Evidences given for a young-earth

[PruePhillip]

But that does not say that the Earth was "formless" or that there was a darkness over the surface of the deep. There is no match. At best since there was no macroscopic life you could claim "empty".

The image of the earth under orange cloud is not quite accurate IMO.
The sun was dimmer at that point and enormous submarine volcanos
were belching vast plumes into the atmosphere. The orange haze is
more typical of Titan. Also there was a lot of debris in the inner solar
system.

 

[PruePhillip]

And I have given specifics, and I gave you a number of specifics of where 1:2 went wrong with, when it compared to know what we know of the Earth, in its early infancy.

Genesis say the earth started being covered in water and with wind blowing. Wrong on both counts.

In science, the earth started with surface being in molten state, because as it moved along the path on protoplanetary disk, it was frequently hit by asteroids.

Water didn’t form until the number of impacts were reduced, allowing the crust formed (dry land), hence igneous rocks, and volcanic activities release gases that form the atmosphere, which in term to cause condensation.

Condensation then cause rain, filling parts of the crust.

I am giving you specifics of when land formed, specifics of when atmosphere formed, and specifics of when water formed.

Are you now saying I am not specific enough?

If yes, then you are moving the bloody goalposts.



No, the Genesis isn’t scientific. And from the very first on Genesis 1, to the last verses, the order of creation (or the sequence of events), clearly don’t match with science.

What you are saying about Genesis being “scientifically valid”, is nothing more than typical creationist’s BS.

Gnostic. We are given SNAPSHOTS of the early earth.
Remember - the EARTH IS ALREADY CREATED IN VERSE 1, AFTER THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED.
Yes, there was a molten state, but you are forgetting the meteoric state and the snowball earth state too?
That's not the point - there could be many states we don't know about - but the F.A.C.T. is, there was, for
a long period of time, a purely ocean and cloud state. And the orange haze of early earth would have been
much darker due to massive submarine volcanism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

View attachment 35286

Is this your best argument in support of your assertions? Smear others.

You have assumptions, speculation, belief, some facts that you fail to connect, and unsupported smears of those that challenge your assertions. None of that indicates validity for your assertions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The image of the earth under orange cloud is not quite accurate IMO.
The sun was dimmer at that point and enormous submarine volcanos
were belching vast plumes into the atmosphere. The orange haze is
more typical of Titan. Also there was a lot of debris in the inner solar
system.

You used to claim knowledge you couldn't possess and elevate your speculation to fact. I see you still are doing that.

 

[PruePhillip]

Is this your best argument in support of your assertions? Smear others.

You have assumptions, speculation, belief, some facts that you fail to connect, and unsupported smears of those that challenge your assertions. None of that indicates validity for your assertions.

Okay, please inform the artists and those who commissioned them
to show the reason for creating these pictures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The image of the earth under orange cloud is not quite accurate IMO.
The sun was dimmer at that point and enormous submarine volcanos
were belching vast plumes into the atmosphere. The orange haze is
more typical of Titan. Also there was a lot of debris in the inner solar
system.

Clouds probably existed, but no sunlight is a huge claim that you need to justify. Until then all you have is a series of round holes and square pegs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay, please inform the artists and those who commissioned them
to show the reason for creating these pictures.

So your best evidence is the interpretation of an interpretation. Got it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gnostic. We are given SNAPSHOTS of the early earth.
Remember - the EARTH IS ALREADY CREATED IN VERSE 1, AFTER THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED.
Yes, there was a molten state, but you are forgetting the meteoric state and the snowball earth state too?
That's not the point - there could be many states we don't know about - but the F.A.C.T. is, there was, for
a long period of time, a purely ocean and cloud state. And the orange haze of early earth would have been
much darker due to massive submarine volcanism.

None of your sources claim either "a purely ocean" or "cloud state".

An orange sky is not an orange haze. You are conflating what it takes to make the sky that color today with the sky in the past. You do not seem to understand the sources that you use.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Clouds probably existed, but no sunlight is a huge claim that you need to justify. Until then all you have is a series of round holes and square pegs.

Another creationist that recognizes the superiority of scientific explanations, but cannot bear to accept them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

None of your sources claim either "a purely ocean" or "cloud state".

An orange sky is not an orange haze. You are conflating what it takes to make the sky that color today with the sky in the past. You do not seem to understand the sources that you use.

But, but, but...Titan is a moon of Saturn. Therefore Genesis is correct.

 

[PruePhillip]

None of your sources claim either "a purely ocean" or "cloud state".

An orange sky is not an orange haze. You are conflating what it takes to make the sky that color today with the sky in the past. You do not seem to understand the sources that you use.

Good points. The orange haze/sky is probably taken from the "earth precursor" Titan's sky.
But Titan is not volcanic. Early earth was super volcanic - lofting trillions of tons of carbon
dioxide, sulphur, water, misc aresols and ash into the atmosphere.
There could have been some land, maybe like volcanic Hawaii today. But in general, at
this oceanic stage there were no continents.

