Questions about the Earth

[servant]

Did science or the bible first note that the earth hangs on nothing?

Did science or the bible first note that the earth was a circle and not flat?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 129 by Revelations won]

It would appear that some of you are very adept at jumping to conclusions.

Perhaps this is due to some of your responses which are (intentionally?) vague. For example, from post 125:

You next asked: “ Does it come from the christian bible, or some other holy book that may have a different description?�

Answer: Yea and Yes to the second part of your questions.

If you had simply written "Yes to the second part of your question" then it would be obvious that you were indicating that your belief comes from a holy book that is not the christian bible. But you started the sentence with "Yea and Yes", and it isn't clear to me what that means (eg. was "Yea" a typo and meant to be "Yes", or does "Yea and Yes" have some meaning besides just "yes"?).

Here's another one that is less ambiguous (also from post 125):

You next stated: “Again, you are assuming that a creator exists. How do you know this being actually does exist? It is an assumption on your part that you cannot prove, and of course I cannot prove that such a creator does not exist.�

Answer: Your response is from my observation fair and balanced. You appear to be assuming that I am assuming these things.

That was in response to your comment in post 121:

Not only do you not know how all this is done, but you cannot even count the number of His creations.

From that, it appears very clear that you are assuming the existence of a creator so I don't see where my inferring that you do is incorrect ... in fact I would not call my position assuming, but rather taking your comment at face value.

But regarding the sea shells being found far from a present day ocean, you again forced a reader to read between the lines because you did not offer any possible explanation yourself. Do you have an alternative explanation for this besides the one given? Do you not accept that explanation for some reason? If not, what is the reason? Since you do apparently believe in a creator, and if it isn't the christian god, care to tell us what it is so we don't have to make assumptions?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 124 by Clownboat]

Yes, I know what that divine plan is.

Could you please outline what that plan is and how you verified that it was in fact God's plan and not something devised by human beings.

These are the words of Revelations One, not myself FYI.

[Kenisaw]

Dear DrNoGods, Kenisaw and Clowboat,

LOL I gave a couple of examples regarding sea shells at locations far from any sea water. I do not remember making any declaration that these evidences were a direct result of the flood mentioned in the account of Noah.

It would appear that some of you are very adept at jumping to conclusions.

I guess we are supposed to just ignore your post history, eh? Please don't insult people's intelligence by pretending you were claiming something else. I find such tactics dishonest. If nothing else gives it away, the fact that you didn't bother to explain what else you could have meant shows that you are just playing games here.

Is it possible that there are perhaps more than one explanation as to the formation of these aquatic evidences and how they came to exist in their present locations?

Has the scientific community explored every possibility?

The scientific community has followed the enormous amount of facts and data to their most logical conclusion. Science doesn't "explore every possibility", science gathers evidence and finds an explanation that accounts for that evidence. "God did it" doesn't account for the evidence.

If you think there is an alternate explanantion that explains all the gathered evidence to date, put it forward in this thread and let's see if it holds up to scrutiny.

Is it possible that there still exists undiscovered facts regarding the origin, or organization of this earth?

I can guarantee there is. No scientific theory is ever complete, because no knowledge base is ever complete. There's plenty of evidence yet to be discovered. And it's entirely possible that some of that new evidence will require a new, better explanation to be generated that will replace current theories.

[Revelations won]

Dear DrNoGods,

You said: “Since I am an atheist, I don't believe there is any "divine plan" for this earth, or that any god being exists. So I'm not sure how I could find fault with a divine plan that I don't believe exists.

Answer: Thank you for your honest response.

You next asked: “ Do you know what this divine plan is?�

Answer: Was a simple “Yes, I know what that divine plan is. You did not ask for evidence or details.

You next asked: “ Does it come from the christian bible, or some other holy book that may have a different description?�

Answer: Yea and Yes to the second part of your questions.


Your response: “If you had simply written "Yes to the second part of your question" then it would be obvious that you were indicating that your belief comes from a holy book that is not the christian bible. But you started the sentence with "Yea and Yes", and it isn't clear to me what that means (eg. was "Yea" a typo and meant to be "Yes", or does "Yea and Yes" have some meaning besides just "yes"?).�

My response: You asked a simple question and did not ask for any explanation. I, therefore gave a simple and direct “yes� answer to your question.

