Evidence for creationism

[Berzerker]

I read one interpretation of the wine incident involving the symbolism of salvation (?) being open to all whereas it had been a luxury afforded bigshots. The masses - water - became wine - salvation. Something like that, I cant remember with certainty. Seems plausible... But then we're not only explaining away miracles with science, but with religious interpretation as well.

edit: the guy at the wedding congratulated Jesus for the quality of his wine saying how the host (why was Jesus the host?) usually gives the guests the good stuff first and when they get drunk, the lower quality stuff is brought out - but Jesus saved the best for last. Perhaps a commentary about his message being better? Btw Jesus, what are you doing getting all these people drunk? Many of your followers wanna make stuff like that illegal.

 

[Tacitusitis]

The world was never water covered.

Hey Berzerker, you quoted someone saying this ^ and then you didn't actually respond to it.

You've been wrong since the beginning about this, the proto-earth was molten... but no matter how often people correct you you keep repeating your story like you think people will find it credible by repetition?

Reminds me a bit of the people who are convinced there's a hole in the Arctic that leads down into the hollow earth

 

[Archbob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0_4cgd_tyU

Creationism Proved!!! Dang it, all the paleotology and anthropology I've been learning are false!!

 

[Berzerker]

Hey Berzerker, you quoted someone saying this ^ and then you didn't actually respond to it.

You've been wrong since the beginning about this, the proto-earth was molten... but no matter how often people correct you you keep repeating your story like you think people will find it credible by repetition?

Reminds me a bit of the people who are convinced there's a hole in the Arctic that leads down into the hollow earth

I told them to wiki plate tectonics so they can learn about it, but I gave them a description of what happened - you just didn't pay attention...again.

Here's what I said

What does the science say about the Earth's complicated history? The consensus view is that plate tectonics built the continents and the process began ~-4 bya. This is based on the scarcity of continental crust/rock dating back further. This time period coincides with the "late heavy bombardment" and life appeared shortly thereafter. But the oldest material found so far is a 4.4 byo zircon crystal researchers claim is evidence of shallow seas or an ocean. If that date holds up, it means previous "textbook" theories about the age of the oceans are way off. The next time you have a chance to watch a docu on Earth history, pay close attention to the Earth around 4 bya - they'll show an ocean (green from iron) followed by the appearance of small chunks of surface magma etc as plate tectonics started raising up "dry land".

And I explained it without becoming obnoxious, perhaps there's a lesson for you... Now, the proto-Earth was molten - I never denied that - pay attention this time. I'm not talking about the proto-Earth when it was forming, I'm talking about the proto-Earth after it had surface water and before the collision(s) that produced processes like plate tectonics and life itself ~4 bya.. How many times do I have to repeat that? And then you whine about me repeating myself? Jesus H Christ, y'all demand scientific evidence for creationism and you dont even know the science. As for the rest of your post, its hypocritical to "accuse" me of repeating my arguments when you're still repeating the same nonsense from the start of this debate. It was molten, it was molten, it was molten... Thats been your argument the whole time and it aint even relevant to anything I said. I already told you Gen 1:2-10 describes what happened to the proto-Earth after it was covered with water, ie no longer molten. Sheesh! Short on logic too...

 

[Haseri]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0_4cgd_tyU

Creationism Proved!!! Dang it, all the paleotology and anthropology I've been learning are false!!

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but that show was just bad. Just in case anyone takes it seriously, check the links found here to find out why it's so bad. And here's the Committee of Skeptical Inquiry's review, as the link on that page is broken.

Essentially, the claims made in the programme are unsubstantiated (especially in Kuban's review - who better to refute claims than the guy who has studied the evidence you are using himself?) and are made by people who aren't recognised scientists, even by the Creationist community.

 

[Tacitusitis]

I'm not talking about the proto-Earth when it was forming, I'm talking about the proto-Earth after it had surface water

I see three problems for you, in advancing this idea

Problem #1: you make it pretty clear that this is a post-hoc explanation, that is, you say the text "points" to a very specific time in earth's history, but it's clear you would be content to have it "point" to any other period if you could make it "fit better." Makes it hard to take you seriously

Problem #2: even if we accept the notion that the Bible is speaking about this specific time in earth history, the text has the water "gathering into one place" and land "appearing." This speaks of a state of the earth when the earth was wholly covered by water. There's no such period in earth history, and let me nip your enthusiastic amateur science in the bud amigo, ten PR'd publications or GTFO.

