Genesis chapter 1 and reality

[Huram Abi]

Cupid, I am not a bible basher. Just because I reject your nonsense claims about "what the bible really says" doesn't mean I am bashing the actual scripture.

BTW, the "dark ages" you are referring to? Light existed during that time, so it doesn't contextually match to what you think it does.

Do you know just why it is called the "dark age"?

 

[cupid dave]

Cupid, I am not a bible basher. Just because I reject your nonsense claims about "what the bible really says" doesn't mean I am bashing the actual scripture.

BTW, the "dark ages" you are referring to? Light existed during that time, so it doesn't contextually match to what you think it does.

Do you know just why it is called the "dark age"?

Are you saying that you agree that the Genesis is literally correct in what it says as far as modern academics understands,...

.... or are you bashing Genesis as incorrect scientifically speaking??

..

 

[Huram Abi]

Nice try, Cupid, pigeonholing me into one of two in this false dichotomy.

Saying that Genesis is not literally correct is not bashing it.

 

[cupid dave]

Nice try, Cupid, pigeonholing me into one of two in this false dichotomy.

Saying that Genesis is not literally correct is not bashing it.

Of course it is bashing Genesis when a person denies it is literally correct.

When someone wiggles and denies what each verse states by saying things like the Big Bang was not the beginning of time for science believers is just either stupid or a wiggle to avoid the literal support for Gen 1:1.

When one tries to cloud the simple scientific Truth, that before neutral Atoms formed, visible light was impossible, so the Dark Cosmic Age is exactly what Gen 1:3-5 states.

When science reports that indeed, once or a number of times thereafter, all the waters under heaven were collected into one place, around the single continent of Rodinia or a pangea-like land mass, they are simply denying the Bible or the science in ordwr to say Genesis is wrong.

Gen 1:3
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id16.html

Gen 1:4
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id134.html

Gen 1:5
]http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id133.html

 

[Huram Abi]

Of course it is bashing Genesis when a person denies it is literally correct.

When someone wiggles and denies what each verse states by saying things like the Big Bang was not the beginning of time for science believers is just either stupid or a wiggle to avoid the literal support for Gen 1:1.

When one tries to cloud the simple scientific Truth, that before neutral Atoms formed, visible light was impossible, so the Dark Cosmic Age is exactly what Gen 1:3-5 states.

When science reports that indeed, once or a number of times thereafter, all the waters under heaven were collected into one place, around the single continent of Rodinia or a pangea-like land mass, they are simply denying the Bible or the science in ordwr to say Genesis is wrong.

Please, then, show the scientific theory that suggests the big bang was the beginning of all existence. And don't give me a poor understanding of relativity in leu of actual evidence.

And we both know that the bible doesn't make a distinction between visible light and other light. When God says, "Let there be Light" it isn't exclusive. It means ALL light, regardless if visible, especially since there weren't actual eyes around to discern the difference anyway. You've dropped the ball here, as well.

And as far as supercontinents go, the water on earth is ALL connected, whether there is one continent or 100. The occurrence of a supercontinent doesn't mean anything. To show the bible is literally correct here you will have to demonstrate a point where the oceans on earth are completely isolated from each other by landmass ie: the land acts like a permanent divider between two or more bodies of water and how that landmass was broken in order to allow these distinct water cycles to interact as a single body.

As it is, all the waters are "collected into one place" right now in a single water cycle system. In order to show that the waters were collected in one place you are going to have to show an unbroken ribbon of landmass that surrounds the earth, keeping two bodies of water from meeting (being collected together). You are going to have to show that the world's oceans were divided from each other by a terrestrial Wall of China.


Keep in mind, I haven't bashed Genesis once here.

 

[DanielGillan]

Everyone understands Genesis differently, you don't need scientific proof to understand unless it is created it doesn't exist. God is the name we give to the creator of the universe. God must have existed prior to the creation in order to create.
The big bang theory is still a theory, because it is easily disproven. Sure we can prove there was light, followed by an expansion, but that is just the first 2 days of Genesis. One problem with the big bang theory is the inequality of matter/antimatter, when light produces matter it does so in equal quantities of matter/antimatter.
As soon as you add matter to the start of the big bang theory, you have carbon copy of the first 2 days of Genesis. Scientists really should stop flogging a dead donkey, and add matter, which was undoubtedly fluid in nature, to the start of the big bang theory.

