Genesis chapter 1 and reality

[cupid dave]

If we think or believe that creation from nothing proves the existence of G-d then....

?

In which verse does it say "creation from nothing?"

 

[DanielGillan]

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

With regards to the Sun, (and the solar system),it was forming for millions of years prior to it's age, and anytime during the 4th day is spot on, wether it's the last second or the first minute.

As I mentioned earlier, the problem is with the 3rd day, and the only way I can resolve this is with the Earth being reformed in the same manner with the fluids gathering together on the 4th. I imagine the original Earth was consumed in the event that produced the giant molecular gas cloud that our solar system was formed from.

Antimatter is well defined, as particles having opposite charge, and opposite spin to their material counterparts. Electrons have Positrons as their antiparticles, the only way an electron can be annihilated is on collision with a positron. Gamma rays produce electron positron pairs , which annihilate and produce more electromagnetic radiation. The only way for matter to annihilate is by collision with it's antiparticle. It is the high energy electromagnetic radiation that produces the anti particles, the problem with the big bang theory is that particles and antiparticles are always produced in equal number.
There was most definitely a "big bang" or light which expanded, the thing is there must also have been matter. I would rather "the spirit of God moved upon the face of the fluids", to stop people always thinking of H2O, waters contain so much more than just H2O, sodium, chlorine, silicon, iron, etc etc.

 

[granpa]

With regards to the Sun, (and the solar system),it was forming for millions of years prior to it's age, and anytime during the 4th day is spot on, wether it's the last second or the first minute.

As I mentioned earlier, the problem is with the 3rd day, and the only way I can resolve this is with the Earth being reformed in the same manner with the fluids gathering together on the 4th.

what was wrong with my solution?

 

[DanielGillan]

grandpa, your solution was no solution, while having poetic merit, it relies on falsehoods to reach a conclusion. The conclusion is known, therefore any mumbo jumbo can reach the conclusion, just because the sky exists doesn't mean that a pregnant pink elephant gave birth to the sky, but I could suggest it as the solution to the conclusion of the existence of the sky.

 

[granpa]

????

my solution isnt that much different from yours.

 

[DanielGillan]

well it's very different, I don't, and won't ever believe that Adam was a fish !

 

[granpa]

there are many adams and many genesis's
(and many universes)

of course adam here on earth wasnt a fish.

anyway, we were talking about the 3rd day and the sun

 

[cupid dave]

With regards to the Sun, (and the solar system),it was forming for millions of years prior to it's age, and anytime during the 4th day is spot on, wether it's the last second or the first minute.

As I mentioned earlier, the problem is with the 3rd day, and the only way I can resolve this is with the Earth being reformed in the same manner with the fluids gathering together on the 4th. I imagine the original Earth was consumed in the event that produced the giant molecular gas cloud that our solar system was formed from.

Antimatter is well defined, as particles having opposite charge, and opposite spin to their material counterparts. Electrons have Positrons as their antiparticles, the only way an electron can be annihilated is on collision with a positron. Gamma rays produce electron positron pairs , which annihilate and produce more electromagnetic radiation. The only way for matter to annihilate is by collision with it's antiparticle. It is the high energy electromagnetic radiation that produces the anti particles, the problem with the big bang theory is that particles and antiparticles are always produced in equal number.
There was most definitely a "big bang" or light which expanded, the thing is there must also have been matter. I would rather "the spirit of God moved upon the face of the fluids", to stop people always thinking of H2O, waters contain so much more than just H2O, sodium, chlorine, silicon, iron, etc etc.

Its hard to fathom why you would say things that make Genesis appear to defy the facts as we nowunderstand them..
Genesis dddoes NOT say the sun was "created" on the 4th day.

Genesis say god "made" the sun to rule over earth time.


16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars (to govern over Sidereal Time).

 

[DanielGillan]

I do not understand the facts in the same way as you Cupid Dave, god set them in the firmament on the 4th day also. You do understand that sidereal time is governed by the rotation of the earth ? it's the time taken for the earth to rotate though 360 degrees about it's own axis.
When you divide the age of the universe into six equal parts how come the Sun is four sixths old?

 

[Huram Abi]

I do not understand the facts in the same way as you Cupid Dave, god set them in the firmament on the 4th day also. You do understand that sidereal time is governed by the rotation of the earth ? it's the time taken for the earth to rotate though 360 degrees about it's own axis.

I've tried to explain to him that Sidereal time is only relevant from a position on earth, but he doesn't seem to grasp the concept.

