Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Subduction Zone]

This is not a factual reply but just an emotional one. In fact I was talking of yours and of the confusion of modern scientific circles in general.

If you like to read about unsolved matter i modern cosmology and all its contradictions, just read here. If this isn´t enough just look for and notice the huge amount of articles in where cosmological scientists are contradicted and therefore "surprised".

This method is called "critical research". You should try this for a change.

Edit: I also recommend you to read this article of Physical Paradoxes. This should make you more humble in your critique af critical thinkers.

You really should not make such obviously false claims about others. I am sorry, but with an eight grade level of science literacy you are unable to do any "critical research" . All you can do is to make your ignorance even more obvious. A so called paradox, the twins paradox in the article you linked but did not understand for example, is not a contradiction.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So just don´t read it as it obviously is far beyond your restrictive realm of understanding.

I read it. You pulled some inane claims out of your *** and pretended that you had made a point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So just don´t read it as it obviously is far beyond your restrictive realm of understanding.

Telling lies about others is a sin in almost any religion.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To your record, my entire approach here is based on the scientific mistakes and bad theories. And I don´t give anything for any educational grades as long as they misses a teaching of critical sense and logical thinking.

you cannot even find a scientific mistake. All you can demonstrate is ignorance about science on your part.

 

[Native]

You really should not make such obviously false claims about others. I am sorry, but with an eight grade level of science literacy you are unable to do any "critical research" . All you can do is to make your ignorance even more obvious. A so called paradox, the twins paradox in the article you linked but did not understand for example, is not a contradiction.
Try again.

-------------
I don´t think you are entitled to speak of ignorance as long as you ignore the overall meaning of these linked articles.

Sorry, I can´t take you serious at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

-------------
I don´t think you are intetled to speak of ignorance as long as you ignore the overall meaning of these linked articles.

Sorry, I can´t take you serious at all.

Massive projection fail.

you have still not been able to come up with one contradiction.

 

[Native]

Massive projection fail.

you have still not been able to come up with one contradiction.

It is of course impossible to convince persons who are in the state of total denial when represented for critical linked informations.

 

[Deeje]

If you mean to re-define day, why not open the whole story to such re-definitions? Why use it as a basis of understanding at all?

Its not redefining a "day" but giving the Hebrew word its full meaning. "Yohm" does not only mean a 24 hour day as my post stated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is of course impossible to convince persons who are in the state of total denial when represented for critical linked informations.

You are only describing yourself again.

Your beliefs are worthless and your only reason for rejecting reality is because it is too difficult for you.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the "refuted" correction Sometimes I forget to use google translation.

You don´t need Newtons ideas in order to launch a spacecraft. (Lots of people thinks that mans walk on the Moon was/is pure PhotoShopping,) Never mind, but I believe that spacecrafts have been there.

The motion of the planets was known long before Newton was a blink in his parents eyes. So was the geometric calculations and even the calculations of sending something up in the air. What Newton did was just to set calculations on some empirical known motions, and he never explained the factual force of his gravity.

People had *very inaccurate* descriptions of how the planets appear to move in the sky. They had very little understanding of the specifics of those motions. Even after Kepler, who got things on the right track, there wasn't even close to enough accuracy to send anything to, say, Mars (even if we had the technology then). It took Newton's insights into gravity to be able to get the accuracy required to get a probe to Mars *after* it is into space: how much thrust is required to get from the Earth's orbit to that of Mars, how can you guarantee the timing, etc.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong that we had this understanding in the detail required before Newton.

This was all just assumptions and if you cannot explain "what gravity is dynamically and causally" you don´t understand it yourself. Which is why you also cannot refute alternative ideas automatically.

Well, in Newton's view, gravity was a type of action at a distance. He wasn't as concerned about the particulars as in getting a description of how it works. And he did an incredible job of that. It took Einstein to explain the dynamics and the more local causal aspects of gravity (which he understood as curved spacetime).

 

[Polymath257]

Its not redefining a "day" but giving the Hebrew word its full meaning. "Yohm" does not only mean a 24 hour day as my post stated.

So what do 'evening' and 'morning' mean in that context?

 

[Native]

Sorry, but you are simply wrong that we had this understanding in the detail required before Newton

No written details, no. But I know for a fact that ancient cultures had very precise marking of the motion of the Sun, the Moon and planet Venus and even for some Star Constellations.

