Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 1:17 AM
282 online now:
foreveryoung, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 278 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,407 Year: 29,013/21,208 Month: 1,079/1,847 Week: 2/452 Day: 2/115 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
jar
Member
Posts: 29806
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 271 of 310 (683286)
12-09-2012 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 12:04 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
Again, you're just making shit up and misrepresenting what the Bible says.

There is no mention of father nature in Genesis 1.

I am a theistic Christian who has actually read the Bible and understands that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only model that explains the diversity seen, but that is irrelevant to this topic.

So far you are just making shit up and trying to shoehorn it into Genesis 1 which is just a silly thing to do. Not only is Genesis 1 factually wrong, the purpose of Genesis 1 was not to describe creation. Creation in Genesis 1 is absolutely nothing but a plot device used to explain and justify the Jewish week and Sabbath.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 12:04 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 1:03 PM jar has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 272 of 310 (683288)
12-09-2012 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Panda
12-09-2012 12:07 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

So - your own claim is denied by you.

It seems that everyone - including you - agrees that there is no connection between the Big Bang eras and the genesis 7 days....except you.

True...
My post concerning Gen 1:1 was about the seven (7) stages of the first "day" of the seven "days."

We all agree the science depictions are subjective short synoposis of the very complex details.

But, what I posted corresponds to what the scientists tell us about thr Big Bang thru to the end of the first day.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between the list of the seven stages that outline the Big Bang Expansion of that first day and how science depicts the complex unfolding of the Cosmic Evolution.

We are merely concerned with the correspondence between what Science SAYS and what God said:

1)

http://scienceray.com/.../step-by-step-guide-to-the-big-bang
Published by George Firth
August 13, 2009, Category: Philosophy of Science

1) The Planck Era
2) The Inflation Era
3) The Quark Era
4) Hadron Era
5) Lepton Era
6) Nucleosynthesis Era
7) Opaque Era

And 8), this present Era he calls "Now:"

2)

3)

4) Astronomy 162
Stars, Galaxies, and
Cosmology

1) Time ~ 1/100 Second
At this stage the temperature is about 100 billion Kelvin and the density is more than a billion times that of water. The Universe is expanding rapidly and is very hot; it consists of an undifferentiated soup of matter and radiation in thermal equilibrium. This temperature corresponds to an average energy of the particles of about 8.6
MeV (million electron-Volts). The electrons and positrons are in equilibrium with the photons, the neutrinos and antineutrinos are in equilibrium with the photons, antineutrinos are combining with protons to form positrons and neutrons, and neutrinos are combining with neutrons to form electrons and protons. At this stage the number of protons is about equal to the number of neutrons.

2) Time ~ 1/10 Second
Now the temperature has dropped to several times 10 billion Kelvin and the density is a little over 10 million times that of water as the Universe continues to expand. Because a free neutron is slightly less stable than a free proton, neutrons beta decay to protons plus electrons plus neutrinos with a half-life of approximately 17 minutes. Thus, the initial approximately equal balance between neutrons and protons begins to be tipped in favor of protons. By this time about 62% of the nucleons are protons and 38% are neutrons.
The free neutron is unstable, but neutrons in composite nuclei can be stable, so the decay of neutrons will continue until the simplest nucleus (deuterium, the mass-2 isotope of hydrogen) can form. But no composite nuclei can form yet because the temperature implies an average energy for particles in the gas of about 2.6 MeV, and deuterium has a binding energy of only 2.2 MeV and so cannot hold together at these temperatures. This barrier to production of composite nuclei, which allows the free neutrons to be steadily converted to protons, is called the deuterium bottleneck.

3) Time ~ 1 Second
The temperature has dropped to about 10 billion K as the Universe continues to expand, and the density is now down to about 400,000 times that of water. At this temperature the neutrinos cease to play a role in the continuing evolution, but the deuterium bottleneck still exists so there are no composite nuclei and the neutrons continue to beta decay to protons. At this stage the protons abundance is up to 76% and the neutron abundance has fallen to 24%.

4) Time ~ 13.8 Seconds
The temperature has now fallen to about 3 billion K. The average energy of the particles in the gas has fallen to about 0.25 MeV. This is too low for photons to produce electron-positron pairs so they fall out of thermal equilibrium and the free electrons begin to annihilate all the positrons to form photons. The deuterium bottleneck still keeps appreciable deuterium from forming and the neutrons continue to decay to protons. At this stage the abundance of neutrons has fallen to about 13% and the abundance of protons has risen to about 87%.

5) Time ~ 3 Min 45 Sec
Finally the temperature drops sufficiently low (about 1 billion K) that deuterium nuclei can hold together. The deuterium bottleneck is thus broken and a rapid sequence of nuclear reactions combines neutrons and protons to form deuterium, and the resulting deuterium with neutrons and protons to form the mass-4 isotope of helium (alpha particles). Thus, all remaining free neutrons are rapidly "cooked" into helium. Elements beyond helium-4 cannot be formed because of the peculiarity that there are no stable mass-5 or mass-8 isotopes in our Universe and the next steps in the most likely reactions to form heavier elements would form mass-5 or mass-8 isotopes.