Problem #3: EVERYTHING ELSE IN GENESIS IS STILL ALSO WRONG

 

[Tacitusitis]

BTW in advancing a materialist interpretation of Genesis 1 you are literally desecrating the text.

This man is an actual Old Testament scholar, listen and learn (the whole lecture is about an hour).

To summarize Dr. Walton's work: if you don't approach the text the way the ancient audience did, you're just BSing it.


Link to video.

 

[Arakhor]

The problem with your logic is two-fold. A: Things that can't be explained scientifically HAVE happened, and B: God is not that petty as to mess with the world for fun.

If miracles have happened that science cannot explain, they will be known about, right? I don't just mean historical stories, but peer-reviewed accounts too.

As for somehow behaving like a jerk, the only explanations that were ever provided were yours, Berserker, and they're not exactly very plausible either.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

The problem with your logic is two-fold. A: Things that can't be explained scientifically HAVE happened

Add me to the list of people demanding that you provide evidence to support this claim.

B: God is not that petty as to mess with the world for fun.

Have you ever read the book of Job?

 

[Berzerker]

I see three problems for you, in advancing this idea

Problem #1: you make it pretty clear that this is a post-hoc explanation, that is, you say the text "points" to a very specific time in earth's history, but it's clear you would be content to have it "point" to any other period if you could make it "fit better." Makes it hard to take you seriously

You do a lousy job of making your own arguments, dont make them for me. As for your BS about my contentment, I just follow the evidence and if it backs up a theory, so be it - the truth > fiction. You guys are the ones dismissing or ignoring the evidence, not me. The time period is obvious from the text - a period when the Earth (dry land) and life had not appeared and the world was dark and covered with water. Thats the scene described in Genesis before God arrives to create Heaven and Earth. But you keep ignoring that because the Earth was molten, it really was...

Problem #2: even if we accept the notion that the Bible is speaking about this specific time in earth history, the text has the water "gathering into one place" and land "appearing." This speaks of a state of the earth when the earth was wholly covered by water. There's no such period in earth history, and let me nip your enthusiastic amateur science in the bud amigo, ten PR'd publications or GTFO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

Starting with the Earth's formation by accretion from the solar nebula 4.54 billion years ago (4.54 Ga),[1] the first eon in the Earth's history is called the Hadean.[3] It lasted until the Archaean eon, which began 3.8 Ga. The oldest rocks found on Earth date to about 4.0 Ga, and the oldest detrital zircon crystals in some rocks have been dated to about 4.4 Ga,[4] close to the formation of the Earth's crust and the Earth itself. Because not much material from this time is preserved, little is known about Hadean times, but scientists hypothesize at an estimated 4.53 Ga,[nb 1] shortly after formation of an initial crust, the proto-Earth was impacted by a smaller protoplanet, which ejected part of the mantle and crust into space and created the Moon.[6][7][8]

During the Hadean, the Earth's surface was under a continuous bombardment by meteorites, and volcanism must have been severe due to the large heat flow and geothermal gradient. The detrital zircon crystals dated to 4.4 Ga show evidence of having undergone contact with liquid water, considered as proof that the planet already had oceans or seas at that time.[4] From crater counts on other celestial bodies it is inferred that a period of intense meteorite impacts, called the "Late Heavy Bombardment", began about 4.1 Ga, and concluded around 3.8 Ga, at the end of the Hadean.[9]

As the planet cooled, clouds formed. Rain created the oceans. Recent evidence suggests the oceans may have begun forming by 4.2 Ga,[26] or as early as 4.4 Ga.[4] In any event, by the start of the Archaean eon the Earth was already covered with oceans.

The first larger pieces of continental crust, which is a product of differentiation of lighter elements during partial melting in the lower crust, appeared at the end of the Hadean, about 4.0 Ga. What is left of these first small continents are called cratons. These pieces of late Hadean and early Archaean crust form the cores around which today's continents grew.

Do you see a "problem" with your argument? The continents formed later, long after the Earth's molten stage and evidence of oceans or seas.

Problem #3: EVERYTHING ELSE IN GENESIS IS STILL ALSO WRONG

That aint true, but it is irrelevant... Here's the problem: you dont know what Genesis says, and you dont know what the science says. So you fill it all in with insults and unsupported accusations. How enlightened, how brave

BTW in advancing a materialist interpretation of Genesis 1 you are literally desecrating the text.

