Everyone has a religion

[ImmortalFlame]

So you are explaining what the early earth was like.

Yep.

As Einstein put it, all things are relative, no observer is privileged over another.

Except what I believe is based on evidence. You are the one asserting that the Bible's depiction is accurate based on YOUR interpretation of science. I'm pointing out that science's perspective is actually NOT what you have been suggesting it is, and only NOW you tell me "it's all relative"?

Either science presents an accurate view of reality, and you can use it to confirm or refute the Biblical account; or all positions are relative and your entire argument is meaningless because you can't demonstrate anything to be true over any other interpretation. You can't have it both ways. You can't declare "the Bible says X and science discovered X is true!" then turn around (after having it explained to you that science and the Bible do not agree on X) and say "any perspective is as good as any other".

Where should the observer be 'standing' in regards this narrative?
Please don't say 'in orbit' because people had no concept of orbit.
They are an observer standing upon the earth. No sun was visible, no continents existed. That's science, pure science. That's Genesis.

This is just garbled nonsense.

The earth was lava for a very brief time - most of the early period it was oceanic.

You said that the early earth was cold and oceanic. It wasn't. It was molten rock long before the oceans formed. Ergo, you are wrong. Now you move the goalposts to say "it was only molten rock for a short time". It was nothing BUT molten rock for 100 million years before water formed, and for 4 billion years after it was still molten rock.

That the bible said it was cold, dark and oceanic when scientists THOUGHT UNTIL RECENTLY that it was molten and transparent is remarkable.

No, it really isn't. And it WAS molten.

Until the discovery of the oldest zircon crystals in Australia I thought there's no way to accommodate Genesis with geology.

Ancient zircon crystals discovered in Western Australia have been positively dated to 4.374 billion years … the journal Nature Geoscience, means Earth began forming a crust far sooner than previously thought, following the giant impact event which created the Earth-Moon system 4.5 billion years ago… believes the findings indicate Earth's water didn't need to come from asteroids, during a period known as the late heavy bombardment 3.9 billion years ago. Instead, it suggests water was present in the liquid magma ocean that formed the zircon crystals. "We'll never know how much water there really was, but the simplest interpretation of those zircons coming from granitic rocks, is that we had a hydrous planet right from the very beginning," says Bowring.


http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/24/3950076.htm

Except that was still 100 millions years after the formation of the earth, and 4 billion years before it stopped being nothing but a giant ball of magma.

Why do you have to be so selective and manipulative in which facts you accept from science? If you accept science, then you MUST accept the genesis account as useless and inaccurate. Or do you believe birds pre-date land animals, the earth pre-dates the sun, and plants pre-date the earliest micro-organisms?

 

[PruePhillip]

Yep.


Except what I believe is based on evidence. You are the one asserting that the Bible's depiction is accurate based on YOUR interpretation of science. I'm pointing out that science's perspective is actually NOT what you have been suggesting it is, and only NOW you tell me "it's all relative"?

Either science presents an accurate view of reality, and you can use it to confirm or refute the Biblical account; or all positions are relative and your entire argument is meaningless because you can't demonstrate anything to be true over any other interpretation. You can't have it both ways. You can't declare "the Bible says X and science discovered X is true!" then turn around (after having it explained to you that science and the Bible do not agree on X) and say "any perspective is as good as any other".


This is just garbled nonsense.


You said that the early earth was cold and oceanic. It wasn't. It was molten rock long before the oceans formed. Ergo, you are wrong. Now you move the goalposts to say "it was only molten rock for a short time". It was nothing BUT molten rock for 100 million years before water formed, and for 4 billion years after it was still molten rock.


No, it really isn't. And it WAS molten.


Except that was still 100 millions years after the formation of the earth, and 4 billion years before it stopped being nothing but a giant ball of magma.

Why do you have to be so selective and manipulative in which facts you accept from science? If you accept science, then you MUST accept the genesis account as useless and inaccurate. Or do you believe birds pre-date land animals, the earth pre-dates the sun, and plants pre-date the earliest micro-organisms?