You next stated: “Again, you are assuming that a creator exists. How do you know this being actually does exist? It is an assumption on your part that you cannot prove, and of course I cannot prove that such a creator does not exist.�

Answer: Your response is from my observation fair and balanced. You appear to be assuming that I am assuming the existence of a creator. Yes, I would agree with you that perhaps I should have presented some evidence to illustrate my position. (Which I intend to do, but I think it would be well to not get the “cart before the horse�.


You next stated: “But science has shown too many things in various holy books (including the christian bible) to be outright false (eg. Noah's flood), and it has explained a great number of things that in the time of the writing of these old holy books were attributed to gods (or a single god depending on the particular holy text in question), that there is no longer a need to believe in these imaginary beings.�

Answer: You claim, for example, that the flood described in the days of Noah did not exist. Hmmmm..

Your response was also lacking in clarity for you did not identify what other holy books you are referring to.

You next asked: Do you have an alternative explanation for this besides the one given? Do you not accept that explanation for some reason? If not, what is the reason? Since you do apparently believe in a creator, and if it isn't the christian god, care to tell us what it is so we don't have to make assumptions?

My answers:

I am at a loss for you have not given me a full and complete description of what your understanding of what constitutes the “Christian God�. I would appreciate your take on this, so I can properly respond.

In conclusion, you should understand that from my perspective I do not find true and accurate science to be in conflict with religion. To the contrary, I believe they support each other, for true religion also embodies all truth, from any source.

Perhaps one of the biggest rifts between science and religion is the doctrine espoused by many Christian sects is that of “Ex-Nihilo creation�. Is there any evidence that supports a concept that something is created from nothing?

Please understand that I ascribe to no such doctrine. As I see it there is no record in the Bible which declares this doctrine of creation, thus it appears to be a “man made� doctrine. It certainly is in direct conflict revealed truth and with current scientific studies.

There are some christian sects who argue that that the earth and all life thereon were crated in 6, 24 hour periods... For them to prove such would be a far fetch! I would ask, does this appear true according to current research?

Let’s hear your responses.

Regards,
RT

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 134 by Revelations won]

My response: You asked a simple question and did not ask for any explanation. I, therefore gave a simple and direct “yes� answer to your question.

You're still being ambiguous I believe. You didn't respond with a simple and direct "yes", you responded "Yea and yes to the second part of your question", and I did not understand what the "Yea" was meant to convey. If I asked you if you prefer red wine or white wine, and your response was "Yes", I'm left with no valid answer because the question is not a yes or no question. So from the dialog on the original question I can only assume your answer is that your knowledge of the"divine plan" comes not from the christian bible, but from some other source. Correct? Care to tell us what that source is?

Answer: You claim, for example, that the flood described in the days of Noah did not exist. Hmmmm..

Your response was also lacking in clarity for you did not identify what other holy books you are referring to.

I was not referring to any holy books in making the claim that the Noah's flood story as described in the christian bible could not possibly have occurred. This conclusion is not based on any holy book, but rather on the overwhelming scientific evidence against it that has been discussed on this forum many times in the past.

I am at a loss for you have not given me a full and complete description of what your understanding of what constitutes the “Christian God�. I would appreciate your take on this, so I can properly respond.

A complete description of the christian god is given in the christian holy book ... the bible. Of course, different flavors of christianity have different takes on some details of the associated figures (eg. protestants believe in a father-son-holy ghost trinity, while catholics do not), but my understanding of the christian god is that it is the being described in the christian bible (ie. the "God of Abraham").

There are some christian sects who argue that that the earth and all life thereon were crated in 6, 24 hour periods... For them to prove such would be a far fetch! I would ask, does this appear true according to current research?

Let’s hear your responses.

Another repeat of things from an earlier post (like must of this post), but I am convinced that science has proven that the creation story told in the christian bible cannot be correct. So my answer would be that current scientific understanding suggests that the 6x24 creation story is not true.

But you have yet to describe which holy book (if any) you use as the source of a "divine plan" that you claim to know something about. We're left to read between the lines and conclude that this is not the christian bible, but you've offered no clues yet as far as what your source is for this divine plan, or what this plan is all about.

[Donray]

And

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Isaiah 38:8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

Malachi 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

says that the sun revolves around the earth.

So, the bible has nothing to do with the truth or facts.

It is a story written by ignorant mankind and has nothing to do with a god. Except that man created ALL gods.

