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

Started by Mousetrap, July 06, 2018, 09:07:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Unbeliever

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 14, 2018, 05:14:38 PM
I sacrifics animals for prayer.



"it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD."

The Lord just loves the smell of a good barbeque!
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Gawdzilla Sama

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Hakurei Reimu

I see how Mousetrap ignored me, again. Any fool can claim that the scientific consensus "confirms" the Bible, but it's quite another thing to prove it.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 04:34:59 AM
Dont ever again claim that the description on the Origins of the Universe from the Bible is derived from Mythology, or ancient simple camel herders, or Sumerian creation epochs, or whatever.
You're not the boss of me. The Bible is derived from mythology. We've known this for at least a good two centuries, from linguistics, comparative relgion, and textual criticism. We can even name the mythologies it's derived from, and glean some of the source beliefs and traditions that the Bible now masks. The literary pedigree of the Bible has been long established in acedemic circles. As one scholar said, "What physicists in general write about God is, with an adequately educated perspective, simply childish and silly from even a rudimentary historical point of view." I add that this applies to physicist-wannabes like yourself.

So, yeah, we know where the Bible came from, we know for what purpose it was written, and know that any treatment that regards Genesis as any accurate description of the formation of the universe and the solar system completely misses the point of the actual purpose of its scriptures, and that any resemblance to any real science is merely a coincidence and/or the result of trying to make the words fit the science or the science fit the words.

Quote
What I demonstrated, even though you will never agree, and you have the right too disagree, (I wont wish you to be shot) but that I, a simple man, can take your claim and keep you busy for a week and still show you that your point of opinion is bias.
Do I admit you have proven to be some amusement? Well, to be honest, yes. I don't see how you can call this "keeping us busy" for a week. If a post appears to be flippant, rest assured that it was written quickly. We've had lots of practice at it.

My own posts are more carefully considered because these things interest me greatly. I like telling people how we know things, and correcting people's arguments. Even if they don't appreciate it sometimes, I like it still.

Quote
Now, If we were to hold a court case, such as the Monkey trial, I am sure that a Jury will agree that any claim of non intellectual creation from Genesis based on my description, can not be claimed. Just as I will not be able to claim the existence of Divine creation.
No. A historical scholar of the Bible would be brought in and he would make your defense look like the childish prattle it is. The Jury would see that you have utterly ignored the points I point out as severe problems of your theory. They would see that the science is on my side, not yours.

Anyway, cheers and toodles
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

trdsf

Well, as promised, that point by point refutation.  I don't expect much, if any, to get through your wall of delusion, but again, it's important to speak truth to fiction.  Gonna have to do it in two posts, since there's a 20,000 character limit per post

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
and I agree, and I will show you who was the first person to talk about this, and where he found it.
No, you don't agree.  You make it painfully obvious that you don't agree.  You may think you agree, but if you actually did, you could not possibly spout the nonsensical creationist rubbish you do.

The first person to talk about the Big Bang was Abbé Georges Lemaître in 1927 -- yes, a Roman Catholic priest.  In 1927, not 1755.  He found it even before Edwin Hubble's observations were published, and derived what we call Hubble's Law two years before Hubble published.  All he did was take Einstein's General Relativity at face value, something even Einstein himself didn't do.  Einstein was convinced the universe had to be static, and added a cosmological constant, thusly: -- the term Λgμν is that term.  Current theory involving the accelerating expansion of the universe reintroduces it, but with a different sign than Einstein imagined.