And there was a time when the earth was a giant snowball.
But I think people get the general idea - the earth was once
a cloud planet (ie Titan) and an ocean planet (none exist in
our solar system but are considered common in the galaxy)
It was cold, dark and wet.
And then the cloud deck vanished and the continents rose.
And then life arose on land environment
And flourished first in the sea
And then flourished on land.
And we humans were last.

Twenty years ago most of this wasn't known.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And there was a time when the earth was a giant snowball.
But I think people get the general idea - the earth was once
a cloud planet (ie Titan) and an ocean planet (none exist in
our solar system but are considered common in the galaxy)
It was cold, dark and wet.
And then the cloud deck vanished and the continents rose.
And then life arose on land environment
And flourished first in the sea
And then flourished on land.
And we humans were last.

Twenty years ago most of this wasn't known.

Sure, the Bible is completely accurate (if you continually ignore all of the parts where it is demonstrably inaccurate and very creatively interpret the rest).

I'm going to make this absolutely clear one last time:

The Bible says plants were around before microorganisms in the ocean. They weren't.
The Bible claims birds pre-date land animals. They don't.
The Bible claims the earth pre-dates the sun. It doesn't.

The only way you're able to dismiss these points is by ignoring what the Bible ACTUALLY says and spinning off your own interpretation based on absolutely nothing. If you genuinely believe the Bible is the word of God, don't you think you should perhaps stop at assuming to put words into God's mouth?

 

[PruePhillip]

Sure, the Bible is completely accurate (if you continually ignore all of the parts where it is demonstrably inaccurate and very creatively interpret the rest).

I'm going to make this absolutely clear one last time:

The Bible says plants were around before microorganisms in the ocean. They weren't.
The Bible claims birds pre-date land animals. They don't.
The Bible claims the earth pre-dates the sun. It doesn't.

The only way you're able to dismiss these points is by ignoring what the Bible ACTUALLY says and spinning off your own interpretation based on absolutely nothing. If you genuinely believe the Bible is the word of God, don't you think you should perhaps stop at assuming to put words into God's mouth?

Is this statement wrong?
The English settled in North America and the colony grew to a mighty nation, even putting a man on the moon.
And Dutch settlers colonized South Africa and fought the British in the Boer War.

No, that can't be right - how could the Americans land on the moon in 1969 before the Boer War of the late 1900's?
The moon landing did not predate the Boer War.
The two statements cannot be correct.

Actually, they are correct. In the same way the bible is correct in telling us what came out of the sea.

Re the sun. Says that the heavens were already created, then the earth.
No sun shone on the early earth. That's one reason why NASA calls Titan an early earth analogue. Titan is shrouded in dense clouds. So was the earth.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is this statement wrong?
The English settled in North America and the colony grew to a mighty nation, even putting a man on the moon.
And Dutch settlers colonized South Africa and fought the British in the Boer War.

No, that can't be right - how could the Americans land on the moon in 1969 before the Boer War of the late 1900's?
The moon landing did not predate the Boer War.
The two statements cannot be correct.

Actually, they are correct. In the same way the bible is correct in telling us what came out of the sea.

No, the Bible is specifically listing the sequence in which God created.

Re the sun. Says that the heavens were already created, then the earth.
No sun shone on the early earth. That's one reason why NASA calls Titan an early earth analogue. Titan is shrouded in dense clouds. So was the earth.

Once again, you are getting further away from what the Bible ACTUALLY says in favour of a very left-field INTERPRETATION of what it says, which makes your earlier assertions that the Bible was somehow surprisingly accurate even more ridiculous. How can you claim the Bible is accurate if you're constantly re-interpreting the Bible to FIT with the facts?

By this logic, the Bible could have said that ANYTHING happened in ANY order, and that would still be accurate to you.

This is just getting silly now.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, the Bible is specifically listing the sequence in which God created.


Once again, you are getting further away from what the Bible ACTUALLY says in favour of a very left-field INTERPRETATION of what it says, which makes your earlier assertions that the Bible was somehow surprisingly accurate even more ridiculous. How can you claim the Bible is accurate if you're constantly re-interpreting the Bible to FIT with the facts?

By this logic, the Bible could have said that ANYTHING happened in ANY order, and that would still be accurate to you.