[Revelations won]

Dear DrNoGods,

My understanding of “Yea� and “yes� is that they both mean the same thing, so don’t choke by straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

Let us however, examine the creation first:

To create is to organize. It is an utterly false and uninspired notion to believe that the world or any other thing was created out of nothing or that any other thing was created out of nothing or that any created thing can be destroyed in the sense of annihilation.According to D&C 93:33 “The elements are eternal�.

Joseph Smith in the King Follett sermon said: “You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, Doesn’t the Bible say He “created� the world? And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of Chaos- chaotic matter, which is element, and which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. “The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.�. (Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith pp. 350-352)

Christ acting under the direction of the Father, was and is the Creator of all things. (D&C 38:1-4; 76:22-24; John 1:1-3; Col. 1;16-17; Heb. 1;1-3; Moses 1; 2; 3.)

That he was aided in the creation of this earth by “many of the noble and great� spirit children of the Father is evident in Abraham’s writings. Unto those superior spirits Christ said: we will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.� Abraham 3:22-24.) Michael or Adam was one of these. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses and many other “noble and great� onesplayed a part in the great creative enterprise.. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp.74-75.)

This earth was not the first of the Lord’s creations. An infinite number of worlds have come rolling into existence at his command Each is an earth, many are inhabited with his spirit children;each abides the particular law given to it; and each will play a part in the redemption, salvation, and exaltation of that infinite host of the children of an almighty God. The Lord has said that his work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life for his children on all the inhabited worlds he has created. (Moses 1:27-40; 7:29-36; D&C. 88:17-26.)

In a nutshell, the above are the basics relating to the creation of worlds without number.

You should so note that the materials from which this earth were created or according to the above, were (organized). Those elements at that time were in a disorganized condition. This does not mean or imply that they were never in an organized state. This also opens a vast arena of scientific exploration which most have been ignorant of, or ignored or uninformed.

A case in point which was raised in an earlier post was that of Sea shells on the earth’s surface and also of further sea fossils on Brecia knob. I posed a question regarding the evidences, but did not state that these were a direct evidence of the flood mentioned during the life of Noah. One theory suggests that either or both of those evidences could just as well have been a part and parcel of the materials which were used in the organization of this earth upon which we live. Have you considered that those materials from which this earth were organized, may have come from other earth’s which were created and then reorganized to be used as a part of the makeup of this earth? Could those aquatic shells and fossils been at one time, part of the living creatures existing on another planet? These and other fossils could certainly be hundreds of millions of years old.

So with the above clarifications on the clear doctrine of the creation, I find no conflicts with science. May I suggest that science may find a wonderful new horizon and vistas as these things are fully explored.


You asked: “ Do you know what this divine plan is?�

My answer is: YES. I cannot give the complete plan in one post. You have been given one portion of that divine plan tonight. I suspect you may have never heard many of the above expressed Christian views. Perhaps you are even surprised to see the different insights presented. To me, at least, I find that this perspective given is far more in harmony with good science.

You asked what are my references used: The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and many other references (usually listed with my responses).

Best Regards,
RT

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 137 by Revelations won]

You asked what are my references used: The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and many other references (usually listed with my responses).

Thanks for the clarifications ... I think we can now safely assume that you ascribe to the Mormon faith.

In a nutshell, the above are the basics relating to the creation of worlds without number.

You should so note that the materials from which this earth were created or according to the above, were (organized). Those elements at that time were in a disorganized condition. This does not mean or imply that they were never in an organized state. This also opens a vast arena of scientific exploration which most have been ignorant of, or ignored or uninformed.

I suppose this kind of view is abstract enough to allow it to explain just about any scenario for the present universe, including our solar system. Worlds "without number" could refer to the vast number of stars, planets and other celestial bodies, regardless of how they came into existence. And current scientific understanding of the formation of our own solar system suggests that the planets formed from the accretion disk surrounding the sun after it formed, so in that sense they were "organized" from existing material. It is a generic enough explanation that it can explain just about any scenario.

But I don't see the need to claim it was all orchestrated by a god being of some sort. Just having the material in place, with gravity and the other laws of physics operating as they do, would lead to the formation of planets around a star. We see this for many other star systems besides our own, and we happen to be located on an oddball planet where conditions were just right for life as we know it to develop. The environment was in place first, and the variety of life forms that evolved within it are the type that, by definition, were/are comparable with it.