6) Time ~ 35 Minutes
The temperature is now about 300 million K and the Universe consists of protons, the excess electrons that did not annihilate with the positrons, helium-4 (26% abundance by mass), photons, neutrinos, and antineutrinos. There are no atoms yet because the temperature is still too high for the protons and electrons to bind together.

7) Time ~ 700,000 years
The temperature has fallen to several thousand K, which is sufficiently low that electrons and protons can hold together to begin forming hydrogen atoms. Until this point, matter and radiation have been in thermal equilibrium, but now they decouple. As the free electrons are bound up in atoms the primary cross section leading to the scattering of photons (interaction with the free electrons) is removed and the Universe (which has been very opaque until this point) becomes transparent: light can now travel large distances before being absorbed.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162

//////////

5)

6)

7)

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Panda, posted 12-09-2012 12:07 PM Panda has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 273 of 310 (683289)
12-09-2012 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by jar
12-09-2012 12:23 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

Again, you're just making shit up and misrepresenting what the Bible says.
There is no mention of father nature in Genesis 1.

Theistic Evolution understands that God utilizes the spirit of his Natural Laws such that Genesis corresponds with the science we now know.
This implies that God is that hand which unfolds the next frame of Reality to which all life must adapt or become extinct.

Inherent in the Theory of Evolyution is this concept of adaption to the changing environment, changes which "Father Nature" brings upon the living:

Matthew 22:32
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God, (almighty over all flesh) is not the God of the dead, but of (or over) the living.

You must be a "half'N half Theistic Evolutionists, half believing evolution and half believing medieval nonsense made up by ancient men who could not read the Bible with our science to help them.)

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 12:23 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 1:11 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 276 by NoNukes, posted 12-09-2012 1:36 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29806
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 274 of 310 (683291)
12-09-2012 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 1:03 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
Genesis 1 is not and has nothing to do with Theistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution understands nothing.

There is no evidence there is any Father Nature.

Matthew is not Genesis.

You're still just making shit up and quote mining.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 1:03 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 1:40 PM jar has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 275 of 310 (683292)
12-09-2012 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by jar
12-09-2012 10:13 AM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

YOU offer no explanation for this rather confusing set of details about the second "day," but it seems clear enough when we examine the Hadean Era and the Histroy o the Earth as these verse would correspond scientifically in the unfolding evolution:

2Pe 3:5
For this they, (these science-literati), willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God, (Truth), the heavens (of the Universe) were of old, (since the Big Bang beginning), and the (seven-layered composition of the) earth standing out of the (seven bodies of) water (and above, a firmament of seven-layers of atmosphere), and in the (seven collections of) water, (a firmament below):

The Geology of the Earth:

1) Inner core
2) Outer core
3) Lower mantle
4) Upper mantle
5) Asthenosphere
6) Lithosphere/Continental Crust
7) Lithosphere/Oceanic Crust

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

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

Gen. 1:7 And (Father Nature, Reality), God, made the firmament (of the atmosphere), and divided the (condensed) waters which were under the firmament from the (evaporated) waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen. 1:8 And God, (Father Nature, the almighty Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), called the firmament Heaven.

And the Early Imbrian evening of the Hadean Era -

and the Eoarchean morning of the Archaean Era was the Second Day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 10:13 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 1:38 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 12-09-2012 2:09 PM kofh2u has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10126
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 276 of 310 (683294)
12-09-2012 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 1:03 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
You must be a "half'N half Theistic Evolutionists, half believing evolution and half believing medieval nonsense made up by ancient men who could not read the Bible with our science to help them.

Interesting accusation. There are of course plenty of alternatives. One is that evolution is completely correct, and is the method employed by God to create the species on this planet, and that Genesis is not a literal account of God's work.

I understand the difficulties such a concept causes for fundamentalists who don't understand science and who demand a literal inerrant Bible or their faith is worthless. But none of the details of Creation are essential in any way to the Christian faith.

What is more difficult for some of us to understand, and "us" includes both Christians and Atheists, is your need to twist the Bible into an unrecognizable mess in order to get it to match up to science. Your purpose seems to be pretending that the mess is a literal interpretation of the Bible. In my view, you are the one trying to eat cake and still have it.

If I were to twist the Gospels the way you twist the Torah, I suspect the result would be a Christ that none of us would recognize.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 1:03 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29806
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 277 of 310 (683295)
12-09-2012 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 1:26 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
2 Peter is NOT Genesis 1.

There is no evidence that there is a Father Nature and there is no mention of Father Nature or atmosphere or condensed or evaporated in Genesis 1.

You are just making shit up.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 1:26 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 1:51 PM jar has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 278 of 310 (683296)
12-09-2012 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by jar
12-09-2012 1:11 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

1) You're still just making shit up and quote mining.

2) There is no evidence there is any Father Nature.

1) Of course the explanations of scripture by Theistic Evolution insights makes up the commentary but with the purpose of explaining how Genesis CORRESPONDS directly with the science.

