's corresponding geologic time-frame. At no point in the geologic record does that exist. Do you know what you can find in geologic studies of places that are known to have once been under water? You find evidence that they were obviously underwater. We know what the ancient borders of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are, because there is evidence for them. We know where once-thriving seas used to exist in now-barren areas, because there is evidence for them. The fact that there is no evidence of this global flood, as I've said before, is pretty much the nail in the coffin of the argument for a global deluge - not to mention all of the other branches of science which also have yet to corroborate any claim made by Gensis when taken as a literal account.

Your ability to construct proper sentences evidences that you are intelligent enough to understand this concept.

The last time an animal died in the woods nearby my home, it was devoured by internal and external scavengers. Please understand that modern fossil theory can be matched by simple mechanisms as caused by a Flood and post-Flood upheavals.

And that's a very well-known aspect of paleo-studies. Stuff happens to decaying bodies all the time. Sometimes they are consumed. Sometimes they rot beyond recognition in the elements. Sometimes they don't rot quickly and aren't immediately consumed, yet they aren't located near a soil type that is conducive to fossilization. Only a handful of paleoorganisms wound up in just the right environment and under just the right circumstances that lead to their fossilization. This is grade-level stuff, man.

Also, you just made another outlandish claim about these post-flood upheavals. Do you have any substantiating articles or information to back that up? Are there any scientific studies which support the idea that physics and geology just suddenly changed when it was Biblically convenient?

If you want to discuss things for which there is little or no evidence, how about the Oort Cloud? How about the Kuiper Belt? If those go away, comets alone demonstrate a relatively young solar system, and that's the elephant in the room a lot of my scientist friends want to not see.

So because they are inconvenient to your theory they are just outright rejected? I can take you to an observatory next weekend and show you that the Kuiper Belt exists...Not only that, we've landed on a Kuiper Belt object!

67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you're suggesting here is borderline delusional. How do comets and asteroids demonstrate a relatively young solar system?

Do yourself a favor and try to answer those questions without relying on your obvious affection for one branch of Abrahamic Monotheism; without trying to backload everything into the preconceived notion that Genesis is somehow literal.

Also, please note that I haven't even gotten into the chronological inconsistencies of your claims for Biblical authenticity in light of the very obvious evolution of the Judeo-Christian tradition from Sumerian and other Mesopotamian mythologies...

 

[Vishvavajra]

Some fairly large burial chambers and so forth have been found. But wouldn't most of the giants have been killed by the Flood? What remained of gigantism was mentioned in the writings about King David's time.

According to the account in Enoch, which is expounding on the cryptic, abbreviated reference in Genesis, the giants were slain by an archangel prior to the flood (or made to kill each other), so that the rogue angels who had begotten them would have to watch their children die. The flood then washed away their influence on the world, but more importantly the influence of their parents, who had taught people things like arts and sciences.

My point wasn't that the myths can't be made to fit together, but that I never see people arguing for the literal existence of a race of cannibalistic demigod giants prior to the current crop of humanity. People fixate on the Flood for some reason, but the whole narrative cycle is full of bizarre supernatural stuff. The recent Noah movie really wasn't that far off the source material, despite its modern environmentalist theme.

 

[`mud]

Some more twistheism
~
'mud

 

[outhouse]

What remained of gigantism was mentioned in the writings about King David's time.

And of the thousands of remains found from that time period. not a single one was as described by your book. Its almost as if it was 100% mythology.

 

[outhouse]

Are you open to there being a Flood?

Why would anybody be open to the possibility that mythology is real? Bias? or does knowledge make it perfectly clear these ancient people wrote using myth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is just all kinds of crazy in that post...



So the fact that there are plenty of remains of mud-built structures, under layers of geologically age-appropriate sediment, that are still entirely discernible today after several thousand years, is of no interest to your apparent defense of a young earth and a Biblical flood?

You just made a claim that there was a wall of water 6 miles high... a 6 mile high wall of water, the miraculously appears out of nowhere, despite the fact that there isn't that much water within this closed system of a planet.... Anyway, a wall of water 6 miles high, spanning the whole planet, would leave traces of itself in relatively evenly distributed fashion within it's corresponding geologic time-frame. At no point in the geologic record does that exist. Do you know what you can find in geologic studies of places that are known to have once been under water? You find evidence that they were obviously underwater. We know what the ancient borders of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are, because there is evidence for them. We know where once-thriving seas used to exist in now-barren areas, because there is evidence for them. The fact that there is no evidence of this global flood, as I've said before, is pretty much the nail in the coffin of the argument for a global deluge - not to mention all of the other branches of science which also have yet to corroborate any claim made by Gensis when taken as a literal account.

Your ability to construct proper sentences evidences that you are intelligent enough to understand this concept.



And that's a very well-known aspect of paleo-studies. Stuff happens to decaying bodies all the time. Sometimes they are consumed. Sometimes they rot beyond recognition in the elements. Sometimes they don't rot quickly and aren't immediately consumed, yet they aren't located near a soil type that is conducive to fossilization. Only a handful of paleoorganisms wound up in just the right environment and under just the right circumstances that lead to their fossilization. This is grade-level stuff, man.

Also, you just made another outlandish claim about these post-flood upheavals. Do you have any substantiating articles or information to back that up? Are there any scientific studies which support the idea that physics and geology just suddenly changed when it was Biblically convenient?



So because they are inconvenient to your theory they are just outright rejected? I can take you to an observatory next weekend and show you that the Kuiper Belt exists...Not only that, we've landed on a Kuiper Belt object!

67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you're suggesting here is borderline delusional. How do comets and asteroids demonstrate a relatively young solar system?

Do yourself a favor and try to answer those questions without relying on your obvious affection for one branch of Abrahamic Monotheism; without trying to backload everything into the preconceived notion that Genesis is somehow literal.

Also, please note that I haven't even gotten into the chronological inconsistencies of your claims for Biblical authenticity in light of the very obvious evolution of the Judeo-Christian tradition from Sumerian and other Mesopotamian mythologies...

Why would buried dwellings that are thousands of years old disprove an ancient Flood? Did I give a date for Noah's Flood that you are aware of?

Comets demonstrate a young solar system in that with each pass around the Sun they lose mass. I'm sure you are familiar with young comet theory and that the conjectural, yet-to-be-proven Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt support older comet theory. The first sentence on Wikipedia re: the Oort Cloud, which is an accurate sentence, says in part:

"The Oort Cloud... is a theoretical spherical cloud..."

Why a theoretical cloud? To support the older solar system view of older comets. Period.