This is just getting silly now.

Sequence:

heavens
earth
earth - dark and oceanic
earth - continents (formed by the presence of water aiding subduction and granite formation.
earth - light (opaque atmosphere as will happen on Titan when the swells and expands in billions of years)
earth - life coming from the land
earth - life coming from the sea
earth - man.

there are duplications - if I recall, the "firmament" and the sun. But this is, after all, a bronze age theological document, handed down over thousands of years.
And there's no lava, no ice, no Great Bombardment, no coalescing dust around early star, no proto-star, no first and second star, no proto-galaxy, no Big Bang. It's sufficient for its audience that this is what the broad sequence is if you were an observer standing on the earth - when you could stand on the earth (or at least, swim.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sequence:

heavens
earth
earth - dark and oceanic
earth - continents (formed by the presence of water aiding subduction and granite formation.
earth - light (opaque atmosphere as will happen on Titan when the swells and expands in billions of years)
earth - life coming from the land
earth - life coming from the sea
earth - man.

Another perfect example of extrapolating from the text while ignoring all of the parts that don't fit. Let's make this absolutely crystal clear:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Pretty straight-forward.)

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(So we can assume that when the earth was created, God made water upon it and it was dark - despite the fact that the earliest stage of earth was a hot ball of molten magma and water didn't exist until around 100 million years after the earth first formed. WRONG.)

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(Ambiguous as to whether it refers to the concept of light in general or light from the sun specifically. We can probably assume that light pre-dates the earth, but we'll be charitable and assume this is a more illustrative line.)

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Weird that the days pre-date the sun, but whatever.)

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
(So, the next things God did was create the land.)

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
(So plant-life pre-dates any other form of life. WRONG.)

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
(This is pretty obviously referring to the sun. You COULD argue that he's talking about the sun's light reaching earth through the clouds, but THEN...)

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
(Oh look! It specifically says he MADE the two great lights AND the stars at this point, making it unambiguous that he is referring to the CREATION of the sun and moon, so the Bible claims that both the earth and plant life pre-date the sun. WRONG.)

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
(So god created both the creatures of the sea and the fowl that "fly above the earth" at the same time on the fourth day. He doesn't say "the creatures of the sea - who, by the way, would eventually evolve into the fowl WAYYY later on". It makes it clear that aquatic animals and avian animals were created on the same day. WRONG.)

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
(So NOW god creates life on land, specifically on the FIFTH day, claiming birds pre-date land animals. WRONG.)

So, let's amend your account with FULL reference to the facts (additions in red):

heavens
earth (specifically, it says they were created at the same time)
earth - dark and oceanic (ignoring the 1 billion years earth spent as molten rock)
earth - continents (formed by the presence of water aiding subduction and granite formation.
earth - light (opaque atmosphere as will happen on Titan when the swells and expands in billions of years)
earth - life coming from the land (specifically, plants, no mention of micro-organisms)
the sun - God creates the sun and moon
earth - life coming from the sea (and birds)
earth - God creates all creatures that live on the land (excluding humans)
earth - man.

So, if we look at what you purposefully missed out, we can easily see that all you're really doing is picking and choosing what's there and creatively interpreting the rest. You're editing the Bible so it fits reality better.

there are duplications - if I recall, the "firmament" and the sun. But this is, after all, a bronze age theological document, handed down over thousands of years.

Yes, a bronze-age theological document written by people who didn't really have any actual idea of the order in which things formed. Not a divinely inspired tome of absolute truth.

And there's no lava, no ice, no Great Bombardment, no coalescing dust around early star, no proto-star, no first and second star, no proto-galaxy, no Big Bang. It's sufficient for its audience that this is what the broad sequence is if you were an observer standing on the earth - when you could stand on the earth (or at least, swim.)

It's sufficient if you don't actually care about the facts.

 

[PruePhillip]

Quote - 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Weird that the days pre-date the sun, but whatever.)

Again. You are the observer, not someone in outer space.
It's totally fine to say the sun goes around the earth so long
as you state you are the observer sitting upon the earth.

The story line told to the generations is this:
"It is cold, it is dark, and there is only water."

