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

[sdelsolray]

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.

1.  Your first sentence is a question which is not relevant.  To avoid derailing the thread, I choose not to answer it.  This will confirm that you believe that on the "THIRD DAY" the laws of physics and chemistry were the same as they are today, which would include the existence of gravity and the conservation of matter and energy (as per my question).

2.  Standard protocol in rational discourse is to answer an earlier question (or explain why it cannot be answered), unless new questions need to be answered before an informed response can be given, and not merely interposed as a rhetorical device.  You pose new questions, not to help clarify your response but merely as a rhetorical device, and then describe these new questions as "factors" of which I am to assume "as a given" (your words).  That is quite confusing, at least to me.  However, your instruction to "just think on how did the Earth look from the Biblical description on the morning of day 3" returns us to your original question, which upon further reflection, I have concluded is quite vague, is based on a false premise and contradicts your own beliefs.  As you say, I will get to why the previous sentence is well founded.  Just wait.

3.  You failed to answer any of my questions and inject an infantile strawman.  I repeat one of those questions, "What is meant by SEPARATED"?  Surely, someone as well versed in Biblical interpretation and who, with little doubt, believes he has access to special revelation, can answer such a simple and direct question.  Still, you return to your original question, with one revision.  Instead of questioning how the Earth looked before the waters and land were separated, your question has morphed into how how the Earth looked before the sea and land were separated.  Did I miss something?  Why do you equate the waters with the sea before they were separated?  Some expectation bias, perhaps?  Obviously, you are conflating other claims and words in Genesis with your simple, focused question.  Why?

4.  Again, you fail to answer the two questions.  But the important point is you changed your original question once again (the first change involved replacing the word waters for sea).  Now your question is, "What was the Earth on the Morning of day 3 if it changed into a separation of land and sea on day 3".  Here, you assume the Earth changed on the morning of the THIRD DAY and assume the EARTH was different at the end of the SECOND DAY.  Again, you are relying on other claims in Genesis.  Why?  The remainder of your response to my question #4 (e.g., "once we discuss what Science say on how the Sun appeared for over 1.5 Billion years") is interesting, but not relevant.

5.  Says you.  Without sunlight and/or moonlight, the remaining galactic light would not be enough to see most things, at least with my 20/25 vision.  You say I only need to see "what is in front of me".  However, your original question was how did the entire Earth look, not just what was in front of me.  Try to be consistent, particularly when you attempt to string people along just to feed your need for attention.

6.  Of course you believe in a sky fairy, actually you probably believe in many of them.  Don't lie.  Don't be a coward about your wishful thinking.  The terms "sky fairy" (plural "sky fairies") is the collection of all gods, spirits, sprites, demons, saints and other imaginary supernatural beings and entities.  You have a sky fairy.  Actually, once you disclose more, I strongly suspect you will reveal you believe in several sky fairies.

Next, I turn to what I promised above at the end of #2.

You fucked up.  You claim the laws of physics and chemistry have not changed.  Yet your Biblical source claims your sky fairy "told" the waters and land to separate on the THIRD DAY.  Why would this sky fairy have to "tell" water and land to separate when the laws of physics and chemistry already provide for their SEPARATION (regardless of what SEPARATION means)?

Finally, to answer your morphing question (assuming the claims in Genesis are true):

On the morning of the THIRD DAY, the Earth would "look" the same as it did at the end of the SECOND DAY, unless God made other visible changes during the time interval in question which are not disclosed in Genesis.  Easy Peasy.

PS:  To answer your morphing question (assuming the claims in Genesis are fiction):

Your question is not important, probing or relevant.

[Mousetrap]

We are the cats...  Right?  MOL!

Not at all.
The Mousetrap is the metaphor used by Behe in his book Darwins' black box where he demonstrate the special composition of an one celled organism with a filament, hook, bushings, c rings, seals, rotary engine, and other workings as evidence that the cell could never have evolved into such an intricate composition. He compares this with the existance of a mousetrap that needs 6 components to work as a mousetrap.
he obviously does not stop there, but proves that proteins and DNA could also not evolve seperately, for you need both to create the other.

The Mousetrap is my "handle" as evidence that Biology does not support evolution.

[Mousetrap]

The plain fact is that the amount of energy of the Earth coalescing together represents a HUGE amount of energy, to the tune of at least 2e32 Joules (a number familiar to Star Wars fans everywhere), that has to be dissipated into space. That takes a while to radiate away, and meanwhile, it's freaking hot â€" too hot to hold an atmosphere or a liquid ocean.

