Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Age of the earth?

Sure….. earth scientists of today report that if all the mountains and elevated land masses were leveled, the earth would be completely water covered….as I recall…. Hundreds if not thousands of feet of water.

Note that sea fossils can be found high in the Himalayan mountains. Those rocks were under water at some time, then a period of mountain building pushed them up. The point is there was and now is sufficient water right here on earth to cover the globe.

Wait a minute…..aren’t you the one who will claim there is insufficient “evidence” to show the historical Jesus?

Seems that 99% of biblical scholars believe that He did….only a small minority of “internet infidels” will reject the historicity of Jesus…..


Btw…you seem to be at odds with the “vast consensus.”

TF49,

Thanks for a fun read.

Fiction can be amusing.

basically.

i do believe in a God or a Goddess. there has to somebody to turn on lights and what happens next?


i don't believe in a fable, like most of the New Testament. i don't believe in an infallible God/Goddess. if that's the case, why did He/Her bother creating us? He/Her already knows what we do?

A god is not an answer - it's a premise in the god-in-the-gaps fallacy. Where did the god come from?

.[/quote]


Sure….. earth scientists of today report that if all the mountains and elevated land masses were leveled, the earth would be completely water covered….as I recall…. Hundreds if not thousands of feet of water.

Note that sea fossils can be found high in the Himalayan mountains. Those rocks were under water at some time, then a period of mountain building pushed them up. The point is there was and now is sufficient water right here on earth to cover the globe.[/quote]

Mountains do not flatten themselves rise up again in the amount of time the Bible says the flood took.

Your explanation also rejects the what the Bible says.

So let me get this straight, the universe…and everything in it, including intelligent life…can come from nothing, but a divine awareness could not…?

I can imagine a conversation between atheists Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins ~ and the apostle Peter. The atheists would attack Christianity ‘by’ attacking the Bible. They’d start out with their blistering critique of the New Testament and its “contradictions” and “it was written by anonymous authors decades after the described events.”
And they’d point out all of the atrocities carried out in the name of religion throughout history, and mainly and especially Christian atrocities.

But ~ the foundation of Christianity is not a combination of 27 different historical manuscripts that were later bound together with the Hebrew Scriptures into a single volume well over 300 years after the described historical events contained in the New Testament.

Let’s hear how the apostle Peter might respond ~ Men, I’m certainly familiar with the history of my people the ancient Israelites, and I’ve never questioned it because of how I was raised. But men, none of that ~ nothing you’ve said has anything to do with ‘my’ decision to follow Jesus. You men reference the inadequacy of my reasoning, so let me explain ‘my’ reasoning ~ I only have one reason. When Jesus was arrested, I ran ~ and when asked if I knew Him, I lied. And when the Romans crucified Him, he died. And at that time, I was like you men ~ I had no faith.

I didn’t know what to believe. I had no reason to believe, because I didn’t know what to believe. I’d just spent 3 years of my life following a false prophet, and now I had a price on my head. And then Jesus came, and there He was ~ very much alive. Men, arguing with anything you’ve said is irrelevant because…and let me clarify one thing…‘my’ reason for believing isn’t something that I’ve heard or read or had read to me.

I believe what I believe because of what I saw...I watched Jesus die, I know exactly where He was buried, but God raised Him ~ and I saw Him, and I saw Him more than once. That’s the reason...that’s the only reason...for ‘my’ hope.

Many biased deniers clearly attack Christianity by attacking the Bible. But if someone gave up on Christianity because of something in the Bible or something about the Bible, they may have given up on Christianity unnecessarily. Even if someone is leaning towards the door and is about to leave Christianity because of something in the Bible or something about the Bible, they don’t have to leave.

And here’s why that is ~ Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, and never read the Bible ~ because there was no ‘the Bible’ to be had or read. But these same men and women turned the world upside down and they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today ~ and they never held ‘the Bible’ because there was no ‘the Bible’ until the fourth century.

So what happened...? What did they believe...? What did they know...? Why is it that people are so quick to (and so easily persuaded to) walk away from faith because of a book that didn’t even exist when Christianity first began...?

What served as the foundation of faith for the first century ekklesia of Jesus…? It makes sense that we should take the cues about the foundation of Christianity from those who were closest to the action ~ the first century, first followers of Jesus.

The foundation of Christianity is not a book ~ it is an event that took place on a hill outside the walls of Jerusalem. The Bible did not create Christianity. The Christians eventually created the Bible.

It's not a matter of denial or attack.

Regarding the biased deniers oft repeated claim of “contradictions” in the Gospels:

After the Titanic sank there were several different headlines from newspapers regarding how many people died. They all had different numbers and there were “contradictions.” And even eyewitnesses disagreed about the Titanic sank. Some eyewitnesses said it went down whole and other eyewitnesses said it broke in two and went down, and there were “contradictions.”