Well, its hot and bright and waterless outside the earth,
but that isn't where "you" are in this story. Your world is
dark, there is no sun to be seen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Quote - 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Weird that the days pre-date the sun, but whatever.)

Again. You are the observer, not someone in outer space.
It's totally fine to say the sun goes around the earth so long
as you state you are the observer sitting upon the earth.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

The story line told to the generations is this:
"It is cold, it is dark, and there is only water."

Well, its hot and bright and waterless outside the earth,
but that isn't where "you" are in this story. Your world is
dark, there is no sun to be seen.

Are you just going to ignore every actual point made in my post and write a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with it, or are you going to acknowledge what I've written and respond to it?

 

[PruePhillip]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.


Are you just going to ignore every actual point made in my post and write a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with it, or are you going to acknowledge what I've written and respond to it?

Yeah... bit at a time. I am working

 

[PruePhillip]

Quote - "2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(So we can assume that when the earth was created, God made water upon it and it was dark - despite the fact that the earliest stage of earth was a hot ball of molten magma and water didn't exist until around 1000 years after the earth first formed. WRONG.)

Actually, its about 99% right.
Was the earth molten at one stage? Yes
Was the earth a bunch of meteorites at one state? Yes
Was the earth a bunch of left over dust and debri from the solar system? Yes.
Was the earth just heavy elements from 1st generation stars? Yes
Was the earth just hydrogen from the Big Bang? Yes
Was the earth just plasma from the Big Bang? Yes
Was the earth just a primordial soup of hot elementary particles? Yes
Was the earth... oh forget it, we have run out of science... who knows, the
universe could be turtles all the way down for all we know, even in 2018.

So where do we begin?
I say to the Bronze Age question, where did this earth come from? And the
narration begins at a point you could understand without recourse to modern math
and science. Saying that it was 'wrong' to not include all elements is itself wrong.
It's enough that our earth, WHEN IT FORMED, was a water world, and a cloud world. We are already told God made the heavens and the earth. How he did this isn't detailed - though life is detailed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Quote - "2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(So we can assume that when the earth was created, God made water upon it and it was dark - despite the fact that the earliest stage of earth was a hot ball of molten magma and water didn't exist until around 1000 years after the earth first formed. WRONG.)

Actually, its about 99% right.
Was the earth molten at one stage? Yes
Was the earth a bunch of meteorites at one state? Yes
Was the earth a bunch of left over dust and debri from the solar system? Yes.
Was the earth just heavy elements from 1st generation stars? Yes
Was the earth just hydrogen from the Big Bang? Yes
Was the earth just plasma from the Big Bang? Yes
Was the earth just a primordial soup of hot elementary particles? Yes
Was the earth... oh forget it, we have run out of science... who knows, the
universe could be turtles all the way down for all we know, even in 2018.

So where do we begin?
I say to the Bronze Age question, where did this earth come from? And the
narration begins at a point you could understand without recourse to modern math
and science. Saying that it was 'wrong' to not include all elements is itself wrong.
It's enough that our earth, WHEN IT FORMED, was a water world, and a cloud world. We are already told God made the heavens and the earth. How he did this isn't detailed - though life is detailed.

All you've really said here confirms why your earlier statements about the Bible's accuracy are absurd. You're literally admitting that the people who wrote the Bible didn't know and were basically just guessing, and the lack of details in the claims made by the Bible mean we cannot say that they are meaningfully accurate to any degree.

You can try and come up with excuses for it all you want, but YOU are the one who claimed it was remarkably accurate, and now you're reeling back in and saying "Well, they got BITS right - if we interpret them favourably - and the rest is just the best guesses given by bronze-age people".

Guesses made by bronze-age people would be fine, except when it comes to claiming that this knowledge was somehow divinely inspired. There is nothing unlikely or miraculous about people writing down a creation story which gets almost the entire sequence of events wrong and doesn't go into basically any detail whatsoever.

That's my point.

 

[PruePhillip]

All you've really said here confirms why your earlier statements about the Bible's accuracy are absurd. You're literally admitting that the people who wrote the Bible didn't know and were basically just guessing, and the lack of details in the claims made by the Bible mean we cannot say that they are meaningfully accurate to any degree.

