It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Its not that I am speculating. The language implies that whatever happened is what made the Earth into its state in Genesis 1:2
Please note, at not one point in his interpretation did he refer to the original language.
Grimpachi
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
Please post your research in fact please post the original language with a translation if you think it makes a difference.
network dude
Is it possible that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, but to be used as a guide? Stories that teach lessons don't have to be true to teach.
ServantOfTheLamb
Grimpachi
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
Please post your research in fact please post the original language with a translation if you think it makes a difference.
I will compile a post with my opinion on the matter for you. However, notice I am not the only person who has stated that. Obviously the research is out there..
Chamberf=6
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
This geologist happens to think that continental drift is the result of a sudden axial shift rather than a long drawn out process: www.axialshift.com... What will you say about him? Are his ideas not scientific enough?
W?here does he mention the flood or the earth "swelling in girth"?
Chamberf=6
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
When these verses are read in the original language a gap of time between the two verses implied. So, "God created the heavens and the earth..." something the text doesn't tell us occurs, and then"...the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
So in that implied gap, it's ok to just speculate about this "gap" and then tell others "Something happened and so the Earth had to be restored, but it doesn't say that. You just have to fill in the blanks and gaps of god's word". ??
What you are reading there is the re-creation of the Earth after that event.
Says who? Not this word of god book.edit on 2/25/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)
ServantOfTheLamb
Ok,
I mean if natural selection works as Science says wouldn't leaving say the Dog population to breed on its own(rather than selective breeding) get us much closer to the desirable traits everyone wants? I mean breeders can only choose from traits existent in that gene pool, and if all the desired traits exist in that gene pool, does it not mean that the animal was once a perfect specimen?
edit on 25-2-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)
ServantOfTheLamb
Ok, So basically you say God cannot exist because the Flood never happened.
Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant,[1][2] is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.[5] The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms.[6][7]
Pando is located 1 mile southwest of Fish Lake on Utah route 25.[8] in the Fremont River Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah, at N 38.525 W 111.75.
If the 2350 date were correct, then human civilization would’ve had to undergo an extreme population explosion in the millenium following the flood. According to Biblical sources, there would have been millions of Jews leaving Egypt, so assuming a global population of 40 million around that time (~1350 BC), and comparing that to global population estimates later in history (an estimated 200+ million by 0 AD), would require an incredibly high population growth between 2350 BC and 1350 BC (5,000,000 fold increase in 1,000 years), and a much lower population growth after 1350 BC – usually less than 5 fold population growth within any 1,000 year period between 1350 BC and 1800 AD.
(3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”)
(4) Genetic evidence shows that human beings are far to genetically diverse to be descended from a single family in 2350 B.C. If Noah’s Ark were true, then all men alive today would’ve gotten their Y-chromosomes from Noah, and all human mitochondrial DNA would come from Noah’s wife and the three daughter-in-laws. Studies of the human Y-Chromosome show that you’d need far more than 4,300 years to accumulate that many mutations. Human beings could not be descended from a single male in 2350 B.C. What the studies show, instead, is that, in order to explain the number of mutations in the human Y-Chromosome, you have to allow for roughly 60,000-90,000 years. Similarly, human mitochondrial DNA requires roughly 160,000 years to accumulate that many mutations — showing that Eve could not have lived 6,000 years ago as the Bible says.
Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.
Miles of coral reef, hundreds of feet thick, still survive intact at the Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The violent flood would have certainly destroyed these formations, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived for over 100,000 undisturbed years. Similarly, the floodwaters, not to mention the other factors leading to a boiling sea, would have obviously melted the polar ice caps. However, ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica date back at least 40,000 years.
Impact craters from pre-historical asteroid strikes still exist even though the tumultuous floodwaters would have completely eroded them. If these craters were formed concurrently with the flood, as it has been irresponsibly suggested, the magnificent heat from the massive impacts would have immediately boiled large quantities of the ocean, as if it wasn’t hot enough already. Like the asteroid craters, global mountain ranges would exhibit uniform erosion as a result of a global flood. Unsurprisingly, we witness just the opposite in neighboring pairs of greatly contrasting examples, such as the Rockies and Appalachians.
Even if we erroneously assume there to be enough water under the earth’s surface in order to satisfy the required flood levels, the size of the openings necessary to permit passage for a sufficient amount of water would be large enough to destroy the cohesive properties of the earth’s crust. However, the outer layer is firmly intact, and there’s no evidence indicating that it ever collapsed. All this hypothetical escaping water would have greatly eroded the sides of the deep ocean fissures as well, but no such observable evidence exists for this phenomenon either.
