Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 71 (9014 total)
47 online now:
Dr Adequate, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Happy Birthday: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 882,033 Year: 13,781/23,288 Month: 299/412 Week: 86/40 Day: 2/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 16 of 310 (682342)
12-01-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by kofh2u
12-01-2012 8:56 AM


Selective learning
There were 7 disciples too!
1) Andrew
2) John
3) Philip
4) Nathaniel
5) Thomas
6) Judas Iscariot
7) Matthew

kofh2u writes:

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


You appear to have forgotten to include several other eras.

Planck Era
Grand unification Era
Electroweak Era
Matter domination Era
Recombination Era

So - that brings the number of eras to at least 12.
And I am sure that there are more...


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kofh2u, posted 12-01-2012 8:56 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by kofh2u, posted 12-01-2012 6:40 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 40 of 310 (682430)
12-02-2012 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by kofh2u
12-01-2012 6:40 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

They were not forgotten, but the particular source chosen from those available subjectively grouped them as seven major events as the Chart I used illustrated.
I am using the opportunity to chose those classifications that duplicate the favorite numbers of the bible whenever I have such an opportunity.


Then the source you are using has missed out several eras.
Your use of incomplete information means that any conclusions you make is wrong.

kofh2u writes:

Here is a totally different source which likewise uses this division of the Big Bang Beginning into seven major events:


And it is also incomplete.

kofh2u writes:

But seven does appear inordinately often in Science anyway, so we will see that the parallel is perhaps a usful educational and mnemonic device.


So does many, many, many, many other numbers - which is the problem with the cherry-picking confirmation bias that is numerology.
But those other numbers are off-topic, I think.

So - that brings the number of eras to at least 12.
And I am sure that there are more...

How does the 12+ eras support the biblical account of creation?


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kofh2u, posted 12-01-2012 6:40 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by kofh2u, posted 12-02-2012 1:55 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 57 of 310 (682485)
12-02-2012 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kofh2u
12-02-2012 1:55 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

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


George Firth lists nine (9) eras.
But you only quote eight (8).

Why did you 'forget' to quote all nine of the eras in George's post?
Why are you excluding the other eras I listed?

There are clearly more than 7 cosmological eras - even your own link says that.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kofh2u, posted 12-02-2012 1:55 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 12:16 AM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 64 of 310 (682496)
12-03-2012 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 12:16 AM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

These the seven Eras up until now which I see mentioned in the Link:


I know that you only see 7.
But there are 9 in the link you provided.

kofh2u writes:

NOW, The Hadean Era = Matter Era


That is just plain wrong.
They overlap, but they are not the same.
It is as wrong-headed as saying "Today = this year = this century - therefore they are all the same period of time!"

quote:
Separation of the Electroweak force
Close to the end of the quark era, the Electroweak force separated and the weak interaction, from then on, the forces of nature and physical laws were as they are now experienced. This era was about 1.1 microseconds and temperatures reached 1000 trillion degrees.
(I emphasised a part of the quote in case you decide to claim it is not an era.)

You also excluded the Matter era, even though it began before the earth was formed (which puts it firmly within the scope of the Genesis account).
In fact, most of the Genesis account occurs after the Matter Era began.

quote:
Matter Era
At the start of our present era, photons were free to travel through the Universe. Most electrons were bound to atoms until the first stars formed, reheating matter. The diameter of the Universe is currently 100 million light years and rising. (1 light year = 9.6 trillion kilometres)

And why are you excluding the other eras I listed?
(bolded due to your reluctance to answer.)

There are more than 7 cosmological eras - your own link says so.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 12:16 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 10:41 AM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 74 of 310 (682510)
12-03-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 10:41 AM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

1) BBLE, QUIBBLE, QUIBBLE...


If the number of eras is just quibbling, then why do you keep saying it is 7?
It is clearly more than 7 - but you keep quibbling over it.

kofh2u writes:

The Matter Era is an eighth Era which this science writer counts, as did the other some graphic examples I posted. He describes this eighth somewhat idiosyncratically and differently from the others, but illustrates the science discipline's propensity to favor seven very much as does the bible.


The article's inclusion of an 8th era is indicative of its fondness for the number 7?
hahah!

kofh2u writes:

... and eight is't bad anyway:


How about '9'?

So far you have provided:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era
And from your own link:
8) The Planck Era
9) Separation of the Electroweak force

Then there are other eras you are conveniently ignoring:
10) Grand unification Era
11) Recombination Era

Is '11' a good number as well?


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 10:41 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 12:07 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 81 of 310 (682529)
12-03-2012 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 12:07 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

Here is what I gleaned from the linkj we are referring to, which included the Planck Era


Yes - I know you only gleaned eight (8) eras from that link.