Don't try to teach me the history of cosmogonic theory.  I assure you I know it better than you do.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
Correct!
So you agree that the scientific method works and that your view doesn't.  Excellent.  There may be hope for you yet.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
Just as was proposed in 1755.
In no way, shape or form was the theory of stellar fusion proposed in 1755.  That theory comes from Fred Hoyle in 1946.  The shape of the Milky Way as a spiral galaxy wasn't even suspected until 1846.  Kant proposed nothing more than just that we lived in a cluster of stars, and he based it not on Genesis but on the prior work of Thomas Wright, who considered humanity to be an insignificant accident, not the center of creation.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
Ok, so at that stage the Earth was a collection of Ice and matter!
No.  There was no ice involved, the Earth was a mostly-molten ball of rock and magma.  What water there was, was either vapor, or locked inside what solid rocks there were.  There was as yet not enough atmosphere to allow liquid surface water to exist.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
Oh, ooo! Now we are back to the Hadean epoch, ignoring that water and Dust was already collected by the proto planet Earth before the Sun ignited?Now you say there was only "Rocks and Dust", no proto planet Earth anymore? especially one that was, just as the other proto planets and Sun collection matter for millions of years!
Actually, we're before the Hadean epoch, while the proto-Earth was still collecting.  I don't know what part of your ass you pulled out that I said the Earth was rocks and dust.  It collected out of rocks and dust.

Remember (if you can) that the coalescence of the Earth out of the protoplanetary disk was a gradual thing, not an instantaneous thing.  As much as you want that moment of "Alakazam!" *poof* to be there, it wasn't.  It was a continuum.

Now, if you ask me to pin a date that I would call the first day of the Earth, it would be after the debris of the Theia collision coalesced into a single satellite, when you have an Earth-Moon system.  But that's just my opinion, not a scientific analysis.  Unlike you, I'm aware of the difference.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
But I thought you said the Earth was made only of rocks, and all the volatile elements was blown far away from the Earth?
Thanks for admitting that Comets did not bring water to the Eath.
Oh Golly, but this means water was present when the Earth formed!
But that was what I said!
Science agrees!
No, I did *not* say that, and you're either an idiot or a liar for claiming that.  Go on, show me where I said "all".  Go on.

I didn't think you could.

Water was not present as a surface liquid, which does NOT agree with you.  Are you really functionally literate, or does your brain turn off when you see a word you think you can twist into what you want it to mean?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
Where did I place anything about science from my own thought?
I never did any such a thing.
Oh look!  You accidentally told the truth!  Yes, you're right, you never once placed any science in your thoughts!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
All I did was to evaluate what the Biblical description on the creation of the Solar System.
I then went to see what scientists discovered, and compared the results.
so, to conclude, the Biblical description is not my idea, but was already postulated in 1755, and 1666.
The scientific descriptions I found in science books, and I continued to read about the difference between the theories of a burning Earth, and a wet Earth.
Nothing more, nothing less.
What I did find is a mumble jumble atheist approace to scientific observations unacceptable to fit in with their religion.
Denial of anything the Bible says.
You did no such thing.  You lied about Kant's theory (based on someone else's theory, not on Genesis), distorted real science, and otherwise bullshitted.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
agree!
Oh, good!  There's still some hope for you!  Of course, you'll admit that there's not one single, solitary word about universal expansion -- accelerated or otherwise -- in Genesis.  You'll have to, of course, because there isn't one.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
debatable. Especially if one wants to claim "Organics" is non living in origins.
Organics has a very specific meaning.  Organics are in fact not necessarily sourced by organisms.  All it means is carbon-based, or what's called organic chemistry.  That's all that means, and if you really think 'organics' in reference to chemicals means life, you're an imbecile.

And yes, in fact, amino acids have been observed in space.  Those are organic chemicals.  Organics in space.  When did you leave school, fifth grade?  If that?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
and it obviously had DNA, with a few billion genomes, which needed a staggering statistical near inevitability, and only this one survived, with not a single twin, or defective residue of the other staggering near inevitable almost living organisms available as evidence.
but carry on!
Exactly where did I say it was DNA that appeared out of nowhere?  I'll wait while you point out exactly where I said that.

Yeah, I didn't think so.  Liar.

It amazes me that even though you think some impossible deity can point and poof humanity into existence 6,000 years ago, you find it impossible for DNA to be poofed into existence, which NO ONE EVER CLAIMED HAPPENED EXCEPT LYING CREATIONISTS DESPERATE TO MAKE UP BULLSHIT THAT NO ONE EVER SERIOUSLY PROPOSED THAT THEY THINK THEY CAN ARGUE AGAINST.