We can also observe algae deposits within the fossil layers, a phenomenon that could not have formed during the flood because they require sunlight to thrive. It’s quite reasonable to assume that the clouds would have thoroughly obstructed the sunlight during such a tremendous rain indicative of the flood. Setting aside this and all other known fossil inconsistencies with the Bible, archaeologists have found human footprints within the upper layers. Moving water simply could not have deposited these markings. As I alluded to earlier, this seemingly endless list of geological problems was completely unforeseeable to the primitive authors, thus the Bible offers no justifications or explanations for our discoveries.
ServantOfTheLamb
ServantOfTheLamb
You are again assuming that the atmosphere of the Earth worked exactly as we know it today. The Earth was closer to its perfect state. So I believe it probably functioned differently back then.
mamabeth
People of faith should always remember this...Debating with atheists is like playing chess with pigeons.Also remember...
Not to cast your pearls among swine!
BELIEVERpriest
How do we know that the Earth is not hollow to some degree?
Another set of scientific arguments against a hollow Earth or any hollow planet comes from gravity. Massive objects tend to clump together gravitationally, creating non-hollow spherical objects such as stars and planets. The solid sphere is the best way in which to minimize the gravitational potential energy of a physical object; having hollowness is unfavorable in the energetic sense. In addition, ordinary matter is not strong enough to support a hollow shape of planetary size against the force of gravity; a planet-sized hollow shell with the known, observed thickness of the Earth's crust, would not be able to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium with its own mass and would collapse.
Someone on the inside of a hollow Earth would not experience a significant outward pull and could not easily stand on the inner surface; rather, the theory of gravity implies that a person on the inside would be nearly weightless. This was first shown by Newton, whose shell theorem mathematically predicts a gravitational force (from the shell) of zero everywhere inside a spherically symmetric hollow shell of matter, regardless of the shell's thickness. A tiny gravitational force would arise from the fact that the Earth does not have a perfectly symmetrical spherical shape, as well as forces from other bodies such as the Moon. The centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation would pull a person (on the inner surface) outwards if the person was traveling at the same velocity as the Earth's interior and was in contact with the ground on the interior, but even the maximum centrifugal force at the equator is only 1/300 of ordinary Earth gravity.
The mass of the planet also indicates that the hollow Earth hypothesis is unfeasible. Should the Earth be largely hollow, its mass would be much lower and thus its gravity on the outer surface would be much lower than it is.
templar knight
So the idea that a supreme being would kill all different animals (who had done nothing wrong) for the sake of some bad humans seems just vindictive. IMHO, this is actually quite evil behaviour, and so if people have faith in this happening, then what sort of God are they worshipping.
JamesCookieIII
If the Flood never happened, why is the planet covered in 75% water?
ServantOfTheLamb
So you are telling me that this is impossible?
Consanguinity is often associated with factors such as:
Cultural and religious practices
Isolated groups (such as migrants) who prefer to marry within their own culture
Low socioeconomic status
Illiteracy
Living in rural areas.
Related parents are more likely than unrelated parents to have children with health problems or genetic disorders. This is because the two parents share one or more common ancestors and so carry some of the same genetic material. If both partners carry the same inherited altered (mutated) gene, their children are more likely to have a genetic disorder....
Degrees of relationship
Relatives are described by the closeness of their blood relationship. For example:
First-degree relatives share half their genetic information. First-degree relatives include a person’s siblings, non-identical twin, parents and children.
Second-degree relatives share one-quarter of their genetic information. Second-degree relatives include a person’s half-siblings, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, and grandparents.
Third-degree relatives share one-eighth of their genetic material and include a person’s first cousins, half-uncles, half-aunts, half-nephews and half-nieces.
The closer the genetic relationship between the parents, the greater the risk of birth defects for their children.
Incidence of birth defects in children of related parents
A child of unrelated parents has a risk of around two to three per cent of being born with a serious birth defect or genetic disorder. This risk is approximately doubled (to between four and six per cent) for children of first cousins without a family history of genetic disorders. The risk of birth defects or death for children of first-degree relatives – for example, parent and child or brother and sister – rises to about 30 per cent.
ServantOfTheLamb
Can you prove to me that this is what happened? No. It is circumstantial, and you infer that is how those events played out. How do we know the Summerians didn't transpose their flood story from oral traditions of the Hebrews? We don't, but it is no less accurate then what you are assuming.