You cannot get more precise knowledge of this when marking the specifics with a pole or a stone from the center of observation over several years. This precise marking system is also known from ancient buildings of temples and pyramids etc. Such observations was of course made long before the invention of written language.

Well, in Newton's view, gravity was a type of action at a distance. He wasn't as concerned about the particulars as in getting a description of how it works.

I believe that. And this lack of causal interests and logical explanations of his ideas, later on caused Einstein to dump the Newtonian gravity and work with his strange idea of "curved space time in the expansion of the Universe in an otherwise assumed linear time scale" and the "very scientific rubber sheet illustration of gravity". (Dear oh dear).

IMHO all the rotational and orbital motions in our Solar System derives from the rotation and formation in our galactic center. Gravity in celestial motions is an illusion and this is proven by direct observation of the galactic rotation anomaly where all stars a slung centrifugally out from the galactic center. This expanding motion is STILL going on as observed with increasing planetary distances from the Sun and an increasing distance from the Earth to the Moon. Nothing is drawing on another at all.

On Earth "gravity" is just a mix of atoms which are electromagnetically connected and assembled into forms. The problems of getting tin-cans into space is primarily because of the weight in the atmospheric pressure combined with the weight of the tin-cans themselves. It is the atmospheric pressure which hold us on the Earth - until we can escape the pressure by going outside the Earth atmosphere.

Of course I don´t expect you to accept this "unscientific nonsens". Nevertheless, I recommend you to save a copy of this explanation. Some day it will become common and obvious knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

On Earth "gravity" is just a mix of atoms which are electromagnetically connected and assembled into forms. The problems of getting tin-cans into space is primarily because of the weight in the atmospheric pressure combined with the weight of the tin-cans themselves. It is the atmospheric pressure which hold us on the Earth - until we can escape the pressure by going outside the Earth Atmosphere.

Of course I don´t expect you to accept this "unscientific nonsens". Nevertheless, I recommend you to save a copy of this explanation. Some day it will become common and obvious knowledge.

I'm sure I can find an appropriate file for it.

Just for your edification: Crackpot index

 

[gnostic]

You're saying thousands, millions and billions of years. I did not say that. I said I do not know how long these days were.

But, how can they be solar days; when the sun is not even created until day 4? (Genesis 1:14-19) Logically we must deduce that at the very least; the first 3 days are not solar days and they all have evenings and mornings.

Are you trying to define an ancient text written in an ancient language by a modern English dictionary?

I am well aware that Genesis 1 have contradictions, stating day and morning exist before the Sun was created.

I am stating solar day as in cycle of daylight and night, or as the Genesis 1 say “one day” is “a period of evening and morning”.

That's not the issue.

The issue is that Genesis 1 do define “day” as cycle “of evening and morning”. And morning is very specific.

The problem with creation myths, of any sort, is that there will always be contradictions, always some inconsistencies, always some flaws.

The ancient people around that time didn't understand that for there to be morning, noon, afternoon, daylight, and day time, and evening and night, the Earth rotate, so we get alternating day and night, depending on which surface is facing the Sun. At the same time the Earth is rotating, it is orbiting around the Sun, just like all other planets, hence the heliocentric planetary motion.

They thought the Sun moved (geocentric motion), just like the moon and planets, while the Earth remain stationary, the Bible believe in the same thing.

No one figured out the heliocentric model, until 3rd century BCE Greek astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos, but the geocentric model was popular, even to the Jews and Christians.

The heliocentric model didn't get much attention until Nicolaus Copernicus proved mathematically, and Galileo and Kepler provided the earliest observational evidences with the aids of the telescopes.

The Hebrew and Christian authors weren't scientists or astronomers, so there were lot about nature they didn't understand.

It is very clear that who ever wrote didn’t understand the Earth’s rotations were and are responsible for day and night, and they didn’t understand that daylight come from the sun.

 

[sealchan]

Deeje said
↑
The Genesis account does not state the timeframe between the creation of the "heavens and the earth" and the events that prepared the earth for habitation.

Genesis 1:1....."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
This is a singular statement.....a time when God created matter...the physical universe with all that it contains.

Then in verse 2 it speaks about the state of the planet before God began to work on it.....

