Atlantis Online
December 10, 2019, 06:24:28 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Secrets of ocean birth laid bare 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5191384.stm#graphic
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

The creation story - a 6000-year-old earth Or the aftermath of a comet impact?

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The creation story - a 6000-year-old earth Or the aftermath of a comet impact?  (Read 840 times)
Aatlae
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« on: August 02, 2015, 01:41:11 am »

The creation story - a 6000-year-old earth
Or the aftermath of a comet impact?



The creation story is not unique to the Old Testament - several similar stories exist in other cultures. Those who believe the biblical version must necessarily also believe that the earth is very young - merely thousands of years old. However, the description of the creation of the world, darkness that eventually cleared and a flooded earth from which the waters receded and life that began to emerge, closely matches the biblical flood of Noah.

In my opinion, and others have come to the same conclusion, the Noah story came before the creation story - in other words, an ancient civilization existed that realized that the earth would be hit by a comet. The safest place to be at the time of the impact would have been in ships on the open sea, where the ships could ride out the gigantic swell caused by the impact. The impact caused the Great Flood, which nearly wiped out human life on the planet, but some did survive. The impact and associated earthquakes would have resulted in sunlight being blocked from the earth until the dust began to settle, and the flood waters would likewise have begun to recede, leaving a very muddy earth behind.

Is this not a more realistic interpretation of these biblical legends?
Report Spam   Logged

Socrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 219



« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2015, 01:45:17 am »

Quote
Is this not a more realistic interpretation of these biblical legends?

Even the comparsion of two myth cannot lift one of it into or near to reality in any kind as both of them are permanently
separated from reality by principle.
Report Spam   Logged
Stellarpax
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 232



« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2015, 01:47:43 am »

The creation myth came into existence because people didn't know how the world was created, so they made up a story about how God did it.
The flood myth may have been the account of a local flood sometimes in the past, that later grew into a story about a global flood.

I think this is much more realistic than a comet impact and global flood that left no evidence behind.
Report Spam   Logged
Dark Goddess
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4125



« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2015, 01:49:05 am »

Don't creationists believe the dinosaurs never existed?
(Correct me if i'm wrong, as most religious stuff is in one ear, out the other.)
If the above question is correct, how do they dismiss the fossils?
Report Spam   Logged
Whitelocust
Full Member
***
Posts: 24



« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2015, 01:50:56 am »

If the earth is only 6000 years old then wouldn't we find "fresh" dinosaur corpse? There's also stories out there that Noah's Ark was a spacecraft. That human life is the results of alien experimentation.
Report Spam   Logged
Shadowraith
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2066



« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2015, 01:52:15 am »

 
Quote
Don't creationists believe the dinosaurs never existed?
(Correct me if i'm wrong, as most religious stuff is in one ear, out the other.)
If the above question is correct, how do they dismiss the fossils?

They do believe Dinosaurs existed alongside man but were killed in the Biblical flood, fossils which are millions of years old are only in fact several thousand years old according to them.
Some also believe that when Dragons are mentioned in the bible this actually means Dinosaur

Noah's ark at around 450 feet long and 75 feet wide would never carry the entire animal species even at two by two.The creationist theory is just ridiculous and ludicrous with no archeological evidence to back it up.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2015, 01:52:34 am by Shadowraith » Report Spam   Logged
HEX
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 818



« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2015, 01:54:40 am »

Quote
Noah's ark at around 450 feet long and 75 feet wide would never carry the entire animal species even at two by two.The creationist theory is just ridiculous and ludicrous with no archeological evidence to back it up.

If I recall correctly, there are many independent "Noah" stories and some of them relate that only domesticated animals were take along. That would make much more sense than the absurd biblical version in which 2 of each type of animal on the planet were taken on board.
Report Spam   Logged
Holy War
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3864



« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2015, 01:59:01 am »

Quote
The creation story is not unique to the Old Testament - several similar stories exist in other cultures. Those who believe the biblical version must necessarily also believe that the earth is very young - merely thousands of years old.