 

[PruePhillip]

But, but, but...Titan is a moon of Saturn. Therefore Genesis is correct.

Titan gives an example of what early, rocky planets were like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good points. The orange haze/sky is probably taken from the "earth precursor" Titan's sky.
But Titan is not volcanic. Early earth was super volcanic - lofting trillions of tons of carbon
dioxide, sulphur, water, misc aresols and ash into the atmosphere.
There could have been some land, maybe like volcanic Hawaii today. But in general, at
this oceanic stage there were no continents.

No, Titan is a bad comparison. Much much further from the Sun. You are grasping at straws at this point.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, Titan is a bad comparison. Much much further from the Sun. You are grasping at straws at this point.

Yeah, okay, tell NASA.
You could try early Venus
or try geological research
or computer simulations.

It all points to the same thing - dark oceans.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Titan gives an example of what early, rocky planets were like.

So what. It doesn't make Genesis a true story.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, Titan is a bad comparison. Much much further from the Sun. You are grasping at straws at this point.

Grasping at straws makes up most of the support for the assertions about connections between science and Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, okay, tell NASA.
You could try early Venus
or try geological research
or computer simulations.

It all points to the same thing - dark oceans.

Venus again is a completely different situation. Too close to the Sun an lost all of its water a long time ago. Early Venus is relatively unknown. You need to work with the Earth and forget appealing to Planets that are either too close or too far away to be a fit comparison.

 

[PruePhillip]

Venus again is a completely different situation. Too close to the Sun an lost all of its water a long time ago. Early Venus is relatively unknown. You need to work with the Earth and forget appealing to Planets that are either too close or too far away to be a fit comparison.

That word "subduction" can apply to Venus too. I recall some paper
pointing out there is evidence that early Venus had a form of crustal
plates - these froze into position when the oceans evaporated. You
need water for subduction - this is why continents only appeared on
earth after the oceans were established.
Finding an exact analogy is never the point. Physicists are often
bedeviled by people wanting precise analogies for things like the
Big Bang, space-time curvature or quantum theory. If it's a precise
analogy I suppose it would be the real thing!

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic. We are given SNAPSHOTS of the early earth.
Remember - the EARTH IS ALREADY CREATED IN VERSE 1, AFTER THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED.
Yes, there was a molten state, but you are forgetting the meteoric state and the snowball earth state too?
That's not the point - there could be many states we don't know about - but the F.A.C.T. is, there was, for
a long period of time, a purely ocean and cloud state. And the orange haze of early earth would have been
much darker due to massive submarine volcanism.

No, PruePhillip.

You are not providing any fact at all.

You are trying to piece together what the Bible (Genesis) says and what science say about the early earth, is nothing more than your personal interpretations. And that Phillip, (your interpretations) are merely your opinions, not facts, not science.

Like both @Dan From Smithville and @Subduction Zone said, trying to force your interpretations to make Genesis creation and science, is like trying to square blocks into circle holes.

Do you think, you are the only creationist who resorted to tactics?

I gave you reply that are very specifics and and these specifics disagree with your interpretations.

But it isn’t just interpretations of science that are wrong. You are also wrong about the way you interpret Genesis verses, like 1:1 for instance:

Remember - the EARTH IS ALREADY CREATED IN VERSE 1, AFTER THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED.

For one, it doesn’t say “UNIVERSE”, but I get will talk more later about universe later.

Genesis is just one sentence verse, saying God created both "heavens and earth", so at the same time.

Not "universe" first, then "earth".

Already you are trying to twist the context of Genesis' 1st verse.

hā·’ā·reṣ. wə·’êṯ haš·šā·ma·yim ’êṯ ’ĕ·lō·hîm bā·rā bə·rê·šîṯ

the earth and the heavens God created in the beginning

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth...

When God began to create heaven and earth...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(Source: Abegg Jr., Martin G.; Peter Flint; Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Bible Hub Genesis 1 Interlinear Bible biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm)

I have even included both Hebrew transliteration and English translation from the Bible Hub, Interlinear Bible.

Now I don't read Hebrew, but judging by each English translations, it doesn't say God created "heaven" or "heavens", and then the "Earth".

So you are deliberately misinterpreting this verse.

Now back to YOUR usage that "heavens" mean "universe".

Well. You are wrong here too with your interpretations.

The word "heavens" or the singular "heaven", depending on which translations you are reading, are found elsewhere in Genesis 1, not just in the 1st verse - 1:1. Examples:

1:8 in the 2nd day, with creation of firmament, which is the sky or heaven(s).
1:9 in the 3rd day, with creation of the dry lands.
1:14, 15, 17 on the 4th day with creation of stars, sun and moon.
1:20 on the 5th day with creation of birds.​

Like I said before, I don't read Hebrew, and I also cannot read ancient Greek.

But in very instances, where words "heaven" or "heavens" being used in Genesis 1, it always connect the heaven with firmament and sky and that connection is to the Earth.

And the Earth's sky isn't the entire universe, only a very tiny portion that ancient people could see.