You can try and come up with excuses for it all you want, but YOU are the one who claimed it was remarkably accurate, and now you're reeling back in and saying "Well, they got BITS right - if we interpret them favourably - and the rest is just the best guesses given by bronze-age people".

Guesses made by bronze-age people would be fine, except when it comes to claiming that this knowledge was somehow divinely inspired. There is nothing unlikely or miraculous about people writing down a creation story which gets almost the entire sequence of events wrong and doesn't go into basically any detail whatsoever.

That's my point.

Yes, the bible tells us how life developed. It doesn't tell us how the earth and heavens developed - only to say that God made them.
How is the sequence wrong?
What is the probability that the ancient Jews fluked it? You would have to do the math, ie fifty ways ancient cultures conjured up the creation of the rocks and soil.
One of which is the Jewish one - continents merging from the oceans.
ONE IN FIFTY, say.
Then how many ways can life form? Say there's fifty different "creation myths" and the Jews say it came from the earth, of itself, spread first in water and then on land. Another ONE IN FIFTY.
That's now 50x50 and we are still counting.
I am sure there's more than 50 "creation myths" about each part of the process. The odds start to become astronomical.
Clever Jews/Hebrews whatever.
Other points later. I am working.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, the bible tells us how life developed. It doesn't tell us how the earth and heavens developed - only to say that God made them.
How is the sequence wrong?

Again, birds pre-dating life on land, plants pre-dating micro-organisms and the sun.

What is the probability that the ancient Jews fluked it? You would have to do the math, ie fifty ways ancient cultures conjured up the creation of the rocks and soil.

Once again, there is no "fluke" involved in coming up with an order of events and getting it repeatedly wrong in multiple areas.

One of which is the Jewish one - continents merging from the oceans.
ONE IN FIFTY, say.

How did you work out that probability? It doesn't take a genius to see that islands form out of rocks emerging from the ocean.

Then how many ways can life form? Say there's fifty different "creation myths" and the Jews say it came from the earth, of itself, spread first in water and then on land. Another ONE IN FIFTY.

Once again, you're throwing meaningless numbers around and ascribing accuracy to something that ISN'T ACCURATE. The Bible doesn't say that life "came from the earth" simply that life was "created".

That's now 50x50 and we are still counting.
I am sure there's more than 50 "creation myths" about each part of the process. The odds start to become astronomical.
Clever Jews/Hebrews whatever.
Other points later. I am working.

You're talking nonsense. Nothing in the Genesis account is remotely accurate, and you're still utterly failing to account for the failures. If, thousands of years ago, I wrote on a piece of paper:

"First, life was really small, then came otters and chickens, then dinosaurs with hats, then birds who. at first, rode on those hats, then everything was made of jelly for a while, and now everything is roughly the size that it is."

Would you look at this and say "Wow - it got it right by saying that life was really small at first, and that now all life is roughly the size that it is!", while ignoring all of the ridiculous inaccuracies in my claim? Because that's exactly what you're doing right now.

 

[PruePhillip]

Again, birds pre-dating life on land, plants pre-dating micro-organisms and the sun.

And the Boer War predating the Moon landing as I mentioned earlier.
How can it be that I proved this? Maybe I was using semantics.

How did you work out that probability? It doesn't take a genius to see that islands form out of rocks emerging from the ocean.

[9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
[10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

“Dry land” meant the granite blocks which rose above the submerged basalt crust. The continents required the existence of oceanic water to initiate the motion of plate tectonics (continental drift) and this in turn created the granite necessary for the lighter continents.


Growing up I was skeptical about Genesis. We knew nothing about the early earth.
1 - it says God created life whereas science says the earth created life.
2 - Genesis has an ocean whereas science says it was bone dry
3 - Genesis has land rising from the sea whereas science saw it always rocky
4 - Genesis has a darkened earth whereas science saw it as clear as today.

That is marvelous in our eyes, no? No genius can conjure up rocks rising out of the water. What ridicule the bible was held to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And the Boer War predating the Moon landing as I mentioned earlier.
How can it be that I proved this? Maybe I was using semantics.

