The 6000 Year Earth

[Thing]

Yes, its a problem alright. What about a ring or rings of ice crystals, like Saturns rings. Which might have shifted slowly in their own type of orbit and periodically straddled the poles deflecting fractionally more sunlight onto the polar regions, causing global heating on a cyclical basis.
I could understand ocean currents causing or ending iceages, but changing ocean currents to cause global temperature changes to begin and end ice-ages on both poles is a monumental feat possibly requiring entire continents to move, block ocean currents and change the balance in global temperatures. And to do that on a short and maybe cyclical basis?

 

[Verisimilitude]

I quote the church and Augustine because YOU assign some level of credibility to them, not because I completely agree with them. This is not that hard to comprehend, but it does continue to illustrate the point that you are deficient in your understanding of logic.

I comprehend better than you think and have shown the illigitimacy of such a style of debate by logic and reason because YOU assign a selective level of credibility to them as well as the institution that develops their thought. Don’t pass off your undefined faith as defined or true and then insist it’s logical or reasonable to cherry pick information to meet that undefined theology.

 

[Orogeny]

Yes, its a problem alright. What about a ring or rings of ice crystals, like Saturns rings. Which might have shifted slowly in their own type of orbit and periodically straddled the poles deflecting fractionally more sunlight onto the polar regions, causing global heating on a cyclical basis.

is right!

I could understand ocean currents causing or ending iceages, but changing ocean currents to cause global temperature changes to begin and end ice-ages on both poles is a monumental feat possibly requiring entire continents to move, block ocean currents and change the balance in global temperatures. And to do that on a short and maybe cyclical basis?

Read your earlier posts. The breakup of Pangea fulfills that requirement. Remember too that Pangea wasn’t fixed in one place all along. It was moving, all be it generally along the equator.

Short is a relative term here. We are speaking in terms of tens of millions of years.

Peace

Tim

 

[Thing]

Did I remember you saying that there were several iceages and loss of icecaps on the poles while Pangea was still Pangea? If Pangea was the whole landmass, and it was unbroken, and it was on the equator, generally, - what would cause iceages and what would end iceages and would’nt the evidence for iceages on Pangea be fairly thin if the poles were ocean. :hypno:

 

[StAnastasia]

Might as well throw another kink into this discussion:There is amongst some Biblical scholars a theory that goes by two different names, Genesis Gap or Dateless Past…

Not among any Catholic biblical scholars I know.

 

[Orogeny]

Did I remember you saying that there were several iceages and loss of icecaps on the poles while Pangea was still Pangea? If Pangea was the whole landmass, and it was unbroken, and it was on the equator, generally, - what would cause iceages and what would end iceages and would’nt the evidence for iceages on Pangea be fairly thin if the poles were ocean. :hypno:

There were several ice ages prior to the formation of Pangea. The evidence for glaciation is clear and based on that, there would have been ice caps at the poles.

You don’t need land for polar ice caps. The north pole is not on land.

Prior to Pangea, there was another supercontinent, Rodinia, that existed until about 750 million years ago. Not long (relatively speaking) after the breakup of Rodina, the entire earth was hit with an ice age that may have covered the entire planet.

After Rodinia broke up, the separate continents drifted until the Permian (about 225 million years ago). By then, the landmasses had generally come together to form Pangea.

Peace

Tim

 

[heiscominginthe]

Also, you forgot to give me a citation from scripture that says that the entire earth was not covered by the global flood. You can include that along with the reference to either Psalms or Proverbs.

The earth was indeed completely covered by water. I did not say it was not.

Something interesting is that the earth prior to the flood of Noah never seen rain. The land was watered by dew. That is why Noah was looked upon as silly for building and ark in the desert.

So imagine never seeing rain and having someone tell you water was going to come from heaven and flood the earth.

 

[heiscominginthe]

What type of conditions, what kind of physical system had the earth in the age of dinosaurs. The seas were shallow and warm, the land was flat, a few meters above sea level with no mountains. Why were there no polar icecaps, the shape of the earth is the same, obviously. Did the earth have some extra feature we don’t know about which kept it globally tropical.

The earth prior to the flood had a barrier of water that was above our atmosphere/firmament and below outer space. The earth for one thing did not have near the water it has today. If the water that was above the firmament was only one inch thick, how much water would it take to surround the entire earth? This barrier of water made the entire earth like a tropic or in todays terms, greenhouse.

Scientists are debating about designing a new type of space ship/shuttle that will surround the astronauts in order to protect them from the suns harmful radiation. They believe that about five foot of water would be needed to reduce radiation to a level that would not be harmful to the astronauts, thus allowing an astronaut to spend much longer durations in space.

So now we come to the forum topic. It is estimated that preflood man received about 13 times less radiation the post flood man. This gives the explanation as to why men lived so much longer prior to the flood.

 

[Contarini]

The earth prior to the flood had a barrier of water that was above our atmosphere/firmament and below outer space.

Apart from your interpretation of Scripture, what are your sources for this claim?

The earth for one thing did not have near the water it has today.

How do you know this?

