In the Beginning...

[El_Machinae]

Then why even mention the Snow Line!?!

 

[Berzerker]

Because thats where water vapor pushed by the solar wind condensed... The logical location for a planet covered by water. And thats where the waters were divided by the firmament.

 

[timtofly]

Then what do you call a conspiracy theorist?

A conspiracy theorist is hardly conservative, but probably very imaginative. Critical theory or obsessive analytical? I am not sure if I am conservative or not. I guess most of my post would be considered to go against most traditional views held by several religions. I guess I am attempting to conserve the way the Bible was written, but not sure how different that is with any other fundamentalist who feel other humans are wrong on their dogma and religion. I probably do not even fit in with current fundamentalist thought either.

Because thats where water vapor pushed by the solar wind condensed... The logical location for a planet covered by water. And thats where the waters were divided by the firmament.

Or where the material for land came from? If you stick with the Genesis account not sure why water in any form would be left in a certain spot? The earth retained all water, in whatever form it was. I do not see where it lost any. The whole process was the stretching of space. It is the Babylonians who claimed the earth was jockeying for it's final orbital location in the solar system. Would you say that Jupiter and Saturn formed at that zone as well? For the Hebrews it would seem that the stretching of space happened "around" the earth, but that may be the same action that the Babylonians viewed as earth actually moving from one orbit to another one.

 

[Agent327]

You just said I was ignoring the sun and moon in Earth's sky in response to a quote in which I talked about the sun and moon in Earth's sky. What am I supposed to learn from that? This is what you choose to argue over while complaining about the level of discourse?

1. I didn't 'complain'; I pointed out a fact.
2. I not "just said I was ignoring the sun and moon"; that's not even in a remotely recent post of mine. Another example how tis thread doesn't evolve - at all.

You argued water needed "notable light" to be water. I identified another source of heat. You make it sound like I changed my argument, from what to what? The moon was supposedly formed ~4.45 bya, that impact would have produced immense heat and kept the planet warm enough for water.

Not past the 'snow line'.

And the moon was much closer back then, the tidal action would have also supplied heat. The point is: the sun and moon in the sky of that earlier world were much less dominant - but they became great because the Earth was now closer to the sun.

This makes no sense. You say the moon was closer to Earth, but it was "much less dominant" (the exact opposite of the previous sentence). And even if tidal action would have supplied heat (?), that would be minimal at best.

You also completely ignore:

... so now 'the Deep' was liquid water that completely covered Earth that was melted by the internal heat of the Earth whilst the Earth was so far away from the Sun that it was an insignificant source of light, less than that of stars?

No wonder this thread shows no progression.

 

[Agent327]

I concur that the earth looks like it is flat with a dome of sky over it. You have to get pretty high up for it to look otherwise.

Not at all. all you need is a flat land or sea scape and an object on the horizon. Say, a ship, or a church. You may note you can't see the bottom of either. That's because it's below the horizon. Ergo, Earth is rounded.

He is complaining about how much time evolution needs to do anything. That seems to be one of it's more defining features. I keep hearing that there has not been enough time for anything in the Bible to happen the way it has been described.

I'm not sure how the Bible fits into that again, but indeed, the Bible timetable does not allow for any evolution. But that's also why the Bible is wrong.

And, no, he's not complaining about the amount of time needed for, but about the lack of evolution period.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

He is complaining about how much time evolution needs to do anything. That seems to be one of it's more defining features. I keep hearing that there has not been enough time for anything in the Bible to happen the way it has been described.

I'm pretty sure I was just talking about this thread not going anywhere. Even if you insist on calling this "evolution", it has nothing to do with the biological process of evolution so your point is silly.

 

[timtofly]

I'm pretty sure I was just talking about this thread not going anywhere. Even if you insist on calling this "evolution", it has nothing to do with the biological process of evolution so your point is silly.

I am not sure most threads change that much from the start to when they fade from memory. The point is you think there should be some change at least for all the time put into it, and change takes time. Some people accept that change can happen over a few thousand years. Others think the same change needs millions of years. If you think this thread is never going to change, that is pretty telling that by that observation, neither can the natural order of things change over millions of years. My thinking has changed over the course of this thread, but perhaps the only evolution is the monthly biological changes that scientist observe in a lab, and that is about the gist of the whole theory. The rest is just imagined speculation. We know that humans can breed different types of domesticated animals and even grains, trees, and other vegetation, and could probably do the same thing with animals and vegetation that are not domesticated. What does that have to do with all the speculation of past millennia? Even the ancients knew about that and did the same thing. But to stretch that out over millions of years, is just speculation. We all know that of course things will change and it is quite possible for millions of years in the future, but we can only speculate on future changes, just like we can only speculate on what happened in the past.