"2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."

The creative 'days' were not 24 hour periods, but could have been epochs of perhaps millions of years, wherein God accomplished by increments, all the creative processes he had planned.
--------------------------

Genesis 1 and 2 is misunderstood.

The time frame isn´t "days" but "stages of creation".

In Genesis 1 earth is confused for "soil" as in "the first firm formed matter". Earth was not even created in this stage.
Genesis 2 speaks of the real Earth and the Solar system.

This is known as the problem of "the two times creation of Earth" because the story of creation isn´t taken cosmologically seriously by scholars and scientists.



Some definitions really needs re-definitions, yes, But the general story doesn´t need this if interpreted into modern terms. The entire story of creation deals with the ancient known part of the observable Universe. That is: Our Solar System and the Milky Way in which our Solar System is an integrated part of the orbital motion and formation.

If just taking "god" as a scientific force of creation, this is taking place in a center where light is made by the assembling of clouds of gas and dust, mentioned in ancient myths as "primordial rivers in the Sky". When these "rivers" come together, gas and dust are heated up and this creates the prime light in the formation center. It is in this stage of the formation/creation where the first firm soil is made, also mentioned as "mud" in several cultural stories of creation.

The light (electromagnetic force) assembles and sort out gas and dust in the center into a primary large hot glowing sphere from where planets and their moon were created (out from their mother planets) via the centrifugal force when all objects still were gloving hot. In my conviction, this center of the creation was/is the Milky Way center, believe it or not.

Note: Contrary to the modern cosmological science, the ancient cultures didn´t speak of a creation of the entire Universe, just the local part of it. Ancient cultures didn´t have a linear time line perception of the creation, byt a cyclical one where everything eternally changes between formation, dissolution and re-formation. No Big Bangs here at all, but rather a "Steady State Universe".

I think you are getting caught in the not-so-modern attempt to take two stories literally and make them speak to the same truth.

The approach I recommend is to first understand the author as a human being with limitations of knowledge due to his or her time and culture. The second is to consider that in creating this story of the beginning what source material did they have to work with as a starting point? The third is to understand how the story is shaped by virtue of the techniques and motifs the author(s) used in the work to create a mirroring effect in which one story is seen in the light of other neighboring or more distant stories in the narrative (in this case the book of Genesis and beyond).

I put the use of the idea of days, morning and evening into a context as follows...

The author of Genesis 1 considered God's work of creation as a model for the work that his people traditionally do on a weekly basis. There was one day of rest for six days of effort. Putting the creation of the Universe into a week's work context gives the audience a clear sense of the difference between God and themselves. God is indeed great to do so much in so little time!

Now anyone who has thought rationally and seriously about explaining the beginning of things knows that there is a fundamental difficulty in doing so when it comes to the concept of time. This difficulty of explaining a reality before time is probably one that either encourages or discourages strongly such thinking about things. It is, indeed, a timeless mystery. ;-)

How does the author of the creation story deal with this paradox? Does he or she deal with the paradox or just ride rough-shod over it?

As the creation of the Universe/World is described in terms which only a culture who didn't really understand that the Earth isn't anywhere near the center of the Universe (well, maybe it actually is but not the way that anyone in that time would have understood) would understand, we can assume that the Universe and the World are the same. The Universe in our terms maps to the Heavens and the Earth in terms of this author's story.

Now the action takes place in six days with a seventh day of rest...just like the tradition week of the audience no doubt. The morning and the evening emphasize this in a repeated, poetic and even ritualistic sense. However we find that on fourth day that not only the stars (indicating this act of creation is Universal not local) but the sun and moon as two other great lights are formed (again showing a lack of perspective that modern science now affords us). Uh, what? How can the first through third days have happened without the sun and moon?

This is the question and the point at which the whole story, especially from a modern point of view, becomes really problematic. But I have to think that even the poet and his or her audience might have picked up on this...

I see three simple possibilities...

• the paradox is unavoidable...so don't worry be happy...just go with the story like we accept faster than light travel in Star Trek
• there is an implicit understanding that time is distinct from the movement of the stars and planets and this underscores this understanding without explaining it
• It is not meant to be any kind of literal statement at all, just accept the poetry and the meaning that God is great and we are to follow His example

These to me seem to honor the original scope and intent of the story.