Isn't that what every preacher does and how every one of the seven different expanations of the churches make up their imterpretations???

2) Theistic Evolutionists see God as the father who created Nature, or that web of natural laws which operate in the Cosmos as the material Universe unfolds in accord with Genesis 1.

But when theostic evolutionists read that Christ was The Truth, it is merely logic that His father must be The Reality which corresponds directly, one-to-one, with what is true and real.

The ever changing Reality that fathers the Truth that will have unfolded explains this relationship of Trinity between the father, son, and the spirit of Truth available to us all:

TRINITY:
Our (1) Lord is Truth, in whose (2) Spirit of mind we must commit our lives, in order to face (3) Father Nature, the Almighty Reality, within which we all exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 1:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 1:42 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29806
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 279 of 310 (683297)
12-09-2012 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 1:40 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
I'm a Theistic Evolutionist and know that the Universe does not unfold as decribed in Genesis 1, so once again you are shown to be wrong.

You're still just making shit up.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 1:40 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 280 of 310 (683298)
12-09-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by jar
12-09-2012 1:38 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

1) There is no evidence that there is a Father Nature....

2) ... and there is no mention of Father Nature or atmosphere or condensed or evaporated in Genesis 1.

Put your thinking cap on Mr Jar....

LOGICAL SYLLOGISM:

The Major Premise is based upon Jesus saying "I am the Truth: clearly the personification of that ideal.

The minor premise is that Truth is the image of God, and

The conclusion is that God must be the Reality which unfolds and gives birth to Truth.

//////
God described in Scripture = Father Nature/Reality since the Son of God = Truth

/////

LOGICAL SYLLOGISM:

A) Jesus is Truth, (personified).
B) Truth must correspond, congruently, to Reality.
C) Reality is congruent to Truth as Jesus is congruent to God.

2) I am demonstrating that Science ALSO has the favored numbers of 7 and 12 working to explain the Forces of Father Nature.

The references to these seven (7) science facts wherein seven appear over and again in Science corrresponds to the INORDINATE use of seven (7) and twelve (12) in Genesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 1:38 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 1:56 PM kofh2u has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29806
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 281 of 310 (683299)
12-09-2012 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 1:51 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
Jesus has NOTHING to do with Genesis 1.

Father Nature is not mentioned in the Bible and there is no evidence Father Nature exists.

The numbers seven and twelve appear only in your imagination and not in science.

You are still just making up shit.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 1:51 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 2:39 PM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10126
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 282 of 310 (683300)
12-09-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 1:26 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
The Geology of the Earth:

1) Inner core
2) Outer core
3) Lower mantle
4) Upper mantle
5) Asthenosphere
6) Lithosphere/Continental Crust
7) Lithosphere/Oceanic Crust

Surely, this listing borders on the pathetic. The upper mantle includes the asthenosphere. The lithosphere includes the crust and the upper part of the mantle. That's why tradition listings include only five layers.

As promised, the seven varieties of Baskin Robbins Ice Cream

1. Traditional,
2. Nuts and Fruits,
3. Cookie,
4. Minty,
5. Candy,
6. Faux-Ice Cream (Sherbert, Custard, etc.)
7. Combo. (My personal favorite flavor)

I've had enough. Back at summary time.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 1:26 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 2:36 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Eli
Member (Idle past 1108 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 283 of 310 (683301)
12-09-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 11:36 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u writes:


God says he created the Plant Kingdom first, then a few "days" later, he creates the Animal Kingdom.

That is correct for readers who understand that God utilized Evolution to carry this out.

But that isn't correct. Animals came before plants. If you say that the scientific opinion on this matter is that plants came first, then you are dead wrong and/or lying.

In the neoproterozoic timeframe, simple sponges existed, coming before the first plants.

http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajs/v108n1-2/v108n1-2a02.pdf

Plants did not come about until the beginning of the Silurian period.

Animals preceded plants by 300 million years.

Your claim about plants coming before animals is, in fact, refuted by science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 11:36 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 2:24 PM Eli has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 284 of 310 (683303)
12-09-2012 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Eli
12-09-2012 2:14 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Bacteria plants was the first life:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Eli, posted 12-09-2012 2:14 PM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Eli, posted 12-09-2012 2:59 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 285 of 310 (683305)
12-09-2012 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by NoNukes
12-09-2012 2:09 PM


Science does not refute Genesis
The Geology of the Earth:
1) Inner core
2) Outer core
3) Lower mantle
4) Upper mantle
5) Asthenosphere
6) Lithosphere/Continental Crust
7) Lithosphere/Oceanic Crust

Surely, this listing borders on the TRUTRH.

The upper mantle is actually covered with the important lubericant of the asthenosphere.

The lithosphere includes the crust of dry land and the basin under the Oceans.

That's why the factual listings include seven layers.

?

Get smart, research a little....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 12-09-2012 2:09 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by NoNukes, posted 12-09-2012 3:03 PM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 291 by Eli, posted 12-09-2012 3:08 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017