In Genesis the plants were created before the sun moon and stars

[Unfettered]

This is in the Evolution vs. Creationism part of the forum. You do not get to assume that there is a creation. You do not get to assume that there is a God. Yes, life works. The scientific evidence does not show a hint of God. Where are you getting your God claims from?

This isn't a trial; it's a discussion forum. And I'm not going to merry-go-round with you on the God question in every thread.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Approximately 2.38 people in the world are Christians. The human population of earth is 8.1 billion people.

You're forgetting the Muslims. It's like saying that that the Psalms are only revered by the Jews while forgetting the Christians.

Sorry, but that's not "most of the human race."

Are you now sorry that you're mistaken because it is in fact "most"?

 

[Kathryn]

So what? (to the OP)

 

[wellwisher]

In Cosmology, science estimates that 379,000 years lapsed, after the Big Bang, before the hydrogen of the universe appears. The question I have is, why is science using earth years, when the earth was not around as early as 379,000 after the BB? The earth would not form for another 9.2 billion years. That lapsed time used; 379,000 years is not from a valid reference, since it did not exist. The universe as denser and time was not moving the same way. Genesis appears to do the same thing and not assume the proper reference; earth days. The earth was not around in Genesis on day one.

This is a valid concern. If you apply Einstein's General Relativity (skip Special relativity for now) to the early universe, up to 379,000 years after the BB, the universe was much denser than today; initially a singularity, and had a much different time reference, than the earth. What we call an earth year, would not be the same, as a BB year, before and at the hydrogen transitional waypoint. Time would be going so much slower in the genuine BB reference.

How long is 1 minute near a black hole?


“If you were to stand just outside the event horizon of Sagittarius A*, and you stood there for one minute, 700 years would pass because time passes so much slower in the gravitational field there than it does on Earth.” Some have suggested that black holes could be used for time travel.

This alteration of time is calculated with General Relativity. As a rough calculation, if we had been part of the original BB; in spirit, and watched the BB unfold, on use a reference similar to the event horizon of the black hole; Sagittarius A, the lapsed time, for us, from BB to the hydrogen transition point, would be only 90 hours and not 379,000 earth years.

379,000 years/700 years/60 min/hour=roughly 90 hours

This is important since using the using the 379,000 years or the 90 hours requires two separate sets of laws of physics. Einstein said the laws of physics are same in all references. However, if you used the current physics, only for 90 hours; BB time, there would not be enough time for the hydrogen to form from the BB. These laws only work in the slower earth time reference and will take 379,000 years.

To put this in perspective: say if I was baking a cake, and set my alarm for one hour. I wait on the event horizon of black hole; Sagittarius A. This cake is a metaphor for the laws of physics baking the cake from the BB to hydrogen. My ship mate stays behind, way outside the black hole. He is also is baking the same cake, and has the same alarm set for one hour. When his clock dings and his cake is done, my alarm will say only 0.00002381 seconds have lapsed. My cake is cold batter. We need much more advanced laws of physics to firm up that cake.

I just disproved the BB physics used by science. This physics was connected to their slow boat earth based time reference, that did not exist when the BB was actively forming the early universe.

The current cosmology also has an inflation period, where it is assumed the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. This would cause a time slowing effect even more extreme than the Sagittarius A, event horizon example. This adds Special Relativity. We now need even better laws of physics to consider both at the same time; relativistic mass. This BB reference is better called one day in the God reference. Genesis did pick a relativistic time dilated reference for their day one. They are order of magnitudes closer in their time estimate.

The mistake science has made was connected to using space-time and instead of separated space and separated time. Now they have to upgrade. Government cannot longer fund their old mythology, due to separation of church and state. ex nihilo.

 

[Pogo]

In Cosmology, science estimates that 379,000 years lapsed, after the Big Bang, before the hydrogen of the universe appears. The question I have is, why is science using earth years, when the earth was not around as early as 379,000 after the BB? The earth would not form for another 9.2 billion years. That lapsed time used; 379,000 years is not from a valid reference, since it did not exist. The universe as denser and time was not moving the same way. Genesis appears to do the same thing and not assume the proper reference; earth days. The earth was not around in Genesis on day one.