Could those aquatic shells and fossils been at one time, part of the living creatures existing on another planet? These and other fossils could certainly be hundreds of millions of years old.

The proposition that this planet (Earth) may have been cobbled up from other similar planets as an explanation for how sea shells may be found far away from present day oceans, has no scientific justification that I am aware of. We know a great deal now about the other planets in our own solar system from Earth-based observations and direct visits from the various spacecraft we have built. So we know for certain that life as complicated and evolved as sea creatures leaving shells do not exist on any other planet in this solar system (although I don't think microbial life of some sort has been eliminated completely as a possibility).

If these other earths you mention existed at some point, and had creatures evolved enough to leave sea shells, then presumably there were oceans similar to ours, an oxygen environment, and no doubt many other life forms. But there is no evidence for such a scenario from astronomical observations. And if life of some sort has developed on other planets (which seems probably given the vastness of the universe), there's no reason to believe it would resemble anything on Earth ... especially to the point of having sea creatures that would leave shells. The closest star system to ours is 4.2 light years away ... some 25 trillion miles. These other earths would have to have come from similar distances away, or likely much greater distances, if it happened anytime during the last 4.6 billion years. So it is hard to imagine such a scenario, given what we do know about our solar system and its formation. But of course such scenarios can be imagined and many more as well ... they just don't (as of yet) have any basis in science.

[Revelations won]

Dear DrNoGods,

Just because you have no current research capability available to amass substantial evidence from 4 1/2 light years away does not deny the possibility of future discovery.

Perhaps one factor which currently limits such discovery is the antiquated concept of light speed. Have you ever considered that there may be speeds much greater than "light speed?" What could that do if one were to master and utilize such a velocity principle?

One concept that we need to learn and understand is that God our eternal father operates according to divine laws. For example miracles are a mystery to some religionists as well as scientists. This is no mystery to God or his true followers who are endowed with his power., which I suggest is a higher level of science than you currently comprehend and understand.

The things of man are understood by the spirit of man. The higher things of God are only comprehended by one having the spirit of God. As an atheist, this concept is foreign and incomprehensible to you.

As I see it, God is without question, the master scientist who not only knows all science, but is the master or sovereign over all science. Having a perfect knowledge of all science, He is unlimited in his ability to operate within those laws.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 139 by Revelations won]

Perhaps one factor which currently limits such discovery is the antiquated concept of light speed. Have you ever considered that there may be speeds much greater than "light speed?" What could that do if one were to master and utilize such a velocity principle?

Physics as we know it to date prohibits anything with mass moving fasterr than the speed of light, and things with no mass (eg. photons) travel at the speed of light. So until there is some evidence to invalidate this "speed limit", there is no reason to consider that it is wrong.

One concept that we need to learn and understand is that God our eternal father operates according to divine laws. For example miracles are a mystery to some religionists as well as scientists. This is no mystery to God or his true followers who are endowed with his power., which I suggest is a higher level of science than you currently comprehend and understand.

Such beliefs are based entirely on faith instead of science and reason. Invoking divine laws is a convenient way to allow for anything whatsoever without regard to the laws of nature as derived from scientific endeavor. Once a supernatural being possessing divine powers is admitted into the discussion, everything is easily explained without the need for evidence ... including miracles.

As an atheist, this concept is foreign and incomprehensible to you.

I grew up in a deeply religious household (protestant christian), and never questioned anything I was taught until I hit graduate school and met people from other parts of the globe who were devout practitioners of other religions (Hinduism in particular). This prompted me to study the origin and belief systems of other religions and I eventually concluded that they were all nothing but man made collections of myth and allegory, and could not possibly be actually true. So the concept of "higher things of God" is not at all foreign or incomprehensible to me ... I just see no reason to believe the nonsensical stories which most religions are based on, which in general can be shown to be demonstrably false (eg. the creation story of Genesis, Noah's flood, modern humans living to 900+ years, Joseph Smith finding golden plates near Manchester, NY which he translated using a seer stone into a holy book, etc. etc.). These stories just don't hold up to any kind of scientific scrutiny.

As I see it, God is without question, the master scientist who not only knows all science, but is the master or sovereign over all science. Having a perfect knowledge of all science, He is unlimited in his ability to operate within those laws.

That kind of belief absolves one from having to explain anything through the lens of physical reality and science.