Not so.  Biblical Defense for Long Creation Days:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html


Quote
Is this not a more realistic interpretation of these biblical legends?
It seems quite a few ancient cultures, which up to now seem not to have been in communication with each other, have an account of a family surviving a global flood in a boat with animals.  They all seem to indicate the existence/creation of the Earth prior to this.  If they recall the flood account correctly, why would they have made such a huge mistake as to which came first flood or creation?
Report Spam   Logged
PrisonerX
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 64



« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2015, 02:01:53 am »

Quote
If I recall correctly, there are many independent "Noah" stories and some of them relate that only domesticated animals were take along. That would make much more sense than the absurd biblical version in which 2 of each type of animal on the planet were taken on board.

But is that not a contradiction, because if only domestic animals were taken on board then every known Animal would have been wiped out.

The Worldwide flood thing is just ridiculous.
Report Spam   Logged
Mystic Crusader
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 50



« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2015, 02:12:16 am »

Quote
But is that not a contradiction, because if only domestic animals were taken on board then every known Animal would have been wiped out.

No, not necessarily. Let's say a comet had struck the earth and created a worldwide flood, not all forms of life would have been wiped out. The animals and humans in high lying areas would have survived. Domesticated animals like sheep and goats would, however, have provided a source of meat, etc., so it would have made sense to take them along.
Report Spam   Logged

And if a bird can speak, who once was a dinosaur,
and a dog can dream; should it be implausible
that a man might supervise
the construction of light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ1JyLVd4ZU
Rebelitarian
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 652


« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2015, 11:25:15 am »

Anunnaki history documented by Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, and Assyrians.
Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2015, 10:51:27 am »

Any good Atlantis buff, myself included, is eagerly engaged in these type of discussions. There should not be any stones left "unturned" when searching for Atlantis. And why not? One myth can be as charming as another, as long as the rules are set accordingly, and the investigations, contemplation, speculations, hypotheses, imagination, facts, fiction, and more importantly, the source or sources from which these flow from is also taken into consideration. For this last, the source, I would say that 90% of the matter can be easily resolved right off the bat. Can we rely on this source? What else has the source given us in addition to a particular myth or story? And based on the character of the source, is it a trustworthy source? And this source can be history, valid science, speculative science, a nation, a tribe, a group, or even one single person. Additionally, a source can be a writ, whether on stone, tablets of other material sufficient to maintain the writing for long periods of time. Further, sufficient faith has to be placed on the abilities of those considered experts in the present time, to correctly interpret these writings and symbols, as being genuine, and their true meaning also deciphered. It is never an easy matter to fairly consider these myths and stories as to their truthfulness; did they really occur, did they partly occur, were they considerably over exaggerated, and is there some hidden meaning, or message?

What sort of “message in the bottle” are we considering, and do we know who, where, and when was the message sent out? Therefore, so as to get to any end (conclusion and opinion) one has to begin at the beginning, the source. And this beginning is what sets anyone on a long and tortuous perilous journey, or a smooth and easy voyage home. One that starts out in the wrong direction will have no end to wild adventures (speculations) and worthy of being a fellow passenger on Odysseus' ship. Odysseus' source for his wild and almost endless journey home (conclusion and opinion) was his offending a certain god, Poseidon, and also his character of being a wily thinking man. Since no one can easily prove anything about the gods, as we know how ignorant we are in these matters, because every source telling us of them are only men, then one story is as plausible, or ridiculous as another. And any proof, in favor or against, is futile, because it is still only man against man. And sad to say, man has neither discarded the gods, nor proven them, as we, mankind, are no closer to know, 100%, how it all came to be; whether always here or becoming. Sure we think that we have more plausible theories today than did the ancients, but, are we there?  And so, what is the other easy, smooth, sailing home and to arrive at a more probable conclusion and, possibly, a correct opinion? It is this, partly.