It seems silly to me to say that change takes millions of years, and we have dated the earth and there has been plenty of time. The dating of the earth shows that there is plenty of time for things to change thus things need millions of years to evolve. Neither one point needs the other point to be true, and using either one to prove the other is nonsense. I am not sure what change you were expecting to happen in this thread, and the point would have never even been in my thoughts, if you had not brought it up. Just because nothing has changed for you perspective, does not rule out all change. I have even acknowledged that biological change happens, but that is not enough. You want me to accept that such change needs millions of years to happen, when obviously it does not. I have pointed out that change does not need a lot of time, and that things change drastically in a short period of time, but the only thing that you accept is that it still takes billions of years, just because that time may be available. Which is not a proven fact, but mere speculation. That is because drastic changes can greatly effect the ability to date things, and it is convenient to just claim they did not happen.

I'm not sure how the Bible fits into that again, but indeed, the Bible timetable does not allow for any evolution. But that's also why the Bible is wrong.

And, no, he's not complaining about the amount of time needed for, but about the lack of evolution period.

There are some who claim the Bible does not allow for change when it does. The Bible also does not define some of the ages, so saying the Bible is wrong, is just more speculation. I am not the one saying the Bible literally states the age of the earth. Because obviously it does not give a literal nor a metaphorical age of the earth. There are some time frames given, but there are time frames, that are not given at all. Can God use evolution? Of course; we see it happening even today. Did God use it in the past? That is not mentioned, but only speculation.

Not at all. all you need is a flat land or sea scape and an object on the horizon. Say, a ship, or a church. You may note you can't see the bottom of either. That's because it's below the horizon. Ergo, Earth is rounded.

Where are you going to get flat land when the earth is curved? Sorry, could not resist. You need an un-interrupted view, and good eye sight, which may or may not be a given for the ancients. For one thing there has to be motion. If the bottom of the church seems to be more available the closer you get, then perhaps one could imagine a curved approach. or that the church was magically being elevated. Also watching a ship slowly "sink" into the water, is evidence, but one would have to imagine a straight line that went through the curvature of the earth to the water line, and another one that went to the top of the ship and compare the two to explain why the ship did not remain "whole". Probably not many people would even bother to watch a ship sail away, much less spend the time it would take to disappear from view, and then turn around and contemplate why it disappeared other than it just got too far away. There were a few people who claimed the earth was round, but it was not "discovered". It was barely an accepted fact after Eratosthenes observed the sun rays in two different spots on earth at the same time, and triangulated them as going all the way to the center of the earth. That really did not prove the earth was a sphere, it just gave the circumference of the earth if indeed it was a sphere.

 

[Arakhor]

The only thing this thread proves, Tim, is that conspiracy theorists are unlikely to be convinced by any amount of posts.

 

[tetley]

The same stuff went on in ancient times that happens today: you have a majority view. A minority of people look and go, "hey, wait a minute", but they're afraid of the majority. Clearly the earth is flat. Any average Joe can look at their feet and see the earth is flat. Some scientist, sailor, or mountain climber sees a different perspective and says, " uh, I'm not so sure...", but everybody seems to believe it's flat and so they shut up. Galileo and Copernicus stick to their guns and get arrested. People like to blame that on religion, but really it's about the majority viewpoint. Thus "science" goes on and on, stating as "fact" that the earth is flat--not because actual observation stands up to the challenge, but because the challengers are constantly threatened with bad things happening to them if they keep challenging these "clear facts".

 

[El_Machinae]

Yup, it can happen.

Is that why the Jewish tradition continued to present the world as flat even as the knowledge was spreading about the spherical nature of the Earth?

 

[Lexicus]

Is that why the Jewish tradition continued to present the world as flat

Since Googling "jewish flat earth" brought me a bunch of Nazi trash, could you elaborate on that a bit? I am pretty interested in this historical period.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, look at any verse that talks about the shape of the Earth. Daniel and the Gospels, for example, present the Earth as flat.

It's not an overwhelming part of the document, since it's not like it was a science textbook. But the implicit understandings of the times are captured in the way they phrase things.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, look at any verse that talks about the shape of the Earth. Daniel and the Gospels, for example, present the Earth as flat.

It's not an overwhelming part of the document, since it's not like it was a science textbook. But the implicit understandings of the times are captured in the way they phrase things.

Yeah, I mean, I get that. What I'm particularly interested though is in if, and how, Jewish cosmology evolved as it was exposed to Greek philosophy and other thinking during the Hellenistic period. If you have any links or just general information about that I'd be grateful.
Like, I guess the relevant question would be what time frames were those verses from, and were they taken seriously? Was Jewish flat-earth cosmology actually insisted upon in the face of different ideas from Greece or elsewhere?