 

[cupid dave]

I do not understand the facts in the same way as you Cupid Dave, god set them in the firmament on the 4th day also. You do understand that sidereal time is governed by the rotation of the earth ? it's the time taken for the earth to rotate though 360 degrees about it's own axis.
When you divide the age of the universe into six equal parts how come the Sun is four sixths old?

yes, most people have misread these verses and never stopped to check out the obvious error in thinking, (that the heavens were created in Gen 1:1), but for some reason, this did not included the sun, moon, and stars.

It would seem hard to imagine heavens without these very things which actually compose the heavens, themselves.

Wouldn't it?

An investigation of the Hebrew word for "set" in our bibles tells us that the meaning is more in accord with this:



Gen. 1:17 And God, (Father Nature, Reality), set: [nathan = appointed, assigned, designated, employed] them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,...





nathan
verb
1) to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, , , devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, stretch out, extend
2) to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appoint, assign, designate

 

[DanielGillan]

It's not even necessary to imagine the firmament without the Sun, moon and stars, since we actually know, that the firmament existed before any celestial bodies. It only becomes necessary to imagine that the Sun moon and stars have always existed, since we know they haven't.

 

[cupid dave]

It's not even necessary to imagine the firmament without the Sun, moon and stars, since we actually know, that the firmament existed before any celestial bodies. It only becomes necessary to imagine that the Sun moon and stars have always existed, since we know they haven't.

So you would like to equate the second day's creation of the atmospheric firmament above with the heavens of the universe that was created on the first day?

DoI understand you correctly?

 

[granpa]

the firmament of day 2 can be either the atmosphere or spacetime itself depending on how you want to look at it.

both versions are perfectly legitimate

 

[DanielGillan]

If you look at the first post in this topic, you will see I accept the word firmament as interchangeable with expansion. Since it says in the footnotes (KJV) the word is from the hebrew for expansion, and we know the universe is expanding, and it follows from our understanding of the order of the big bang, having energy, which then expanded.

 

[cupid dave]

the firmament of day 2 can be either the atmosphere or spacetime itself depending on how you want to look at it.

both versions are perfectly legitimate

I disagree since the seven layers of the firmament we call our Atmosphere end with the Exosphere, or that boundary where Outer Space begins:

Gen. 1:6 And, (Father Nature, ie; Reality), God,” said, Let there be a firmament, (seven layers of atmosphere), in the midst of the "waters", and let it divide the (evaporated) waters from the (seven collections of condensed liquid) "waters" (on the Earth, below.

The Firmament above
1) Tropo-sphere
2) Strato-sphere
3) meso-sphere
4) Thermo-sphere
5) Iono-sphere
6) Magneto-sphere
7) Exo-sphere

 

[cupid dave]

If you look at the first post in this topic, you will see I accept the word firmament as interchangeable with expansion. Since it says in the footnotes (KJV) the word is from the hebrew for expansion, and we know the universe is expanding, and it follows from our understanding of the order of the big bang, having energy, which then expanded.

But there is also a firmment below, mr dan...


The Firmament below
1) ocean
2) inland seas
3) lakes
4) rivers
5) underground water
6) glaciers
7) atmospheric water vapor

 

[DanielGillan]

Cupid where did you find that E=MC2 picture ? the statement on it is clearly a contradiction of the equation, the mass energy equivalence.

 

[cupid dave]

Cupid where did you find that E=MC2 picture ? the statement on it is clearly a contradiction of the equation, the mass energy equivalence.

I copied it from a Physics lecture presentation that used slides and audio tape to review and sum up the History of Science.

But the statement on that slide seems correct to me, in that it merely says Space/Rime and Matter is the effect of a Big Bang transformation of pre-existing Energy in accord with the convertability explained by Einsteun's Equation.

What part of this do you disagree with???

 

[DanielGillan]

"if all the mass m of the universe were converted into energy, space time would disappear. Energy takes up no space, and both time and space are only defined when mass exists."
at no point does this statement imply space time and matter is the effect of a big bang transformation of pre existing energy. What it does imply is that Energy takes up no space, which is completely untrue. Sure, for us to define terms we need to exist in material form, but an electromagnetic wave would have a wavelength, and effective mass regardless of us existing to observe the fact. The equation E=MC2 basically observes that mass is energy. Matter is bound in space, when the Energy is liberated it takes up more space. Time and space would still exist if all the matter were annihilated, since we define both time and space in terms of electromagnetic radiation.