The word used for sky, heaven(s) used in Genesis 1, is šā·mā·yim (שָׁמָ֑יִם, “sky”, “heavens”), and sometimes used with the word haš (הַ) or "the", so haš·šā·ma·yim (הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם) means "the heaven" or "the heavens", or sky.

It is quite clear that sky and heaven(s) are used interchangeably with the Hebrew word šā·mā·yim.

And it is also very clear that šā·mā·yim include everything within the firmament (rā·qî·a‘, רָקִ֖יעַ) which is also translated as "dome" or "vault" or "the expanse".

(Note that the firmament or rā·qî·a‘, can be used with word "the" such as hā (הָ) or lā (לָ), eg so "the firmament" in Hebrew hā·rā·qî·a‘ (הָרָקִיעַ֒) or lā·rā·qî·a‘ (לָרָקִ֔יעַ).

Anyway, šā·mā·yim don't mean universe. The Hebrew words for universe are the following:

yekum (יְקוּם, “nature”; “universe”, “world”)​

tevél (תֵּבֵל, “world”, “universe”)​

So your interpreting 1:1 as heavens being the universe, is a matter of personal opinions, not fact.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, PruePhillip.

You are not providing any fact at all.

You are trying to piece together what the Bible (Genesis) says and what science say about the early earth, is nothing more than your personal interpretations. And that Phillip, (your interpretations) are merely your opinions, not facts, not science.

Like both @Dan From Smithville and @Subduction Zone said, trying to force your interpretations to make Genesis creation and science, is like trying to square blocks into circle holes.

Do you think, you are the only creationist who resorted to tactics?

I gave you reply that are very specifics and and these specifics disagree with your interpretations.

But it isn’t just interpretations of science that are wrong. You are also wrong about the way you interpret Genesis verses, like 1:1 for instance:


For one, it doesn’t say “UNIVERSE”, but I get will talk more later about universe later.

Genesis is just one sentence verse, saying God created both "heavens and earth", so at the same time.

Not "universe" first, then "earth".

Already you are trying to twist the context of Genesis' 1st verse.







(Source: Abegg Jr., Martin G.; Peter Flint; Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Bible Hub Genesis 1 Interlinear Bible biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm)

I have even included both Hebrew transliteration and English translation from the Bible Hub, Interlinear Bible.

Now I don't read Hebrew, but judging by each English translations, it doesn't say God created "heaven" or "heavens", and then the "Earth".

So you are deliberately misinterpreting this verse.

Now back to YOUR usage that "heavens" mean "universe".

Well. You are wrong here too with your interpretations.

The word "heavens" or the singular "heaven", depending on which translations you are reading, are found elsewhere in Genesis 1, not just in the 1st verse - 1:1. Examples:

1:8 in the 2nd day, with creation of firmament, which is the sky or heaven(s).
1:9 in the 3rd day, with creation of the dry lands.
1:14, 15, 17 on the 4th day with creation of stars, sun and moon.
1:20 on the 5th day with creation of birds.​

Like I said before, I don't read Hebrew, and I also cannot read ancient Greek.

But in very instances, where words "heaven" or "heavens" being used in Genesis 1, it always connect the heaven with firmament and sky and that connection is to the Earth.

And the Earth's sky isn't the entire universe, only a very tiny portion that ancient people could see.

The word used for sky, heaven(s) used in Genesis 1, is šā·mā·yim (שָׁמָ֑יִם, “sky”, “heavens”), and sometimes used with the word haš (הַ) or "the", so haš·šā·ma·yim (הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם) means "the heaven" or "the heavens", or sky.

It is quite clear that sky and heaven(s) are used interchangeably with the Hebrew word šā·mā·yim.

And it is also very clear that šā·mā·yim include everything within the firmament (rā·qî·a‘, רָקִ֖יעַ) which is also translated as "dome" or "vault" or "the expanse".

(Note that the firmament or rā·qî·a‘, can be used with word "the" such as hā (הָ) or lā (לָ), eg so "the firmament" in Hebrew hā·rā·qî·a‘ (הָרָקִיעַ֒) or lā·rā·qî·a‘ (לָרָקִ֔יעַ).

Anyway, šā·mā·yim don't mean universe. The Hebrew words for universe are the following:

yekum (יְקוּם, “nature”; “universe”, “world”)​

tevél (תֵּבֵל, “world”, “universe”)​

So your interpreting 1:1 as heavens being the universe, is a matter of personal opinions, not fact.

Good reply, excellent.
Yes, shysters use multiple interpretations of words, ie heaven, hell, virgin, law etc..
But we can't argue, ONE INTERPRETATION OF THE HEAVENS INCLUDES ALL
THE ASTRO BODIES ABOVE US. Skeptics might try one interpretation, believers
might employ another.
Yes it does repeat this heaven thing later, and like the seven days business, it's
irritating - but not a show stopper.
Show stoppers for me up until the 1980's included
1 - there was no early ocean, the earth was bone dry and hot
2 - life came from the sea first, not the land
3 - how could the earth be dark after the heavens were made?

This year, 2019, had resolved the last of these issues with the land life issue.