And even then, your "arguments" are rubbish.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
Not alive, but reproducing by cell division without DNA, or due to reproducing it gained DNA, hu?
Again, where did I say DNA sprung up out of nowhere?  You genuinely think DNA is the only self-replicating molecule?  Obviously it built up over time from smaller steps.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
What a wonderful story indeed!
Evidence?
or Theory?
It has to be Theory, for there are not any such examples of something that replicated that was not alive, but became alive and then developed DNA without protein, and protein without DNA,...
Oh, take into consideration that I said, I will not accept theories in my description of science.
If you do not have factual scientific observational studies to support life from nothing, leave it for later. we will get to it.
Well, you have to accept theories if you're going to claim to accept science.  A theory is a very specific thing, not a blind guess.  A theory is a model that explains a class of observations, predicts observational results, and is falsifiable.

If you don't accept scientific theories, you don't accept science.  Period.  You don't get to pick your own definition of science.

Every piece of observational evidence supports this view of the universe, the Earth, and life.  EVERY.  SINGLE.  PIECE.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
what levels of strata exists for that half a billion years between the Pre Cambrian era, and the Cambrian expansion?
Dont worry to answer, nothing of that kind to show your intermediate missing links in existence.
I like the Global flood much better telling me these fossils were a result of rapid burial. But dont bother about this for now.
Oh, I'll bother about your non-existent flood right now.  I know you don't dare because there's absolutely no evidence for a world-wide flood within the last 6,000 years.  I know you don't dare because the creationist flood theory requires all "antediluvian" species to just magically happen to fall into an order that magically appears to be layered in chronological strata.  I know you don't dare because even if there were a flood, and even if animals did automagically fall in order, you still can't explain fossilization happening because fossilization takes something on the order of a million years.

Precambrian strata?  Easy.  Here's a grade-school level explanation, since I have my doubts you can handle anything more intense.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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!
Or they were buried first with land animals on top of their strata. Sorry, carry on.
Your point?  If they were buried and fossilized, of course they were buried first.  You may be shocked to learn that that's the way time works.  Earlier things in time happen first.  Why am I having to explain something that stomach-churningly obvious?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
Cool, so simple.
Yup.  Also so wonderfully supported by observation.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

trdsf

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
I have never said that I believe Humans to be older than 6 000 years. I said the Earth and Universe is older than 6 000 years, and this can be found from the Bible's description that the Universe was created before the first day. Therefore, you murdered only your own strawman argument that I believe life to be older than 6 000 years.
Ah, so you are functionally illiterate.  I had suspected, thanks for the evidence.  I stated explicitly that your position clearly requires humans to be less than 6,000 years old, not more.  I *never* claimed you though humans were older than that -- and you later explicitly agreed with that point -- and your "theory" dies on that point since we know humans existed more than 6,000 years ago.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
again, Jericho is not the only so called Archaeological evidence that humans supposedly lived before 10 000 years. Goble Tepe, and more than 15 sites in Turkey also have ancient civilizations. We will get to the dating methods. at a later stage. One thing is for sure, the Chronological sequencing based on Manetho, and the Sirus dating involving Egypt and Greece is totally in error. We will speak about C14 dating, and how science actually attest the Biblical timelines.
There's not any "supposedly" about it.  You've said elsewhere that you accept 14C dating for organic material, therefore you accept the existence of humans before 4000BCE.  Or are you lying again?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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".
Damn but you are old!
Damn, but you are a facetious asshole!  Or are you too stupid to understand what an archaeological dig site is?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
We will remember your reply I get to the age of Life.
I would like you to answer me on many things you now claim as scientific facts.
You do that.  I have, as you've admitted, characterized your position that humans are less than 6,000 years old.  And you have admitted that 14C dating is accurate for organic remains.  And 14C dating demonstrates conclusively that humans existed much longer than 6,000 years ago.

