Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)

[Hydra009]

I will however place that factor on this forum only tomorrow, so that my atheist friends can first read what science claims, and to allow time so it sinks in.

In your mind, will we be so awestruck and dumbfounded by the sheer brilliance of what you have typed that we'll need to go rest our weary heads to absorb it all?

[Munch]

So to summarise, he took a bunch of scientific factors, and filled in or glossed over areas of it with his religiosity.

Is anyone surprised?

[trdsf]

Tomorrow I will look at what science says!

Not that it will do you any good.

I'm going to tell you a creation story now.  It has the advantage of being true, to the best of our species' collective researches.

13.799 billion years ago, give or take twenty-one million years, the Big Bang went bang.  The cause of the Big Bang is an area of active research, but there's no reason to think that it's out of the grasp of researchers to ultimately sort out.  The Big Bang itself is not actually a theory of cosmogony, but an observation of what the origin of the observable universe looks like.  Think of the two-slit experiment in quantum mechanics â€" the interference pattern is an observation, not an explanation.

Not much happened for about 378,000 years, when the universe cooled to the point that neutral atoms could form, rather than being promptly ionized by the heat.  This is what was detected by Penzias and Wilson, confirming the Big Bang model over the Steady State theory.

Not much else happened for another half a billion years or so, what's referred to as the cosmological dark ages.  While the universe continued expanding, clouds of hydrogen with traces of helium and even fainter traces of lithium contracted locally under the pull of their own gravity.  The beginnings of the Milky Way date to this time, although it took another four or five billion years for the spiral arms to develop, probably as the result of a near encounter or even collision with another smaller galaxy.

That's about the time the first stars began to light up, because within the area of gravitational collapse for protogalaxies, smaller areas underwent even more localized gravitational collapse.  On the local level, our own sun ignited about 4.6 billion years ago most likely after the local cloud of interstellar gas was compressed by a relatively nearby supernova which further seeded the area with heavy elements.  When the sun lit, the lighter protoplanetary disk elements were pushed outward by the solar wind, leaving rocky debris towards the center.

Out of rocks and dust, not mud, the Earth coalesced.  For the first several hundred million years, the Earth was a lifeless but growing ball of rock heated by impacts and gravitational compression, including the Theia impact event which appears to have led to the formation of the moon.

The earliest atmosphere, what there was of it, was made of the gases in the protoplanetary disk: hydrogen, ammonia and methane, mainly.  During the Late Heavy Bombardment, outgassing and volcanism added nitrogen and carbon dioxide to the mix.  Contrary to what had been the most widely accepted theory, it's been recently discovered that the isotopic makeup of Earth's water vs. cometary water does not match, so the comet-delivery hypothesis as the main source of water has been modified or abandoned.

This is the great strength of science: it doesn't matter how good or how plausible your theory is, if nature says it's wrong, then it's wrong and you develop a better theory.  This is also the great fault in your system: you have pre-decided what your conclusion is going to be, and you need to twist or ignore observations to fit it.

Anyway, back to the story.  Also about this time, the expansion of the universe began to accelerate again, but that's an effect on vast scales, not the parochial limits of our little planetary system.

Some time around the ten billionth birthday of the universe, in the surface layers and tidal pools of the early oceans on pre-biotic Earth where uncounted quintillions of blind "experiments" were going on, energized by sunlight and ultraviolet radiation and lightning and stirred by the tides and to a lesser extent the winds.

As it turns out, the bits of which life (as we know it) are built are easy to make.  There are vast clouds of aminos and other organics floating freely in space, and even where there aren't any, they can be built with a little patience and a little energy and a few naturally-occurring chemicals.

Over time, a molecule that was able to make rough copies of itself occurred, quite by chance, although given the staggering number of simultaneous chemical reactions going on over staggering periods of time, it was probably more a matter of a statistical near-inevitability.  You have to remember the numbers involved: if a self-replicating molecule has a chance of appearing equivalent to, for example, Powerball odds, then self-replicating molecules would have appeared immediately, billions or even trillions of times.

