Creation Date

[Astrid]

Several independent science groups have separately found evidence that Earth was a water world.

So, once you become aware of the separate groups finding that, if one then continued to doubt it, they need to have a meaningful technical scientific reason by my standards, to dispute that increasing support of multiple findings. Otherwise one would reasonably accept it as 'growing evidence' that is 'accumulating'.

Then don't say it "was" if you mean
"might have been,".

It's nothing to me, if it's so or not.
I read the speculation years ago.

Stating it as fact is falsifying the reports.
Trying to match it to genesis is force-fitting, at
best

It's nice if people want to learn a little
historical geology. I thought it worth
half of a double major.

Your response indicates you did not
understand what I was saying about how it's
a maybe, and the error of gloming onto
confirmation bias.

 

[Halbhh]

Then don't say it "was" if you mean
"might have been,".

It's nothing to me, if it's so or not.
I read the speculation years ago.

Stating it as fact is falsifying the reports.
Trying to match it to genesis is pseudoscience.

It's nice if people want to learn a little
historical geology. I thought it worth
half of a double major.

Your response indicates you did not
understand what I was saying about how it's
a maybe, and the error of gloming onto
confirmation bias.

Is this science finding about Water World early Earth new to you perhaps? Or....maybe it that you are using words differently....

Let me ask: would you even say for example that an asteroid "might have" hit the Earth in Chicxulub, Yucatan in the 'Chicxulub Impact'?.... This may be a subtle language use difference. You are in Hong Kong, right?

For the Water World Earth theory, I think we are not yet to the level of overwhelming evidence like we have for the Chicxulub Impact, but we are progressing.

Part of the science is about water in zircon crystals. That science isn't one I know a lot about, but I can see it's been around quite a while now -- I found for example already findings about zircon showing evidence for water on early Earth referenced to 1991 at least when trying to find an earlier example of that research. So that key part isn't a new theory without time to have been reviewed a lot.

So, here in the U.S., we'd not call a theory that has quite a lot of accumulating evidence like water world early Earth in American lingo just a 'might have', because of the connotation of "might have" in America would be signaling significant reservations, like if there was a widely thought competing theory for instance, so that each theory is in active dispute -- then we'd say "might have" for each theory.

Basically, in American usage, saying 'might have' suggests a significant (actual, detailed and specific competing) reason to be cautious about a leading theory.

 

[SelfSim]

Basically, in American usage, saying 'might have' suggests a significant (actual, detailed and specific competing) reason to be cautious about a leading theory.

The 'caution' there being necessary because of the predominant temptation to adopt beliefs as being true .. as opposed to actually 'finding out' by testing them.

 

[Astrid]

Is this science finding about Water World early Earth new to you perhaps? Or....maybe it that you are using words differently....

Let me ask: would you even say for example that an asteroid "might have" hit the Earth in Chicxulub, Yucatan in the 'Chicxulub Impact'?.... This may be a subtle language use difference. You are in Hong Kong, right?

For the Water World Earth theory, I think we are not yet to the level of overwhelming evidence like we have for the Chicxulub Impact, but we are progressing.

Part of the science is about water in zircon crystals. That science isn't one I know a lot about, but I can see it's been around quite a while now -- I found for example already findings about zircon showing evidence for water on early Earth referenced to 1991 at least when trying to find an earlier example of that research. So that key part isn't a new theory without time to have been reviewed a lot.

So, here in the U.S., we'd not call a theory that has quite a lot of accumulating evidence like water world early Earth in American lingo just a 'might have', because of the connotation of "might have" in America would be signaling significant reservations, like if there was a widely thought competing theory for instance, so that each theory is in active dispute -- then we'd say "might have" for each theory.

Basically, in American usage, saying 'might have' suggests a significant (actual, detailed and specific competing) reason to be cautious about a leading theory.

Even the average American probably realizes.
that "...years ago" does not suggest "new to me".,

If you were to check divers links re water world
you would findthat "studies suggest", and , "may have been" are
common phrases. As is suitable for something no
better known.

Perhaps you would like to take issue with the word choices of
those authors, giving particular attention to the distinction
between "may", and "might" in this context.

As you are disinclined to actually respond to the substance of my
original comment, having to do with your assertion that earth "was" a
"water world", and the bizarre connection to genesis, but rather choose
to distract from.it, I think this conversation Is over.

 

[Paul4JC]

Wrong's Concordance can take a hike.

I'm more interested in what God had to say in English, than tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

The God of the Old Testament didn't speak English, any more than the Lord Jesus Christ did. Is original language (or tongue) meaningless to you?

 

[Paul4JC]

Yikes. Are you also a flat-earther? I shouldn't be surprised, though, this is a forum on the internet, you get all sorts of beliefs on here...

Enlighten me from the Bible. Again I ask, are you an unbeliever? You seem to deny the Old Testament. Do you?

 

[Paul4JC]

Sumeria plagiarized Noah.

Egypt plagiarized Noah.

China plagiarized Noah.

And that's just for starters.No, it isn't.

Not even close.

Sumeria's protagonist was Utnapishtim.

Egypt has Ra sending his daughter to destroy [only] part of the Earth.

China's protagonist is Gun, the prince of Chong.

In short, the details of the story are all quite different.
And Noah's son Shem was right there to set the record straight -- right up to the time of Jacob.