What I have not done is claim.  What I have done is list.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
Never. never will I question science to further my claims.
It is too dangerous!
Atheists might show me I am wrong.
No doubt you're terrified of physical reality.  You have to deny science to hold to your position.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
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.
Now you are generalizing to the greatest possible hypocrisy.
You first of all carry on about how a Theory, (evolution )unproven, is now a scientific fact, after giving me a theory about what science does not say on the formation of the Solar system, then you use the Theory of evolution, claiming that life needs billions of years to develop, showing me some archaeological sites, which the dating methods are actually in evidence of the Biblical date of life, telling me this is why I am wrong.

Look what you did.
You build a straw man!
You then name this Straw man, Mousetraps theory.
You then destroy the Straw man, telling yourself you destroyed my facts, the Bible, and God!
Damn you are good!
Why dont you wait untill I speak about the age of life and dating of organic matter.
And please take note, this organic matter I speak about was once living matter, not like your so called space matter, that somehow is called organic because you need to make your dead cell replicating into life more alive than dead.

Let me get you back to what I said I am doing.
I took teh Biblicak description of the origins of our Solar system, and looke at what it realy say. Not what someone believes it to say, but the Biblical explanation.
I then looked at what science says, and got the Nebular Hypothesis!
I also went to see why there is just one contradictory claim between these 2 descriptions, and I found that the Burning Hot Earth theories are only Theories, but that the Wet, Cool Earth from a nebular cloud is actually a proven fact due to scientific experimentation of Silver Isotopes, Zircon Crystals, Comet testing, and Meteorite tests.
Therefore, I conclude that the Biblical explanation holds much mor than what you guys told me in the beginning that the Bible can never be reconciled with what we know about the Origins of the Universe.
Now lets continue
Oh look, more lies about what I did and did not say!  Where exactly did I say I disproved your god?  All I did was dismantle your bullshit position.  You're the one who conflates that with your god, not me.  They're actually completely separate propositions.  Even if you somehow falsified evolution and Big Bang cosmology, that wouldn't get you one nanometer closer to demonstrating your god exists.

And, as soon as you say "only theories", you out yourself as not knowing the first thing about science, scientific theories or the scientific method.

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS NOT JUST A GUESS.  When you say "only theories" all you do is demonstrate your profound ignorance as to how science works.

I demolished your above misinterpretations and lies earlier in this post, and I'm not wasting any more time on it.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

trdsf

Quote from: trdsf on July 15, 2018, 12:50:37 AM
In no way, shape or form was the theory of stellar fusion proposed in 1755.  That theory comes from Fred Hoyle in 1946.
I mistyped.  I meant 'stellar nucleosynthesis'.  I was having trouble seeing my keyboard through all of mousetrap's bullshit falling off my computer screen.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

Quote from: trdsf on July 15, 2018, 12:53:50 PM
I mistyped.  I meant 'stellar nucleosynthesis'.  I was having trouble seeing my keyboard through all of mousetrap's bullshit falling off my computer screen.

Until Dr Bethe realized that fusion power the Sun, we didn't know anything about nuclei-synthesis (1938).

I think he was confused about the Nebular hypothesis of solar system formation, which is also true.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mousetrap

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 13, 2018, 08:18:38 PM
Hey, Mousetrap...

I predicted you would ignore the post below, provide creationist nonsense or grace us with your own invented dogma from the Religion of Mousetrapâ,,¢ -- a religion of one.

So far, you are ignoring the obvious identified fault in Genesis.  In my book, that makes you a coward, a disingenuous creationist and/or a willfully ignorant chump.  Of course, you can be all three at the same time.
And the Bible does not say the Stars were created on the 4th day.
It says that the Sun and Moon started to shine on the 4th day, and the stars also.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Mousetrap

