Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
Thanks, I'll check that out. This might be the same thing I've skimmed through on some news site, though... are there diamonds in this article by any chance?
No.
By the way, to the "spirit of God [hovering] over the face of the waters" thing, liquid plasma is still not water... if God had really told those guys how the universe began, they should've known God's spirit was hovering over something else. (BTW, according to physicists, didn't that plasma fill the early universe rather than accumulate in some sort of bottom like a lake? Nothing much to hover over...)
Hebrew is a rather difficult language due to the same words having several meanings and the fact that there are no vowels as in english. Water and liquid are very similar and are sometimes interchangeable. Mem the root means liquid-massive, chaotic. So the translation of water could be simply liquid yet water is considered liquid.
I find it rather humorous that you would think that the writers would say quark-gluon plasma. It would mean absolutely nothing to them. The Bible was for all people of all generations. God hovering over something is hardly a problem. If God as in the sense of the Bible could very hover over anything. The liquid that was present in the birth of the universe has no comparison in our vocabulary or known matter either.
Physicists working to re-create the matter that existed at the birth of the universe expected something like a gas and ended up with the "perfect" liquid, four teams of researchers reported at an April 18 meeting of the American Physical Society. One of the teams is led by MIT. "These truly stunning findings have led us to conclude that we are seeing something completely new--an unexpected form of matter--which is opening new avenues of thought about the fundamental properties of matter and the conditions that existed just after [the Big Bang]," said Raymond Orbach, director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, the primary supporter of the research. Unlike ordinary liquids, in which individual molecules move about randomly, the new matter seems to move in a pattern that exhibits a high degree of coordination among the particles--something like a school of fish that responds as one entity while moving through a changing environment. That fluid motion is nearly "perfect," as defined by the equations of hydrodynamics. Picture a stream of honey, then a stream of water. "Water flows much more easily than honey, and the new liquid we've created seems to flow much more easily than water," said Wit Busza, leader of the MIT team and the Francis Friedman Professor of Physics. Other MIT faculty involved in the work are Professor Bolek Wyslouch and Associate Professor Gunther Roland, both of physics.
And. As I've said, supported by a quote from the Bible, Genesis suggests the earth was created with the rest of the universe. Which is very far from current physicists' view.
No it doesn't.
The universe was created on day one and two it was on the third day that earth was created.
Even if early earth was really cool and the early universe was really dark and it really contained a liquid, things are still seriously amiss in your reasoning here.
How so. The earth was covered in water and the universe was really dark.
No it doesn't indeed, but if others believe it in a different way, and the only common point with Christianity is the existence of a beginning, then on that basis any one of them could be just as true as Christian cosmology. I think I should leave this particular point, though, unless there comes someone who knows details of other cosmologies with a finite universe and can give us a Christian-other finite-scientific cosmology comparison. Would be interesting to see that.
The universe having a beginning was only one point in support, hardly the full focus.
[aside] I haven't said there was But mathematically these things are just as plausible as the concept of a single universe. I tend to have faith in mathematics, seeing how some of its weirdest concepts
suddenly beckoned to us from the physical world (like complex numbers in quantum mechanics)
Very true. It doesn't falsify Genesis though.
Of course I'm not saying mathematically possible = physically plausible, but whether Hindus were right is not actually the main point here. Since I know there's no observational evidence for a cyclic universe, the main point was in fact the "just out of curiosity" question, which concerns your treatment of evidence. You've told us that regardless of whether Hindus are proven right or not you'll keep on believing the same thing, which puts a bit of doubt on why you'd believe the evidence for your own views. I mean, if you wouldn't reject Christian cosmology based on contradicting evidence, why would you pay any attention to evidence supporting it? If someone accepts scientific observation as a valid form of evidence, they ought to be able to accept it regardless of whether it agrees with their personal beliefs. If they are unable to do it, then it's faith and not evidence that supports their beliefs.
