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

[Cavebear]

I think it is a fact if I say that Atheists do not think that the Creation story in Genesis and Science can be reconciled.

Creationism is unscientific, unfactual, and like Flat Earthism, and I see no point in any of it.

Is that blunt and dismissive?  Yes.

[Mousetrap]

OK, I’ll give it a try.  Unfortunately, I’m a bit confused and I need some help.  I would appreciate it if you could provide me with some clarifications, insights and some of your special knowledge that, as I atheist, I cannot possibly possess, before I take the plunge to answer your “simple question”.  After all, I don’t want to be judged as a person with an IQ below 80.  Coming from such an important and nearly divine person such as yourself, that would be devastating.

1.  On this "THIRD DAY", were the laws of physics and chemistry the same as they are today?  Did gravity exist?  How about conservation of matter and energy? 

2.  What is the "LAND"?  Is it everything except water?  What about OH- or H+ ions?  Are those part of the water or part of the land?

3.  What is meant by “SEPARATED”?  Put in a different place?  Ordered never to associate or be near each other again?  Was gravity used?  How about plate tectonics?  If your god used those, was he cheating?  Today, water and land are often mixed together.  Did your god screw up?  Was it more of a "Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea, except where there wasn't"?

4.  How could I see what the Earth looked like on the morning of the third day if the sun and moon (the two luminaries) did not show up until the fourth day?  Do I get to use a flashlight? 

5.  At which frequencies of light do I get to observe the Earth the morning of the third day?  Do I get to use X-ray vision, or an infrared scope? 

6.  If I answer wrong and do not see the Earth on the morning of the third day the same as you do, is your sky fairy going to punish me?  If so, would you put in a good word for me anyway?

Wow!
1. Why would physics change if we are already at a stage where the Earth was a entity of Water and Land.
I propose that on the 3rd day physics was sill in existence as it was for over 13.5 billion years. Why not. Lets not over run this simple statement of How did the Earth look on the morning of the 3rd day when it turned into land and ocean lateron that day. The Question is quite simple and does not require any scientific elaboration at all.
2. Land and sea, it is a separation of What? that's the question. I do not need a full scientific scrutiny at all. What do you call land? Does it contain Ions, radiation ext. keep all these factors as a given and just think on how did the Earth look from the Biblical description on the morning of day 3.
3. So, what you say is that today you are living on something that can not be defined as Land?
Oh, gosh, please warn the maritime that they are not sailing on water. Again, simple, how did the Earth look before Land and sea was separated? So simple.
4. Great question. But we will come to that question also. I want you to answer this to me once we discuss what Science say on how the Sun appeared for over 1.5 Billion years. But that comes later.
All I want to know, (for the sake of darkness with your observation, What was the Earth on the Morning of day 3 if it changed into a separation of land and sea on day 3?
5. Dont worry, you will have enough light to observe what is in front of you.
You obviously forgot that God said "let there be light! This was before the first day. So obviously there will be light on day 3.
6. Dont worry, I dont believe in a sky fairy. If you answer wrong it is because you dont understand basic principles of experimental science.
The Queastion is very simple.
For the last time, How would the Earth have looked on the morning of the 3rd day, If land and sea separated on the 3dr day?
Dont break your head about it.

[Mousetrap]

[quote author=Mousetrap link=topic=12764.msg1222158#msg1222158 date=1531059628

IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)

Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.

This is rather tiring.  You came here with an agenda.  The Socratic method of teaching is great.  Except I, for one, do not consider you a teacher.  If you have a point, make it, and I will comment on it.  You tiresome lead-up is just that--tiresome.  If you want a conversation, say so.  And state your point.  Otherwise you are only wasting your finger power and driving most of us away.  If you came to annoy, you are doing that well.

Now why would you make such a remark?
All I asked is if you ever took the Biblical description of creation and compared it with science?
If you did not, play with and answer the simple question.

[Mousetrap]

You think we can't recognize preachers when we see them?

Guess what?
I am not a theologian at all.
I never studied theology, I do not preach in any Church.
I dont even go to Church.

[Mousetrap]

Well, setting aside my knowledge of how the Earth actually formed at this stage when we first have land and the sea, and taking the primary schooler point of view, ...

Now, it didn't rain on dry land, because the ancients knew bloody well what rain was and would describe that scene as rain filling the ocean basins of already present dry land. They would have described God as speaking rain into existence and having the rain fill up those ocean basins. Ergo, this is not what the ancients were envisioning when they wrote the passage.
So, yeah, mark this with a fail. Your cosmology, even the little piece you had presented, doesn't bear the slightest resemblance with what happened, or anything resembling how an ancient would describe happened, had God shown or informed him of anything resembling what science has concluded.

Now this is what I am talking.
An Atheist that did take the scientific and Biblical description into consideration.
What you are actually propose is the Nebular Theory, mixed with Laplace's Hadean theory.
Great stuff. As for the formation of the Moon and the forming of oceans a few billion years after the formation of the Earth, it is a theory proposed by scientists. There are however many scientific critisizim against this theory, and with the latest discoveries about the formation of water on the Earth taken from Meteorites, silver ions and Zircon crystals, there are more theories about the age of the ocean, and the Moon.
But we will come to all of that.
I think what you did and wrote is excelent.
However, I would like you to keep in mind that I said I want to take the Biblical description FIRST. then we will compare that description with what science said.
I love your information, but allow me the time to continue with the Biblical description first.
Great stuff

[Mousetrap]

I think Mousetrap is just trying to push our buttons, not present any kind of coherent argument. Or maybe, like other theists that have come here, he's just trying to get us to be rude to him so he can go back to his Christian buddies and say "See - look how horrible those damned atheists are!"