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2018, 09:58:12 PM
Actually, one minor nitpick. The first chapter of Genesis makes no mention of God creating the waters. It says he created the "heavens and the earth," but it's implied that the waters were already there. God hovers over the waters and he moves some of it around, but the Bible kinda skims over the creation of water itself. This is probably because the belief at the time was that the earth sat on top of the waters, which were primordial, infinite, and always existed. Some said that the earth sat on the back of a turtle shell or something similar. There was no concept of outer space. They believed that the skies were a physical structure with vaults that would occasionally be opened to allow water to fall onto dry land (rain). So basically the earth was a little air bubble surrounded by water above and below.
In the beginning God created the Heavens and earth, and the Earth was dark and deep and the spirit hovered above the Waters.
You are doing your utmost to distort the Chronological sequence of the Bible.
Why?
Oh, sorry.
You want to tell us how God should have written the Bible.
How silly of me to think that you would grasp the original explanation.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Mousetrap

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 13, 2018, 10:21:18 PM
Agreed.  I'm not claiming the text of Genesis is thorough, consistent or accurate.  Still, "the waters" existed on the first day simply because Genesis claims water is there on the first day.  My point is simple.  Water cannot exist without oxygen and hydrogen.  Only stellar activity can form oxygen.  According to Genesis, stars were not "created" until the fourth day.  Thus, oxygen (and water) could not have existed until the forth day, at least according to current scientific theory and the text of Genesis.  Mousetrap avoids this glaring discrepancy, yet he claims science and Genesis are not in contradiction.  Other creationists have put forth a few infantile ad hoc apologetics to address this fatal flaw, such as:

1)  'Well, God created light on the first day and that must mean he created stars on the first day.'

or they get more apologetic with a special frame of reference:

2)  'Well, Genesis events are to be viewed from the surface of the Earth itself and from nowhere else.  Stars were created on the first day but they could not be seen (from Earth) until the fourth day.'

or they go anti-scientific and hypocritical:

3)  'Well, how do you know oxygen has to be formed in stars?  Were your there?"

or they go all magical:

4)  "Well, my God can do anything he wants.'

Of course, Mousedroppings Mousetrap can't use the anti-science apologetic unless he wants to reject standard stellar and atomic element evolution.  Since he seems to reject biological evolution, that is a possibility.
I love the way you mastered the Atheist method of creating a straw man and destroys this creatin, thinking you won some argument.
The Bible does not say that the Stars were made on the 4th day, but they started to shine.
Taken into account the chronological explanation from genesis ended up into what we today use as the Nebular theory as the origins of the Universe, you can criticize the Bible till doomsday comes, you are using the Bible as science.
Nice?
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Mousetrap

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 13, 2018, 10:22:49 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)

The "water" in Genesis can be easily interchanged with the formless chaos of greco-roman mythology.  We can set it up right next to the Christmas tree as yet another borrowed tradition.
Where Oranios surrounded all earth, and fresh water did not mix with salt, where the gods came from.
I do not believe in a God that had its origins from matter.
Now, why would you continue with this straw man method?
Perhaps because you think by comparing the Greek Mythology with the Biblical description of the origins of the Universe, you can destroy the Biblical explanation?

You are missing out in full totality!
Your scientific description was taken from the Bible by Kant, and compiled in the Universal natural History, which scientists confirmed to be correct, which atheists tried to change, and they were proven incorrect, and the Nebular theory still remains as an ancient description that came out of Genesis.

I can compare Greek Mythology with anything, but with the Nebular theory.
Try again!
For almost 200 years atheists tried to change the Nebular theory to fit in with Laplace, but to no avail.
The Bible got it right.
 
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Mousetrap

Quote from: Baruch on July 14, 2018, 07:12:32 AM
Zeus is taking a piss .. Zeus aka Ba'al .. the lord of many here ;-)  The Aristophanes version of Socrates was made to say about thunder ... Zeus had a bad meal, developed indigestion ;-))  Jesus stilling the storm on the Sea of Galilee ... that is Jesus being Ba'al a dying, rising Canaanite deity.
I studied Mythology and could not find your claim.
Please supply me with a reference where the Canaanite deity was a dying and rising similarity of Jesus.
This to me, is very important.
If ever it exists, I need to know about it.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Baruch

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:11:38 AM
In the beginning God created the Heavens and earth, and the Earth was dark and deep and the spirit hovered above the Waters.
You are doing your utmost to distort the Chronological sequence of the Bible.
Why?
Oh, sorry.
You want to tell us how God should have written the Bible.
How silly of me to think that you would grasp the original explanation.