This man is an actual Old Testament scholar, listen and learn (the whole lecture is about an hour).

To summarize Dr. Walton's work: if you don't approach the text the way the ancient audience did, you're just BSing it.


Link to video.

I dont think so, you watch it and post the arguments you think are valid. And your "summary" aint worth squat. Its your source, quote him.

 

[Gustave5436]

Do you see a "problem" with your argument? The continents formed later, long after the Earth's molten stage and evidence of oceans or seas.

Modern continents formed later. The early Earth did not have continental plates, but that does not mean it was 100% covered by water, with no dry land to speak of. It just means that the "land" which existed was comprised of the higher-elevation areas of the oceanic plates which existed at the time. The world couldn't have been completely flooded by deep oceans, because there simply isn't enough water on Earth for such a state to have ever existed.

And I explained it without becoming obnoxious, perhaps there's a lesson for you... Now, the proto-Earth was molten - I never denied that - pay attention this time. I'm not talking about the proto-Earth when it was forming, I'm talking about the proto-Earth after it had surface water and before the collision(s) that produced processes like plate tectonics and life itself ~4 bya.. How many times do I have to repeat that? And then you whine about me repeating myself? Jesus H Christ, y'all demand scientific evidence for creationism and you dont even know the science. As for the rest of your post, its hypocritical to "accuse" me of repeating my arguments when you're still repeating the same nonsense from the start of this debate. It was molten, it was molten, it was molten... Thats been your argument the whole time and it aint even relevant to anything I said. I already told you Gen 1:2-10 describes what happened to the proto-Earth after it was covered with water, ie no longer molten. Sheesh! Short on logic too...

Plate tectonics runs off of the heat generated by decay of radioactive isotopes in Earth's core, not "collisions" with other bodies. The collision with Theia explains the lower density/molten history of the Moon, its high mass relative to the Earth, and the relatively high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. It does not explain long-term geological processes or involve drastic alterations of Earth's orbit. Theia formed in the L4 or L5 point of the Earth-Sol system, became unstable, and drifted forward/backward until it hit Earth. The collision was between two bodies in virtually the same orbit, and thus did not involve any significant change in orbital velocity, certainly not a drift from 3 AUs all the way in to the present location of the Earth.

 

[Tacitusitis]

I dont think so, you watch it and post the arguments you think are valid. And your "summary" aint worth squat. Its your source, quote him.

You're not worth debating until you actually educate yourself on Old Testament scholarship. It's barely an hour long, and Dr. Walton is a highly respected ancient Near East (ANE) scholar and qualified enough to be the author of the NIV commentary on Genesis. If you really care so much about Genesis take an hour out of your busy day afflicting this forum with your word salads, sit down with a cup of tea and listen to someone who knows something.

I actually posted the Youtube video because it is more accessible than referring you to his written work. If you can't take the smallest effort, you're not worth it

In response to my asking you for scientific papers, you cited a wikipedia article. I'm not going to sink to your level and argue about what Wikipedia says but if you had READING COMPREHENSION SKILLZ you would see even your wiki article confirms that at NO POINT in earth's history was the world 100% covered by water such that it could be "gathered into one place" for "land to appear" as the text of Genesis states.

If you actually knew jack about the Old Testament you would know that Gen 1:9 is a reference to the Egyptian creation myth in which a mound of dry land rises out of the primeval ocean. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with plate tectonics.

 

[Berzerker]

Modern continents formed later. The early Earth did not have continental plates, but that does not mean it was 100% covered by water, with no dry land to speak of. It just means that the "land" which existed was comprised of the higher-elevation areas of the oceanic plates which existed at the time. The world couldn't have been completely flooded by deep oceans, because there simply isn't enough water on Earth for such a state to have ever existed.

The world's surface is more than 2/3rds water now with an average depth of over 2 miles, thats enough to completely cover the world back then with a ~mile deep ocean. And those "modern" continents evolved from much smaller chunks that formed during and/or after the late heavy bombardment ~ 4 bya as plate tectonics began. According to the wiki I linked and quoted, the world was covered by oceans before plate tectonics began building the continents. Where'd you read about these higher elevation areas?

Plate tectonics runs off of the heat generated by decay of radioactive isotopes in Earth's core, not "collisions" with other bodies.