This is a valid concern. If you apply Einstein's General Relativity (skip Special relativity for now) to the early universe, up to 379,000 years after the BB, the universe was much denser than today; initially a singularity, and had a much different time reference, than the earth. What we call an earth year, would not be the same, as a BB year, before and at the hydrogen transitional waypoint. Time would be going so much slower in the genuine BB reference.



This alteration of time is calculated with General Relativity. As a rough calculation, if we had been part of the original BB; in spirit, and watched the BB unfold, on use a reference similar to the event horizon of the black hole; Sagittarius A, the lapsed time, for us, from BB to the hydrogen transition point, would be only 90 hours and not 379,000 earth years.

379,000 years/700 years/60 min/hour=roughly 90 hours

This is important since using the using the 379,000 years or the 90 hours requires two separate sets of laws of physics. Einstein said the laws of physics are same in all references. However, if you used the current physics, only for 90 hours; BB time, there would not be enough time for the hydrogen to form from the BB. These laws only work in the slower earth time reference and will take 379,000 years.

To put this in perspective: say if I was baking a cake, and set my alarm for one hour. I wait on the event horizon of black hole; Sagittarius A. This cake is a metaphor for the laws of physics baking the cake from the BB to hydrogen. My ship mate stays behind, way outside the black hole. He is also is baking the same cake, and has the same alarm set for one hour. When his clock dings and his cake is done, my alarm will say only 0.00002381 seconds have lapsed. My cake is cold batter. We need much more advanced laws of physics to firm up that cake.

I just disproved the BB physics used by science. This physics was connected to their slow boat earth based time reference, that did not exist when the BB was actively forming the early universe.

The current cosmology also has an inflation period, where it is assumed the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. This would cause a time slowing effect even more extreme than the Sagittarius A, event horizon example. This adds Special Relativity. We now need even better laws of physics to consider both at the same time; relativistic mass. This BB reference is better called one day in the God reference. Genesis did pick a relativistic time dilated reference for their day one. They are order of magnitudes closer in their time estimate.

The mistake science has made was connected to using space-time and instead of separated space and separated time. Now they have to upgrade. Government cannot longer fund their old mythology, due to separation of church and state. ex nihilo.

The time is measured in our reference frame hence earth years.
I don't think you are going to reinvent physics or anything else.

 

[excreationist]

OK, but I still don't understand why you made this thread. Are you trying to reach, or reach out to, creationists?

Old earth creationists - not young earth creationists.

But why?

To test the faith of OECs and provide ammunition for non-OECs.

Have you scanned the Evolution Vs Creationism directory? Did you find anything that led you to believe the thread would be productive?

This forum is in the debates area. Is your post which seems to discourage me being productive?

The one thing that is absolutely clear in Genesis 1 -- irrespective of translation -- is that when God said be fruitful and multiply it was not referring to evolution versus creationism debates.

Yes you’re right it was referring to procreation.

 

[excreationist]

So what? (to the OP)

If you are a Christian is Genesis 1 still literal - since it doesn't fit mainstream science.

 

[excreationist]

In Cosmology, science estimates that 379,000 years lapsed, after the Big Bang, before the hydrogen of the universe appears....

....This alteration of time is calculated with General Relativity. As a rough calculation, if we had been part of the original BB; in spirit, and watched the BB unfold, on use a reference similar to the event horizon of the black hole; Sagittarius A, the lapsed time, for us, from BB to the hydrogen transition point, would be only 90 hours and not 379,000 earth years.

379,000 years/700 years/60 min/hour=roughly 90 hours

This is important since using the using the 379,000 years or the 90 hours requires two separate sets of laws of physics. Einstein said the laws of physics are same in all references. However, if you used the current physics, only for 90 hours; BB time, there would not be enough time for the hydrogen to form from the BB. These laws only work in the slower earth time reference and will take 379,000 years....