What are you talking about? The Bible specifies a SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. It isn't just non-sequentially MENTIONING events. Even you admit that what is depicted in Genesis is a sequence of events in every post you make.

If Genesis is talking about events out of sequence, then it's essentially meaningless and you can interpret it however you want.

[9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
[10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

“Dry land” meant the granite blocks which rose above the submerged basalt crust. The continents required the existence of oceanic water to initiate the motion of plate tectonics (continental drift) and this in turn created the granite necessary for the lighter continents.

Baseless conjecture.

Growing up I was skeptical about Genesis. We new nothing about the early earth.
1 - it says God created life whereas science says the earth created life.

So you admit that the Bible is wrong in this count, then?

2 - Genesis has an ocean whereas science says it was bone dry

No, science says the earliest oceans formed 1000 million years after the earth initially formed.

3 - Genesis has land rising from the sea whereas science saw it always rocky

The earth WAS always rocky, and the continents didn't first form "rising from the sea", they were formed by the earth cooling and settling.

4 - Genesis has a darkened earth whereas science saw it as clear as today.

Where has science said that the earth was always as clear as it is today?

That is marvelous in our eyes, no? No genius can conjure up rocks rising out of the water.

Any idiot can see rocks rising out of the water.

 

[viole]

It's interesting.
There's this thing called positive energy and negative energy.
Gravity is a form of negative energy. When it's all added up it equals a big fat
zero.
So one could say there's "nothing" out there at all. But even here the formation
of energy had to come from somewhere. Only in miracles do things pop out of
nothing.

As I said, using “coming from” falsify the question to start with.

But lets suppose it makes sense. And that time is Newtonian and correspond to our (wrong) intuitions.

It could be that there was no first event. Maybe the Big Bang was predates by something elese, ad infinitum.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PruePhillip]

As I said, using “coming from” falsify the question to start with.

But lets suppose it makes sense. And that time is Newtonian and correspond to our (wrong) intuitions.

It could be that there was no first event. Maybe the Big Bang was predates by something elese, ad infinitum.

Ciao

- viole

Some might "carve idols out of fear and call it God" but my reading of the Gospels suggests nothing of the sort.
Stating the universe "had no beginning" is neither science or non-science - we just don't know. But my gut feeling is that it's avoiding the question. Certainly it doesn't answer the question 'Why something instead of nothing?'

As I see it (and I have a science background) it's like this: once the universe got going we are able to make amazing predictions and learn wonderful insights into it all. But as to how and why it came to being we cannot ever know.

 

[PruePhillip]

What are you talking about? The Bible specifies a SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. It isn't just non-sequentially MENTIONING events. Even you admit that what is depicted in Genesis is a sequence of events in every post you make.

If Genesis is talking about events out of sequence, then it's essentially meaningless and you can interpret it however you want.


Baseless conjecture.


So you admit that the Bible is wrong in this count, then?


No, science says the earliest oceans formed 1000 million years after the earth initially formed.


The earth WAS always rocky, and the continents didn't first form "rising from the sea", they were formed by the earth cooling and settling.


Where has science said that the earth was always as clear as it is today?


Any idiot can see rocks rising out of the water.

The earth has "always" been rocky, but technically it was once an ocean planet.
Rocks didn't appear above the water like waves splashing against the shore - there was no shore. The continents appeared above the waterline through the formation of continental granite. Floating, if you will, upon the denser basalt.

Genesis 1:1 is a completely accurate description of how the earth would have appeared to some time-traveling mariner after the formation of the planet.

 

[ChristineM]

The earth has "always" been rocky, but technically it was once an ocean planet.
Rocks didn't appear above the water like waves splashing against the shore - there was no shore. The continents appeared above the waterline through the formation of continental granite. Floating, if you will, upon the denser basalt.

Genesis 1:1 is a completely accurate description of how the earth would have appeared to some time-traveling mariner after the formation of the planet.

The last time earth was covered in liquid was when it was molten rock.

There has never been a time when it was an ocean planet.

Arguably there is more water on earth now than ever before, carried here on meteorites.

Here is how much water there is on earth now.