You misunderstand my position. Should the Hindus be right about a cyclical universe, it would still require births of universes rather than all universes being present at once. Regardless, I have studied Hinduism and there are many facets of the religion that I see as contrary to what is taught in Christianity. If you know that the earth is not flat, then no matter what evidence at the time says you will not believe it to be flat...correct? If you really know it. So why is it hard to understand that I do not believe other religions to be correct? When I say correct, I mean more like true than correct.
Again, that doesn't mean there aren't scientific discoveries that agree with some points in Genesis. So...
Which I believe is what the OP was asking for.
[...End of aside] Aham. I'm glad you don't expect me to believe you, otherwise I might ask for the evidence
Oh, there was evidence, but none that could convince someone that was not there at the time.
Most of which either isn't really true or doesn't give all that much evidence that it's more than coincidence. Strictly speaking, though, you've done your job. I'll grant that.
Coincidence is stretching it quite a bit, I think.
Which wasn't my complaint. It's actually easier to make a vague statement true, because if you don't really say anything, there's less of a chance that you say something untrue My problem with vagueness was that it's pretty difficult to match a statement that general to a specific real-world phenomenon.
IF you were instructed to write something so encompassing as the birth of the universe, that which you have no understanding of anyway, vague is pretty much what anyone would expect. There is still enough to make determinations based upon the writings. Otherwise, you would not be able to see any coincidence in it at all.
Besides, the non-vague chronology given in Genesis outright contradicts the fossil record. Oops.
Perhaps, but like I've shown, what fossil evidence has shown so far is that if we find new fossils it can totally change when something showed up in it. It was once in "evidence" that the earth was too hot for millions and millions of years to support life, that was proven to be not true. It was once thought that it was to hot for water to be present and that too was untrue. It was once thought that the earliest moments in the birth of the universe that gas was the only matter that could have been present...we have found that is not true.
That is the beauty of Science, it grows with the more we know. It adapts to new findings.
Aham, and where does the Bible mention multiple creations of life, or catastrophic, meteorite triggered extinction events? There's only one creation, and catastrophic event in the Bible I know of, and that catastrophic event supposedly lead to no extinction because Noah packed all animals safely into his ark... Specifically it had happened to the formation of the earth... A certain Archbishop Ussher seems to have put that in 4004 BC. This is one great case of things happening far earlier than everyone had thought
It is hardly a point against Genesis to be lacking information. The lack of evidence ( or in this case information) does not falsify anything.
Ok, there are definitely true statements in Genesis, which answers the original questions. But those seem to me vague enough not to be strong evidence for the truth of Genesis as a description of reality, and when there are more concrete statements they tend to be not true...
Coincidence is putting it mildly; the bible had a 50:50 chance of being right on the earth being created.
LOL only 50:50!!
The point i am trying to make is that, as the word of god, the bible should fill gaps in our knowledge and not gloss over everything.
Didn't the Bible give us information about the stages of life prior to there being any evidence known? Yes.
Didn't the Bible claim that the universe had a liquid stage in its birth before there was any evidence known? Yes.
Had god signed the earth, or even the far side of the moon etc( that way it would be a long time in the future before this fact could be verified), and had this fact written in scripture, I would be impressed enough to stop working on a sunday and take my pew.
No you wouldn't. You would say that anyone could have written it by getting there before us. There is always a way out, there is always an avenue for you to choose. God will never give you evidence that is absolute because to love Him has to be a choice.
Don't think I'd kill non-believers or take a slave, but i would become a faithful follower of god non the less.
Christians don't kill non-believers or take slaves.
Doesn’t every religion have a start to the universe? So no big deal – they copied the idea.
Depends on what religion you are talking about. Just because something claims the same thing does not mean it was copied. Although, there is very good support for other religions copying from the Jews.
I am interested in history – could you please give me some references on who these “most people” actually were (obviously not follows of Genesis and the Christian faith?)
Actually, the Christian faith had nothing to do with Genesis.
As an aside – some people today still think that this might be the case – that the universe had no beginning – it is outside the scope of science, but we might have many Big Bangs – I will not go into the detail, it is not important here.
Fine.
The writers of the bible didn’t need evidence for any of their writings or understanding of the world so why would Genesis be any different?