What about numbers for things that are clearly mentioned in Genesis 1 like the sun moon and stars, fruit trees, plants, birds, humans, etc.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To test the faith of OECs and provide ammunition for non-OECs.

<yawn>​

​

... our hero​

​

</yawn>​

 

[YoursTrue]

But why? Have you scanned the Evolution Vs Creationism directory? Did you find anything that led you to believe the thread would be productive?

The one thing that is absolutely clear in Genesis 1 -- irrespective of translation -- is that when God said be fruitful and multiply it was not referring to evolution versus creationism debates.

I do think you got that straight.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you believe the Noah's Ark myth and think that it made the sedimentary layers then you are for all practical purposes a YEC.

Sediment can move by various means. Now that you bring that up.

 

[Pogo]

Sediment can move by various means. Now that you bring that up.

Yeah, but they are all a product of natural forces and disprove the flood myth.

 

[Brian2]

At least your trying.

There are a lot of ideas about how to interpret Genesis 1 and 2. The Genesis creation story seemed like a history to me but it took a while for me to start seeing how the story can be historically reliable in a creative way and fit what science has discovered in a creative way.

 

[Brian2]

The Bible talks about fruit trees being created on day 3 - not just the ancestors of fruit trees. I can't really find a link to support it but I suspect the brightness of the sun in the clouds could be seen a lot longer ago that 200 million years ago. Also sea and land life was meant to have been around even though they were meant to be on days 5 and 6.

I did not say that the sun could not be seen till 200 million years ago.
In the creation of the initial plants, the evolution of plants began. In the creation of the sea creatures the evolution of the sea creatures began and maybe the land creatures evolved from the sea creatures. Everything overlapped in time. BUT all the plants were created on day 3 with the creation of the first plants. And God saw what He had done, that it was good.

 

[Brian2]

So then the verse should have began "Not at the beginning".

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

No, "in the beginning" is fine and is when God created the heavens and the earth. Then in another part of day 1 the condition of the earth and what it was like are given (from the pov of the surface of the ocean that was covering the earth). We are not told here about a molten earth or where the water came from etc. IOW it fits the science but is not a detailed explanation of everything.

 

[Kathryn]

If you are a Christian is Genesis 1 still literal - since it doesn't fit mainstream science.

Here's my belief - the bible is a collection of writings spanning thousands of years and by many different authors. It's not a science book or a history book - it's a collection of books of spiritual truths mainly. I don't know or care now the earth began to be completely honest. I believe that God was the Creator of the world, and I believe that is consistent throughout the bible.

 

[wellwisher]

What about numbers for things that are clearly mentioned in Genesis 1 like the sun moon and stars, fruit trees, plants, birds, humans, etc.

If we assume for the sake of argument, that the days in Genesis were based on Relativistically time dilated frames of reference, where years on an earth reference, can pass in seconds during the BB, and also assume the science estimates of earth years are true, for each phase of universal evolution; BB, expansion, galaxies, stars and planets, first one cellular life, first multicellular life, etc, the BB or God reference would need to be relativistic and also speeding up, like moving away out of and away from the event horizon of a black hole. In Christian Tradition, God becomes man; Jesus, or the BB reference and the earth reference become the same. Genesis does describe an expanding universe via relativistic reference time changes; each BB day is less earth years as a universe reference advances.

The time is measured in our reference frame hence earth years.
I don't think you are going to reinvent physics or anything else.

One analogy for the differences of the laws of physics acting in different frames, is observing a gorilla in their natural environment; BB reference, or in the zoo; earth reference. The gorilla in its own environment is natural and is connected to evolution and environmental familiarity. In the zoo, humans have to add unnatural things to contain and maintain the gorilla, and make a profit. Nature does to not provide food or clean the area. This is not apples to apples. The BB references has a much tighter time schedule, to reach the earth reference claim it took 13.7 billion earth years. The current theories try to fill in the earth time and are too slow at BB time. Thinking in two time references takes practice.

