Question about evolution

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Originally posted by Shai-Hulud


Oh please. At least try to understand. I do suggest you follow a basic chemistry course.


I hope you at least got a laugh out of that angry alligator :D



It's even worse than others? No significant differences as far as I can tell, but please, enlighten me.


I already explained this in the last post pretty much.



You mean some of the places mentioned in it actually exist? Troy was discovered based on the Ilias. Does that mean Zeus is real?

Many places, among other many things. It's interesting to see what's been dug up, and how stories that came from different areas actually support each other.

I'm not sure if Zeus is real or not, If Zeus is real then he is one of the fallen angels, I am taking into consideration here that the bible mentions the sons of God coming down to earth and taking women as their wifes, and giving birth to giants.




Frankly, there are places for people who hear voices.

I knew you were going to say that! no need to worry though he didn't order me to go kill or anything like that lol!



Would you care to give us a little actual evidence in stead of your opinion?

If I need actual evidence, then why doesn't science need the same? I thought I made it fairly clear where I derived my evidence from.


Unfortunately sometimes they don't know what they're talking about. What would you say if I tried to debate the bible with you and I said that it was written by the current pope, that Jesus lived 50 years ago, and wanted total war on Russia?

I'm only trying to point out possibilities between the Bible and science, I admit I don't know everything about science. Even you have admitted that science does have evidence about everything it claims, so I don't think that makes us much different, other than the sources we are seeking answers from. I think the two can come to agree on certain points though. I don't think it's a matter of having to know everything.


You're not making a theological claim. You're making a scientific claim. That requiers scientific evidence, not just scripture. I hope you understand that.

Absolute 100% certaintly, proof, is impossible in science. I doubt that you're familiar with the philosophy of science, I'm not going to try to explain it here. Anyway, these dating methods have been verified with other dating methods, and have been found to be accurate. I suggest you read a little about the current theories on the formation of the solar system.


See right there, neither one of us has 100% proof to back up our claims, but you want me to give you 100% proof about the Bible.



I wasn't saying that the earth sits still. I'm saying that there are enourmous problems with creating the earth before the sun. Even ignoring the shockwaves produced by a sun appearing out of nothing, the earth would not have an orbit. It would simply fall into the sun. So god would have to give it a push. Don't you agree that it makes more sense to get the sun first, and then the earth. Then you don't have to bother about any of these problems.

no you just tried to claim that the Bible claimed it did.

And what if the sun was created, and then set into the sky? Is there still a problem with that?



Are you trying to propose creationism as a scientific alternative to the current cosmological/evolutionary/abiogenesis theories? If you are I'd expect something more that just 'explaining away the evidence'.

Shai-Hulud

I'm only trying to shed some light on the possibility that we could have been created. Doesn't science itself simply explain away evidence that we are unable to see with our eyes?

 

 
 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
Originally posted by GraftMeIn





How did they weigh the sun, and the earth?

what evidence do we have of the weight of the sun?

How heavy is the Sun?
Although we cannot actually weigh the Sun with a scale, we can compute its weight by studying the way it affects other objects, like the Earth. We do know that it contains virtually all the mass in our solar system! We can also understand this better by making some comparisons. Since the Sun is so much more massive than the Earth (over 300,000 times heavier) its gravitational pull is also much larger. A child that weighs 75 pounds on Earth would weigh about a ton on the Sun. The weight increases by a factor of 30. (Of course, we cannot really stand on the Sun, for it is too hot and has no solid surface.)

http://www.hao.ucar.edu/public/education/basic/basic.html
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
To make clear my position:
I don´t think that science can be used to disprove the Bible - and I don´t try to.
I don´t even think science can disprove your literal interpretation of the Bible - it can only make it very unlikely.

But science does not confirm your literal interpretation!

Originally posted by GraftMeIn


I'm not the one attacking anything here, I'm simply questioning things. It is you who are attacking what the Bible says, because you think it and science can't agree. I'm simply trying to point out a few things that it can agree on, and you attack me with saying that I don't know enough about science to make any claims about the Bible and science being able to support each other.

Yes, but you are "questioning" things that nobody here claimed. That is not a good way to discuss things.

We don´t attack you nor the Bible. We attack your position that science confirms a litteral interpretation of Genesis.
Yes, some facts do go conform with science - the water and plant thing, for example.
But there are other facts that contradict science, facts that you chose to ignore with questions of "where is the evidence?".

Well, believe me, the evidence is there. It would take a few pages of text to explain the scientific theories and give you the necessary physical background. If you want to know, I will try to provide it, but it would be easier for you simple to pick up a few books about astronomy in the nearers public library.


Then why do you expect me to?

I don´t expect you to know everything. But I expect you to have enough knowlegde to discuss your point. You cannot make claims about science when you don´t know anything about science.



and why isn't it the point? I keep getting told that I don't know enough to about science to make any claims, and the only claim I had tried to make so far was that science would agree that plants need water and light to grow.