Yet this is absent from the description of the Bible. It's something that the ancients would note, even if they didn't know what they were looking at, because it would have effects as plain as the nose on your face.

Well, keep this in mind in a few days.
It will be an interesting comparison with what science says.
Obviously there are many theories, but there are some developments on the composition of our solar system we found over the last few years.

[Mousetrap]

What a job getting to load an image.
Anyhow, I managed to get it right.
I used imgur for those that is looking for a host.

Now that I managed to get a picture, a simple one indeed to show the simplicity of the question; how did the earth look on day 2 if on day 3 land and sea separated; the answer can only be one===land and water was mixed up into each other, therefore the answer is:
The Biblical description of the Earth's appearance on day two will be that of a ball of mud.

Remember now, we are not talking about the scientific description yet, but what the logical explanation is in the Bible.
There is a reason to why I follow what scripture say, so bare with me a while.

[Mousetrap]

1. Great, while we are now on speed, lets think about the claim that God say that he made a firmament on the second day, and this firmament separated the waters from below this firmament with the waters from above the firmament.
Good, so we know that the earth was a ball of mud on end of the second day, therefore the firmament can only be the surface of this MUD BALL EARTH.

2. Therefore, beneath the Firmament, there was a collection of water mixed with matter, it is then logical to conclude that the waters above the firmament was a thick cloudy mixture of Gas and vapor. The ancient atmosphere. (Waters above the firmament)

3. We can again follow the path of description backwards to the First day, or the morning of Day2. If the Atmosphere separated from the Mud Ball Earth to result in a Firmament with an atmosphere on day 2, how did the Earth look on day 1, is the question?

Well, it would be one huge collection of GAS, LIQUID, and MATTER.

4.Now, if this is the case, lets tie it up with the first day. The Bible say it was evening and morning, the first day. All we can recollect from this statement is that the Earth was this huge collection of Gas, Liquid, and matter; BUT IT WAS SPINNING AROUND ITS AXIS!

5. And eventually we arrive at the beginning of the Biblical description of the days of creation.
it says, in the beginning the Earth was a watery mass with no recognizable shape or form.

Like this.

Now, this is very simplistic, and it will become more intriguing as we continue, but think about this!
1. if there was this huge collection of Gas Liquid and Space dust collected into this entity of a cloud, the first thing that would occur, is gravity will draw this collection closer together. It will create a spin due to conservation of energy. In this collection, it will turn more spherical and gasses will escape first. Once settled into a very moist atmosphere with a mud ball earth below it, the Mud ball will precipitate further and water and matter will separate into Land and sea.

[Mousetrap]

Lets' continue with the Biblical description of Creation.
Remember, we will get into the scientific description at a later stage.

This is the big picture.
The Earth was a collection of gasses, matter and Ice.
This collection underwent a stage where it pulled into itself due to gravitational forces, resulting in a huge sphere of Ice, Matter and Gas.
The gasses escaped, resulting in a sphere of water mixed with matter, covered in a thick and moist atmosphere, due to the gravitational field that increased and matter that settled within its interior.
This resulted in an Earth that was very soft and wet.
As the gravitational field increased, Water collected in the lower areas as it precipitated with the Mud Earth.
The Earth was still much rounder and fatter than what we find today, with very shallow oceans and lower mountains. One can not expect to have tall mountains forming out of this coalesce and another factor played a roll in this formation. We will cone to this at a later stage.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Behe? Oh good grief.

[SGOS]

Is this speculation predicated on the idea that an ancient biblical day could be interpreted as millions or billions of years, or are we talking about actual 24 hour rotations of the planet?

[Mousetrap]

Is this speculation predicated on the idea that an ancient biblical day could be interpreted as millions or billions of years, or are we talking about actual 24 hour rotations of the planet?

No problem on the days indeed.
I do think that the shape of the Earth and the size of it might not be equal to 24 hours as we measure, but I agree, the days of Genesis is a day, and not some billions of years.
So, where did you get the idea that I say these days were not a day?
Perhaps you are confusing my description with the descriptions of other Creationists.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can make up any shit you like.

[SGOS]

So, where did you get the idea that I say these days were not a day?

I didn't have that idea.  I asked because I had no idea what you believed about the matter.

[Mousetrap]

Now, lets see what the impact is on the Biblical description of the age of the Universe is.
For instance, many Bible critics say that the age of starlight is an indication that the Bible is wrong.
Well, I dont agree with that statement at all.
First, I agree that light travelling from distant stars and galaxies are actually billions of years old indeed.
And I agree that the Bible gives an age of about 6 000 years for the Earth.