 

[Berzerker]

Or where the material for land came from? If you stick with the Genesis account not sure why water in any form would be left in a certain spot? The earth retained all water, in whatever form it was. I do not see where it lost any.

Sure, the land we have today formed via processes that began with that primordial world covered by water and its impactors. But the water in Gen 1:2 was divided by the Heaven and the water below it became our seas. We lost water in the process and we've found it, researchers believe our water came from the asteroid belt. And if its true the Earth formed in the presence of water? That means the Earth formed out there too.

The whole process was the stretching of space. It is the Babylonians who claimed the earth was jockeying for it's final orbital location in the solar system. Would you say that Jupiter and Saturn formed at that zone as well? For the Hebrews it would seem that the stretching of space happened "around" the earth, but that may be the same action that the Babylonians viewed as earth actually moving from one orbit to another one.

The Enuma Elish does describe a chaotic period preceding Marduk's arrival to slay Tiamat and restore or create order. The brothers banded together and disturbed Tiamat, their destinies were not set.

 

[Agent327]

Then how does one see the bottom of that ship or church with a telescope?

One doesn't.

Sure, the land we have today formed via processes that began with that primordial world covered by water and its impactors. But the water in Gen 1:2 was divided by the Heaven and the water below it became our seas. We lost water in the process and we've found it, researchers believe our water came from the asteroid belt. And if its true the Earth formed in the presence of water? That means the Earth formed out there too.

Once again, it doesn't. The 'primordial world' wasn't covered by water. I've no clue what 'we lost water in the process' is supposed to mean.

So, not much progress here.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I am not sure most threads change that much from the start to when they fade from memory. The point is you think there should be some change at least for all the time put into it, and change takes time. Some people accept that change can happen over a few thousand years. Others think the same change needs millions of years.

Dear God I hope that isn't your prediction for the lifetime of this thread.

(And I don't really get why you're so determined to twist my comment about this thread into some sort of incredibly tortured analogy with evolutionary biology. It's not really working and doesn't make much sense.)

 

[timtofly]

Well, look at any verse that talks about the shape of the Earth. Daniel and the Gospels, for example, present the Earth as flat. It's not an overwhelming part of the document, since it's not like it was a science textbook. But the implicit understandings of the times are captured in the way they phrase things.

C.G. Jung wrote about a near death experience where he was 1000 miles high. He was standing over Ceylon, and could see India and the Arabian Peninsula to the Mediterranean. He also could see the Himalayans. Even in an airplane one flying over the region could probably see a huge amount, although not as much as Jung. For one thing, where is this mountain that the Gospel account/s claims is high enough? There is no mountain in the world 1000 miles high. I am not sure how one can use that to claim a group of people thought the earth was flat. Physically if the whole world was on a single flat frame, one would have to be even further out, than if the map was draped around a sphere. Besides the fact that all the major kingdoms at that time were in the northern hemisphere. There would not be much that could not be seen from a very high spot above the earth. I already mentioned the verses that talk about the shape of the earth and it was round, but it never mentions flat. It could just as well be a round sphere.

Even Plato was referenced to claim after visiting the Pythagorean school in Italy, the earth was a round sphere and was in space and did not need anything to hold it up, not even air. The Hebrews had already claimed the earth hung on nothing, before that. But even before Pythagoras it was claimed some Greeks thought the earth was a sphere. There are some Mesopotamians and the Egyptians who held out that it was just a disk floating like a boat on water. However at some point the Babylonians and Hebrews changed their point of view. The understanding of the times was that somehow the world was no longer viewed as a flat disk, but was more spherical, and did not need any other force or forces to hold it up. So either the Hebrew writings influenced the thoughts of the "scientific" world, or the Hebrews were capable of adjusting their views with the changing "scientific" community. But if you want to check it out in the Jewish Virtual Library, that you accuse of being "just mythology", it states that the Jews thought the Earth was a flat disk just like the nations around them. Go figure, they did not even get that from the Bible. I already pointed that out in the other post. Maybe it did at one point, but the word or concept of a disk on water is no longer in the Bible. The earth is referred to as a circle, and there was water and the water was separated into two parts, of which one was said to be above and the other below, and then there was land between them, but all the water, and the land was part of the earth with the sky in between. The earth was not separate from the water, except that is what Berzerker is arguing that the earth was not the earth until after it was between the waters that were no longer the earth. The Babylonians should not have believed the earth was the center nor that it was a disk floating on water. They claimed it was a sphere like the other planets and they all orbited the sun and the earth was in a different orbit, but it's orbit changed bringing it closer to the sun. How they figured all that out is lost to us, but they did put it in picture form. There were some Hebrews that understood this, but described it in a different way. Then there were some who wrote similar to the account that the Egyptians told which included defeating the serpent god that resided in the waters the earth was formed from. They still did not state that it was a disk like an Egyptian account would.