Scientists are debating

Which scientists? Name them. What organization do they work for?

So now we come to the forum topic. It is estimated

By whom?

Edwin

 

[ckempston]

I comprehend better than you think and have shown the illigitimacy of such a style of debate by logic and reason because YOU assign a selective level of credibility to them as well as the institution that develops their thought. Don’t pass off your undefined faith as defined or true and then insist it’s logical or reasonable to cherry pick information to meet that undefined theology.

Boy, this comment just about takes the cake. Give a guy enough rope, and he’s sure to hang himself.

If a Christian was debating a Mormon or a Muslim, the Christian would not be illogical or be using an “illigitimate style” by quoting the Book of Mormon or the Koran in arguing with these respective individuals.

You have clearly demonstrated at every turn that you do not have a grasp of the most basic rules of inference.

 

[Orogeny]

The earth was indeed completely covered by water. I did not say it was not.

You said “When the flood was over, the Lord used wind to blow the waters from off the land. Much of the water went to the poles, freezing as the further north and further south it went.” Why wasn’t there water there prior to the wind sent by the Lord? Why wasn’t it cold at the poles prior to that event?

Something interesting is that the earth prior to the flood of Noah never seen rain. The land was watered by dew. That is why Noah was looked upon as silly for building and ark in the desert.

Again, an extra-scriptural statement. Can you give a citation to scriptures that say this?

So imagine never seeing rain and having someone tell you water was going to come from heaven and flood the earth.

Imagine never reading this in scripture and having someone claim that it is there but they can’t give you a citation. Makes it a bit hard to believe.

Peace

Tim

 

[Verisimilitude]

If a Christian was debating a Mormon or a Muslim, the Christian would not be illogical or be using an “illigitimate style” by quoting the Book of Mormon or the Koran in arguing with these respective individuals.

I gave you an example as to why it is an illigimate argument and all you have done since is act the wounded soul. Quote some truth of the Quran or BOM you would cite to them about any topic. What benefit do you get from giving Muhammed or Smith legitimacy by quoting them? What truth do you see in Islam or Mormonism?

You have clearly demonstrated at every turn that you do not have a grasp of the most basic rules of inference.

There is no need to infer anything when you can speak clearly. You have shown you will cite sources you don’t believe yourself so why would anyone accept anything from you if you lack conviction for what you say if today you quote the Pontiff and tomorrow you quote Muhammed?

 

[ckempston]

I gave you an example as to why it is an illigimate argument and all you have done since is act the wounded soul. Quote some truth of the Quran or BOM you would cite to them about any topic. What benefit do you get from giving Muhammed or Smith legitimacy by quoting them? What truth do you see in Islam or Mormonism?

There is no need to infer anything when you can speak clearly. You have shown you will cite sources you don’t believe yourself so why would anyone accept anything from you if you lack conviction for what you say if today you quote the Pontiff and tomorrow you quote Muhammed?

Here’s some more rope.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Quote:
Something interesting is that the earth prior to the flood of Noah never seen rain. The land was watered by dew. That is why Noah was looked upon as silly for building and ark in the desert.

Again, an extra-scriptural statement. Can you give a citation to scriptures that say this?

Genesis 2:6 but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground.

You will find no account in Genesis where rain fell on the earth prior to the flood of Noah.

You said “When the flood was over, the Lord used wind to blow the waters from off the land. Much of the water went to the poles, freezing as the further north and further south it went.” Why wasn’t there water there prior to the wind sent by the Lord? Why wasn’t it cold at the poles prior to that event?

The wonderful thing about God is that he does all things in ways man can understand.

So let’s thing for a moment. In order for a man to live 900 plus years prior to the flood as opposed to 120 minus after the flood, something drastic had to take place.

Scientists have proven that radiation ages mankind faster then anything else we come in contact with.

So let’s say that preflood man had 13 times more protection from radiation of the sun. All that he touches, eats, smells has that same protection.

Now we have modern man who receives 13 times more radiation. All that we touch, eat, smell is saturated with radiation, thus bringing about a drastic change in the lifespan of man.

Common sense. The bible says that the earth had water above the firmament. Man lived 900 plus years. Immediately after the flood, the water that protected man was gone and he immediately lived a much shorter life.

As for the poles not being fozed prior to the flood, there is nothing in scripture to support that theory.

So let’s use this analogy. When you get in your car on a sunny say and the windows were up, the car is very hot. Now imagine the earth being encompassed in a bubble of water. Doesn’t it make sense that the temp on the earth would be hot, tropical?

 

[ckempston]

Genesis 2:6 but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground.

You will find no account in Genesis where rain fell on the earth prior to the flood of Noah.

While this is an interesting observation, the Bible rarely records the weather unless some apocalyptic event is going on. Silence is not evidence for absence.

The wonderful thing about God is that he does all things in ways man can understand.

So let’s thing for a moment. In order for a man to live 900 plus years prior to the flood as opposed to 120 minus after the flood, something drastic had to take place.

Scientists have proven that radiation ages mankind faster then anything else we come in contact with.

