Earth Tilt Question

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Standing up, you did read my post, right? I mentioned 367, specifically because of its significance for the NT canon. You are aware that Athanasius, being in the Catholic church, would be affirming the Catholic OT canon if he is referring to that also. Do you accept the entire Catholic canon of Athanasius, or today's Catholic canon? Or are you saying that Athanasius is only talking about part of the canon, since he only goes on to list NT books? Either way, I can't see how you can use Athanasius and still maintain that books like Tobit aren't in the canon.

Are you saying that if someone says something is from God, then it uncritically is so?

Lastly, are you saying that the Catholic church is the one true church, and Luther is "rubbish"?

Papias

Small type, long post, off subject, no time.

Roman Catholic Church as we know it today in 367? Hardly, although that was during the time when Alexandria and Rome were still friends.

In any event, the NT is agreed upon by all, no? Plus, he says, put together, handed down, already confirmed. When and by whom? we don't know.

If he were Roman Catholic, he'd be sola scriptura. Are you ss?

He mentions some OT additions as helpful, but not as canon/scripture.

" These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them...

But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless. "

The first OT list by a Christian was Melito c175.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Omitting inconvenient details can be seen as misleading.

Standing up wrote:
He mentions some OT additions as helpful, but not as canon/scripture.


and

The first OT list by a Christian was Melito c175.


You are aware that neither Melito nor Athanasius agree with the current Protestant or Catholic (or Ethiopian or Syriac or other that I know of) canons, right?

Athanasius rejects Esther and includes Baruch.

Melito rejects Esther, doesn't mention Nehemiah and Lamentations, and appears to also include the Wisdom of Solomon. The Bryennios list may predate melito, and it doesn't agree with anyone else either.

Plus, if you are arguing that the canon was ever decided, you'll have deal with other disuputes, like the fact that the Apostles clearly quote the disputed books, and explain why you accept Athanasius as inspired (even though you disagree with him?), yet reject Jerome. Why are you the decider of who is inspired?

You didn't answer about Luther, who shows that the NT canon was in dispute among protestants as recently as the 1500's. The NT canon is largely agreed on today, though there are disputes like the Johannine comma and many others. The canon as a whole is, and always has been, in dispute.


My point is not to argue which canon is right, but simply to show that saying "back when the canon was finalized" makes as much sense as saying "back when the waves on the ocean ceased".

Papias
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Omitting inconvenient details can be seen as misleading.



and



You are aware that neither Melito nor Athanasius agree with the current Protestant or Catholic (or Ethiopian or Syriac or other that I know of) canons, right?

Athanasius rejects Esther and includes Baruch.

Melito rejects Esther, doesn't mention Nehemiah and Lamentations, and appears to also include the Wisdom of Solomon. The Bryennios list may predate melito, and it doesn't agree with anyone else either.

Plus, if you are arguing that the canon was ever decided, you'll have deal with other disuputes, like the fact that the Apostles clearly quote the disputed books, and explain why you accept Athanasius as inspired (even though you disagree with him?), yet reject Jerome. Why are you the decider of who is inspired?

You didn't answer about Luther, who shows that the NT canon was in dispute among protestants as recently as the 1500's. The NT canon is largely agreed on today, though there are disputes like the Johannine comma and many others. The canon as a whole is, and always has been, in dispute.


My point is not to argue which canon is right, but simply to show that saying "back when the canon was finalized" makes as much sense as saying "back when the waves on the ocean ceased".

Papias

:clap:

NT we have is the same Athanasius outlined.

OT there are disputes. (Melito, like the Jews, may have combined Ezra/Nehe. Esther and Wisdom are interesting issues.)

Canon does quote outside sources, like Book of Enoch, etc. You're right that it's an issue.

I thought it was the Mark comma that was the issue (after Jesus rose, early He appeared or after Jesus rose early, He appeared ...) Not really. Folks don't know what that means.

As well, there are types of translations (NIV, NLT or KJV, NASB).

Fine, delightful mess.


:groupray:
 
Upvote 0

Numenor

Veteran
Dec 26, 2004
1,517
42
114
The United Kingdom
Visit site
✟1,894.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Conservative
:doh:
Now I KNOW you're not a geologist, juvie! 2012 posits increased tectonism as a result of "mutant nutrinos" from the sun. Gimme a break! (I also don't remember anything about the tilt of the earth changing.)
It's like a surgeon watching Scrubs and thinking ... "hmmm .... ineresting idea!!!" :D
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Juve wrote:
So, my guess is that the tilting is caused by the mass balance adjustment of the earth itself. This process could be different from planet to planet.

I had missed this post (and only saw it because Mallon's post was quoted, above). Juve, you are saying that as a geologist, you find the "mass balance adjustment" after a global flood to be a more likely cause of the Earth's tilt than an impact?

OK, this is just too much. Juve, you are aware that flood geology (the idea that there was a global flood in the past, which caused many of the geological features we see today) was rejected as massively untenable by Christian geologists more than a century ago?