Dear God I hope that isn't your prediction for the lifetime of this thread.

(And I don't really get why you're so determined to twist my comment about this thread into some sort of incredibly tortured analogy with evolutionary biology. It's not really working and doesn't make much sense.)

My post were never intended to cause you undue harm, and discomfort. The current accepted way evolution is understood does make sense if it was the only explanation of the past. I hear that what the Bible says makes no sense to quite a lot of people. That indicates humans are capable of thinking things out on their own without any one telling them what to think.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

My post were never intended to cause you undue harm, and discomfort. The current accepted way evolution is understood does make sense if it was the only explanation of the past. I hear that what the Bible says makes no sense to quite a lot of people. That indicates humans are capable of thinking things out on their own without any one telling them what to think.

I'm happy that you want to talk about evolution, just not quite sure why you keep quoting me before you do it. However, that's probably the least of everyone's worries now that we seem to be going into Flat Earth territory.

 

[Berzerker]

The 'primordial world' wasn't covered by water. I've no clue what 'we lost water in the process' is supposed to mean.

Our water predates our rock and you'd have a clue if you read the debates you join. Instead I end up repeating information you didn't bother reading before jumping in to tell us you have no clue. The world of Gen 1:2 had more water and lost some on the 1st-2nd day during the process of creation, we're finding it at the asteroid belt.

So, not much progress here.

Here's another chance to make progress, post your link claiming the only planet described as a wanderer was Mercury.

 

[Agent327]

C.G. Jung wrote about a near death experience where he was 1000 miles high. He was standing over Ceylon, and could see India and the Arabian Peninsula to the Mediterranean.

So either Jung was an incredibly tall guy - or this was more of a dream than a 'near death experience'.

Even Plato was referenced to claim after visiting the Pythagorean school in Italy, the earth was a round sphere and was in space and did not need anything to hold it up, not even air. The Hebrews had already claimed the earth hung on nothing, before that. But even before Pythagoras it was claimed some Greeks thought the earth was a sphere. There are some Mesopotamians and the Egyptians who held out that it was just a disk floating like a boat on water. However at some point the Babylonians and Hebrews changed their point of view. The understanding of the times was that somehow the world was no longer viewed as a flat disk, but was more spherical, and did not need any other force or forces to hold it up. So either the Hebrew writings influenced the thoughts of the "scientific" world, or the Hebrews were capable of adjusting their views with the changing "scientific" community. But if you want to check it out in the Jewish Virtual Library, that you accuse of being "just mythology", it states that the Jews thought the Earth was a flat disk just like the nations around them. Go figure, they did not even get that from the Bible.

Obviously, since it hadn't been written yet. The idea of Earth as a flat disk is quite old, actually. I'm not sure why you start with 'even Plato', when you clearly realize that literate Greeks already knew the Earth is round since at least Pythagoras (3 centuries before Plato).

"The Hebrews had already claimed the earth hung on nothing, before that." As had the Egyptians. But how do we know what 'the Hebrews had claimed' exactly?

The Babylonians should not have believed the earth was the center nor that it was a disk floating on water. They claimed it was a sphere like the other planets and they all orbited the sun and the earth was in a different orbit, but it's orbit changed bringing it closer to the sun. How they figured all that out is lost to us, but they did put it in picture form. There were some Hebrews that understood this, but described it in a different way. Then there were some who wrote similar to the account that the Egyptians told which included defeating the serpent god that resided in the waters the earth was formed from. They still did not state that it was a disk like an Egyptian account would.

Maybe they thought it was a square? And why is it that "The Babylonians should not have believed the earth was the center nor that it was a disk floating on water"?

The current accepted way evolution is understood does make sense if it was the only explanation of the past.

Well, basically, that is the case.

Eh... I was just trying to make a point that it is not observable at ground level with human eyes. Objects get smaller over distances shorter than the horizon, and if the argument of angular differences being too small to detect is true, than so is objects disappearing over the horizon. At ground level, the horizon should be about 2 miles out, yet try to see an object just half a mile away. When high powered lenses are applied, then again, if you have a lens capable of zooming towards the horizon, you'll see the object's parts that are supposed to be below the horizon, but also some things will disappear that shouldn't be below the horizon. So again, this makes it difficult, at the very least.

I'm not sure why you would need a lense to observe you can't see the bottom of things on the horizon (or rather, just past it). Whether using a lense or not, objects just past the horizon will have no visible bottom. Because the Earth is round, not flat. It's really that simple.

Of course this is easiest to observe when following a ship sailing away or towards you, but that doesn't change the basic fact that it is quite simple to observe the roundness of the Earth. To 'observe' the opposite, however, ('the Earth is flat') is impossible - which is quite a bit harder.