I can see Shem telling Nimrod, "No, it wasn't Utnapishtim. It was Noah."

I can see Shem telling Mizraim, "No, it wasn't Ra sending his daughter. It was God sending the rain."

I can see Shem telling the Sinites, "No, it wasn't the prince of Chong. It was JEHOVAH."

Etc and so on.

Do you deny the story of Babel? What was Babel about to you? You don't think that things could've been "lost in translation." [Gen 11:9 NIV] 9 That is why it was called Babel--because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

 

[Paul4JC]

You don't get the difference between forgotten and non-existent?

....If you don't know the meaning of deliberately.

 

[Astrid]

....If you don't know the meaning of deliberately.

So your knowledge depends on what I know.
Droll.

 

[Paul4JC]

What we see above -- the stars -- called the 'heavens' in Genesis chapter 1. God created all of it we read in the Gospel of John chapter 1.

The stars are not called the heavens in Genesis 1 and neither are the heavens called the universe. What do we see above? There be lights! Yes, Jesus created all.

[Gen 1:14 NIV] 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

[Gen 1:14 NKJV] 14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;

So what is this vault or firmament? The Raqia H7549 - rāqîaʿ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (nkjv)

 

[Paul4JC]

So your knowledge depends on what I know.
Droll.

Is that deliberate?

 

[Halbhh]

The stars are not called the heavens in Genesis 1 and neither are the heavens called the universe. What do we see above? There be lights! Yes, Jesus created all.

[Gen 1:14 NIV] 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

[Gen 1:14 NKJV] 14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;

So what is this vault or firmament? The Raqia H7549 - rāqîaʿ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (nkjv)

Hi, nice to meet you.

Indulge me a full minute (all the way through). Have a look:

From Strong's (your link):
" râqîyaʻ, raw-kee'-ah; from H7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament."

Firmament:
noun
the heavens or the sky

Sky:
noun
the region of the atmosphere and outer space seen from the earth

As also from the Pulpit Commentary at Bible Hub for
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

"The heavens and the earth (i.e. mundus universus - Gesenius, Kalisch, etc. Cf. Genesis 2:1; Genesis 14:19, 22; Psalm 115:15; Jeremiah 23:24. The earth and the heavens always mean the terrestrial globe with its aerial firmament. Cf. Genesis 2:4; Psalm 148:13; Zechariah 5:9). The earth here alluded to is manifestly not the dry land (ver. 10), which was not separated from the waters till the third day, but the entire mass of which our planet is composed, including the superincumbent atmosphere..."

 

[Halbhh]

Even the average American probably realizes.
that "...years ago" does not suggest "new to me".,

If you were to check divers links re water world
you would findthat "studies suggest", and , "may have been" are
common phrases. As is suitable for something no
better known.

Perhaps you would like to take issue with the word choices of
those authors, giving particular attention to the distinction
between "may", and "might" in this context.

As you are disinclined to actually respond to the substance of my
original comment, having to do with your assertion that earth "was" a
"water world", and the bizarre connection to genesis, but rather choose
to distract from.it, I think this conversation Is over.

I think you'd be able to follow this article (it is not highly technical), or at least get how there is more than one kind of evidence, and so on.

It's got some really interesting stuff in it, and isn't long. I think you'll like it.

Ancient Earth was a water world

The 'caution' there being necessary because of the predominant temptation to adopt beliefs as being true .. as opposed to actually 'finding out' by testing them.

If you can improve on any of the research, that would be great. See link above to a good summary article that isn't overly technical.

 

[AV1611VET]

The God of the Old Testament didn't speak English, any more than the Lord Jesus Christ did. Is original language (or tongue) meaningless to you?

What was that original language?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you deny the story of Babel?

What story of Babel?

 

[Jonaitis]

Enlighten me from the Bible. Again I ask, are you an unbeliever? You seem to deny the Old Testament. Do you?

I am not an unbeliever. I happen to believe that Jesus understood that these stories did not actually occur, but employed them in His ministry to the Jewish nation about Himself. He related to the people of His generation on earth about the true Kingdom of God. I think that believing the Old Testament to be actually history was introduced later in early Christian history.

 

[AV1611VET]

I happen to believe that Jesus understood that these stories did not actually occur, but employed them in His ministry to the Jewish nation about Himself.

So He would be crucified ... right?

We have a saying:

Jesus is in the Old Testament concealed, and in the New Testament revealed.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I am not an unbeliever. I happen to believe that Jesus understood that these stories did not actually occur, but employed them in His ministry to the Jewish nation about Himself. He related to the people of His generation on earth about the true Kingdom of God. I think that believing the Old Testament to be actually history was introduced later in early Christian history.

I'd like to hear from some Jews on that. I would think that many Jews, then as now take much of it as history, at least Moses and the Exodus. But also appreciate the literary message of most of it.

 

[Jonaitis]

So He would be crucified ... right?
We have a saying:
Jesus is in the Old Testament concealed, and in the New Testament revealed.

I don't deny the divinity of Christ, if that's what you are asking.

I don't have to deny that saying either.

 

[Jonaitis]

I'd like to hear from some Jews on that. I would think that many Jews, then as now take much of it as history, at least Moses and the Exodus. But also appreciate the literary message of most of it.

You won't find many, but there are some I'm sure.