Now, how can this be reconciled?
Well, the Bible never say the Universe is 6 000 years old as you can see from my expression.
It say the Universe is 6000 years old, plus the time before the first day!

Think about this description.
Before the first day, THERE WAS NO MEASUREMENT OF TIME!
why do I say that.
Simple again.
You need a Sun and an Earth with the Earth spinning around its' axis to measure 24 Hours.
Science itself claim that the Solar system is 4.5 Billion years old and the Universe more than 12.5 billion years.
Ok, so how did they measure time in Years when the mechanism to measure time was absent for 8 billion years?
Science name this imaginary time and imagine that there was a Sun and Earth to measure time.

This is exactly what the Author of the Bible does.
He say, before the First day, it was ===ZERO TIME===
NOW IF SCIENTISTS WANTS TO CALL THIS BILLIONS OF YEARS, THEY ARE WELCOME TO DO SO, IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE AT ALL.
Therefore, the Bible calls the age of the Universe 6000 years, plus 6 days plus before zero days.

But lets come back to the final description of the Biblical description of Creation.

[Mousetrap]

I didn't have that idea.  I asked because I had no idea what you believed about the matter.

I apologize, thought you were rude, but one makes such incorrect judgments when one reads a post with the idea that one is critisized.
Sorry.

[Mousetrap]

Now, the greatest critisizm about the Light that God made before the first day, and the 4th day's lights, is that the Biblical criticizer asks,
1. the Sun is part of the Universe and is a Star, yet the Bible say the Earth was created on the First day, and the Sun and stars on the 4th day.
now, that is a contradiction with science, because we know that the Universe is billions of years older than the Earth.

But lets see at the imagery I posted.

We can see that the Earth was a collection of Ice, Gas, dust in the form of something that had a very low gravitational field, that changed into a spherical collection of this "Space dust".
However, the Earth is part of the Solar system, and I would actually perceive the Earth as part of the Nebulous cloud from which the Sun and other planets formed.
Therefore, as we saw, the Earth grew bigger and changed into a planet with an atmosphere and Land, therefore we can conclude that the Sun also formed as did the Earth.
With a difference of coarse, that the center of this Nebulous cloud had a different composition than where the Earth formed.
Now, we can logically understand that the Earth collected this space dust due to gravitational points, therefore so did the Sun.
taken into consideration that the Sun contains 99% of all matter in the Solar system, its growth was massive.
At some stage the gravitational field of this collection of matter would have superseded its containment, and fell in upon itself sparking off Nuclear fission. however, this light would not have been very strong, for the Sun would have to start of slowly into fission untill it kicked into a full fledged star like it does today.
therefore, the Sun would have given of a dim red glow for quite some time before it would burn like today, clearing the residue of space dust out of the solar system, or far into it..
Now, the Bible say that there was Light before the first day, but that God made 2 lights in the sky to shine onto the atmosphere. A greater and lesser light, and the stars also.
What this description is about is that for the first time on day 4, the Sun shone on the Earth through a clear space, fully ignited, and for the first time light reflected from the Moon and Planets. Keep in mind that the Planets is also called stars.

Great stuff.
Now we have a description on the origins of the Solar System.

Now what about the rest of the Universe?
Well, whatever happened in our solar system and how it was formed from a Nebulous cloud, the same must have occured throughout the rest of the universe.

We call this the NEBULAR THEORY

[Mousetrap]

I will now just slightly cover the Global flood as described in the Bible.
If we look at the artistic impression I posted (apologies for my lack of artistry) we will see that Gravitational factors played a huge roll to form the Earth, Sun and Planets into what they became.
Just as the Sun would have evolved from a huge collection of matter and fell in upon its' own gravitational field creating Nuclear fusion, (I incorrectly earlier said Fission), the Earth also increased its gravitational field when it settled within its core. But, the mass of the Earth is not so huge as to ignite like the Sun.
But the Earth eventually pulled in upon itself and pushed a great amount of trapped water from beneath it's crust (fountains of the Deep) and also pulled, i would say, an ocean of water from this water logged atmosphere onto the surface of the Earth.
This was the reason that the Earth developed a mountainous surface from a smooth one. Furthermore, great trenches and collapses created the deep oceans we now have.
For a few thousands of years we would have a fruit full wet earth drying out slowly creating deserts, scab lands, earth warming, sea levels rising etc.







Here we have it all.