An easier example to see so one can compare different needs in two time frames is the twin paradox. In this scenario, one twin stays behind on the earth and the other twin goes on a rocket that can go relativistic speeds, so his time reference can slow. When the moving twin returns, he is about the same age as when he started, while his twin brother is very old. The old brother is the earth time reference that ages faster, while the forever young brother, is in the BB reference which ages slower in its reference.

If the traveling or BB brother wanted to return to earth, after exploring the galaxy, and be the same age as his earth brother; both will be older, while still traveling in a rocket with time dilation speeds, he would need to figure out how to make his biology go into hyperdrive. This will allow him to age very quickly; poof, so he can appear the same, as his aging twin, when it returns to earth.

He cannot be using the same laws of physics, or he will always come back way too young. He needs to speedup the aging mechanism; poof I am old. The laws of physics being the same in both references, will always leave behind a time differential in those laws, for each reference. But if the final results of the laws could be sped up, with a different theory approach, this can compensate for the time slow down. We will get a wash, so both can stay the same age, whether you move in time or not. You would not want the earth bound brother to take this medicine, since he would age and die in seconds. This medicine; theory, only works with time dilation to balance things off.

Science has found traces of early galaxies and even stars that are way too early, based on earth reference theory; close to poof within the random turbulence of reference inflation expansion shear. This condensation, will need a new way to explain the physics, since the old way was never designed to be that fast; it was not expected. The BB reference used accelerated physics, to explain the apparent earth poof!

We can conceptually do this by separating space-time into separated space and separated time. This allows space and time to act independent of each other. If one could move in space, independent of time, one could poof the material for a galaxy in space; change shear space, in zero time. The gorilla in the zoo needs to be released, so we can compare behavior; open the mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

No, "in the beginning" is fine and is when God created the heavens and the earth. Then in another part of day 1 the condition of the earth and what it was like are given (from the pov of the surface of the ocean that was covering the earth). We are not told here about a molten earth or where the water came from etc. IOW it fits the science but is not a detailed explanation of everything.

No, once again it mentioned "the surface of the deep". That pretty much sounds like the ocean. The ocean was formed long after there was light. Your order is out of order.

 

[excreationist]

I did not say that the sun could not be seen till 200 million years ago.

Genesis 1 says the sun appeared on day 4 after the fruit trees which is after 200 million years.

In the creation of the initial plants, the evolution of plants began. In the creation of the sea creatures the evolution of the sea creatures began and maybe the land creatures evolved from the sea creatures. Everything overlapped in time. BUT all the plants were created on day 3 with the creation of the first plants. And God saw what He had done, that it was good.

Genesis 1 is saying that things each only appeared on a specific day - no overlap. The only exception I think is the Garden of Eden which had plants appearing a bit later. It is generally science that suggests overlaps, not the Bible.

 

[excreationist]

If we assume for the sake of argument, that the days in Genesis were based on Relativistically time dilated frames of reference, where years on an earth reference, can pass in seconds during the BB, and also assume the science estimates of earth years are true, for each phase of universal evolution; BB, expansion, galaxies, stars and planets, first one cellular life, first multicellular life, etc, the BB or God reference would need to be relativistic and also speeding up, like moving away out of and away from the event horizon of a black hole. In Christian Tradition, God becomes man; Jesus, or the BB reference and the earth reference become the same. Genesis does describe an expanding universe via relativistic reference time changes; each BB day is less earth years as a universe reference advances.

You gave one example of there being a different time scale - hydrogen:

379,000 years/700 years/60 min/hour=roughly 90 hours

What about specific examples for all of the other things - like when plants appeared, when dry land appeared, birds, etc.
BTW 2 Peter 3:8 says "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years. And a thousand years are like a day" not a day is like billions of years.