It seemed pretty hard to believe that a person who claimed to be a a geologist was unaware of the consensus among geologists in support of radioactive dating, but I kinda let that go. But a person who claims to be a geologist advocating flood geology or that the mythical flood of Noah was real? That's like a chemist denying the Atomic theory in favor of belief in the elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water.

Juve, do you support flood geology? Or do you recognize that there is zero geological evidence for a flood that should have left more evidence than a tornado going thought your hometown, and that geologists worldwide have realized this for over 100 years?

Is there any way to verify that you are a geologist?

Papias
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Juve wrote:
I don't think the impact theory can explain the tilting of the earth.

If it were true, then what about the tilting status of the Mars, Venus, and the Mercury? Did they also get similar impacts (or lack of impact)?

Excuse me while I pick my jaw off the floor.





Yes, of course they did. You must know that the early solar system had more impacts than a billiard game - if you have any doubt, take a look at the moon sometime. It's been pummeled by impacts so much, that there are craters on top of craters - and all other bodies in the solar system have too (look at any of them that don't have geologic processes to erase the craters).


Juve, being a geologist, you can give us a good numerical estimate or exact number of how many impact craters geologists have found on earth, if any. Have they found any? Please, a number, which you probably know off the top of your head. 0? 1? 4?

Papias
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
OK, this is just too much. Juve, you are aware that flood geology (the idea that there was a global flood in the past, which caused many of the geological features we see today) was rejected as massively untenable by Christian geologists more than a century ago?

It seemed pretty hard to believe that a person who claimed to be a a geologist was unaware of the consensus among geologists in support of radioactive dating, but I kinda let that go. But a person who claims to be a geologist advocating flood geology or that the mythical flood of Noah was real? That's like a chemist denying the Atomic theory in favor of belief in the elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water.

Juve, do you support flood geology? Or do you recognize that there is zero geological evidence for a flood that should have left more evidence than a tornado going thought your hometown, and that geologists worldwide have realized this for over 100 years?

Is there any way to verify that you are a geologist?

Papias


He might be. The only professional biologist I ever met personally was also a young-earth creationist who denied evolution. And yes, he was a real biologist doing actual research on insects.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Juve wrote:


I had missed this post (and only saw it because Mallon's post was quoted, above). Juve, you are saying that as a geologist, you find the "mass balance adjustment" after a global flood to be a more likely cause of the Earth's tilt than an impact?

OK, this is just too much. Juve, you are aware that flood geology (the idea that there was a global flood in the past, which caused many of the geological features we see today) was rejected as massively untenable by Christian geologists more than a century ago?

It seemed pretty hard to believe that a person who claimed to be a a geologist was unaware of the consensus among geologists in support of radioactive dating, but I kinda let that go. But a person who claims to be a geologist advocating flood geology or that the mythical flood of Noah was real? That's like a chemist denying the Atomic theory in favor of belief in the elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water.

Juve, do you support flood geology? Or do you recognize that there is zero geological evidence for a flood that should have left more evidence than a tornado going thought your hometown, and that geologists worldwide have realized this for over 100 years?

Is there any way to verify that you are a geologist?

Papias

I thought I am done on this thread. Sorry if I reply late.

I am pretty sure in my mind that the whole earth was flooded once before. It is hard to find any direct evidence of such flood today. But many threads in geosciences do suggest that it is a a reasonable and a likely geological event.

A global flood is not a problem. The hard problem, again, is the time.

You don't have to worry if I am a geologist. If you like, simply pay attention to what I said. Geologists do not deny a global flood (they dare not). It is simply a non-issue in geology, yet.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
He might be. The only professional biologist I ever met personally was also a young-earth creationist who denied evolution. And yes, he was a real biologist doing actual research on insects.

Are you in Toronto area? If I have chance to visit the place again, do I have the honor to meet you?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Juve wrote:


Excuse me while I pick my jaw off the floor.





Yes, of course they did. You must know that the early solar system had more impacts than a billiard game - if you have any doubt, take a look at the moon sometime. It's been pummeled by impacts so much, that there are craters on top of craters - and all other bodies in the solar system have too (look at any of them that don't have geologic processes to erase the craters).


Juve, being a geologist, you can give us a good numerical estimate or exact number of how many impact craters geologists have found on earth, if any. Have they found any? Please, a number, which you probably know off the top of your head. 0? 1? 4?

Papias

With the modern remote sensing technology, I heard the number to be something like a few dozens. I have personally seen about 10 (images). Of course, all of them are pretty small, something like smaller than 100 miles in diameter. Their impacts should not be large enough to tilt the earth.

-------

You seems to be pretty harsh on me. Is that because I said I am a geologist? What if I said I am not? Would that make my opinion easier to accept? I said I am a geologist but you don't think so. Are you a geologist? I think it is pretty easy for a geologist to identify another geologist. I have no problem to identify Mallon as a paleontologist simply by a few exchanges. It is pretty hard to fake one's knowledge before another expert. For example, I can easily tell that you are not a geologist, not by how much geology you know, but by the way you describe geological information.