Now, this little molecule wasn't a fully-formed cell, and we probably wouldn't call it alive by modern definitions, but because it could reproduce even as a purely mechanical/chemical function, it could evolve over time.

And that's exactly what it did.  Probably most copying errors made it a less efficient replicator, but any random change for the better meant, obviously, better replication.  Any improvement accidentally stumbled across would be kept; any dis-improvement would die out, and self-replicating chemicals could grow more complex over time because the base function of replication became more reliable.  Eventually proto-life systems like viruses and phages developed as improvements added up, and eventually bacteria, and eventually photosynthesis came along, which liberated oxygen into the atmosphere.  This allowed more energetic forms of life to arise, and eventually eukaryotic cells and multicellular systems arose out of the blind groping of the twin forces of natural selection and evolution.

And this went on for about three billion years, for 75-80% of the history of life on Earth.  We're all late arrivals -- not just humans, but most life beyond the plant/multicellular stage.  There were a few pre-Cambrian complex animals, but not many.  There appears to have been a combination of effects that led to what's called the Cambrian Explosion half a billion years ago: the oxygenation of the atmosphere reaching a critical level, the completion of the ozone layer to protect near-surface water dwellers from UV radiation, a spike in available calcium in the seas allowing for shells and bones to evolve, a few other factors.

At this point, all life is still in the ocean.  It takes another hundred million years for the first land plants, and another hundred million after that for the first land animals -- nearly 13.5 billion years since the Big Bang, and we *finally* have land life!

Evolution, speciation, and the slow accumulation of positive mutations carry on (along with asteroid impacts, ice ages and massive volcanic eruptions) for the next 350 million years, leading up to the rise of humans and civilization (such that it is).

These are the things that hydrogen atoms do with just time and gravity.



And now we murder your "theory", with both malice and intent.

Even if we allow your "before time" time for the necessary 13.8 billion years less the 6,000 you admit to, there's one thing you cannot have, and that's evidence of genetically modern humans before 6,000 years ago.

And we have direct archaeological evidence that Jericho has been continuously occupied by humans since about 10-11,000 BCE and was walled by 6800 BCE -- six to seven thousand years before you want to say humans were "created" and some pretty advanced civil engineering almost 3,000 years before there were humans, according to you.

I have been to a dig site in my home town that is direct evidence of humans living there in 8000 BCE: four thousand years too early for your "theory".

Handwave everything else if you want to, but there is no way that you can assert your "theory" when it explicitly states humans are only 6,000 years old when we have physical, independent, and incontrovertible evidence of our existence as a species long before that date.  For that matter, dogs were domesticated 9,000 years before you would have them created.

The only possible path you have to salvage your "theory" is to assert both that every single science is wrong and that they all unequivocally provide exactly the same wrong answers reliably and in support of each other.

And that means you cannot claim reliance on the scientific method yourself.  You cannot assert a scientific answer and at the same ignore the independently repeatable and verifiable results and observations from science.  You can assert biblical creationism if you like, but you may never, ever call it scientific.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I also like it how MT thinks that a book where the age of the universe can be anywhere from 6000 years to billions of years old is somehow telling us how old the universe is. If you have that wide of a margin, the Bible doesn't say squat about the age of the universe.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So to summarise, he took a bunch of scientific factors, and filled in or glossed over areas of it with his religiosity.

Is anyone surprised?

It's like talking to someone from the 11th Century.

[Unbeliever]

It's like talking to someone from the 11th Century.

BCE!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

BCE!

Well spotted.

We need a "Preachers' Corner" subforum here. So I can ignore it.

[sdelsolray]

It's like talking to someone from the 11th Century.

In addition, he's cherrypicking and ignoring much.  For example, Genesis claims the earth and waters were created on the first day and stars did not exist until the fourth day.  Water contains oxygen.  The earth contains dozens and dozens of elements heavier than lithium.