In your opinion of course.
And?
As I said, it is hard to find a religion that does NOT think this.
Look at Hinduism, Buddhism for a start.
Great, so you agree to the Big Bang theory? Well done you.
Yes.
However this statement shows the bible writers knew NOTHING about the Big Bang theory, or how the universe was formed.
Exactly my point. How did they know that liquid was present in the early universe, that there was darkness or light for that matter.
One reason is I guess really depends on how you define “darkness” – the first few hundred thousand years the Universe was opaque to light because neutral atoms had not formed. (It was too hot until around 300-400 thousand years after the big bang and the free electrons caused scattering)
Evidence for the two epochs have long been sought by astronomers and cosmologists, who believe the universe began in a Big Bang some 12 to 15 billion years ago, after which the universe expanded rapidly but remained dark for millions and millions of years. Lumps and bumps were thought to form in an otherwise smooth distribution of matter during these dark ages, and the first galaxies were born after gravity caused these clumps of matter to grow larger. The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.
Now would you called a hot plasma ball “dark”? It does not make sense.
I hope that the article above helps you make sense of it.
I certainly do not see any “deep” in the science theory, or the “spirit of God over the face of the waters”.
Very funny.
Now I do not only have a problem with the God part of this statement (no evidence BTW) – I certainly KNOW there was not water.
I commented on the water thing in another post. There was a time when scientists would have said that they knew that liquid would have been impossible as well. They now know better.
So in summary, this statement is a load of dingo’s kidneys.
I disagree.
This sounds interesting… where will it take us?
What liquid might this be? Water? NO WAY!!!
The perfect liquid, a completely new matter unknown on earth. That is pretty interesting if you ask me.
It took nearly 400,000 years for the universe to cool to form neutral atoms… nothing else. Certainly NO liquid water (for a start, NO Oxygen – this requires stars - so no H2O my friend)
I explained earlier.
How man EVER thought of such a thing I do not know… the bible writers must have been up ALL night thinking of that one. Through the night and into the morning! (hint, hint)
You really are a comedian.
Of course, the bible writers forgot about the sun (until day 4). They did not know that the sun was rather important on the light front.
The light spoken of earlier would have been the light of the galaxies. Which by the way if you read the article comes in just as in Genesis.
Also, remember the universe (that is everything else other than the Earth) was not created until day 4 either… the bible writers must have had the wrong telephone number when they thought they were talking to God.
Not true. The universe was created in the first two days, then the earth and then the sun and moon.
I’ve read this before… it is in the bible, what are you trying to prove to me?
See the article I posted.
Ah… so this is your dark ages? It doesn’t really help with the Genesis 1 story though.
God did NOT create any of these objects until day 4 remember!!! You are only on day 1 – I think.
You are confused as to what is being said. The sun and moon are on day four, but the universe was created and did not have the sun and moon and earth present in the first part of it birth.
Genesis does NOT match science or reality.
I think it does and I have given you supporting evidence for it.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. (New International Version)
Wow… so what have I proved? I too can cut and paste quotes from the bible… Good stuff. They say I wasted my time doing a degree?
Whatever.
The bible story still does not match what science believes happened, so what is your point again?
How can you say that?
And? They didn’t say it tasted and looked like water now did that!!! Did anyone say “I know – we could bottle that and sell it!!!”
Wow, you are just to clever.
This is nothing new – gases at high pressure (and therefore temperature) can behave more like liquids… big deal on your proof of the genesis myth.
I think I have shown it is more than that.
What this plasma is NOT are molecules of H2O. Can you see the difference?
I hope that I have clarified this in the article I have provided.
Maybe not, you might what to claim that “water” was the best way the bible writers could describe a plasma at extreme temperature and pressures.
“Water” does not come close.
The perfect liquid...science once called water that.
Define “Early”.
Science does NOT believe (as best I can remember) that water was present on the Earth at the time of formation. We are too close to the sun (which the bible writers still think has NOT formed yet.)
Please at least look at the articles that I have supplied.
If I did not know better, I would say you are cherry picking your information.
