[_ Old Earth _] Hey Barbarian

[Barbarian]

New theory is back to Geneis's 7 days of creation. Genesis 1:9-10 states that on the third day (era?) water was gathered to one place and land appeared. That gathering of water could be hypothetically the formation of the planet, or the one place could be where land formed in the seas. Pangea. Three more eras or days for it to move away before mankind comes into the scene.

It now appears that much of the water on the Earth came about after long bombardment of comets. But making precise statements about the such language in Genesis is always risky; we just don't know about such details.

 

[Barbarian]

"They are right"... hmmm pretty bold. By what authority do you make this claim?

Just the facts. They are quite right. The evidence does show an old Earth.

I will believe the word of God before any speculation of man.

Which is why most Christians don't accept the modern speculations about a young Earth.

If we apply oakum's razor to this issue...

Occam?

as a default. The simplest explanation and the one written in God's word will be considered the truth.

Which rules out YE. YE depends more on the visions of an adventist "prophetess" than on the text of Genesis. If you take the literal meaning of Genesis, then it becomes clear that you cannot force a young Earth into it. Long before we had physical evidence showing a great age for the Earth, Christians realized the "Yom" of Genesis were not meant to mean literal 24 hour days.

 

[Sinthesis]

It seems to me that part of the simplest explanation would be a 'unified theory of everything' that so much scientific effort is spent on uncovering.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

It now appears that much of the water on the Earth came about after long bombardment of comets. But making precise statements about the such language in Genesis is always risky; we just don't know about such details.

I've heard that NASA has found large reservoirs of water in space. It seems that biblically water came before land, so may be our solar system started with such a reservior in it or around it in the formation of the solar system. Or if more loosely interpated, maybe water is any liquid form, so molten rock in it's liquid form before land fits. Either way, I think the amount of water on earth coresponds more with a large source or water to begin with instead of consistent bombardment of comments. I could be wrong, but it just seems like the way it's described in the bible water came first. Bombardment sounds like there was something here before it to be bombarded. So that stems from a more land and molten core was here first perspective.

Look at this link for an article of the reservior of water in space, if that's new information to you too.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/universe20110722.html

That said, your right, it's better to not try and add or interpate the statements in Genesis to say something they don't. Don't add to it in other words. But theorizing, and even holding competing theories as possibilities I think is ok. So far the currently held theories of earth's formation don't mesh up with the bible too well. But those are based on our current understanding anyways, they're not nessassarily true either. Theorize based on bible verses, as long as it's not outlandishly against other verses, or other evidance I figure is needed to help find the truth. Can't descern the truth if no one contemplates what the possibilities are.

 

[Free]

"They are right"... hmmm pretty bold. By what authority do you make this claim? I will believe the word of God before any speculation of man.

If we apply oakum's razor to this issue... as a default. The simplest explanation and the one written in God's word will be considered the truth.
God said He did it in six days, He is capable of doing it in six days.... It was done is six days. Any erroneous data gathered and interpreted by man is second place.

The issue here is twofold: first, creation of life is a separate issue from the creation of the universe, and second, the Bible simply does not indicate how old the Earth is.

A close reading of Gen 1 keeps open the possibility of an old earth (Gen 1:1-8 is all we really need):

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Gen 1:7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. (ESV)

Notice in verse 1 that "God created the heavens and the earth." Then verse 3 begins with "And God said." God does some things and then the first day ends in verse 5 with "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Verse 6 then begins with "And God said." God does some more things and we see in verse 8 "And there was evening and there was morning, the second day."

And so we see for days two to five that they begin with "And God said." But verse one doesn't start that way and yet it says "God created the heavens and the earth." It would seem then that day one doesn't then begin until verse 3, "And God said." This leaves open the possibility that the earth could be very old.

Those who are so adamant that the Earth is young are presuming too much. The text is silent on the age of the Earth. And this does not mean that God didn't create the rest in seven 24-hour days. There are numerous ways of looking at the text, so to just simply say that one believes the Bible as though someone who believes differently does not, is really to be basing that statement on certain presumptions which may or may not be true. We have to be much more careful than that.