And no-one denied that claim. But if you make global claims, it is not enough to prove single points.

"From the blue sky, the chariot of Thor swept down upon the host of evil."

Well, the sky IS blue, that is a true fact - so that has to mean that Thor exists? I don´t think that you would agree with me on that, would you?

So the fact that water is mentioned in Genesis before plants does not say anything about the sun being created after the earth. This is a different claim and has to be proved seperately.



hmmmmmm! do you remember how electricity was discovered? could that not possibly have something to do with how there could be light before the sun came into existence?

I don´t know which event "how electricity was discovered" you mean. I don´t know which theory you would use to explain the "first light" via electricity.
And I really don´t know what that had to do with the gravity and accleration problems I mentioned.


does the sun contain gravity?

What? No, but the sun contains mass, and one certain effect of mass is a force of attraction between two masses - called gravity.


How did they weigh the sun, and the earth?

Beat me, I don´t know at the moment. I would have to look it up. But, really, it didn´t involve scales.


what evidence do we have of the weight of the sun?



And how much physical evidence is there to back up scientific fact? If you expect science to back up the bible, before you even consider thinking about what it says, then it's only fair that there's also physical evidence to back up science.

There is, believe me. It is a bit more complicated than "God did it".
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Thanks for the link Cantaur, I found it interesting.

Freodin,
about light before the sun, If we discovered electricity through lightning, then I think there's good possibility that there could have been light by some means of an electrical charge before the sun was formed.

As far as the sun being formed after the earth, If it was formed and then came into the earths atmosphere then I don't see where there's a problem with it interupting plant life on the earth.

I understand that science is more complicated than saying God did it. I don't see why science should have a problem with someone trying to define how God could have possibly done it, while looking at what claims science makes also.
 
Upvote 0
I already explained this in the last post pretty much.

I saw several unsupported claims. No evidence.

If I need actual evidence, then why doesn't science need the same? I thought I made it fairly clear where I derived my evidence from

Um, yes? Science is about evidence...

I'm only trying to point out possibilities between the Bible and science

Yes, there are certain things in the bible that are true. But that does in no way mean that all things in it are true.

Even you have admitted that science does have evidence about everything it claims

I'm assuming you made a typo here :) I think you meant 'doesn't have evidence'.

My reply to that would be that you don't seem to understand that scientific theories are the best explainations based on all evidence. If anyone finds evidence that contradicts the theorie it is rejected. There are also hypotheses, which I suspect you're talking about. They are ideas that aren't supported as well as theories. But they are still based on the evidence available.

See right there, neither one of us has 100% proof to back up our claims, but you want me to give you 100% proof about the Bible.

I never asked for 100% proof. I do want to see some evidence. I haven't seen anything yet.

no you just tried to claim that the Bible claimed it did.

And what if the sun was created, and then set into the sky? Is there still a problem with that?

<DIR>9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry <I>land</I> appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry <I>land</I> Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that <I>it was</I> good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, <I>and</I> the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed <I>is</I> in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, <I>and</I> herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed <I>was</I> in itself, after his kind: and God saw that <I>it was</I> good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: <I>he made</I> the stars also.



That's from 'The WORD online bible'. I think it's clear that the plants were created before the sun.

What do you mean with "set in the sky"?

does the sun contain gravity?


Please tell me that's a joke too.

Doesn't science itself simply explain away evidence that we&nbsp;are unable to&nbsp;see with our eyes?


What are you talking about?

Shai-Hulud</DIR>
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
I have to admit I made a mistake.

I claimed that the creation of the sun after the earth would cause a gravitational stress large enough to disrupt the earth, and destroy all life on it.

I did the relevant calculations and found that the forces were not large enough.

In hindsight, this is of course clear. The gravitational pull of the sun would not be stronger then than it is now.

But that would still not keep the earth from colliding with the sun.
 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
Thanks for the link Cantaur, I found it interesting.

You're welcome.


about light before the sun, If we discovered electricity through lightning, then I think there's good possibility that there could have been light by some means of an electrical charge before the sun was formed.

I'm not sure about this, but I doubt it. Electricity is a form of energy, and lightning is a function of weather patterns, which are also driven by energy. Since the Earth gets its endergy from the Sun, I don't see where, in a world before the Sun appeared, you would have the conditions needed to form lightning.

I'm probably missing something, but is there a problem with just invoking a miracle at this point? I mean, if God did it, then miracles aren't ruled out.
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
I'm just trying to show that the sun isn't the only source of light out there.

even if you take the big boom theory into consideration, Wouldn't that big boom have created a certain amount of light?

Shai-Hulud,
You left out part of Genesis it continues on to say...