And I would say that you are being more than skeptical, you are being very closed minded.
Erm… sorry – I missed this bit in the bible. Where did it say this?
In conclusion: Genesis 1 is a joke… I could highlight more errors and issues if you like – but I have only attacked what you have written.
Didn't the Bible give us information about the stages of life prior to there being any evidence known? Yes.
You meant NO I think. I cannot find evolution ANYWHERE in the bible?
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived
Didn't the Bible claim that the universe had a liquid stage in its birth before there was any evidence known? Yes.
Again - You meant NO.
Water (liquid water) cannot be compared to a super dense, super hot plasma in anyone’s book. (unless someone is trying to prove the bible it would appear – then the impossible logic is tried?)
If the bible was truly inspired by God, the bible writers should have been able to write someone “unknown” to man at the time.
So lets recap shall we, as you have…
Didn't the bible claim that ALL the stars where created on day 4 after the sun and the moon? YES
Doesn’t the bible claim that the moon is a SOURCE of light (just like the sun) and NOT a reflector of the sun’s light? YES
Does the bible mention any other planet? NO
Does the bible mention the Earth rotating and is the cause for the day and night? NO
Does the bible mention the Earth orbiting the sun? NO
Does the bible mention the tilt of the Earth is the cause of the seasons? NO (and I do know the bible mentions the seasons, but any farmer at the time knew about this, the bible does not explain the cause of the seasons at any point)
Does the bible mention the solar winds and the requirement for the Earth’s magnetic field for our survival? NO
Does the bible mention the northern or southern lights? NO
Does the bible explain where all the heavy atoms came from to create the Earth? NO!!!
Does the bible explain how many stars HAD to live and die BEFORE the Earth could be formed? NO (they were all created AFTER the Earth – D’oh)
Shall I go on or do you want to cherry pick some more?
Either accept physics or reject it.
Do NOT try and paste the bible myth over physics because it is not even close.
__________________ "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." Christopher Hitchens
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart" H.L. Mencken
"I tend to believe that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence" Christopher Hitchens
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." Richard Dawkins
Not on a school night, maybe next Friday, but now I must go, it is late.
Thanks for the reply, I will return.
Lee
__________________ "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." Christopher Hitchens
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart" H.L. Mencken
"I tend to believe that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence" Christopher Hitchens
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." Richard Dawkins
You meant NO I think. I cannot find evolution ANYWHERE in the bible?
Ah, but just because it doesn't call something "evolution" does not mean that Genesis follows an evolutionary concept.
1. plant life
How could plant life ever be present without a sun for energy? This was thought impossible at one time. But now:
Now, scientists have discovered an ecosystem where sunlight or organic molecules are not needed for energy. Deep underneath the Beaverhead Mountains in Idaho, one-celled bacteria and archaea live in the 58.5-degree C (137 F) waters of the Lidy Hot Spring. The microbes living in these waters are completely cut off from organic carbon and sunlight. Instead, the microbes exist by combining hydrogen and carbon dioxide gasses dissolved in water. This chemical reaction produces methane and generates the energy needed to sustain life.
A research team led by Francis Chapelle of the U.S. Geological Survey and Derek Lovley of the University of Massachusetts found this unusual community of methanogenic organisms. The team reported their findings in the January 17 issue of the journal Nature.
"The microbial community we found in Idaho is unlike any previously described on Earth," said Lovley. "This study demonstrates, for the first time, that certain microorganisms can thrive in the absence of sunlight by using hydrogen gas released from deep in the Earth's surface as their energy source."
Archaea are considered to be the organisms most closely related to ancient life on Earth. Microbes similar to Archaea were probably prevalent on the Earth early in its history, when organics were scarce and hydrogen was more abundant. http://www.astrobio.net/news/article81.html
2. Sun and moon. Due to new findings, creation of the moon from an impact of another planet on earth is being questioned. We have no real evidence of the age of the sun or moon that would be conclusive enough to falsify Genesis.
3.Life forms in the sea. Next comes birds.
4.creeping things (whatever that entails) and mammals.
