What is creation science?

It would still seem like a part of the big bang/evolution theory hypothesis statment seeing how there is no mention of creation in the Enuma Elish. Creation is not manipulaton of what already exist. Even in Genesis, most reject that verse 1:1 has anything to do with creation. So taking that away just leaves the passage as just another manipulation story.
 
Because one's man's religion is another man's science? I thought that was what most here are trying to avoid?

Should we throw out all history on the basis that those who wrote it, may have had a religious inclination?

Unless I am mistaken, people here view the Bible as either a hypothesis that cannot be backed up, a lie, or someone attempting to explain something that happened in terms that they understood. I am not sure on what grounds people after the 18th century think that they have a monopoly on science. We can only assume what humans did in the past from bits and pieces of what people wrote down and then most today throw it all out on a whim, because they think they are experts in all things human. I am not claiming what is right or wrong any more than any one else here. Just stating my two cents on what humans may or may not have been thinking back then.
 
So if we drop the wild unsupported theory for an Earth forming in the asteroid belt (happy to be proven wrong by an scientific article examining this possibility and reaching the conclusion that such is plausible) and go from there, we arrive at the claim: Genesis explains the second time Earth (as per Bezerker's definition, namely dry land) was formed. I think the vulcanoes that formed small island all throughout the watery period has been dismissed as Genesis being close enough, right?

Well, Genesis doesn't just describe the creation of Earth, but of the universe. It was thought that the waters where where "the heavens" are now; it's not talking about water on Earth:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

(...)

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

So, basically, everything was water.
 
That's fairly obvious, yes, but when dealing with such situations as these, that's hardly an important issue.
 
Well, the only universe that would apply to would be the liquid universe in Star Trek Voyager. The physical qualities of which were summarily ignored.
 
Unless I am mistaken, people here view the Bible as either a hypothesis that cannot be backed up, a lie, or someone attempting to explain something that happened in terms that they understood.
I suspect that you are mistaken. I view the Bible simply as a work of fiction.
 
I suspect that you are mistaken. I view the Bible simply as a work of fiction.

The entire thing? Or just the first 11 chapters of Genesis?

Unless I am mistaken, people here view the Bible as either a hypothesis that cannot be backed up, a lie, or someone attempting to explain something that happened in terms that they understood.

You said that you view the Bible as a work of fiction. If somebody somewhere was passing this work of fiction off as fact, this would be the same as lying, right? So Tim is not mistaken in this sense.
 
You said that you view the Bible as a work of fiction. If somebody somewhere was passing this work of fiction off as fact, this would be the same as lying, right? So Tim is not mistaken in this sense.

Yes, but the liar would be the one trying to pass it off as fact, not the work of fiction.
 
The entire thing? Or just the first 11 chapters of Genesis?
We know for a fact there was no exile in Egypt or exodus back to the Levant.At some point racial/cultural myths may be based upon fact, but most of it is plain fiction.

You said that you view the Bible as a work of fiction. If somebody somewhere was passing this work of fiction off as fact, this would be the same as lying, right? So Tim is not mistaken in this sense.

Yes, but the liar would be the one trying to pass it off as fact, not the work of fiction.
No. Someone who thinks it is true and passes it off as fact would not be lying at all, merely mistaken.
 
Let's see...

Uranus discovered in 1781
Neptune discovered in 1846
Pluto discovered in 1930

So either these ancient Mesopotamians had a time machine, or they independently invented the telescope thousands of years before the Dutch did in the early 17th century (1608 is the year cited for its invention, while Galileo was the first person to use a telescope for astronomical purposes in 1609). Neither of these possibilities has any credibility, and the 'ancient gods/aliens' notions certainly do not.

Democritus traveled to Egypt and Mesopotamia, when he returned to Greece he told them there were other worlds they could not see. He didn't have a telescope either.

Really? Why? Presumably, none of the other planets' moons are gods, yet for some reason our own (unmentioned) moon is clearly one of the gods. Again, why?

The Moon shows up later in the story as Kingu, Tiamat's primary defender. Anshar's moon was a god, it was sent to proclaim Marduk's supremacy before the battle.

You keep saying this, but is there even a single scrap of evidence that unambiguously suggests this, other than it vaguely resembles what you want it to?

The enuma elish and the cylinder seal are evidence, EC Krupp even tried to explain the seal by identifying it as the teapot in Sagittarius. He later recanted when challenged... So, look at the seal and read the enuma elish as a description of our early solar system...or not. But if you're intent on ignoring the evidence there's not much we can discuss.

So the rings might point to Pluto at one particular bit of the orbit?

Near perihelion

Except again with the back of the envelope, it says near perihelion, Pluto is ~30 AU from the Sun, ~8 AU above the orbital plane of all the other planets. Saturn's orbit is roughly 9-10 AU from the sun, so depending on position, to get from Saturn to Pluto is anywhere from 20-40 AU across the ecliptic, 8 AU up. tan ^-1 (8/20) = 21.8 degrees. tan^-1 (8/40) = 11.3 degrees. So the 'angle between Saturn & Pluto' is never 27 degrees, it peaks between 11 & 22 degrees each time Pluto reaches perihelion.