So, please quit the guessing on what I am. Simply focus on the issue.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
-snip-

So, please quit the guessing on what I am. Simply focus on the issue.

It's called ad hominem, attack the person, rather than address the issue. Usually the person making ad hominem arguments has lost the argument.

Earth tilt.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You seems to be pretty harsh on me.

Sorry about that. I don't mean to be, but it is frustrating to hear someone claim to be a geologist, and then repeatedly say things that even a freshman studying to be a geolgist would find embarrassing.


Are you a geologist?

No, my field is closer to chemistry. But I'm scientifically literate enough to know some basic geologic information.

I think it is pretty easy for a geologist to identify another geologist. I have no problem to identify Mallon as a paleontologist simply by a few exchanges. It is pretty hard to fake one's knowledge .....

Right, and that's why I've found it very hard to square the idea that you are a geologist with not just claiming silly things, but not being aware of basic geologic information. Such as:

  • Not knowing that there is zero evidence of a worldwide flood
  • Not knowing that a worldwide flood would leave tons of obvioius geological evidence.
  • Not knowing that there are all kinds of geologic structures that refute flood geology.
  • Not knowing that flood geology was rejected by Christian geologists over 100 years ago.
  • Not knowing that muliple dating methods have agreed on the dates for thousands of samples.
    [*]Not knowing that nearly all scientists agree that evolution occured.
    [*]Not knowing that nearly all geologists agree on the age of the earth.
    [*]Not knowing that nearly all geologists currently reject flood geology.
    [*]Not knowing that the early solar system was a mess of impacts, as shown by craters on the surfaces of dozens of bodies in our solar system.
    [*]Not knowing that most impacts on earth from that time have long been erased by known geologic mechanisms (See quote #1 below).
    [*]Not knowing that there are well over 150 impact structures on the earth, even after all that geology (see quote #2 below).
    [*]and so on.....
Quote #1:

Of course, all of them are pretty small, something like smaller than 100 miles in diameter. Their impacts should not be large enough to tilt the earth.

You are aware that nearly all impacts from back then have been geologically erased, so the fact that we don't see the crater from that impact isn't relevant, right?

I mean, watch this impact, and tell me why we don't see a crater. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2AEer2j9Ys
(Yes, know it is just a popular show, but it shows why one should not go looking for the Theia crater, which a geologist would know.).

#2:
With the modern remote sensing technology, I heard the number to be something like a few dozens. I have personally seen about 10 (images).

As mentioned above, there are over 150, with undoubtedly a lot more undiscovered.


Sorry for the doubt, but as has been pointed out, nearly each one of these is like someone claiming to be a surgeon, then saying "hey, I'd never heard of washing one's hand's first, that sounds like a good idea....."

Papias

 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
  • Not knowing that there is zero evidence of a worldwide flood
  • Not knowing that a worldwide flood would leave tons of obvioius geological evidence.
  • Not knowing that there are all kinds of geologic structures that refute flood geology.
  • Not knowing that flood geology was rejected by Christian geologists over 100 years ago.
  • Not knowing that muliple dating methods have agreed on the dates for thousands of samples.
    [*]Not knowing that nearly all scientists agree that evolution occured.
    [*]Not knowing that nearly all geologists agree on the age of the earth.
    [*]Not knowing that nearly all geologists currently reject flood geology.
    [*]Not knowing that the early solar system was a mess of impacts, as shown by craters on the surfaces of dozens of bodies in our solar system.
    [*]Not knowing that most impacts on earth from that time have long been erased by known geologic mechanisms (See quote #1 below).
    [*]Not knowing that there are well over 150 impact structures on the earth, even after all that geology (see quote #2 below).
    [*]and so on.....


I may not know any of what you said. But how about this one:

When you see a high diver who can twist and turn in the air, do you think they are continuously hit by something from different directions, so they tilted and turned in the air? Could the earth tilt the same way?

How about change your concept on the Global Flood a little bit by not taking it as a cause, but as a consequence of something bigger?

Have you seen the movie 2012? If not, I would recommend it. It suggested some changes of the earth which is bigger than a global flood.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
OK, so you are proposing that a global flood may have happened in the past, and been caused by an impact? There is nothing wrong with changing one's position (I see it as a sign that someone is not dogmatic), yet I wanted to understand, you are now saying that a global flood may indeed have been caused by the Theia impact?

Papias
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
OK, so you are proposing that a global flood may have happened in the past, and been caused by an impact? There is nothing wrong with changing one's position (I see it as a sign that someone is not dogmatic), yet I wanted to understand, you are now saying that a global flood may indeed have been caused by the Theia impact?

Papias

I don't think I ever suggested that. On the opposite, I suggested that an impact is not needed.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So, if we leave out a global flood or an impact, we are left with the idea that the earth has always been tilted (off axis). Seasons come and go.

Does this idea matter one way or the other? The dinosaur extinction theories might be impacted?

Thoughts? Comments?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Sure, just let me know when you are coming and I will give you contact info privately.

Thanks. Not sure when will be the next GSA (geological society of america) meeting at Toronto. But it will happen.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0