 

[Barbarian]

I've heard that NASA has found large reservoirs of water in space.

The Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud are apparently filled with comets that are mostly water ice. So yes.

It seems that biblically water came before land,

Likely true. Water seems to have formed in the solar system long before planets.

.so may be our solar system started with such a reservior in it or around it in the formation of the solar system. Or if more loosely interpated, maybe water is any liquid form, so molten rock in it's liquid form before land fits. Either way, I think the amount of water on earth coresponds more with a large source or water to begin with instead of consistent bombardment of comments. I could be wrong, but it just seems like the way it's described in the bible water came first. Bombardment sounds like there was something here before it to be bombarded. So that stems from a more land and molten core was here first perspective.

Hadn't thought of that. I suppose it depends on whether the word used in Genesis for "waters" could mean any sort of flowing liquid. I don't know.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

The Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud are apparently filled with comets that are mostly water ice. So yes.



Likely true. Water seems to have formed in the solar system long before planets.



Hadn't thought of that. I suppose it depends on whether the word used in Genesis for "waters" could mean any sort of flowing liquid. I don't know.

The wording for waters has my intreast too. The way it describes God separating the waters above and the waters below with the space between to be the heavens or the sky. Depending on which translation is used, the meaning could be the difference between the oceans and the clouds with the sky between them. Or the waters above being something more, like separating the different portions of the water and elements in the solar system into planets with the heavens and space between them. Or the waters above could be something heavenly, something spiritual, instead of heavenly, being the cosmos. If the last approach is the closest to the truth, then perhaps the waters above the heavens is something we will never know an answer to until the end times are completed and the Kingdom of God is among us. Perhaps it is known when we die and find our place that hopefully has been prepared for us.

 

[Sinthesis]

Within biblical usage, 'waters' can also mean the chaotic nature of humanity, usually associated with gentile culture, versus the solid foundation of a world built on (the) Rock.

 

[turnorburn]

This happened over many millions of years. Not only would such huge releases of energy kill off all living things on Earth, the geological and fossil records show that it was hundreds of millions of years in the making.

​

That huge release of energy was the almighty bringing the flood in and around 2800 BC...

*edit: Oops' forgot something "again"

you can pick one up the way i did for under $20.00 its the same one that i showed to a group at a church in 1973. Where the teacher said that he'd lose his job if he showed it to his classes..

http://www.amazon.com/Cataclysm-from-Space-2800-B-C/dp/B005GQERMU

Or* the written version you can read online called The Biblical Flood and The Ice Epoch..

http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/

 

[turnorburn]

God could do whatever He wanted to do. But in the absence of any scriptural or natural evidence, and in the presence of abundant natural evidence for long ages, the rational conclusion is that He took whatever time He wanted to get it done.

What's this suppose to mean? in one breath you say "in the absence of any scriptural or natural evidence" in the next you say "in the presence of abundant natural evidence for long ages"

 

[turnorburn]

Hey Lewis, if you can afford it get this video..

http://www.amazon.com/Cataclysm-from-Space-2800-B-C/dp/B005GQERMU

If not get the book..

http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/

I gave the video to my neighbor, when he returned it he thought that they were teaching it in our public schools... That's kind of the way most people think, they think that our schools are teaching our kids the truth..

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
God could do whatever He wanted to do. But in the absence of any scriptural or natural evidence, and in the presence of abundant natural evidence for long ages, the rational conclusion is that He took whatever time He wanted to get it done.

What's this suppose to mean?

The only evidence God has given us, indicates an old Earth.

in one breath you say "in the absence of any scriptural or natural evidence"

For a young Earth. Sorry to be unclear.

in the next you say "in the presence of abundant natural evidence for long ages"

Yes.

 

[Barbarian]

Within biblical usage, 'waters' can also mean the chaotic nature of humanity, usually associated with gentile culture, versus the solid foundation of a world built on (the) Rock.