I did the math/graph long ago, it was ~27 degrees from Saturn to Pluto.

Why use the earth's ecliptic as the reference point, anyway, if all you want to work out the elevation of Pluto as seen from Saturn? Why wouldn't you use the Sun's equatorial plane? Or even better, Saturn's ecliptic, since that's what you'd use to measure Saturn's axial tilt. You end up with slightly different numbers, though none of them are 27.

Those were the numbers I had and they were good enough

No it doesn't. At one particular time, the distance from Saturn to the Sun might be half that of the distance from Saturn to Pluto. But at another particular time, it'll be 1:3, and at another it'll be 1:4 and 1:5 and will even get close to 1:6. Why is the 1:2 bit meaningful, and none of the others are?

The 2:1 ratio is for Pluto's aphelion/perihelion

No they don't. If you mean the longitude of their ascending nodes is the same, then they're still not.

I didn't say they were the same, just that they share ascending nodes (meaning they're close). And they do...

Mercury's & Mars' are closer together, so does that make them related too? If you subtract Mercury's aphelion distance from Mars' perihelion, you get a distance in a ratio of 1.96:1 with Mercury's aphelion. Doing the same with Pluto & Saturn only gives 1.95:1. Plus Mercury's equator points at Mars, far closer & more consistently than Saturn's points at Pluto. I can only conclude that Mars was ejected from Mercury at some point. And that the Romans knew it, and thousands of years ago were writing slashfic depicting Mars & Mercury being joined and then coming apart.

Why are you measuring Mercury's distance if Mars escaped from it? And its equatorial plane does not point at Mars, but if all these were true it may be evidence Mercury and Mars are related. Why not?

No, it isn't. Takes about 30 seconds with google to see that the idea that it is is basically down to one bloke making crap up.

But while you're making crap up, why not include the number of the seal as more evidence? 243 = 7^3 - 10^2. If the sun is god #1, mercury god #2, etc, and then the moon & the alien's home planet are gods #11 & 12, then 7 = Saturn and 10 = Pluto, so the very number of the cylinder itself is clearly another hint that they arrived at the picture on the cylinder (i.e. an accurate description of the solar system) by starting with Saturn and then removing Pluto from it.

Did you take the 30 seconds because I dont see a rebuttal.

Lava is hot, make water go boil. Also at that time, no atmosphere, water goes boil.

It covers the bits that aren't lava. When the Earth was formed it was all lava. Your lava world in the freeze line is completely madey uppy.

Can lava form under water? If a world formed at the freeze line then it was surrounded by water vapor and ice. Think of Europa, a moon with a very deep ocean of ice and water...

Not much beach side property there.
You don't know, but you still claim there were oceans before the meteorites had time to arive.

According to current theory the outer planets migrated causing asteroids to be disrupted and these brought us our water. But this happened during the LHB ~4 bya. If we had surface water at 4.4 bya then the time frame for delivering our water shrinks.

That would rather leave us to believe that Berzerker's recounting of mythology is less Babylonian and more balderdash.

Deities were often associated with planets, what is the problem? These olden gods predated creation.

No. For the third time, I want a citation that backs up your assertion that a Carbon Dioxide atmosphere would have eroded all the land.

I said tidal action would have eroded land, co2 was just another source whittling away anything popping up above the waves.

Because it ...is. Carbon Dioxide does not possess the property of being inimical to the formation of land. :confused:

I share your confusion

The picture shows how to get from a low circular orbit to a high circular orbit. You make one burn to get from the low circular orbit to a transfer orbit. See how the transfer orbit is elliptical. When you reach the second orbit, you make another burn to get into the new circular orbit. It works the same way in reverse.

So to get the Earth from a hypothetical orbit at 2.8AU, you need one burn or kick or collision or whatever to force it into an elliptical transfer orbit that will get it to the new orbit at 1.0AU. At 1.0AU, you need another kick to get it into its present orbit.

I dont agree, most or all of the planets have moved in their orbits and they didn't need kicks. to both start and end their migration.

Genesis explains the second time Earth (as per Bezerker's definition, namely dry land) was formed. I think the vulcanoes that formed small island all throughout the watery period has been dismissed as Genesis being close enough, right?

Genesis is not a story about how the primordial world formed (the enuma elish provides more information), it only deals with what happened to it later. So all the debate about what the Earth was like 4.5 bya aint relevant, if the world came to be covered by water before life and "dry land" appeared as a result of creation then we're dealing with events that happened closer to 4 bya.

Hmm, this is interesting.

It may be that our water formed in the Interstellar Medium:


http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2014/09/half-earths-water-formed-sun-was-born?rss=1

I wonder how the Enuma Elish can be reinterpreted to align with this.... Creation Science at work!

The enuma elish says the primordial waters preceded the planetary gods. The waters (salt and fresh) were mixed and planets began forming. But aint that interesting, Genesis says water preceded God too.

Well, Genesis doesn't just describe the creation of Earth, but of the universe. It was thought that the waters where where "the heavens" are now; it's not talking about water on Earth:

So, basically, everything was water.