5.Man
Again - You meant NO.
Water (liquid water) cannot be compared to a super dense, super hot plasma in anyone’s book. (unless someone is trying to prove the bible it would appear – then the impossible logic is tried?)
Considering that the liquid form that was present has no real comparable matter present on earth it would be hard to prove either way.
If the bible was truly inspired by God, the bible writers should have been able to write someone “unknown” to man at the time.
What? You mean they could have said that the matter was unknown? That would only be considered too vague and be dismissed as well.
So lets recap shall we, as you have…
Didn't the bible claim that ALL the stars where created on day 4 after the sun and the moon? YES
The closest translation is in Hebrew and it is translated from the JPS Tanakh which says:
14 God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate day from night; they shall serve as signs for the set times — the days and the years; 15 and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth." And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, 18 to dominate the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that this was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
No mention of stars.
Doesn’t the bible claim that the moon is a SOURCE of light (just like the sun) and NOT a reflector of the sun’s light? YES
Yes. It is a source of light, it comes from the sun's reflection but it still is the source of the light that we see.
Does the bible mention any other planet? NO
So?
Does the bible mention the Earth rotating and is the cause for the day and night? NO
So?
Does the bible mention the Earth orbiting the sun? NO
So?
Does the bible mention the tilt of the Earth is the cause of the seasons? NO
So?
(and I do know the bible mentions the seasons, but any farmer at the time knew about this, the bible does not explain the cause of the seasons at any point)
In Genesis 1 it states that the moon and sun are principles in the seasons.
Does the bible mention the solar winds and the requirement for the Earth’s magnetic field for our survival? NO
LOL No. So?
Does the bible mention the northern or southern lights? NO
Does the bible explain where all the heavy atoms came from to create the Earth? NO!!!
Does the bible explain how many stars HAD to live and die BEFORE the Earth could be formed? NO (they were all created AFTER the Earth – D’oh)
This is totally irrelevant. Lack of evidence is not evidence for falsifying Genesis.
Shall I go on or do you want to cherry pick some more?
Whatever.
Either accept physics or reject it.
Do NOT try and paste the bible myth over physics because it is not even close.
Then it's not the same... gah, still haven't found the time to read yours. Gah. Too busy replying to posts
Hebrew is a rather difficult language due to the same words having several meanings and the fact that there are no vowels as in english. Water and liquid are very similar and are sometimes interchangeable. Mem the root means liquid-massive, chaotic. So the translation of water could be simply liquid yet water is considered liquid.
Thanks for the Hebrew tutorial. If Hebrew is so ambiguous then why are you sure that you (or any translator) interpret the Bible correctly? Anyway...
I find it rather humorous that you would think that the writers would say quark-gluon plasma. It would mean absolutely nothing to them. The Bible was for all people of all generations. God hovering over something is hardly a problem. If God as in the sense of the Bible could very hover over anything. The liquid that was present in the birth of the universe has no comparison in our vocabulary or known matter either.
I wouldn't think they would say quark-gluon plasma, since that's a 20th century concept, but I do think they would emphasise it was not the sort of liquid people are used to... I would think hot plasma is different enough from any earthly liquid to deserve a bit of awe in a writing of mythology.
Ok, let's put God aside, then. It's hard to use proper reasoning when you're talking about supposedly omnipotent things, as omnipotent things by their very nature defy conventional logic... yet I still say the passage very clearly suggests that the liquid was somewhere in the "deeps", like, the bottom of the universe if nothing else. Well, no evidence suggests that was the case.
(What they say sounds an awful lot like superfluidity to me, by the way... why that would be something new I don't know. The only new thing about this is that the stuff making up the young universe was superfluid rather than gaseous. Mind you, this isn't an argument against you, just a remark on the wording of the news article. How I hate sensationalism. Bah.)
No it doesn't.
The universe was created on day one and two it was on the third day that earth was created.
Dear me. You say you accept the BB theory, right? But that theory suggests the universe is billions of years old, and planets didn't come about until many, many ages after its formation. Two days is pretty much simultaneous compared to billions of years, especially if you want to squeeze the birth of atoms, stars, galaxies etc into the few hours between. Or do you believe all the universe's post-BB history occurred in two or so days?