So, let's accept that for the sake of argument.

There are other eras you are conveniently ignoring:
9) Grand unification Era
10) Recombination Era

Is '10' a good number as well?


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 12:07 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 1:26 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 90 of 310 (682543)
12-03-2012 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

Let's look for some sites which support the idea of explaining the BB is seven or even eight rather concise and generally acceptable ways for scientists to enumerate the general description of what happened.


Why only look at sites that provide 7 or 8 eras?

Why not sites that describe 1 era?
http://universeadventure.org/eras/era1-plankepoch.htm

Why not sites that describe 5 eras?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Ages_of_the_Universe

Why not sites that describe 13 eras?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

You want the 7 cosmological eras to correspond to the 7 genesis days - but even you acknowledge that there are at least 8 eras.
But ignoring the other eras is just delusional: they exist; you can learn about them.

Can you explain why you are ignoring the other eras?


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 1:26 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 3:07 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 97 of 310 (682553)
12-03-2012 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 3:07 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

My thinking is that science information ordered in has the mnemonic power of that assocation is invaluable to people's cpability for order-out when they explain these concepts.

Since the subjective nature of the choice to do so is often presented, along the innumerable number of such nature sets of seven scientific facts, it makes sense to do so where possible, (which is almost always).


But can you explain why you are ignoring the other eras?

The other eras exist.
You are choosing to ignore them.
Why?

kofh2u writes:

It also raises this very question you ask, which apparently is the reason the Biblke uses 7 and 12 so inordinately, too.


That is not the question I raised.

The question I raised is:

Other eras exist.
You are choosing to ignore them.
Why?


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 3:07 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 5:38 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 105 of 310 (682567)
12-03-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 5:38 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

Name five or six that I am ignoring if you can.


I have already named 2.
Here they are again: Grand unification Era and Recombination Era.
Why are you excluding them?

kofh2u writes:

What I am doing is correlating the historical events listed in Genesis with those three major rock layers in the Pre-cambrian tmes before the rocks evidenced significant evidence of life,... and with the three major rock layers in the phranerozoic tmes when the rocks evidenced significant evidence of life.


No. You were not.
You were correlating 7 cosmological eras - while ignoring several other eras.
Do you not remember?
Here is a link to one of your own messages: Message 77.
(It is strange that you have already forgotten what you have posted.)

You claim there are 7 (or is it 8?) cosmological eras.
But other cosmological eras exist.
Why are you ignoring them?

Is the question too difficult?
I have asked it many times and you appear unable to answer.
Maybe if I rephrase the question it will help?

Why aren't you including all cosmological eras?
Why are you only using an arbitrary sub-set of eras to support your claims?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 5:38 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 7:44 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 109 of 310 (682587)
12-03-2012 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 7:44 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

Pleas accept my apology for confusing your post with another person whose conversation I thought was about the seven geological Eras that correspond to the seven "days."


Fair enough.

kofh2u writes:

There is no end to the infinitesimal enumeration of sub-concepts or detailed analysis a more comprehensive listing could include if so desired.


Excellent.
Then we agree that there is no actual correlation between the 7 (or is it 8?) cosmological eras and any usage of the number 7 in the bible.
You have simply arbitrarily chosen 7 eras because it matches your beliefs - and ignored any eras that don't support your claim.

kofh2u writes:

I simply prefer the short list which incorporates the basic mechanics of the cosmic evolution.


And you prefer it not because it is correct but because you want it to support your claims about the bible.

kofh2u writes:

What number do you recommend?


I don't recommend any particular number - that would involve more research than I care to do.
I was simply pointing out that your own chosen number of 7 (or is it 8?) is wrong.
But, from the small amount of research that I have done, it is more than 12.

So, from all the way back in Message 4:

kofh2u writes:

Let's objectively look first at whether Genesis records in the events of its "days" the things which science tells us actually did happen during those seven Eras.


Objectively, the Genesis records are unconnected to what science tells us about cosmological eras.

In summary, there is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 7:44 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 7:24 AM Panda has responded
 Message 116 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 7:32 AM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 120 of 310 (682625)
12-04-2012 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 7:24 AM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

Not that the scientists who report 7 eras are "wrong".


I didn't say that the scientists are wrong.
I said that you are wrong.
This can be seen in the message I posted: "I was simply pointing out that your own chosen number of 7 (or is it 8?) is wrong."
(I have emphasised the part where I identify yourself as the target of my criticism. I am unable to emphasise the part where I said the scientists are wrong as I didn't.)
If you incorrectly use data provided by scientists, that does not make the scientists wrong - it makes you wrong.
You are incorrectly using the data provided by scientists - your claims are false - you are wrong.