Current scientific theory states all elements heavier than lithium are only form in stars or through stellar processes.  Accordingly, there was no oxygen to form water and no heavier elements to form a large portion of the earth during Genesis "days" 1, 2 or 3 and for at least hundreds of millions of years of "day" four.

I suspect our new guest will ignore this critical path contradiction between Genesis and science.  It is one of many fatal flaws in Genesis.  Of course, there are many more similar contradictions.  But I think its best for now to provide just one of them and see if our guest responds with compelling evidence and argument.  I strongly suspect he will ignore it or provide some creationist nonsense.  Perhaps he will grace us with more dogma from the Religion of Mousetrapâ,,¢, a religion of one.

[Unbeliever]

Well spotted.

We need a "Preachers' Corner" subforum here. So I can ignore it.

How would that work? Would the preachy folks be required to preach only in their own little corner, with penalties if they preach out here to those of us who may not want to see their childish ranting?

That might be nice!

[sdelsolray]

Well spotted.

We need a "Preachers' Corner" subforum here. So I can ignore it.

There's always the Purgatory subforum.

[Baruch]

BCE!

Don't diss the Bronze Age.  It was classy.  It is the Iron Age that is gauche!

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, Doc Savage was all class!

[Mousetrap]

Appreciated, but it doesn't seem to disturb you that my discription differs in very significant ways from yours.
There are more than two, if you read carefully.
Yes, I say that because that's what the best science has determined. Without the extreme derth of volitiles in the inner solar system, you have a hard time explaining why the Earth is not a gas giant.

and you then continue to stay on your point of view, even though it is not what the latest observational science proved. Please note, your scientific explanation is outdated and should rather incorporate what science now discovered, and not reflect what some "Theory" you were taught that has no substance.

By the way, I was never specific about how much time each step took. Early formation of the solar system might have been surprisingly quick, not even 100 million years.

Therefore, your Hadean theory is destroyed, as science now knows. the Earth could not have been a boiling piece of magma, that solidified in a rock, that received water from comets, that eroded the Earth into a muddy entity, all that in 100 million years.
This is what the latest scientists are saying when they found the Zircon and Silver Ion evidence.
Not only in Australia, but these experiments are now done on over 30 areas of the Earth where Zircon and silver Ions are tested. Also evidence from comets and meteorites proves that the nebulous cloud from which the Earth, planets and moon was formed, was Ice and Dust.
Your 'Theory' of an impact on earth with Thea, is a myth and an effort by pseudo scientists that want to publish their theories without any support of physical evidence. I would suggest you question your sources a bit more before accepting what you like.[/quote]

Oh, it had a shape. It was nearly spherical. This is because of gravity. A body is at its lowest gravitational energy when it is in a spherical shape.

grand, then the Biblical view that the Earth was a sphere turning on an axis on the First day is correct.

The above source says that water was present in the earth's original building blocks. Like in hydrous rocks. It was not bulk liquid water. Or bulk solid water. It would still need to be baked out of the rock. Even if it were in ice, that ice would be surrounded by a shitton of rock, which isn't very porous to water. The rocks would need to melt before the water in the ice could go anywhere, even to the surface. Hence, you still need a remelting event.

So, why did you miss out on the last sentence where the scientist made a conclution on his findings?
Or do you only read what you need, and ignore the rest?

"In some sense the physical conditions at the surface of the early Earth, as seen through the eyes of these time capsules from that period, was not that different from today," Watson says. "That is what is revolutionary about this idea."

Mmmmm

Your source doesn't quite say what you want it to say, sport. From your article: "Using the uranium-lead decay system, scientists have determined that these zircons are 4.375 billion years old, which means that they formed during the Hadean eon." Our best determination of the Age of the Earth is about 4.49-4.59 billion years old. So, you can't account for that earliest 115+ million years. It would only take about ~100 million years for the Earth to solidify from being completely molten, which means that the accretion of the earth preceded the zircon formation by a good margin. If the impactor hit early enough, it would hardly make a difference in the cooling time, and remelting events do have this tendency to reset all the associated radiological clocks that we use to determinet the age of the earth and so forth.