That makes some sense. In Ur, from which Abraham came, the cthonic goddess Tiamat was associated both with creation, and with watery chaos. It's not surprising that those writing down Genesis would use that imagery; Mesopotamia both needed water for irrigation, and feared the unpredictable and devastating floods that periodically occurred in that land.

 

[Lewis]

I like this
The Flood Waters

Where did God put all the water from the flood? Did he just make it disappear (poof)? The Bible says that the seas retreated in a matter of months (extremely fast)? Did he dig a hole and put the water in some big basin deep in the earth?
http://www.creationdefense.org/69.htm

 

[Barbarian]

It won't work. The energy required to move the Earth's crust that far and that fast, would have to be dissipated as heat. And that much heat would have boiled the oceans.

 

[Sinthesis]

That makes some sense. In Ur, from which Abraham came, the cthonic goddess Tiamat was associated both with creation, and with watery chaos. It's not surprising that those writing down Genesis would use that imagery; Mesopotamia both needed water for irrigation, and feared the unpredictable and devastating floods that periodically occurred in that land.

It was a similar situation in Egypt, where Moses was born.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

The Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud are apparently filled with comets that are mostly water ice. So yes.

The Oort cloud is a figment of someones imagination. It has never been seen, measured, observed or proven. Events happen that man can not explain so they create these dreams and fabricated possibilities that somehow become facts and used to back up other exaggerations, extrapolations and myths.

It all goes together as a nice package but it is built on a foundation of smoke and vapor.


It's nice to say "what if" or "maybe" or "how about" or "this could be" But they are all from the minds of man. They are as real as Fred Flintstone.

 

[Barbarian]

The Oort cloud is a figment of someones imagination.

They used to say that about the Kuiper Belt, which was discovered by the same sort of evidence by which we know the Oort Cloud exists. To wit:
Using Kepler's laws, and Newton's theory of gravitation, astronomers calculated the orbits of short-term comets, finding that they almost all had apogees (orbit point most distant from the Sun) in a zone out beyond Pluto. Because short-term comets come in along the ecliptic (plane of the solar system) they knew that the comets were in a belt along that plane.

And later, when we had the technology, scientists confirmed the existence of the Kuiper Belt by direct observation.

The Oort Cloud was discovered in the same manner. Analysis of their paths shows that they originate far from the Sun, some of them nearly a light-year away. Because they come in at all angles, scientists know that they exist in a spherical shell around the solar system.

It has never been seen,

Neither was the Kuiper belt. But we knew about it long before we could see it.

measured

See above. You were misled about that.

Events happen that man can not explain so they create these dreams and fabricated possibilities that somehow become facts and used to back up other exaggerations, extrapolations and myths.

See above. God gave us curiosity and intelligence to be able to work these things out in the world He gave us. One of the great joys of living, is learning more about His creation, which reflect His power and majesty. Don't shut yourself off from that.

It's nice to say "what if" or "maybe" or "how about" or "this could be"

In these cases, no speculation was needed. We had sufficient evidence to know.

 

[Barbarian]

It was a similar situation in Egypt, where Moses was born.

There was a huge difference between Mesopotamia and Egypt. In Egypt, the floods came predictably each year, inundating the low fields, depositing rich silt on them, and preparing them for planting. In Mesopotamia, the floods were irregular and destructive. This was why Egyptians had a more optimistic outlook about the world, compared to the Mesopotamians. And why, in Mesopotamia, evil was characterized by watery chaos.

 

[Sinthesis]

There was a huge difference between Mesopotamia and Egypt. In Egypt, the floods came predictably each year, inundating the low fields, depositing rich silt on them, and preparing them for planting. In Mesopotamia, the floods were irregular and destructive. This was why Egyptians had a more optimistic outlook about the world, compared to the Mesopotamians. And why, in Mesopotamia, evil was characterized by watery chaos.

Of course, similar, not exactly the same. In Egypt the predictable regularity of the floods, or the symbolic defeat of chaos, was the divine responsibility of their particular god-man, the Pharaoh. Any unforeseen calamity was a direct assault on his divine authority. Thus the plagues of Exodus.