Other planets were hot when they formed, but no plate tectonics on Mars and Venus (or anywhere else we can see). Why did the side of the Moon melt < 4 bya? Collisions... Collisions generate heat and so does the radioactive decay of elements brought by those collisions. But we're still active because we got hit after the solar system formed and started cooling, we got hit by something loaded with heavy elements and its been cooking us ever since (so to speak).

The collision with Theia explains the lower density/molten history of the Moon, its high mass relative to the Earth, and the relatively high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. It does not explain long-term geological processes or involve drastic alterations of Earth's orbit. Theia formed in the L4 or L5 point of the Earth-Sol system, became unstable, and drifted forward/backward until it hit Earth. The collision was between two bodies in virtually the same orbit, and thus did not involve any significant change in orbital velocity, certainly not a drift from 3 AUs all the way in to the present location of the Earth.

Then how did Earth get its water and where's the evidence of that collision? If such a collision occurred "here" we should see debris, evidence of a collision. We dont see any evidence of a collision here, we see it further out beyond Mars. The theory I'm talking about says the Moon was present at "creation", a witness... The "face" tells us the Moon got plastered by a wave of debris ~ 4 bya and it aint no coincidence thats why its so hard for us to find terrestrial material older than 4 by.

You're not worth debating until you actually educate yourself on Old Testament scholarship. It's barely an hour long, and Dr. Walton is a highly respected ancient Near East (ANE) scholar and qualified enough to be the author of the NIV commentary on Genesis. If you really care so much about Genesis take an hour out of your busy day afflicting this forum with your word salads, sit down with a cup of tea and listen to someone who knows something.

I actually posted the Youtube video because it is more accessible than referring you to his written work. If you can't take the smallest effort, you're not worth it

In response to my asking you for scientific papers, you cited a wikipedia article. I'm not going to sink to your level and argue about what Wikipedia says but if you had READING COMPREHENSION SKILLZ you would see even your wiki article confirms that at NO POINT in earth's history was the world 100% covered by water such that it could be "gathered into one place" for "land to appear" as the text of Genesis states.

If you actually knew jack about the Old Testament you would know that Gen 1:9 is a reference to the Egyptian creation myth in which a mound of dry land rises out of the primeval ocean. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with plate tectonics.

Tell that to the dozens of scholars who've written books or papers on Mesopotamia and Genesis. You do understand that, right? You do understand the avalanche of scholarship linking Genesis to Mesopotamia? We've had this debate already, and no, I'm not spending an hour looking for your evidence.

And where did wiki confirm the world was never covered by water? I gave you several quotes and all I get in return is more nonsense. Heeeere's wiki again:

The detrital zircon crystals dated to 4.4 Ga show evidence of having undergone contact with liquid water, considered as proof that the planet already had oceans or seas at that time.

As the planet cooled, clouds formed. Rain created the oceans. Recent evidence suggests the oceans may have begun forming by 4.2 Ga,[26] or as early as 4.4 Ga.[4] In any event, by the start of the Archaean eon the Earth was already covered with oceans.

The first larger pieces of continental crust, which is a product of differentiation of lighter elements during partial melting in the lower crust, appeared at the end of the Hadean, about 4.0 Ga. What is left of these first small continents are called cratons. These pieces of late Hadean and early Archaean crust form the cores around which today's continents grew.

go away, talk to someone else... I'm tired of your obnoxious BS.

 

[Tacitusitis]

"The world had oceans" =/= "The world had no land"

In any case you didn't watch the video soooo play him off keyboard cat

 

[Arakhor]

You know, I'd spend maybe 5-10 minutes listening to a creationist video if I thought it might be slightly interesting. I don't see what you have to lose by listening to the Bible scholar's lecture.

 

[Berzerker]

"The world had oceans" =/= "The world had no land"

In any case you didn't watch the video soooo play him off keyboard cat

Wiki said

"In any event, by the start of the Archaean eon the Earth was already covered with oceans."

And we have evidence that may have been the case as far back as 4.4 bya.

If you watch docus on Earth history they (might) show a time lapse with a green ocean covering the world before plate tectonics begins building the continents.

As for your scholar, I asked you to quote him and you dont want to bother, but you expect me to go on a wild goose chase looking for your evidence? No thanks, I went and found my evidence and I quoted it and you can do the same.

And I'm familiar with the creation myths so you aint telling me anything new. I already said creation myths from around the world describe land rising up from the waters, including Egypt. If you think this scholar is so relevant, find a text of his presentation and quote it. So far all you've done is confirm yet another myth describing a proto-world covered by water before creation. I've been saying that all along...