Again, now the Thea proto plannet hit the Earth when it was still a collection of soft material and water before the Earth solidified. So, it happened between zero years to 100 million years. The Earth was not yet solidified, and Thea hit the Earth and created a magma ocean,( that does not exist), and the moon accreted from the residue of the Earth (which was tested), but Thea disappeared with no evidence, and the Moon only collected matter from the Earth and nothing from this Thea planet (that was tested from Moon rock) that can not be traced, seen, found, tested, etc.
And you have a problem with me believing in a God that can not be seen, tested etc?

I will continue with your criticism later today, but I find you set in a groove where you dont want to roll out of, because there 'might be some thorns on the outside'
Live with it man, your scientific theory is outdated and proven incorrect. even pure logic can see it is only theoretical propositions.

[Mousetrap]

TL;DR: the melting and remelting I described would already have been over and done with by the time those zircons form. Your references do not support your conclusion. The only thing it suggests is that the Earth cooled off faster than we previously thought, but not faster than is physically possible.
This is still younger than some of the estimates for the molten Earth, with plenty of time for the Earth to solidify. The format of your figure indicates that it could be up to 500 million years in either direction, though in reality this would be less but still significant. Look up "significant figures" sometime.
The melting and remelting of the Earth's crust is NOT Laplace's Hadean Earth hypothesis. It comes from the protoplanetary hypothesis. The energy from bringing together a cloud of debris into a clump called "Earth" represents a large amount of energy that would heat up the Earth â€" the earth would start melting LONG before it reached its present size, and before it could really be called "Earth."

True that it is not the Laplace theory, however, it was derived from the Laplace theory where atheists wanted to steer away from the fact that the Earth was a wet entity when it formed. Call it what you want, the Hadean epoch is the theory in question.
Why, because from 1805 to now, the only opposite of the Biblical description of an Earth that was wet when it took form, should be one where there can never be any water. Now, after all this time it is evident that the Hadean epoch is incorrect.
This is not what I say, but what scientists discovered and what I am showing you now.
Why the resistance to accept that the Biblical view of a wet Earth as the Bible speaks about?
Well, no right minded atheist will give an inch to the validity of anything from the Bible.
In this instance, atheists are entering, not into informative facts, but total denial!
But, if you want to remain on your stance, be my guest.

The remelting from the impactor is when the Earth could really be called "Earth," because that's when the Earth would have all of it's initial chemical and isotopic composition, and the solidification of our crust is where our radiological clocks would finally start in ernest. Remelting would be over and done with before the zircons solidified, and their clocks started. There's plenty of time for it to happen, and there is no other credible source for the volitiles including water except by being boiled out of rock.

And the Impactor Thea is no where to be found, neither are there any Radiological matter to use as a clock to find out where Thea came from, and where it might now be.Theory, after theory does not mean fact.

Sure you won't. Thing is, I'm the only one who has presented any science at all, and it is to first approximation as correct science as it can be.
Not in science, which is what you claim that the Bible describes.

And it seems as if I can present you page after page of evidence, You will not regard the worlds' foremost scientists as scientists.
And atheists have this notion that Christians are narrow minded?

Your own source says that the sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, and a further source (https://www.space.com/19321-sun-formation.html) states that after coalescing, it only took 10's of millions of years to finally start up nuclear fusion. The times are approximately the same, but there's slop either way, and physical considerations preclude that the sun was a bright object any later than that of the Earth. Again, the fact that Earth is not a gas giant is pretty damning evidence to the contrary. You need a fairly bright young sun in the early solar system to sweep it of excessive volitiles so that the inner solar system isn't dominated by a bunch of gas giants like the outer solar system. The principle mechanism is the fact that the sun was shining, and it is the fact that the sun was shining that stopped it's own growth.

