Genesis 1 interpretation

All right Newborn, you want to discuss? I'll discuss. But first: it's P-A-R-A-S-O-M-N-I-U-M. One of the first requirements, if we are to have a discussion, is that you read accurately.I've read the whole article now, without laughing this time, and I have a simple question for you, to begin with.If Dr. Humphreys is a real scientist, he must have had basic scientific training, yes? So I take it he knows, as every high school student knows, that water molecules are made of atoms, right? Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. And that if there are no such atoms, there can be no water, ok? Yet, he has it that first there was water, which cooled down to 3000 Kelvin and then atoms were formed. Please explain this to me.

Do any of you remember what you need to do to stop yourself from hyperventilating?

Oh no, you're confused. It's water with magic properties, and so is not made of atoms. Quite interesting that a scientist would feel no shame in attempting to attempt explaining science with magic, but not surprising considering the individual.

Atoms already exist.He is only talking about fusion .

Atoms already exist.He is only talking about fusion .

Water is dissociated into atoms (and maybe a little hydroxyl) by the time you get as hot as 3000K. Fusion doesn't begin until, say, 10,000,000 K or so. I don't think water and nuclear reactions mix very well.

"Atoms already exist.He is only talking about fusion ."Unauthorized interpreting. And blatant nonsense at that. (See Coragyps' reply.) Argument dismissed.P.S. Saying a falsehood twice doesn't make it true.

Coragyps writes:

quote:

---

Water is dissociated into atoms (and maybe a little hydroxyl) by the time you get as hot as 3000K. Fusion doesn't begin until, say, 10,000,000 K or so. I don't think water and nuclear reactions mix very well.

---

Ah, but god can do what Pons and Fleischmann can't: Cold fusion.And no fair trying to say that we've already established that we're above 3000 K by talking about it "cooling down." That's something completely different! ------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain,Shouldn't you go to sleep?Nighty-night.

Parasomnium responds to me:

quote:

---

Shouldn't you go to sleep?

---

What time zone do you think I'm in? Just because the little time-stamp says one thing doesn't mean that's the local time for me.Of course...I say that posting at nearly 4 in the morning....hee-hee!------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Parasomnium, what if you post all absurdities you found in the link at once.

I don't think that's a good idea, Newborn. It will only clog this thread with too many subjects. Let's just concentrate on the question I asked you in post #31, which, to my taste, you haven't answered satisfactorily.It's a simple question really: how can there be water before there are atoms?Your first answer was: "Atoms already exist. He [Humphreys] is only talking about fusion."You are making three mistakes there: 1 - you are interpreting without justification; 2 - you flatly contradict the man you seek to defend: you say that atoms existed at a time when Humphreys says they were yet to form; and 3 - you posit impossible physics.If you study a bit more on what Humphreys says, and compare it to what physics teaches us about the world, you will see that "Dr." Humphreys doesn't know much about science, at least not about the science needed to explain his cosmological model, or any other cosmological model at that.Again, just concentrate on Humphreys' idea about the formation of atoms. Don't you see the absurdity?

Here is a quote of the text(I preferred to make copy and paste)
When the 'deep' was created, it was a black hole. Under gravity, it collapsed and the temperature, pressure and density increased to the stage where thermonuclear reactions occurred and nucleosynthesis took place.Intense light was everywhere inside the black hole. The collapse is considered to have lasted one day - and then, in a creative act of God, the black hole was converted into a white hole. The result was a rapid, inflationary expansion of space. This is when the waters above the expanse, the expanse and the waters below the expanse were differentiated. With expansion came cooling - and at about 3000 Kelvin, atoms would have been formed and the expanse would become transparent. Thermal radiation in the expanding expanse would be very uniform and the temperature would continue to drop. At the end of expansion, the temperature reached 2.76 kelvin (which we observe today).Ok,Parasomnium,do you know what thermonuclear reactions are? and nucleosynthesis?
And i am surprised about another error of yours,I thought i were the foreign one but the phrase "would have been formed" is a passive form meaning a event in a past more antecipated than the told past.At least i learned that in the English class(dont remember if passive is the apropriate designation).He didnt said "Atoms were formed" neither "Atoms would form" neither "Atoms would be formed"

Where did he say that? I looked at the message you were replying to but he didn't say that. As a native speaker of english, and a student of its use and grammar, I didn't find anything out of place...[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-19-2003]

Boy O Boy, am I embarrassed. Seems I was responding to you on a different subject than the one in this thread. Sorry it took so long for me to discover this mistake. It is sometimes difficult to retrace one's steps here and I only now, quite accidentally, discovered that my first response to your post should have been placed in another thread. Wonder how that happened? On the subject of Genesis One ... If that is so, then why would you want to change his words, replacing "water" with "black hole" and such? What is your justification for changing "The Word of God." Why not, instead, try to understand it the way it is written? Understand it the way it was intended to be understood by the men who wrote it. At this rate, pretty soon, you won't trust any of your god's words to mean what they say.On second thought: That might not be so bad.Your analogy doesn't do anything for me. This is not about prophecy. It's about ancient cosmology; plain and simple. The same thing appeared in science textbooks all over the world in those days. It was intended to reveal a mystery, not create one.db