Genesis 16-18
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. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

It says he created them, and then it goes on to say he set them in the expanse of the sky. It doesn't say he made them in the place they are now.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Another known source of light, that is contained in water, and is also needed to support life is Phosphorus.

Have you ever walked on a beach on a dark night and seen sparks shoot out from under your feet, these sparks are created by phosphorus.

The name phosphorus means "light bearing"

Phosphates needed for the DNA and RNA are formed by phosphourus.

therefore as long as there were phosphates, in the waters there could have very well been light, before the sun, and on the very first day.

So can we agree that it's possible God created light (phosphorus) on the first day and didn't need to create the sun in order to obtain light.
 
Upvote 0
I don't see how that could possibly be enough for plants to sruvive on. And it still doesn't explain why the plants who depend on the sun (since they do now, and change is impossible) were created before the sun.

You still haven't explained how the earth could orbit the sun when the earth was created before the sun.

Shai-Hulud
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Plants only need a source of light in order to grow, plants are grown with artificial lighting all the time. With enough phosphorus there could have been plenty of light.

A Poinsettia can be forced to bloom out of season by the amount of light it receives. When trying to force it to bloom at a time we want it to bloom, any source of light no matter how small, and no matter what the source, can interupt the bloom cycle, and cause it not to bloom.

I do know about how plants grow, and what you are claiming is impossible is possible.

There is evidence to prove that a plant does not need sunlight to grow, they only need source of light.

If the earth was the only thing in existence so far it wouldn't need to orbit anything, motion may have been set in place when the sun and stars were formed and set into place. since part of their purpose was to mark seasons and time, then it makes sense that motion wasn't needed untill then. We can look at it as kind of setting the wheels on the clock in motion.
 
Upvote 0
With enough phosphorus there could have been plenty of light.

But there isn't that much now. Did god make it go away?

I do know about how plants grow, and what you are claiming is impossible is possible.

You're telling me entire trees and rainforests&nbsp;grew on phosphorous light?

There is evidence to prove that a plant does not need sunlight to grow, they only need source of light

I never denied that. But the sun is the only light source large enough to support all plants. Starslight or phosphorus isn't nearly enough.

If the earth was the only thing in existence so far it wouldn't need to orbit anything, motion may have been set in place when the sun and stars were formed and set into place. since part of their purpose was to mark seasons and time, then it makes sense that motion wasn't needed untill then. We can look at it as kind of setting the wheels on the clock in motion.

So the earth stood still, and god made it move when he created the sun. Funny he forgot to mention that one when he dictated genesis.

So god needs to make and destroy a second light source and give the earth it's right orbits when the sun is created. And you still say that makes more sense than creating the sun first?

Shai-Hulud
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
GMI, you are now leaving a) the Genesis text and b) scientific observations.

Yes, God could have created enough phosporus to light the whole solar system, or burned hydrogen to get water and light at the same time, he could set earth in motion while keeping the forces of accleration in check.

But all this is something you can´t get from the existing texts - you have to add assumptions to make it work - and you don´t have any existing scientific observations that back up these assumptions.

You are well outside of your original claim.
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Shai-Hulud,
Here's what I know about plant growth, and the way phosphorus is used as a means of artificial light in order to grow plants.

Phosphorus is an element used to make fluorescent lights.
fluorescent lights are used as a source of artificial light for growing plants.
fluorescent lights have been designed to promote photosynthesis to occur.

the most effecient wavelenghts of light needed for photosynthesis are at the ends of
the blue and red visible spectrums, these spectrums appear very dim to the human eye.

The bible does not explain things in a scientific way, It was ment to tell us in more simple terms how things came into existence.

when you look at the reasons the Bible gives for creating the sun, moon, and stars I think it makes perfect sense, that he created them after the earth. The first source of light may not have been destroyed, it could be the suns light simply overpowers it.
 
Upvote 0
The first source of light may not have been destroyed, it could be the suns light simply overpowers it.

Something that gives enough light to support an entire planet full of plants? Yeah, sure.

when you look at the reasons the Bible gives for creating the sun, moon, and stars I think it makes perfect sense, that he created them after the earth.

That's restating your claim, not supporting it.

Shai-Hulud
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Originally posted by Freodin
GMI, you are now leaving a) the Genesis text and b) scientific observations.

Yes, God could have created enough phosporus to light the whole solar system, or burned hydrogen to get water and light at the same time, he could set earth in motion while keeping the forces of accleration in check.

But all this is something you can´t get from the existing texts - you have to add assumptions to make it work - and you don´t have any existing scientific observations that back up these assumptions.

You are well outside of your original claim.

this thread does seem to have taken on a life all it's own, I think it's evolving ;)

Since some&nbsp;think it&nbsp;is impossible to have light before the sun, I thought it might be nice to show that it is possible to have light before the sun.

Even science starts with looking at possiblities, and then finding through whatever means it can, to back up those possibilities.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0