Now...if you want to go and revise the story as you are effectively doing above...that is another matter which I have given some thought and effort...I will try again to find my notes on this and share.

 

[sealchan]

For my own take on how we should creatively augment the old and outdated young earth story I have created the new thread

Updating the Genesis Creation Story

 

[Deeje]

So what do 'evening' and 'morning' mean in that context?

It simply means that there was a beginning to these creative periods and an end. Much like we would say "the dawn of a new era"...or even "the end of an era".

 

[Native]

I'm sure I can find an appropriate file for it.

Just for your edification: Crackpot index

I don´t think this reply is appropriate for a Staff Member and Moderator.

 

[Native]

The author of Genesis 1 considered God's work of creation as a model for the work that his people traditionally do on a weekly basis. There was one day of rest for six days of effort. Putting the creation of the Universe into a week's work context gives the audience a clear sense of the difference between God and themselves. God is indeed great to do so much in so little time!

I agree that our ancestors did use symbolic images known from everydays life in order to describe the divine creation. My approach to Genesis is both mythical and cosmological. I take "gods and goddesses" as "powers of creation" in a non personal interpretation.

Now anyone who has thought rationally and seriously about explaining the beginning of things knows that there is a fundamental difficulty in doing so when it comes to the concept of time. This difficulty of explaining a reality before time is probably one that either encourages or discourages strongly such thinking about things. It is, indeed, a timeless mystery. ;-)

The "concept of time" in Genesis is IMO not that difficult. Ancient culture had no linear concept of time as modern humans. Everything was cyclical and eternal. Subsequently "6 days and nights" in Genesis should be interpreted as "stages of creation". Regarding a "time before creation" should also be "a stage before any firm matter and form was made". (The Genesis telling of earth as in soil and mud)

As the creation of the Universe/World is described in terms which only a culture who didn't really understand that the Earth isn't anywhere near the center of the Universe (well, maybe it actually is but not the way that anyone in that time would have understood) would understand, we can assume that the Universe and the World are the same. The Universe in our terms maps to the Heavens and the Earth in terms of this author's story.

This rises the question of how much could our ancestors observe and describe in their myths of creation? Is it very likely that our ancestors would describe their world picture as the modern description of the Universe with several galaxies and super clusters of galaxies etc. etc.? I don´t think so - and IF they could/did, they probably would describe these extra galaxies as "floating Islands in the Sky".

IMO our ancestors didn´t speak of a creation of the entire Universe (which center, even modern science doesn´t knows) but at the largest a genesis of our own Milky Way galaxy, the stars, star constellations and the Solar System. The ancient "world" was IMO the Milky Way and everything in it and their prime center of creation was/is the center in the Milky Way.

This is the question and the point at which the whole story, especially from a modern point of view, becomes really problematic. But I have to think that even the poet and his or her audience might have picked up on this...

I see three simple possibilities...

• the paradox is unavoidable...so don't worry be happy...just go with the story like we accept faster than light travel in Star Trek
• there is an implicit understanding that time is distinct from the movement of the stars and planets and this underscores this understanding without explaining it
• It is not meant to be any kind of literal statement at all, just accept the poetry and the meaning that God is great and we are to follow His example

These to me seem to honor the original scope and intent of the story.

I´m sure our ancestors "might have picked up on this.. ." and maybe the biggest task for modern humans is to re-learn the language of symbolism and natural descriptions of the creation.

To me, it is problematic if people just take Genesis as a poetic telling. Then we´ll never get a common understanding. It is even kind of problematic if people just take it as an allegoric telling. Then we´ll never get the point in this story.

We have to connect Genesis and all of the rest of the numerous cultural Stories of Creation as cosmological facts in order to get a common creation story of everything. Genesis and all the other creation stories from all over the world shall be taken seriously, but of course not always literary.

 

[sealchan]

We have to connect Genesis and all of the rest of the numerous cultural Stories of Creation as cosmological facts in order to get a common creation story of everything. Genesis and all the other creation stories from all over the world shall be taken seriously, but of course not always literary.

Why do they all need to seen as factual? This strikes me as an outrageous requirement in terms of coming to a final story.

Is there some effort out there to create a single Universal creation myth based on science? Is this project working with Brian Swimme perchance?
Brian Thomas Swimme