Gap Theory; Old Earth Creationism; Genesis 1 & 2

[BobRyan]

Well, gravity plays a major role in geothermal energy, and if there is no parent star, Earth would be nothing but scattered debris in interstellar space

Not true. If the Sun's gravitational pull was strong enough it would negate anything like Earth's own gravitational mass causing a planet to coalesce. In the models for planets forming - all you need is sufficient mass of the planet itself and a center of gravity plus time. Nothing says the Sun has to try and pull that localized mass apart for it to form and coalesce. Makes no sense.

The convoluted story telling of "man's best guess" is not being given sufficient convolution in your comment as we see here...

Can a rogue star kick Earth out of the solar system?.

What is more - our own sun does not provide the mass and heat necessary for the nucleosynthesis of the heavy metals found on Planet Earth. So Earth was not going to simply "fall out" of the Sun's supposed accretion disc to begin with in the first place.

And of course - God would not be using "man's guessing" to do the work any more than he would use man's guess to create plants, animals or humans.

 

[BobRyan]

some people deny the universe existed apart from the age of the earth.

Yes I know - but I don't think Genesis 1 requires that idea.

 

[Jipsah]

you not factoring something in here. Gen 1 is written from God's perspective which is the speed of light.

Balderdash. Genesis is written in terms to make it understandable to someone with little or no knowledge of the topic, ie, the original audience whose perspective was limited to the ground they stood on.

I've done the same in "explaining" engineering projects to lay people who don't know Ohm's Law from ohm mani padme ohm. You give them an explantion with little or no technical detail, in term thy can grasp and understand. To think that's equivalent to the technical specifications of the project is the veriest nonsense. You don't start blathering away about impedences across cable runs, or digital bridges, or amplifiers or transformers (they'll imagine the things on poles out on the streeta), voltages, amps, grounding, or any of the workaday eletrical stuff. You don't even talk about siftware at all if you can help it, becuse they'll nver understand it at all.

Genesis is like that. You either write on a level your reader can comprehend, or you may as well not write at all. To think that Genesis is a detaled technical description of thr creation of the universe is extraordinarily silly.

 

[Jonaitis]

No doubt but the stars are not in the TWO lights God made on day 4. For the number made on day 4 we have "Two" and they are named.

He is also the maker of the stars -- but the text does not requires that there is only two stars in the sky or that all the stars were also made on day 4.

The text seems to suggest that the stars were made on the fourth day.

 

[Jonaitis]

It does not say "upper and lower parts of the Earth" it says upper and lower parts of the firmament - atmosphere. Any water above the atmosphere was likely vapor and below would be liquid in that case. I think you are shooting your own argument in the foot just then.

But as I point out -- the heat of formation in a cooling planet newly formed would be sufficient to have geothermal heat capable of sustaining liquid water that covers the surface of the deep.

Not really. Nowhere in the text does it say that the water became vapor. The text obviously teaches a water canopy above the firmament. You're reading it through a modern lens.

A newly formed planet in interstellar space accounts for no possible evidence.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Balderdash. Genesis is written in terms to make it understandable to someone with little or no knowledge of the topic, ie, the original audience whose perspective was limited to the ground they stood on.

I've done the same in "explaining" engineering projects to lay people who don't know Ohm's Law from ohm mani padme ohm. You give them an explantion with little or no technical detail, in term thy can grasp and understand. To think that's equivalent to the technical specifications of the project is the veriest nonsense. You don't start blathering away about impedences across cable runs, or digital bridges, or amplifiers or transformers (they'll imagine the things on poles out on the streeta), voltages, amps, grounding, or any of the workaday eletrical stuff. You don't even talk about siftware at all if you can help it, becuse they'll nver understand it at all.

Genesis is like that. You either write on a level your reader can comprehend, or you may as well not write at all. To think that Genesis is a detaled technical description of thr creation of the universe is extraordinarily silly.

my point is that I agree with that assesment,but there is some technical issues that have to be taken into account. that would have been recognized by the original reader and some that are just common sense. like the literary structure of the text it is not written in order,but a pattern. the original reader would have noticed that.