 

[cupid dave]

Everyone understands Genesis differently, you don't need scientific proof to understand unless it is created it doesn't exist. God is the name we give to the creator of the universe. God must have existed prior to the creation in order to create.
The big bang theory is still a theory, because it is easily disproven. Sure we can prove there was light, followed by an expansion, but that is just the first 2 days of Genesis. One problem with the big bang theory is the inequality of matter/antimatter, when light produces matter it does so in equal quantities of matter/antimatter.
As soon as you add matter to the start of the big bang theory, you have carbon copy of the first 2 days of Genesis. Scientists really should stop flogging a dead donkey, and add matter, which was undoubtedly fluid in nature, to the start of the big bang theory.

I am saying that right or wrong, science at this moment actually agrees with the Bible.

Yes, that is basically why say if a person nit picks, to show Genesis 1:1 is wrong about the Cosmos having a beginning, as if we do not already acknowledge this inherent in our present Big Bang idea, then they are just bashing the Bible unreasonabily.

If such a person were to say, even for argument sake, that Gen 1:1 is literally what we understand today, then they are at least a gentleman.

But the uncanny following statements seem likewise reasonably literal and scientific, like that visible light did not immediately appear, but had to await the command of the unfolding First Causes before atoms formed.


When we read Gen 1:9, and see the LITERAL description of a Pangea collection of all the Oceans into on Panthalassic Ocean it seems incredible that a reasonable, rational, fair minded person would say Genesis is not literally correct to that point.

 

[The Gnostic]

Cupid Dave,using the sources of your alter ego does not count for much.Some of us know you as Kofh2u so it seems you are just trying to be deceptive here in your post.

 

[Huram Abi]

No to mention that in order to show that Panthallasa or any other geological event is a "collecting of all the waters together" then those waters must be shown to be scattered and disconnected (physically removed from each other in isolated pockets) before a supercontinent was formed.

You can't gather what isn't split apart.


Seems painfully obvious that it shouldn't be pointed out, but isolated pockets of landmass coming together as a single landmass is NOT isolated pockets of water coming together as a single ocean. The earth's ocean IS a single entity; the whole body of salt water covering the earth. Its divisions are technicaly defined, in part, by the continents, but that is ireelevant to the 2 actions taking place in scripture which is "(waters) gathered" and land mass "APPEARED."

Pangea does NOT mark the first emergence of dry land. Cupid's assumption simply discards this important detail.

 

[cupid dave]

Cupid Dave,using the sources of your alter ego does not count for much.Some of us know you as Kofh2u so it seems you are just trying to be deceptive here in your post.

?

So that accusation is the foundation for denying what Genesis says is basically the same thing as science says???

I don't get your reasoning here.

Such a lame and unrelated attack fails to show it is wrong, but emphasizes you has no other recourse.

Read the links to kofh2u for a thorough referencing and detailed exposition on all these points I merely sketch out on these threads.
Then, present you weak arguments for us.

 

[cupid dave]

Pangea does NOT mark the first emergence of dry land. Cupid's assumption simply discards this important detail.

That's the best you have as a come back???

I don't dismiss that the one ocean collects time and again, as a cycle of tectonic events.

I EAMPHASIZE the first time, mentioned so clearly in Gen 1:9, is timed just before life first appears on earth, in the 3 "day" of the late Archean Era.

Pangea is a term better known for this idea so I refer to the events in general by that designation.

 

[Huram Abi]

You are redefining a concrete term in the abstract, thus confusing the truth of the matter.

 

[Son of Zadok]

Everyone understands Genesis differently, you don't need scientific proof to understand unless it is created it doesn't exist. God is the name we give to the creator of the universe. God must have existed prior to the creation in order to create.

The big bang theory is still a theory, because it is easily disproven.

I would like to see that proof that categorically demonstrates that a Big Bang is impossible. Just because a theory leaves questions unanswered is not a disproof any more than unanswered questions about G-d creating the universe is proof that is false.

Sure we can prove there was light, followed by an expansion, but that is just the first 2 days of Genesis. One problem with the big bang theory is the inequality of matter/antimatter, when light produces matter it does so in equal quantities of matter/antimatter.

