quote:There is no magical forces in physics creating solar systems nor any other conglomeration of objects. Gravity is too weak to originate any assembly of anything.
No, there's no magical forces, but gravity (whilst the weakest of the four known forces) certainly is powerful enough to pull planets together. Gravity keeps the sun burning, gravity pulled this planet and all other planets in this and all other star systems together. Gravity keeps our planet in the solar system, orbiting the sun, and it keeps the moon orbiting the earth. It may be a weak force, but it's all-pervasive throughout this universe.
quote:And there is no filter mechanism by which to produce the planets as they now exist.
Actually...there is. That filter is called "heat". The sun is quite hot, right? this heat acts upon the atoms and molecules floating around out in space. Gravity acts to pull these atoms and molecules together, so they naturally "clump". Heat from the sun on the other hand makes them expand (particularly when they are gaseous). Long story short, as you get nearer the sun, you only get heavier and heavier elements in greater numbers, the lighter elements having been "boiled off".
Mercury and venus have no liquid water, they're too hot. Mercury, infact, is almost all metal. Venus is hotter than mercury thanks to it's atmosphere...but it only has an atmosphere because it's further out than mercury. The further out you go, the more volatile elements you'll find, all thanks to heat and gravity.
Now, this explanation is rather dumbed down to match the audience, but the core of it should help you understand what's going on.
OT, but interesting - read asimov's "extra terrestrial civilizations" for a better (and more correct!) treatment of this.
quote:No, there's no magical forces, but gravity (whilst the weakest of the four known forces) certainly is powerful enough to pull planets together
and you said
The error is again quite obvious.
..oh do tell
quote:Gravity is the weakest force known. It can't pull together any dispersed matter that has more powerful forces acting upon them.
well...yeah. no weaker force can resist a stronger force if the two are acting in an equivalent manner...
The most notable being HEAT. The orbiting of the sun, the attraction of the planets is due to the lumped sum value of their constituent matter. and, that is not the situation before there were such clumps of matter.
A small question, of minor consequence...if we're talking about a primal solar system with no major clumps of matter...where's the sun?
And I presume you know how heat acts differently from gravity, yes? And that heat doesn't travel all that well in a vaccuum? and that heat could act as a catalyst for matter to start accumulating into "clumps" by pushing on some matter in the light but not on matter in the shade?
Basically, if heat were so powerful as to prevent gravity from attracting, then we wouldn't be here as our planet would have been blasted apart...
There is no known force by which one can explain the condensation of matter from a cloud into a clump.
sir isaac newton would disagree, for its name is gravity.
Heat alone will disperse the cloud as is common experience concerning any kind of cloud. The vector momentum of the particles after cooling will not change since the attraction between greatly dispersed particles is of no consequence.
clouds on a planet, in air, are a massively different thing from clouds in space in vaccuum. Don't forget, we're also talking about billions of years ago when the sun was not yet ignited.
If there is no sun to produce heat to prevent matter from falling together due to gravity, then why would it not occur?
You may say that the gravitational attraction between greatly dispersed particles is of no consequence, but you would be wrong. It took trillions of years to form our solar system, up against that scale our sun is a brief candle. Up against our sun, our planet is a newcomer. Up against our planet, life is a relatively modern occurence. Up against life itself, some 3 billion years ago, intelligent life has been around for the tiniest of moments. And your life - or mine? We don't even register on the scales you're trying to imagine.
Try to understand - gravity is universal. Heat is local.
Edit: this shouldn't be in this thread as it is not directly about the OP. It's somewhat relevant though if you ponder how what we know of the universe doesn't relate to what's in the bible about the creation of the world.
The order (and there's two genesis tales) is all wrong in any event. You might claim that genesis isn't a scientific explanation of how it happened, and it's not, but are we to believe that Adam was a real person and not just some archetype?
If we don't believe that creation happened in either of the two ways (because it's not a word-for-word recital) then why should we believe Adam existed? and if we don't believe in Adam, we doubt the lineage (shaky as it is) which leads to Jesus. And if we doubt jesus' lineage, then who is he?
The whole thing falls apart like a house of cards. This is why some people have such a hard time with reality - the more specific they try to be about their faith, the easier it is to refute their claims. The more vague they are, the less relevance there is to modern-day life.
it's a lose-lose situation.
Edited by greyseal, : attempting to put it on topic a bit more.
Genesis 1:2-2:3 is a story of what has been refered to as the events known as "Seven days of Moses".
Genesis 2:4-4:24 is the history of what took place in the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth.
that doesn't make sense, unless you're saying that god had to recreate everything (including the plants, waters, and so on - and that Adam wasn't the first man).
Please explain why it's not contradictory. There would have to have been some sort of huge catastrophy between the two if they weren't, and the fact such a thing isn't mentioned sounds pretty contradictory itself.
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD
It doesn't matter whether one feels the stories are contradictory or not, the issue at hand is whether the differences that the originator mentioned disproves that the Bible is inerrant which is a doctrinal position.
So you're arguing that the two stories aren't supposed to be taken as factual accounts (I definitely agree they are not) and because of that, their apparent contradictions do not render the bible as non-inerrant.
My position is that the stories weren't created to go together... (they) weren't written as factual accounts. They need to be understood as they were written.
I'm with you so far, I think, but I don't agree that what you're suggesting doesn't matter.
Ordinarily I would have to say it wouldn't matter that there are two fictional stories in an otherwise non-fictional book, but the ultimate author of this book is supposed to be beyond reproach. He is supposed to have inspired directly these sets of books and imbued them with his own perfection.
...which is all well and good, but then you talk about
Each author had a different point to make to his audience. The redactor that "stitched" them together also had his own purpose for doing so
Now you're saying that normal, fallible human beings have not only touched but directly and wilfully changed the text that was supposed to be in the bible for their own ends.
I don't know whether you are a believer or not, but if your position is common, then I think it proves the bible inerrant from almost page 1.
The two genesis accounts, visibly and obviously altered by if not their own authors but the person who "stitched them together" and all the armies of translators have indelibly left their mark on these books.
If you wish to call them "the (factual) word of god" then you have a problem because mankind has done more than touch them, he has altered them.
If you wish to say these words aren't factual but tell some sort of story, then you are admitting that the book is no longer factual, and as such, inerrancy is meaningless.
That's what I take away from this - the discrepency between genesis 1 and 2 doesn't make sense if you demand that the book be factual - and so it cannot be inerrant.
The discrepancy can be explained away by calling it a fairy story, but then calling it "inerrant" is meaningless because it has no basis in fact.
There have been unintentional errors in the various Bibles over the centuries such as "typos", placement of sentences, accidental addition of notes, etc. That's why most who support the inerrancy doctrine are talking about the absolute original documents that don't exist anymore.
That sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it. If the copies we have aren't inerrant then they aren't.