So let’s say that preflood man had 13 times more protection from radiation of the sun. All that he touches, eats, smells has that same protection.

Now we have modern man who receives 13 times more radiation. All that we touch, eat, smell is saturated with radiation, thus bringing about a drastic change in the lifespan of man.

Common sense. The bible says that the earth had water above the firmament. Man lived 900 plus years. Immediately after the flood, the water that protected man was gone and he immediately lived a much shorter life.

As for the poles not being fozed prior to the flood, there is nothing in scripture to support that theory.

So let’s use this analogy. When you get in your car on a sunny say and the windows were up, the car is very hot. Now imagine the earth being encompassed in a bubble of water. Doesn’t it make sense that the temp on the earth would be hot, tropical?

 

[mbgumby28]

I wouldn’t necessarily say that the things that were written in Genesis 1-11 happened word for word. Everything from Genesis 1-11, was written before by Babylonians using different names and many gods. When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, the people were losing their faith, unsure of their faith, and turning to the paganistic Babylonian faiths. So the priests that were in exile took the Babylonian writings, that told of Men being created out of hate by many warring gods, and made them into stories where man was created out of love by one God. The points of the Creation stories were to remind the Jews to keep holy the Sabbath and show one God created man out of love. Noah’s Ark too, was made from a Babylonian story, as was the Tower of Babel.

 

[Orogeny]

Genesis 2:6 but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground.

You will find no account in Genesis where rain fell on the earth prior to the flood of Noah.

That doesn’t say that no rain fell prior to the flood. That is simply your interpretation.

The wonderful thing about God is that he does all things in ways man can understand.

Yes, He does. He doesn’t, for example, create a flood that leaves no physical evidence.

So let’s thing for a moment. In order for a man to live 900 plus years prior to the flood as opposed to 120 minus after the flood, something drastic had to take place.

Assuming that men actually lived to be 900 years old, yes, something was different. Assuming.

Scientists have proven that radiation ages mankind faster then anything else we come in contact with.
So let’s say that preflood man had 13 times more protection from radiation of the sun. All that he touches, eats, smells has that same protection.
Now we have modern man who receives 13 times more radiation. All that we touch, eat, smell is saturated with radiation, thus bringing about a drastic change in the lifespan of man.

Really. Scriptural? No. Fantasy? Seems like.

Common sense. The bible says that the earth had water above the firmament. Man lived 900 plus years. Immediately after the flood, the water that protected man was gone and he immediately lived a much shorter life.

Where did the water go? Why didn’t all life die in the sweltering heat that would have been present prior to the flood? What held the water above the atmosphere? Why didn’t it freeze? Why did it take so long to come to earth and create the flood? Why did the Lord need water to come from the earth as well? Why didn’t all saltwater creatures die when the salt water of the oceans (assuming they existed) was diluted?

Gee, your idea sure leads to a lot of questions that you will have to imagine answers to.

As for the poles not being fozed prior to the flood, there is nothing in scripture to support that theory.

So it is just like the rest of your ideas.

So let’s use this analogy. When you get in your car on a sunny say and the windows were up, the car is very hot. Now imagine the earth being encompassed in a bubble of water. Doesn’t it make sense that the temp on the earth would be hot, tropical?

Why would the poles freeze after the flood and not during the flood? How did the life on the ark survive the apparent drastic drop in temperature?

Pretty neat to be a scriptural literalist that doesn’t confine yourself to scriptures. Why do you take the story of the flood literally if you so easily make up other stuff?

Peace

Tim

 

[JustMe88]

Not among any Catholic biblical scholars I know.

If you’ll notice, I didn’t say Catholic Biblical scholars. There was a reason for that, namely that I haven’t read that many Catholic scholars.

 

[East_Anglican]

God is truth. God can not lie. God is truth. God can not create a deception. By geometric calculations we know that we can see stars billions of light years away. If they only appeared billions of light years away then God would have created a deception. God is truth. God can not lie. God is truth. God can not create a deception. If the creation was only 6000 years old we would only see stars that were 6000 light years away or nearer. If they only appeared billions of light years away then God would have created a deception. God is truth. God can not lie. God is truth. God can not create a deception.

If the geometric calculations are wrong then 1+1 may = 15.

The geological column indicates that The Earth has been here for billions of years too.

 

[Contarini]

The wonderful thing about God is that he does all things in ways man can understand.

Where on earth did you get that idea?

Scientists have proven

Which scientists? Where? You keep using this phrase but you never give any specifics.

that radiation ages mankind faster then anything else we come in contact with.

So let’s say that preflood man had 13 times more protection from radiation of the sun. All that he touches, eats, smells has that same protection.

Now we have modern man who receives 13 times more radiation. All that we touch, eat, smell is saturated with radiation, thus bringing about a drastic change in the lifespan of man.

Common sense.

Science and common sense have very little to do with each other. If common sense told us everything we needed to know, we wouldn’t need science. The whole point of science is to experiment and discover things we don’t already know by common sense.

Common sense tells us that the earth is flat and that the sun goes around the earth.

Edwin