Not at all, I find many atheists are intellectual and mature, unlike those that somehow think I will go and complain about how rude Atheists are.

[Mousetrap]

If he asks I'll be horrible to him without provocation. I'm just that kind of guy.

You are welcome to be just what you are.
I can not and do not want to change your character.

[Mousetrap]

Too simple.  The Genesis account is just a fable and there was no identifiable "third day", or "second day", or even "first day".  The Earth coalesced out of the solar debris disk over millions of years.  There was no particular day before which there was no Earth, and after which there was, alakazam*poof!*.  Just a continuum of development over geological/astronomical time.

So what do you say, If these ancient sheepherders in the desert wrote that on the 3rd day the Land separated from Sea, how did the earth look before this happened.
It is a simple question and claimed by simple people, can you answer?

[Mousetrap]

Creationism is unscientific, unfactual, and like Flat Earthism, and I see no point in any of it.

Is that blunt and dismissive?  Yes.

And Ateism is close minded, deaf and bias.
Taken your statement, if one gives you a riddle, there was a time when the earth was undergoing a separation of land and sea, how did it look before this happened, all you will say is:

Creationism is unscientific, unfactual, and like Flat Earthism, and I see no point in any of it.

Is that blunt and dismissive?  Yes.

Is this your final answer, or do you want to phone a friend?

[Cavebear]

Mousetrap is merely another theistic twit.  We have seem many like him'

BORING!

[Mousetrap]

Mousetrap is merely another theistic twit.  We have seem many like him'

BORING!

Hey Cavebear.
Why are you so close minded?
Long before I even give my theory, you already decide that you already know what I will say.
If I were to act like you, do you think Ateists will accept such behavior?
Never, they will then shout ...see you are not open minded.

[Cavebear]

Hey Cavebear.
Why are you so close minded?
Long before I even give my theory, you already decide that you already know what I will say.
If I were to act like you, do you think Ateists will accept such behavior?
Never, they will then shout ...see you are not open minded.

1.  I'm not "close-minded" I'm experienced.
2.  You can't spell "atheist", LOL!
3.  I've run across superstitous theists like you for 40 years.
4.  Your type never comes up with any good argument I haven't laughed at before.
5.  Your arguments are the same ones I've seen for 40 years.
6.  None of them make any more sense now than they did 40 years ago.
7.  If I wanted to (purely as an intellectual challenge) I could make a better argument for your theistic view than you can.

[Mousetrap]

1.  I'm not "close-minded" I'm experienced.

Great, this means you will scrutinize everything you are told and wont just deliberately put your hands over your ears and eyes leaving only your mouth to force others to listen to your point.

2.  You can't spell "atheist", LOL!

I learned English only at a very late stage of my life. It is my 3rd language. Afrikaans, Zulu and English. How about you?
anyhow, If you volunteer, please fix my spelling and grammar. I continuously err on is, am and are. Sometimes I place is with boys, and so on. Sorry for the inconvenience. 

3.  I've run across superstitous theists like you for 40 years.

And who says I am superstitious? All I want to show you is that your bias recollection of what the Bible say is not correct. Perhaps you are scared of the light?
anyhow You spelled superstitious incorrect!
So, when did you in 40 years decide to stay ignorant to what is going on around you. Much have changed since 1987 you know.Much have changed in the last year for that matter.

4.  Your type never comes up with any good argument I haven't laughed at before.

really, and what if you realize that what I am going to show you might just be very interesting? Do you not think it wise to wait until the joke is told to laugh?

5.  Your arguments are the same ones I've seen for 40 years.

But I did not even show you anything yet? and how do you know that what I will show you is something you already did hear?
All the atheists I spoke to over 8 years had to admit they never knew what I showed them.
Guess what, they all ran away!

6.  None of them make any more sense now than they did 40 years ago.

Again, you dont even have a clue as to what I will show you.
If I acted in this mannerism, You would brand me as a fool! But I wont do it to you...not yet.

7.  If I wanted to (purely as an intellectual challenge) I could make a better argument for your theistic view than you can.

On what theistic viev?
The one I have not yet showed you?
You are funny!

[Cavebear]

Reminder to self:  Rule #1.  Never mention spelling when you can barely type, LOL!  Got me.  And I thought I checked twice...  With my new hand-clenching problems, it is hard to type at all.  But that is not YOUR problem.

But "atheist" is rather a more important word around here.  My spelling failure notwithstanding, you really should learn to spell "atheist".

[Mousetrap]

Reminder to self:  Rule #1.  Never mention spelling when you can barely type, LOL!  Got me.  And I thought I checked twice...  With my new hand-clenching problems, it is hard to type at all.  But that is not YOUR problem.

But "atheist" is rather a more important word around here.  My spelling failure notwithstanding, you really should learn to spell "atheist".

Naa, I should not be so sarcastic anyhow.
Sorry pal