You misunderstand my position. Should the Hindus be right about a cyclical universe, it would still require births of universes rather than all universes being present at once.
So what?
Regardless, I have studied Hinduism and there are many facets of the religion that I see as contrary to what is taught in Christianity. If you know that the earth is not flat, then no matter what evidence at the time says you will not believe it to be flat...correct?
In an ideal case, if I know that the earth is not flat, I know it by the evidence I've collected, the evidence presented to me, or the authority of those who have used evidence of the type I find convincing (i.e. good, solid empirical evidence) And if evidence at the time says something different from what I believe, I either change my views or go out and try to test them to see the truth for myself.
So why is it hard to understand that I do not believe other religions to be correct?
It's not hard to understand, it's just not the sort of attitude I find reasonable.
Which I believe is what the OP was asking for.
Which I granted. Twice, I think? Maybe three times? True, also voicing my problems with your facts, but I did acknowledge you had done what the OP asked for.
Oh, there was evidence, but none that could convince someone that was not there at the time.
So: big balloon, POP!... Lovely. I must say I'm convinced. Were you, by any chance, there at the time?
IF you were instructed to write something so encompassing as the birth of the universe, that which you have no understanding of anyway, vague is pretty much what anyone would expect. There is still enough to make determinations based upon the writings. Otherwise, you would not be able to see any coincidence in it at all.
IF I were told what really happened I would be a wee bit more explicit... I suppose I'd have at least some understanding if the creator itself gave me a briefing
Perhaps, but like I've shown, what fossil evidence has shown so far is that if we find new fossils it can totally change when something showed up in it.
That's true to some extent. Still, I would be very surprised if a bird showed up together with the earliest fishes, as the Bible suggests. Maybe this is just personal skepticism, but I wonder how you feel when a new finding turns things upside down in such a way that the new understanding outright contradicts your beliefs. Like, the old earth thing I mentioned. Or transitional fossils, for that matter.
It was once in "evidence" that the earth was too hot for millions and millions of years to support life, that was proven to be not true.
I don't think that really was in "evidence", it was more of a reasonable assumption based on the physical theories about the formation of the earth. The new idea has some good evidence behind it, though, doesn't it? Therefore I'm not too shocked that it's not quite the way we thought.
It was once thought that the world was created in six days in its present form. That was shown to be untrue.
That is the beauty of Science, it grows with the more we know. It adapts to new findings.
I couldn't agree more.
It is hardly a point against Genesis to be lacking information. The lack of evidence ( or in this case information) does not falsify anything.
No, but if Genesis were an accurate account of creation, then it ought to mention how things happened, and not miss out on important things.
That is totally your opinion.
And not only mine, if I'm not mistaken.
P.S.: when I say [aside], what comes afterwards is just that. Something that isn't entirely connected to the main argument but I want to say it anyway. So don't take it as part of the main argument.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
Ah, but just because it doesn't call
How could plant life ever be present without a sun for energy? This was thought impossible at one time. But now...
Hot water springs and deep sea vents do support light-independent communities. However, archaea, bacteria, animals and whatever other things live in these sorts of environment are NOT plants. Plants are highly derived organisms and, with very rare exceptions, photosynthetic, and those that are not are obligatory parasites. No, plants as we know them couldn't have evolved without light. (by the way, aren't methanogens abundant in ruminants' intestines?? And light-independent deep sea communities have also been known for quite a while.)
2. Sun and moon. Due to new findings, creation of the moon from an impact of another planet on earth is being questioned. We have no real evidence of the age of the sun or moon that would be conclusive enough to falsify Genesis.
Wasn't radioactive dating carried out on some lunar rocks? That should give at least a minimum age estimate of the moon. *calls out to LeeC with big question marks*
3.Life forms in the sea. Next comes birds.
4.creeping things (whatever that entails) and mammals.
Life forms in the sea. Life forms in the sea. Life forms in the sea. Possibly terrestrial microbes (there's an article one of my lecturers wrote a few years ago, I can send it to you if you're interested - provided I haven't lost the pdf). Then plants 'n' stuff. Then fungi and various invertebrates (creepers, eh?), then "amphibians" and "reptiles", then mammals, then birds is how the fossil record has it (tell me if I left out something relevant). True, humans were the latest arrivals among the things mentioned in Genesis, but that's not a big deal considering we are only a species, and species don't live as long as broader taxa
What? You mean they could have said that the matter was unknown? That would only be considered too vague and be dismissed as well.
I think not. Something like "a liquid so hot that [fancy figure of speech] and so fluid that... blah blah" would fit perfectly within a work of mythology. Of course Genesis seems to be very concise on most things, but if the stuff wasn't anything like people have ever seen I think the writers would have alluded to the wonder.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
I don't think that really was in "evidence", it was more of a reasonable assumption based on the physical theories about the formation of the earth. The new idea has some good evidence behind it, though, doesn't it? Therefore I'm not too shocked that it's not quite the way we thought.
In case you feel like splitting hairs, I should add a "supposedly" there, as these are just half-informed assumptions. I shall wait to see what more informed people have to say about this.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
2. Sun and moon. Due to new findings, creation of the moon from an impact of another planet on earth is being questioned. We have no real evidence of the age of the sun or moon that would be conclusive enough to falsify Genesis.
Originally Posted by Naraoia
Wasn't radioactive dating carried out on some lunar rocks? That should give at least a minimum age estimate of the moon. *calls out to LeeC with big question marks*
Originally Posted by Naraoia
Yes, giving an age of around 4.5 billions years for the Earth and moon (Take that YEC!!!, if only it was so easy)
However, a several points were made by Oncedeceived (this is an interesting name)
So, replying now to Oncedeceived, "to new findings, creation of the moon from an impact of another planet on earth is being questioned."
Could we please have some references to this "new findings". I must have missed it.
I would love to see this improved explanation?
However, the theory that the moon was formed after a collision is backed up with some evidence which all the other theories do not explain.
It comes from the analysis of the moon rock (science did not only date it)
The arguments/evidence for such a theory are along the lines as follows (probably incomplete but I want to be quick):-
The Earth has a large iron core… the moon does not. The moon is rather short on the iron content.
The reason for this is when the Earth formed, all the heavy Iron “fell” to the centre. So if a mars size object crashed into the Earth blowing away a lot of the surface of the Earth into space, the debris blown off would therefore be rather iron-depleted.
The evidence for this is that the density of the moon is far less that of the Earth because the moon does NOT have an iron core.
The ratio of common isotopes in the Earth and moon rocks are similar. Not so with Mars rocks or meteorites from other parts of the solar system. This shows that the moon formed from the same stuff as the Earth – material formed in the same part of the solar system.
So, the Earth did not capture a moon from another part of the solar system (made from the same stuff)
If you want to know more, I will have to do some reading – but I would be happy to do so.
"We have no real evidence of the age of the sun or moon that would be conclusive enough to falsify Genesis"
Could you please tell me what evidence would falsify Genesis please?
Dating a star like the sun directly, with any accuracy, is impossible (at the moment at least). We can only say “it is about” by merely looking at it.
Knowledge of physics helps puts upper and lower limits on this age, but that is all.
The age of the sun is measured indirectly from dating rocks that would have been formed at the same time as the sun.
So then, in summary, we have a workable theory to explain how stars and planets form.
This explains the observed in our solar system, and is now seen in star forming regions, and with other stars with planets.
The theory looks pretty good – not complete of course, but it is getting better and it certainly does not require any good.
Lee
__________________ "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." Christopher Hitchens
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart" H.L. Mencken
"I tend to believe that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence" Christopher Hitchens
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." Richard Dawkins
But mathematically these things are just as plausible as the concept of a single universe. I tend to have faith in mathematics, seeing how some of its weirdest concepts
That should give at least a minimum age estimate of the moon. *calls out to LeeC with big question marks*
Linear Mode