So, to conclude, what do you say, the Sun was never just a dim red light glowing until it became mature?
Oh no sorry, you do say the sun was shining very faint in the beginning (like the Bible says).But, you are trying to say that when the Sun did shine flat out, it would have removed all the volatile matter, therefore if it was not so, the Earth would have been a gas giant. Funny that you do not take into account that most of this volatile matter was also grabbed by the Sun. Furthermore, during the formation of the Sun, rocky planets, and Gas Giants, there was a stage where the gravitational field of the Sun and planets were weaker than now, and the further away from the Sun, the more lighter material would have acreted on those planets. Look, there are many scientific reasons to why the inner planets are not huge gas planets, and to claim that the Earth somehow formed later than the Sun from the same nebulous cloud, after the Sun's radiation blew the space of our planetary system away, would also mean there would not have been an proto planet Earth to form from nebulous matter.
A simple reason is this, if the Earth was not a proto planet in the same nebulous cloud with the Moon, other planets, and Sun, it would not have formed at all.

If the sun was dark the time the Earth formed, then the rocky core of Earth would be smothered in thousands of miles of thick reducing atmosphere â€" Earth would be a gas giant. Earth is not a gas giant, ergo the sun had started shining as the Earth was coalescing, sweeping away the volitiles before they could turn the forming Earth into a gas giant's core.

Please take time and consider what science say, and compare the above statement.
The Sun and planets were all taking shape at the same time. It is called a proto Sun and Proto Planets.
Even using logic, you will see that the Sun did not shine bright when it was a proto sun.
ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE TO THIS FACT THAT THE PLANETS AND SUN DEVELOPED FROM A DARK CLOUD WHEN THE SUN WAS STILL NOT SHINING.
THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT SCIENCE IS BECAUSE OF THESE WORDS:
THE EARTH WAS DARK THROUGHOUT ITS DEEP, AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD HOVERED ABOVE THE WATERS.
AND GOD SAID: LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

WHY IS IT SO PAINFULL?

[Mousetrap]

Therefore, forget that there was ever a Hadean epoch on earth, Laplace was wrong.[/ quote]

The Hadean epoch is not the same theory as planetary melting. It a separate consideration. The Hadean epoch is the assumption of prolonged vulcanism and techtonic upheaval. That is what is not supported, but the differentiation of the Earth with a molten iron core and an iron-poor silicate crust requires a primeval melting event, even if that event was over in a very short order (100 million years â€" yes, that's a short amount of time).

Now we are getting somewhere.
A short period of the Earth melting.
But what was before this Melting epoch you are talking about.
A wet acretion of Ice and space dust perhaps?
Darkness?
Wet?
Familiar?

: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 08:56:34 AM
Quite interesting once you find out some people's pre conceived ideas about science is totally incorrect.
Isnt it?

No, that didn't happen. Instead, it became really obvious that you don't have the scientific background to correctly interpret the data you have been presented, and even recognize what you're looking at. The form the Earth now takes requires some very specific events to occur in a constrained order, from the early start of the Sun, to the composition of the Moon. There's no way around either an early start to the sun, or a high energy event that put the moon's material into orbit.

I might not have any scientific background, but so far We found from your own words that the Earth must have been a collection of Water, Gas and Matter.
We also found you agree with the fact that the Sun was very faint when it started to produce fusion. You call it 10 million years, enough to fit in with a Biblical description that there was light, and then a Sun.
And obviously you are also welcome to disregard whatever scientific discoveries was found to disprove  Thea impact.
Fact is that we now moved from an accusation that the Biblical explanation of the Bible should be discarded as any scientific relation, to you agreeing to Genesis, but with different timelines.
I love this.
No more ancient sheep herders night fire stories and Mythological accusations.

:But, there is another factor I will present for the case on the Biblical description about the origins of our solar system.
This is the nail in the coffin of any atheistic ideas that the Bible can never be reconciled with science.

No, that didn't happen, either. The only thing that happened is that you proved that you don't know how to read scientific papers and science news articles correctly.

Oh but it will!
Wait for it!