.

kofh2u writes:

I choose those summaries of 7 events that occur so much more frequently in the literature because they are useful in their brevity.


But mainly you choose them because they support your religious beliefs.
And you ignore anything that isn't compatible with your beliefs.
That is called Confirmation Bias
quote:
Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.
Which is pretty much exactly what you said: "I simply prefer the short list which incorporates the basic mechanics of the cosmic evolution."
You are also Cherry Picking:
quote:
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.
These lead you to making unevidenced and wrong claims.

.

kofh2u writes:

And, though totally unnecessary to the context of Gen 1:1 without them, they are short enough to slip into the verse for emphasis of my point, the parallel between these two disciplines, Science/Theology.


All you had was your assertion that they both numbered 7 (or was it 8?).
But that has been shown to be wrong.
There is no parallel.

.

Would you consider the fact that there are 7 months in the year to be evidence to support the genesis account?
Would you consider the fact that there are 7 suns in our solar system to be evidence to support the genesis account?
Would you consider the fact that there are 7 galaxies in our universe to be evidence to support the genesis account?
Would you?
Or would you point out that those 'facts' are wrong?

Well, your claim that there are 7 cosmological eras is wrong.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 7:24 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 8:45 AM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 121 of 310 (682627)
12-04-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 7:32 AM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

"There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story," nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied.


Good - now we can move on to the geological eras:

There is no connection between the number of geological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.

Do you agree with this?
OR am I going to have to spend another 11 posts explaining your cherry picking and confirmation bias, to finally have you claim that no connection was implied?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 7:32 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 12:04 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 123 of 310 (682642)
12-04-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 8:45 AM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

We differ on whether it is I or the scientists I quoted, who claim these sources enumerate 7 events, whether they do so by using the ruler of Time, draw charts, create graphic organizers, and list seven Eras.


Your claim that there are 7 (or is it 8?) cosmological eras is wrong.
It is wrong, even if you try to deny having claimed it is true.

And from your silence, I assume that you accept the rest of my post where I accurately describe your cherry picking.
Good - we are getting somewhere at last.

Your claim that there are 7 cosmological eras is wrong.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 8:45 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 12:21 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 133 of 310 (682676)
12-04-2012 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 12:04 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

Yes, as you agreed for argument sake, we could choose to make the list of seven longer than the six science sources to which I referenced my assertion in Gen 1:1.


No. I greed to skip one era for argument's sale.
But, as long as you admit that your claims about geological eras are refuted, we can move on...

...or not.

kofh2u writes:

The amazing fore knowledge of the Big Bang Beginning is interestingly revealed by those six sources as also using the favorite number of God, 7.


Have you forgotten already?
There are more than 7 cosmological eras!
The links you provided are to geological eras - NOT cosmological eras.
The Big Bang Theory is NOT connected to geological eras.

So - now I have to repeat:
There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.

kofh2u writes:

But let the thread show that what I have told you has been referenced by science sources regardless of your own preferences to enumerate the stages differently.


And let the thread show that the only way you can support your claims about cosmological eras is by intentionally ignoring more than half of the eras.
In fact, you admitted that not only was there no connection between the cosmological eras and the number 7, but you denied claiming that there was: "nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied."
Could you possibly make up your mind?

There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.
Do you agree or not?

Because you are currently contradicting yourself:

kofh2u writes:

The amazing fore knowledge of the Big Bang Beginning is interestingly revealed by those six sources as also using the favorite number of God, 7.

directly contradicts:
kofh2u writes:

"There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story," nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 12:04 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 8:41 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2406 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 139 of 310 (682712)
12-04-2012 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 8:41 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:

1) I am providing (mostly and only to you) references (specifically to the Big Bang chronology only) for what I posted in Gen 1:1.
These concern the 7 "stages"or eras, if you will, of the Big Bang Expansion plus the present eighth Matter Stage.


You provided links to geological eras.
The Big Bang Theory is NOT connected to geological eras.

Your links are unconnected to the Big Bang Theory - therefore they don't support your claims about the BBT.

They are as irrelevant as providing links to General Motors and claiming they support the existence of aliens.

You seem to have a real problem differentiating between cosmological eras and geological eras.
You do understand that they are different, yes?
You do understand that there are more than 7 cosmological eras, yes?
You do understand that the BBT is unconnected to geological eras, yes?


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 8:41 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 9:36 PM Panda has responded
 Message 144 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 1:48 AM Panda has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020