×'ְּרֵאשִׁית ×'ָּרָא אֱלֹ×"ִים אֵת ×"ַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת ×"ָאָרֶץ‬

Quoting this in a Gentile language, is the Devil's work.  G-d's words are both ineffable and untranslatable.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mousetrap

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2018, 09:00:13 AM
Reading the first two chapters of the bible is very instructive--especially if one approaches it with an open mind.  Chpt. 1 tells a different story than chpt. 2 about the creation of man.  That, alone, would tell anybody with an open, clear thinking mind that the rest of the bible is suspect, since  it contradicts itself from the very beginning.  Bible believers have tripped all over themselves trying to explain these very important contradictions and have failed totally; until and unless one closes one's mind to any of the facts and simply believe the bible is inerrant.  Thus, mousetrap's mind is totally closed to facts and even his name suggests that he is in a trap.
Mike, how did you miss out on the fact that Gen 1 speaks of the creation of 7 days, but Gen 2 is a detailed description on how God interacted with Adam on the 6th day?
Check again.

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Baruch

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:29:20 AM
I studied Mythology and could not find your claim.
Please supply me with a reference where the Canaanite deity was a dying and rising similarity of Jesus.
This to me, is very important.
If ever it exists, I need to know about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal - Osiris as he was known in Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Cycle - see the Death of Ba'al (Ba'al vs Mot)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebub ... on the reasonable accusation against Jesus (in the light of the resurrection story).

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12531.0 - for a local string on the true origins of Judaism

Judaism is a Canaanite tribal religion, combined eventually with Midianite henotheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton)  Biblical Hebrew itself is a court language of Canaanite origin.  Most words are of pre-Davidic origin though, from pre-Semitic.  There are only a few that come from other sources ... though many of the ideas of the Tanakh come from the surrounding Babylonian and Egyptian culture.

Midianite henotheism eventually became Islam ... the original Mecca was in Midian, not the current location.  The Muslims are liars in part.

Mandeans are closest to the original followers of John the Baptist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeans) ... who may be historical

Samaritans are closest to the original followers of Moses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans) ... a made up messiah also

Canaanite religion may have been influenced by Pharaoh Akhenaten's solar monotheism.  Psalm 104 is derivative of the Pharaoh's Hymn to the Aten, though it was ultimately derivative from the Canaanite worship of El.  Read The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai.  The false messiahship of King Josiah, and the Babylonian Exile, forged the Tanakh (OT) as we know it, it didn't exist before 500 BCE, and then only as a partisan document of one sect in Persian Judea.  There were multiple Judaisms until the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and even after that.  There were two Jewish temples in Egypt after the exile of Jeremiah.

In other words, Judaism was a polytheist religion (all those bad kings in Israel and Judah and Solomon too).  It remained polytheist, as did Christianity and Islam (see demonology and angelology) until even today, in many circles.  Until the Enlightenment in Europe, demonology and angelology, Kabbalah, Sufism and Trinitarianism dominated theology.  So called religious fundamentalism (strict monotheism) is a recent phenomena in the West (late 19th century starting in England and expanding to America (California oil magnate funded) in the early 20th).  The religious side of monotheism (as opposed to secular mono-epistemology) was largely driven by puritanism in Islam and later, in Protestantism.  Without the example of the synagogue and the mosque, there would have been no Protestantism or Enlightenment.

Christianity itself is largely Phoenician (See Adonis) and Egyptian (Horus).  That origin is visible in the seams of the NT if you look, and in subsequent Church developments (Desert Fathers/Mothers and St Cyril).  Recommendation ... continue to study, and you may get a more mature view of G-d.  Abrahamic religion has a kernel of truth to it, but the clergy cover it up ... G-d is as close as your jugular vein .. consult that.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.