Does that mean the Titanic didn’t sink…? Nope. What they all do agree on is this ~ they all agree on the ‘major event’ that the Titanic sank. Maybe some eyewitnesses had a different view than other eyewitnesses. This is exactly what you get with eyewitness testimony. You get people agreeing on the ‘major event.’

There ‘was’ a Resurrection. You get em’ disagreeing, or at least giving different accounts, about maybe who got to the tomb first or who was there, but none of that stuff changes the central and major event that they’re writing about. And that is the Resurrection.

When people point out what ‘they’ consider to be “contradictions” in the Bible, so what…? What does that prove…? It certainly doesn’t prove that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead…! And it certainly doesn’t mean the New Testament documents aren’t reliable either.

The writers may have different nuances or different ways or reporting, but if you find what you consider to be a “contradiction” in the story, it certainly and clearly doesn’t mean that the central or main event didn’t happen. The Bible doesn’t need to be without “contradictions” for Christianity to be true.

“Contradictions” do not negate the bigger point that Jesus rose from the dead for our sins and by trusting in Him you can have forgiveness.

Sure….. earth scientists of today report that if all the mountains and elevated land masses were leveled, the earth would be completely water covered….as I recall…. Hundreds if not thousands of feet of water.

Note that sea fossils can be found high in the Himalayan mountains. Those rocks were under water at some time, then a period of mountain building pushed them up. The point is there was and now is sufficient water right here on earth to cover the globe.[/quote]

Mountains do not flatten themselves rise up again in the amount of time the Bible says the flood took.

Your explanation also rejects the what the Bible says.[/quote]





No, my explanation does not reject what the Bible says.

You are making a great assumption….. you are assuming the mountains of the world were as high and prominent before the flood as they are today.

You may be assuming that all the water for the flood came from rain….

So, how long do you think the flood took?

A flood inundating the whole of the earth 5 or 6 thousand years ago did not happen or even 10,000 years ago. You discredit yourself if you make that claim.

As to the story of Noah, please consider impossibility of every animal species on earth being on even the largest ship floating today.

Absolutely there was a catastrophic flood in which the Black Sea was flooded as were many other places on earth but one family and 9 jillion animals on a boat did NOT happen. Period.

A general comment about “models.”

The construct of models to help us better understand how things work are very valuable…. We have naturalistic models…..societal models…..economic models and of models for astronomy.

But, models are not fixed, immutable concepts.

As we gain more knowledge….new information, a model is subject to change….as it should. Such as the “dark matter” descriptions.

In the link below is an example of a an astronomic model undergoing change…

https://www.astronomy.com/science/is-the-big-bang-in-crisis/


Oddly how astronomers Big Bang theory is changing, even though the moniker “Big Bang” remains.

Also note the emergence of the “everywhere, all at once” concept being discussed….interesting stuff.


HOWEVER….. there is a great danger in developing models…. A “model” is only a model. It may not be totally accurate….the danger comes when we begin to …..believe…. That the model is a totally accurate representation of the true action, circumstance or interpretation of some set of facts or events.

The model may be accurate for what we can see today, bit as new information/facts are presented, the model must change.

So…don’t get to carried away…or… “married up” with some way of thinking or model that you have grown comfortable with…..

It’s going to change….

Need to mention one the most inaccurate models of all time…

Remember all the climatologists….the climate scientists….the climate experts telling us their “climate models” show catastrophic global warming? My opinion is that a bogus and horribly inaccurate model was used to scare the populace and push a political agenda.

Also, remember that Pfizer et al …. And our beloved government officials ….all said that the trials had been fastracked and the jab was safe? Was colossal lie. The “models” used by Pfizer et Al to justify the safety,of the mRNA shots were manipulated to demonstrate a political and social outcome….just like the climate models were constructed to yield a preferred political and social result.

SOS…

There is not only no evidence that Noah's flood occurred, but there is strong evidence that it didn't occur. I'm amazed that there are still people who think it did.

As for global warming, it is absolutely occurring, due to increased CO2, faster than it has in geological time. My beef is with what we should do about it.

Since you seem to like making certain declarative statements, let me make one of my own….

You are totally wrong on both counts.

But, you are free to hold on tightly to the errors that you are “married up with.”

You should not have dropped out of high school before you took chemistry class.

What a stupid comment.

The issue is seeking truth ….. accepting lies…..and being unwilling to admit you have believed something untrue.

I will mark you down as simply being an intellectually blind member of the John Kerry climate club.




Opinion counter to the Kerry/Greta propaganda….

https://www.investors.com/politics/...l-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/