Thus far in what anyone has been saying, with small exception, the works of intelligence have not been set forth; and now we must place by the side of them in our discourse the things which come into being through necessity—for the creation is mixed, being made up of necessity and mind. Mind, the ruling power, persuaded necessity to bring the greater part of created things to perfection, and thus and after this manner in the beginning, when the influence of reason got the better of necessity, the universe was created. But if a person will truly tell of the way in which the work was accomplished, he must include the other influence of the variable cause as well. Wherefore, we must return again and find another suitable beginning, as about the former matters, so also about these. To which end we must consider the nature of fire, and water, and air, and earth, such as they were prior to the creation of the heaven, and what was happening to them in this previous state; for no one has as yet explained the manner of their generation, but we speak of fire and the rest of them, whatever they mean, as though men knew their natures, and we maintain them to be the first principles and letters or elements of the whole, when they cannot reasonably be compared by a man of any sense even to syllables or first compounds. And let me say thus much: I will not now speak of the first principle or principles of all things, or by whatever name they are to be called, for this reason—because it is difficult to set forth my opinion according to the method of discussion which we are at present employing. Do not imagine, any more than I can bring myself to imagine, that I should be right in undertaking so great and difficult a task. Remembering what I said at first about probability, I will do my best to give as probable an explanation as any other—or rather, more probable; and I will first go back to the beginning and try to speak of each thing and of all. Once more, then, at the commencement of my discourse, I call upon God, and beg him to be our savior out of a strange and unwonted enquiry, and to bring us to the haven of probability. So now let us begin again.
Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2015, 11:12:30 am »

Quote
The creation story is not unique to the Old Testament - several similar stories exist in other cultures. Those who believe the biblical version must necessarily also believe that the earth is very young - merely thousands of years old.

Not so.  Biblical Defense for Long Creation Days:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html


Quote
Is this not a more realistic interpretation of these biblical legends?
It seems quite a few ancient cultures, which up to now seem not to have been in communication with each other, have an account of a family surviving a global flood in a boat with animals.  They all seem to indicate the existence/creation of the Earth prior to this.  If they recall the flood account correctly, why would they have made such a huge mistake as to which came first flood or creation?
[/b][/u]

On the same rationale, can anyone tells us what came first, the egg or the chicken? Then when anyone can, rationally, and logically explain it to us, and the reason for it, then we are nearing our journey home.
Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2015, 11:29:48 am »

The creation story - a 6000-year-old earth
Or the aftermath of a comet impact?



The creation story is not unique to the Old Testament - several similar stories exist in other cultures. Those who believe the biblical version must necessarily also believe that the earth is very young - merely thousands of years old. However, the description of the creation of the world, darkness that eventually cleared and a flooded earth from which the waters receded and life that began to emerge, closely matches the biblical flood of Noah.

In my opinion, and others have come to the same conclusion, the Noah story came before the creation story - in other words, an ancient civilization existed that realized that the earth would be hit by a comet. The safest place to be at the time of the impact would have been in ships on the open sea, where the ships could ride out the gigantic swell caused by the impact. The impact caused the Great Flood, which nearly wiped out human life on the planet, but some did survive. The impact and associated earthquakes would have resulted in sunlight being blocked from the earth until the dust began to settle, and the flood waters would likewise have begun to recede, leaving a very muddy earth behind.

Is this not a more realistic interpretation of these biblical legends?


Would not a civilization so advanced you make it out to be---to be able to forecast the comet to hit the earth, and not only, but to also localize it as hitting water, and perhaps even a particular localized place on the water, and the degree of effects and consequences of the impact--would have also a technology so advanced as to have the capability of space travel/orbit? Therefore to select ships of the air rather than land/sea, as being the safest place? Think of NASA as we are today. We have catalogized all sorts of asteroids and comets, and their orbits and trajectories, and we also have space flight capabilities, besides scientific data and knowledge as to the aftermath of such a world wide catastrophe. Now to me this sounds more plausible, logically speaking. One goes with other.
Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2015, 11:49:20 am »

v
Quote
Is this not a more realistic interpretation of these biblical legends?

Even the comparsion of two myth cannot lift one of it into or near to reality in any kind as both of them are permanently
separated from reality by principle.

And you, wise Socrates, failed to explain the principle of the reality well enough. Is it not true that, in mathematics, a negative number times another negative number yields a positive result? Therefore, a false myth against (X) another false myth=Truth. Don't you think that history and events, especially ones of great proportions, can be passed on to us in the way of myths and stories?
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy