Why almost all coal was made during the same period

[Astrid]

I really don't understand this kind of making things up when it comes to trying to intersect Scripture with science.

I see it all the time, people will just invent something with their own imagination and then claim that it's true.

The Bible says nothing about coal formation.
Science doesn't indicate coal was formed in a great deluge.

So where are you getting this information from? Either someone told you this, and you just believed it without questioning it; or you're making it up by yourself.

Why do that? I really don't understand it.

If you disagree with what scientific observation and study says, and if Scripture is entirely silent--why not just say "I don't know"?

Why make something up?

-CryptoLutheran

We've not seen a creationist argument yet, that is
not as you describe.


They would not likely believe it, but I'd be tremendously
excited to see a solid sense- and- fact creationist argument. Even a trace of one

 

[AV1611VET]

We've not seen a creationist argument yet, that is not as you describe.

Maybe they're all on IGNORE?

After all, you might get your mold broken.

They would not likely believe it, but I'd be tremendously excited to see a solid sense- and- fact creationist argument. Even a trace of one.

So you can put them on IGNORE?

 

[Lost4words]

Coal was formed 6,000 years ago when 8,989 Corgi's used to pee on trees. The trees collapsed and eventually turned into coal!!

 

[partinobodycular]

Coal was formed 6,000 years ago when 8,989 Corgi's used to pee on trees. The trees collapsed and eventually turned into coal!!

If only we could learn to read Corgi pee... what wisdom that coal must hold. But the darn Corgi's ain't talking.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And if the two contradict?

Can theology contradict science? They speak in different contexts about different things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can theology contradict science?

Theology contradicts what science's scribes put in writing.

They speak in different contexts about different things.

But they do intersect in points.

In this diagram, let the circle on the left side represent what the Bible says, and the circle on the right represent what mother nature says.

The overlapping area is where the two meet and agree with one another.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Theology contradicts what science's scribes put in writing.



But they do intersect in points.

In this diagram, let the circle on the left side represent what the Bible says, and the circle on the right represent what mother nature says.

The overlapping area is where the two meet and agree with one another.

View attachment 336117

And your claim is that the Bible sometimes contradicts science says about nature?

 

[AV1611VET]

And your claim is that the Bible sometimes contradicts science says about nature?

Correct.

Here are my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[partinobodycular]

Here are my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I realize that to you this list covers every possible scenario, but to me your list is incomplete. Might I suggest a few additions.

6. The Bible is ambiguous on x, Science says x = go with ?​

7. The Bible is ambiguous on x, Science says y = go with ?​

8. The Bible is ambiguous on x, Science says ø = go with ?​

​

I'm well aware of the fact that from your point of view these last three are unnecessary, but not everyone is blessed with your level of certitude. So what are people to do when things aren't quite so black and white, when one person's interpretation of the bible conflicts with another person's interpretation of the bible? It seems to me that in such a scenario your list risks becoming irrelevant, because quite often there is no definitive answer, instead there's the rather unhelpful "The Bible says ?".

 

[AV1611VET]

So what are people to do when things aren't quite so black and white, when one person's interpretation of the bible conflicts with another person's interpretation of the bible?

Do the best they can to get along with one another and pray for the truth.

 

[USincognito]

The secular world

Actually it's the data which indicate that.

atheist evolution theory,

Doesn't exist. Also, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Evolution only deals with the changes to populations of living things over time.

The useful amount of energy is always decreasing ,and we measure this with a thing called entropy. The entropy is always increasing. It's almost as if the world was wound-up like a clock, and it's been unwinding.

2LoT isn't about the amount of heat available for work. Nothing in 2LoT prevents localized decreases in entropy.

Comets really do have something to say about the age of the solar system. We can divide comets into two groups. We call the short-period comets and long period comets. For short period comets, a couple hundred years, they're all gone. There shouldn't be any left.

The short period comet question has been answered for decades. Some of them were Kuiper objects, some Trojans some Centaurs.

Long period comets, tens of millions or maybe a hundred million years, but they're all gone again. So for a billions of years solar system, you have a problem, thousands of years, not a problem.

Same. Oort cloud.

And when the surface of Venus was mapped in the mid-nineties, volcanoes, craters, mountains, and other features showed the history of the planet was young.

The surface of a geologically active planet shows that the planet is young? That's not how it works.

The rings of Saturn and Neptune aren't uniform, as they would be after millions of years.

You know rings or moons don't have to form when the planet does, right? Phobos and Diemos are likely captured asteroids for example.

 

[Astrid]

I realize that to you this list covers every possible scenario, but to me your list is incomplete. Might I suggest a few additions.

6. The Bible is ambiguous on x, Science says x = go with ?​

7. The Bible is ambiguous on x, Science says y = go with ?​

8. The Bible is ambiguous on x, Science says ø = go with ?​

​

I'm well aware of the fact that from your point of view these last three are unnecessary, but not everyone is blessed with your level of certitude. So what are people to do when things aren't quite so black and white, when one person's interpretation of the bible conflicts with another person's interpretation of the bible? It seems to me that in such a scenario your list risks becoming irrelevant, because quite often there is no definitive answer, instead there's the rather unhelpful "The Bible says ?".

How about" ...math says this"

 

[Astrophile]

And when the surface of Venus was mapped in the mid-nineties, volcanoes, craters, mountains, and other features showed the history of the planet was young.

Young, in this context, is a few hundred million years. Also, the surface features of Venus show that it was 'resurfaced' by large-scale volcanic eruptions; they do not mean that the whole planet is only a few hundred million years old. In addition, there are nine craters on Venus with diameters of 100 km or more, and at least 34 with diameters of 60 km or more. With the present rate of collisions between Venus and asteroids, it would take more than 100 million years to produce this number of craters.

Neptune is too hot to be old.

It has been suggested that at the high pressures in Neptune's interior methane dissociates into hydrogen and carbon (diamonds) and that the diamonds sink into the core, releasing energy as they do so. This hypothesis is at least more plausible than the idea that Neptune is only a few thousand years old.

Also Uranus does not have an internal heat source, so by your argument it must be old enough to have cooled completely.

 

[Pommer]

Actually it's the data which indicate that.

Doesn't exist. Also, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Evolution only deals with the changes to populations of living things over time.

2LoT isn't about the amount of heat available for work. Nothing in 2LoT prevents localized decreases in entropy.

The short period comet question has been answered for decades. Some of them were Kuiper objects, some Trojans some Centaurs.

Same. Oort cloud.

The surface of a geologically active planet shows that the planet is young? That's not how it works.

You know rings or moons don't have to form when the planet does, right? Phobos and Diemos are likely captured asteroids for example.

How was “vacation”?

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Doesn't exist. Also, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Evolution only deals with the changes to populations of living things over time.

I don't have problem with evolution as long as there is a Creator who created everything and is driving the forces of evolution. If you however want to argue on evolution without a Creator then there is a problem, because something cannot come from nothing.
If evolution is change over time ,ok, if evolution is adaptation over time, ok, but evolution without an intelligent Creator behind it is simply nonsense.

Even if evolution is true, it requires God. Because you need a universe in order to have biological evolution, and you need the laws of nature to be what they are to drive evolution and that requires a mind to keep them going in a direction. You cannot have this happening just spontaneously out of nothing.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

The driving force behind evolution is replication with error and natural selection. A creator is not needed.

Where did that replication come from? What started it? How can there be something out of nothing? If there is, your brain is just random, so how can you trust it? The brain is such complex mechanism that it can be only explained by an intelligent design.

 

[Larniavc]

Where did that replication come from? What started it?

The first self-replicating molecules were nucleotides. They occur naturally. Something from nothing happens all the time. Brains are not random. They are the product of evolution and can be explained by well understood biological mechanisms.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

The first self-replicating molecules were nucleotides. They occur naturally.

Something cannot come from nothing. Why would they start to replicate? You can argue about replication, but only if there's an intelligent designer behind it.

 

[Larniavc]

Something cannot come from nothing.

Yes it can.

"There are many observable physical phenomena that arise in interactions involving virtual particles. For bosonic particles that exhibit rest mass when they are free and actual, virtual interactions are characterized by the relatively short range of the force interaction produced by particle exchange. Confinement can lead to a short range, too. Examples of such short-range interactions are the strong and weak forces, and their associated field bosons.

For the gravitational and electromagnetic forces, the zero rest-mass of the associated boson particle permits long-range forces to be mediated by virtual particles. However, in the case of photons, power and information transfer by virtual particles is a relatively short-range phenomenon (existing only within a few wavelengths of the field-disturbance, which carries information or transferred power), as for example seen in the characteristically short range of inductive and capacitative effects in the near field zone of coils and antennas.

Some field interactions which may be seen in terms of virtual particles are:

The Coulomb force (static electric force) between electric charges. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse square law for electric force. Since the photon has no mass, the coulomb potential has an infinite range.
The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space, this exchange results in the inverse cube law for magnetic force. Since the photon has no mass, the magnetic potential has an infinite range. Even though the range is infinite, the time lapse allowed for a virtual photon existence is not infinite.
Electromagnetic induction. This phenomenon transfers energy to and from a magnetic coil via a changing (electro)magnetic field.
The strong nuclear force between quarks is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.
The weak nuclear force is the result of exchange by virtual W and Z bosons.
The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or excited nucleus; such a decay is prohibited by ordinary quantum mechanics and requires the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation.
The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.
The van der Waals force, which is partly due to the Casimir effect between two atoms.
Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).
Lamb shift of positions of atomic levels.
The Impedance of free space, which defines the ratio between the electric field strength |E| and the magnetic field strength |H |: Z0 = | E|⁄|H|.[8]
Much of the so-called near-field of radio antennas, where the magnetic and electric effects of the changing current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitive charge may be (and usually are) important contributors to the total EM field close to the source, but both of which effects are dipole effects that decay with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of "conventional" electromagnetic waves that are "far" from the source.[a] These far-field waves, for which E is (in the limit of long distance) equal to cB, are composed of actual photons. Actual and virtual photons are mixed near an antenna, with the virtual photons responsible only for the "extra" magnetic-inductive and transient electric-dipole effects, which cause any imbalance between E and cB. As distance from the antenna grows, the near-field effects (as dipole fields) die out more quickly, and only the "radiative" effects that are due to actual photons remain as important effects. Although virtual effects extend to infinity, they drop off in field strength as 1⁄r2 rather than the field of EM waves composed of actual photons, which drop 1⁄r.[c]"

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Larniavc]

Why would they start to replicate?

Because of the physical properties they exhibit. Another example are clay crystal latices.