You know, I'd spend maybe 5-10 minutes listening to a creationist video if I thought it might be slightly interesting. I don't see what you have to lose by listening to the Bible scholar's lecture.

You know, nothings stopping you from watching that video. You can watch it and quote the guy all you want. If I linked to an hour long vid and told you to watch for my evidence, you'd do it? Seriously?

I'd lose the hour or 2 or 3 (my connection aint so good for vids) and I already know the Egyptian creation myth and I already know dozens of scholars have shown the creation story in Genesis is linked to the Mesopotamian version(s), not Egypt. It aint even a logical argument, semitic people from Mesopotamia got their creation myth from Egypt long after they left Sumer? The older bible's stories up to Abraham's time were mainly based in Sumer and that region. From the Sumerian Ed.In to the Sumerian Flood hero, Tower of Babel, Nimrud, the patriarchs before the Flood, on and on. The biblical Sh'inar was the land of their ancestors, thats what Joshua told the people upon entering the promised land.

If I said the Egyptians were the source for Gen 1:1-10 I'd post the text or link it, I would not tell people to watch an hour long video - and act like a .... You follow his link and tell us if the guy convinced you the last 150 years of archaeological scholarship is wrong about the origins of Genesis.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Sweet Zombie Jesus, you still can't do more than misinterpret a Basic English sentence in a wikipedia and write rants about how you won't watch a video you could have watched 10x by now

can we at least get some other creationists in here to post something that's humorously terrible?

 

[Berzerker]

Sweet Zombie Jesus, you still can't do more than misinterpret a Basic English sentence in a wikipedia and write rants about how you won't watch a video you could have watched 10x by now

can we at least get some other creationists in here to post something that's humorously terrible?

I said the world was covered by oceans and I quoted wiki saying the world was covered by oceans me and stop

But its all my fault because I wont spend an hour or three watching your video about an Egyptian myth that says the world was covered by water before creation

I hope that means you wont be throwing any more obnoxious BS my way. As for other creationists, I imagine they saw people like you waiting with questions and chose to avoid the thread.

 

[Tacitusitis]

The Bible says the primeval earth was covered with water with NO LAND then God "gathered" the water into one place and dry land rose up

Science says the earth was molten. As it cooled oceans condensed. They covered the majority of the surface of the earth (just like, hmm, NOW) but not its entirety.

Everything else in Genesis is still wrong including the celestial firmament, the order of the appearance of the different kingdoms of life, the fact that PLANTS APPEAR BEFORE STARS, etc

Got any explanation for aaaaaaany of that?

Attempts to create a scientific framework legitimizing what ancient peoples understood as a mythic narrative of functionalization* only makes a fool of you

*watch the god damned video

 

[Berzerker]

The Bible says the primeval earth was covered with water with NO LAND then God "gathered" the water into one place and dry land rose up

Science says the earth was molten. As it cooled oceans condensed. They covered the majority of the surface of the earth (just like, hmm, NOW) but not its entirety.

The wiki I linked and quoted doesn't say anything about the surface of the Earth being just like now...but not in its entirety hmm (whatever that means). I cant believe you dont know that plate tectonics built the continents following the late heavy bombardment. Thats fubr, your knowledge of Earth's history sounds like it came from century old text book. How sad...

Everything else in Genesis is still wrong including the celestial firmament, the order of the appearance of the different kingdoms of life, the fact that PLANTS APPEAR BEFORE STARS, etc

Got any explanation for aaaaaaany of that?

They had an order in which life appeared? Like...evolution? I'm not here to debate everything in the Bible, I presented scientific evidence supporting the first 10 verses of Genesis and thats what I'm defending. I told you that already and here you are after all this time still playing with strawmen.

Attempts to create a scientific framework legitimizing what ancient peoples understood as a mythic narrative of functionalization* only makes a fool of you

*watch the god damned video

Thats his proof Genesis came from Egypt? Well, thats nice... He has an opinion that apparently you consider self-supporting. People all over the world have Flood myths, and the science tells us the world has seen catastrophic floods within mankind's existence. I guess it was foolish for researchers to go looking for evidence of floods based on the claims of ancient peoples. But in all their "primitiveness", and in all your enlightened glory as modern man, they knew something about Earth's history you still dont know.