What? -- I think you have your theories backwards and truth mixed up with fantasies. If matter and anti-matter come equally from light then half our universe would be anti-matter - regardless of Big Bang or creation. However, it is anti-matter that is unproven theory. Scientist has only been able to produce anti-particles, which extinguish themselves in fractions of seconds. Actual anti-matter has never been proven to exist and I am unaware of any anti-particles being created strictly from light. The only anti-particles proven to exist come from high energy collisions of sub-atomic particles.

As soon as you add matter to the start of the big bang theory, you have carbon copy of the first 2 days of Genesis. Scientists really should stop flogging a dead donkey, and add matter, which was undoubtedly fluid in nature, to the start of the big bang theory.

You really need to actually read Genesis. And then come back and explain how you think the Big Bang follows Genesis - for example explain how there could be water before there was light.

Son of Zadok

 

[Son of Zadok]

Let me be clear about science. There are “rules” on how science proceeds, defines and proves things. One of the rules of science is the belief in the isotropic empirical nature of things. In essence this means that something that is discovered to be true - it is true in all space time of our universe. There are many ways to precede with this notion - such as that anything that has happened (including the creation) can be redone or repeated by duplicating all the necessary parameters.

In terms of rhetorical logic it means that if A = B then forever and always and in all places of the universe A = B. To imply that G-d at one time would have A = B and then later have A != B is the same as to say that G-d is a liar.

If we think or believe that creation from nothing proves the existence of G-d then we must deal with the possibility that if something from nothing is no longer a governing principle present in our universe that such is a demonstration that G-d is no longer creatively involved in this universe or that he is a liar. Do religious theorists really want to communicate that G-d has “moved” on or lies?

At this point - I want to bring up a couple of things concerning the creation in Genesis. First note that water existed before light in the sequence of things. Also note that plants producing seeds, including trees producing fruit existed before the sun and moon. Now - if someone really believes this to literally be true - please demonstrate how such is possible in an isotropic empirical universe. If it is not empirically true - explain why Genesis is not a lie.

My point here is not to bash Genesis but to bash the very obvious literal interpretations being put forth as mathematical and scientifically valid principles. And if we are going to bash science and mathematics - please be precise and let me know where these disciplines have obviously departed from reality for you. As I said - please avoid general, unsupported notions and be specific in pointing out what you see as flaws. Like I did with water before light and plants before the sun.

Son of Zadok

 

[DanielGillan]

Waters is a bad term since it conjures up images of H2O. I prefer fluids. If light created matter and antimatter in unequal quantities near the start of the big bang, why does it create them in equal quantities now? If you would like to see the proof, it's readily available, and demonstrable at any of the particle accelerators on the planet. To understand the disproof of the big bang theory is going to require a knowledge of Physics, I have a masters degree in Physics. The big bang theory is fundamentally flawed, and is disproved.
Fluids is a much better term to use for me, since the fluid nature of the universe is observable. Genesis Day 1 = Light , Day2=expansion. Read my very first post for an explanation. Day 3 is the day that doesn't fit chronologically with the facts. Day 4 is a given, and I was suprised to discover dividing the age of the universe by 6 and taking 2 of the parts gives the age of the sun pretty much bang on, you do the maths if you don't believe me.
day 5 and 6 are slightly mixed up, however it is clear from the fossil records that life on this earth began in the last two sixths of the age of the universe, and all land animals in the last sixth.
So the real problem I have is with day 3, however, I see no reason why the earth couldn't have been reduced to molecules by a supernova that formed the giant molecular cloud our solar system formed from, then reformed in the same way. Since if you exchange fluids for waters it's easy to understand how the giant molecular gas cloud gathered together to form the planets including the Earth.

 

[granpa]

 

[cupid dave]

You really need to actually read Genesis. And then come back and explain how you think the Big Bang follows Genesis - for example explain how there could be water before there was light.

Son of Zadok

? Water before light?

Are you misreading Gen 1:2???


Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of dust and gases) and void: ([not valid as a planet]; an accretion disk), and darkness:[choshek: obscurity] was upon the face of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of rotating molten matter].

And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the panentheistic Natural Laws of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (or these transitory rotating pieces of matter: [mayim: Hebrew])

 

[Huram Abi]

? Water before light?

Are you misreading Gen 1:2???

and dAnd (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the panentheistic Natural Laws of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (or these transitory rotating pieces of matter: [mayim: Hebrew])

One of us obviously is.