Heaven /= universe, the heavens were preceded by a primordial "Earth" submerged in water. This was the dark deep that would later recede into oceans to reveal the dry land called "Earth".
 
So, after a week's absence, you come back in and merrily ignore evidence that your recounting of "Babylonian" astrology is mostly just guff, with the weak line that those gods predated creation? If you're going to spring ancient astronauts on us, whilst pretending to taking it from "ancient" sources, couldn't you have been honest in the first place?
 
hehe

Tiamat plays a major role in the enuma elish, what planet was/is it?

In the enuma elish Marduk is clothed with the halo of 10 gods. With the Moon that becomes 12 gods just like the cylinder seal VA 243 shows. The enuma elish and our solar system are depicted on a cylinder seal more than 4000 years old.

Now why does Genesis say God made Heaven and Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th? The Babylonian enuma elish tells the story of creation on 6 tablets with a 7th devoted to praising the creator. But if the Earth was at the asteroid belt, it was the 6th planet from the creator. And now Earth is the 7th planet... :)
 
Have you checked in with your therapist recently? Because you seem to be talking a lot of gibberish...
 
Democritus traveled to Egypt and Mesopotamia, when he returned to Greece he told them there were other worlds they could not see. He didn't have a telescope either.
Are you seriously telling me that Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were visible with the naked eye from Egypt and Mesopotamia, but not from Greece? :huh:

Now why does Genesis say God made Heaven and Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th? The Babylonian enuma elish tells the story of creation on 6 tablets with a 7th devoted to praising the creator. But if the Earth was at the asteroid belt, it was the 6th planet from the creator. And now Earth is the 7th planet... :)
Take a look at a current map of the Solar System. Earth is not the 7th planet.
 
But if you're intent on ignoring the evidence there's not much we can discuss.

This is true.

I did the math/graph long ago, it was ~27 degrees from Saturn to Pluto.

Your maths was wrong.

I didn't say they were the same, just that they share ascending nodes (meaning they're close). And they do...

Which is as meaningful as us both being in square c7 on our respective local street map. Because as soon as you change the arbitrary 0 point, we no longer share a grid reference, and the planets you're looking at no longer 'share' ascending nodes.


Why are you measuring Mercury's distance if Mars escaped from it?

Why not? The point is to find coincidental numbers to point at and claim they're meaningful. So it doesn't matter what you measure.

And its equatorial plane does not point at Mars

Yes it does. I did the maths last week. Just telling me it doesn't without even mentioning the maths involved is not any sort of meaningful rebuttal.
 
Are you seriously telling me that Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were visible with the naked eye from Egypt and Mesopotamia, but not from Greece? :huh:

No, Democritus traveled to lands where he was told there are more planets than can be seen with the naked eye.

Take a look at a current map of the Solar System. Earth is not the 7th planet.

Earth is the 7th planet, the asteroid belt was the 6th planet - the "creator" came from beyond our solar system. Thats why Heaven and Earth were formed in 6 days with creation ceasing on the 7th, the world acquired a new orbit closer to the Sun and "Heaven" (the hammered bracelet) was left behind. This is why so many myths speak of the primordial time when Heaven and Earth were closer or together and became separated by God.

Now, read Genesis again... Before creation, even before God, there is a dark, water covered world. God shows up and that world spins as a result, and spins near a star - night and day. The hammered bracelet (Heaven) is placed amidst the waters and dry land and life follow. Sounds like an impact(s) at the asteroid belt.

Your maths was wrong.

I disagree, but I do have a question about your math: shouldn't you have ranges for both your numbers? The angle changes because of Saturn's orbital inclination, I think you will find the upper range is ~27 degrees when Saturn and Pluto are below and above the ecliptic.

Which is as meaningful as us both being in square c7 on our respective local street map. Because as soon as you change the arbitrary 0 point, we no longer share a grid reference, and the planets you're looking at no longer 'share' ascending nodes.

The ecliptic is not arbitrary, Earth's orbit is connected to the same phenomenon responsible for Pluto leaving Saturn ~ 4bya

Why not? The point is to find coincidental numbers to point at and claim they're meaningful. So it doesn't matter what you measure.

I told you, I measured Pluto's distance, not Mercury. The former was ejected from Saturn, the latter was your source for the ejection of Mars.

Yes it does. I did the maths last week. Just telling me it doesn't without even mentioning the maths involved is not any sort of meaningful rebuttal.

I gave the numbers for Saturn and Pluto, you didn't show any math. Trying to compare the inner planets to Saturn and Pluto is illogical, the distances involved reduce the possibility of coincidences. Hell, if the Earth was at the asteroid belt the planets out to Uranus would follow a 2:1 ratio in distances, should we be more impressed that Venus is 2x further than Mercury or that the pattern continues for more than a billion miles?
 
Now, read Genesis again... Before creation, even before God, there is a dark, water covered world. God shows up and that world spins as a result, and spins near a star - night and day. The hammered bracelet (Heaven) is placed amidst the waters and dry land and life follow. Sounds like an impact(s) at the asteroid belt.

Even ancient astronauts would not have been around in the billions of years between Magic Rotation Event and Bible-Writing Humans. This cannot possibly be anything other than speculation.
 
Top Bottom