The passage reads "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be Light."

In this order:

1) Waters
2) Light

Even if everyone accepted that the water was "molten matter" you still do not solve your delimma.

The earth did not exist before light. Not as water, not as molten iron. The earth is late by a few billion years.

 

[Son of Zadok]

Waters is a bad term since it conjures up images of H2O. I prefer fluids. If light created matter and antimatter in unequal quantities near the start of the big bang, why does it create them in equal quantities now? If you would like to see the proof, it's readily available, and demonstrable at any of the particle accelerators on the planet. To understand the disproof of the big bang theory is going to require a knowledge of Physics, I have a masters degree in Physics. The big bang theory is fundamentally flawed, and is disproved.
Fluids is a much better term to use for me, since the fluid nature of the universe is observable. Genesis Day 1 = Light , Day2=expansion. Read my very first post for an explanation. Day 3 is the day that doesn't fit chronologically with the facts. Day 4 is a given, and I was suprised to discover dividing the age of the universe by 6 and taking 2 of the parts gives the age of the sun pretty much bang on, you do the maths if you don't believe me.
day 5 and 6 are slightly mixed up, however it is clear from the fossil records that life on this earth began in the last two sixths of the age of the universe, and all land animals in the last sixth.
So the real problem I have is with day 3, however, I see no reason why the earth couldn't have been reduced to molecules by a supernova that formed the giant molecular cloud our solar system formed from, then reformed in the same way. Since if you exchange fluids for waters it's easy to understand how the giant molecular gas cloud gathered together to form the planets including the Earth.

Okay - I only have a miner in Physics but I have over 25 years experience as a scientist and engineer. I also worked for a year doing research of solar magnetic variations in global navigation on earth in which I got a very fun introduction into practical applications of particle physics.

I think I can handle and analyze you conclusive proof that categorically eliminates all possibilities of a Big Bang - including Brane Collisions of higher dimension parallel universes. I would like to compare you critique of the Big Bang with the accuracy of your proposed Genesis model.

I did the math you suggested and that would mean that the sun was not just a last “hour” event but actually did not take place until the last ½ hour of a comparable 24 period day. This is hardly spot on. Also I would point you to the age of the earth and sun as scientifically similar in age - but your Genesis model results in a much older earth than sun. I am also concerned about your model of heavy elements (generally a scientific conundrum). Since you are more trained in physics than me - I would like to explorer your model to explain “heavy elements” in the concentrations on earth from a high energy supernova - yet captured by a planet in near circular orbit. I am also curious about the heavy elements being a giant molecular gas cloud beginning to gather at the sub atomic level to form the earth. That looks like a bit of a stretch to me.

Finely, I am very confused about you insertion that light produces anti-matter in equal amounts to matter. The only experiments I am aware of involving light - the light source is generated by high energy lazars (limited frequency) combined with collisions created in mostly in ELECTRON accelerators at heavy “target” material. I must be honest because I only checked a few but I did not find any indication of equal amounts of matter and anti-matter resulting from annihilating photons. In fact in my quick review - it appeared that most of the anti-matter resulted from annihilating electrons. Come on - you are the better trained Physicists here - help me out. I need something a little more creditable and tangible.

Son of Zadok

 

[Son of Zadok]

One of us obviously is.


The passage reads "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be Light."

In this order:

1) Waters
2) Light

Even if everyone accepted that the water was "molten matter" you still do not solve your delimma.

The earth did not exist before light. Not as water, not as molten iron. The earth is late by a few billion years.

I have no idea what you mean by “other church” for religion but since I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - it would appear that we have two very distinct and different witnesses for our friend cupid dave which according to his understanding of sacred scripture should establish a most strong testimony of truth.

Also since the age of the universe is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years and the earth is about 4.5 billion years. The lateness to which you reference is by about 68% of all existence of all things of our universe since light was first introduced. But in all fairness the essence stuff that eventually resulted in our earth does go back in both space time to the beginnings of the universe. But being able to identify that stuff as our earth was much later. Also, if we are to consider creation from nothing - the only possibility is the initial creation of light. After that all things created was from stuff in existence. So in reality there was not 6 days of creation - just one brief theoretical moment in which all resulting understanding was violated? And G-d does not lie?

I think you are one of the few I find much to agree with concerning these things.

Son of Zadok