• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

On Evolution & Creation

icant

Member
Oh? I thought that you were a Christian and believed the myths of the Bible. You appeared to accuse others of being brainwashed. That is definitely a breaking of the Ninth Commandment and projection as well.
No, I don't claim to be a Christian. I do claim to be a child of God's. I do claim to be a born again child of God as I have been born again and washed in the blood of the Lamb that was sacrificed at Calvary in my place.

There is no difference in the two of us. Other than the blood of Christ paid my sin debt, and I don't have to pay it.
I am just a wretched old human being that is no better than any other human being. Do I deserve God's Mercy and Grace? No!!! Do I have His Mercy and Grace? !!!He died for my sins!!!

Maybe I should use Isaiah's words in Isaiah 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Enjoy,
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
There has to be a better reason for calling it a "hypothesis"

No, as it is an "educated guess" but is only one option.

It came from the imagination of someone whatever his/her title may be.

Absolutely false, as the article I linked you to gave some of the evidence.

The impression I have is that you didn't read it, so why should any of waste our time with you?

The Big Bang is based on an assumption as there is not a scientist that will tell you that something existed at T=0. That would be like admitting God existed. The will tell you "we dnon't know yet".

Again, that is being dishonest per the information being shared.

The BB neither proves nor disproves divine creation but it seems some have brainwashed you into believing it does. I left the church I grew up in in large part of such dishonesty from the pulpit.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
When did oceans begin to exist?
About 4 billion years ago. However, the present ocean basins are much younger, only hundreds of millions of years old.
Was it before or after all the material that decomposed and formed the trillions of barrels of oil that is up to five miles below the ocean floor? There is a lot of rock on top of that oil.
Long before. So far as I understand it, oil is found in accumulations of sedimentary rocks that were originally deposited in continental shelf seas, not on the floors of the ocean basins. These oil-bearing sedimentary rocks are hundreds of millions of years old.

The present-day oceanic crust consists largely of volcanic and intrusive igneous rocks that were erupted from the Earth's mantle in the last few hundred million years. It was not formed by accretion from space, it is covered by only a relatively thin veneer of sedimentary rocks, and it does not contain oil.

If I am wrong about this, I hope that geologists on the forum will correct me.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
Yes it is under a lot of water thousands of feet of water but then you got up to 5 miles of rock on top of the ocean floor. You do not have time enough for all that accretion to take place.

At the rate of accretion today it would take between 57 and 114 billion years to add the material that covers the oil under the top of top of the earth. That does not even consider the construction of the rest of earth, or the time for the accumulation of the material for the oil

The math says there is not enough time in 13.8 billion years.

Enjoy,
The thick accumulations of sedimentary rocks on the continental shelves were eroded from the continents. The igneous rocks that make up most of the present-day oceanic crust were erupted from the Earth's mantle. All of these rocks were formed billions of years after the Earth had ceased to accrete significant amounts of material from space.
 

icant

Member
your assumption without evidence that it is eternal and that a god exists.
I don't just assume the universe has existed eternally in the past and will melt with fervent heat in the future and be re-created.
That is the only logical conclusion anyone can come too. As energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed.
Now any entity that can create this universe, cause it to melt with fervent heat and create it again out of that fiery soup would fit my definition of God.

Now, if you can figure out a way to create energy and mass I will have to reconsider my position.

So, I don't care what existed at T=0 If that entity supplied all the energy and mass that exists in this universe it would be God.

So, I will accept as fact He created the Heavens and the earth as He tells me in a note He left for me to read and study.

Enjoy,
 

Astrophile

Active Member
Here is something you may find to be of interest about the earth's accretion:
"The first and most widely accepted theory is the core accretion model, which works well to explain the formation of terrestrial planets like Earth but doesn't fully account for giant planets. The second theory, called the disk instability method, may account for the creation of larger planets. These two leading theories are joined by the pebble accretion theory which helps to additionally explain how different objects might form." The explanations at the website (space.com) also state in reference to the earth's origin:
Earth's origins remain a conundrum." And a subject of great debate.
Modern terrestrial rocks were formed, either from molten magma or from erosion or metamorphism of older rocks, hundreds or thousands of millions of years after the Earth's accretion. How the Earth and the other planets were formed is irrelevant to the formation of the present-day rocks of the Earth's crust.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, I don't claim to be a Christian. I do claim to be a child of God's. I do claim to be a born again child of God as I have been born again and washed in the blood of the Lamb that was sacrificed at Calvary in my place.

Then like it or not you are a Christian and if you read and understood the Bible there is a Ninth Commandment that you are supposed to follow.
There is no difference in the two of us. Other than the blood of Christ paid my sin debt, and I don't have to pay it.
I am just a wretched old human being that is no better than any other human being. Do I deserve God's Mercy and Grace? No!!! Do I have His Mercy and Grace? !!!He died for my sins!!!

No, blood does not do that. You may be wretched, but that is probably your own doing.
Maybe I should use Isaiah's words in Isaiah 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Enjoy,
Yeah, Isaiah was a rather sad individual. Why listen to him?
 

Astrophile

Active Member
The Sun stays at the perfect distance from the Earth and the Earth stays the perfect distance from the Sun. Both never too close, both never too far away. To me this is a daily miracle, for the Huge Sun and our Planet to continue to do this very thing, everyday, since the beginning of human life, to me this is incredible!
There are eight planets (or about 13 if you include dwarf planets), and only one is at the 'perfect distance' from the Sun for life to appear and evolve. The commonest extrasolar planets are 'hot Jupiters', which are certainly not at 'the perfect distance' from their stars.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There are eight planets (or about 13 if you include dwarf planets), and only one is at the 'perfect distance' from the Sun for life to appear and evolve. The commonest extrasolar planets are 'hot Jupiters', which are certainly not at 'the perfect distance' from their stars.
I would add the qualifier of "known" to extrasolar planets. It is much easier to observe a Jupiter sized planets than ones the size of Earth or even worse the size of a dwarf planet.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I don't just assume the universe has existed eternally in the past and will melt with fervent heat in the future and be re-created.
That is the only logical conclusion anyone can come too. As energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed.
Now any entity that can create this universe, cause it to melt with fervent heat and create it again out of that fiery soup would fit my definition of God.

Now, if you can figure out a way to create energy and mass I will have to reconsider my position.

So, I don't care what existed at T=0 If that entity supplied all the energy and mass that exists in this universe it would be God.

So, I will accept as fact He created the Heavens and the earth as He tells me in a note He left for me to read and study.

Enjoy,
It is possible that the total energy of the universe is zero and if so the question is moot. Look it up, everything you say is so far just your imaginative understanding, based on misunderstandings of even the words used to discuss the subject.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
Sorry to say, but from what I have seen here is that there are those supporting the theory of evolution and do not rationally present their reasoning as to why they do. They also may say that a person who does not agree with the theory of evolution is ignorant and uneducated without giving any explanation beyond that.
The basic principles of evolution are perfectly simple.
Living things reproduce themselves.
The members of a descendant generation are not identical to their parents or to one another. The organisms that possess variations that make them better adapted to their environment and therefore more likely to reproduce will pass on these variations to their descendants; organisms that are less well adapted to their environment will not have descendant to inherit their variations.
Environments are always changing.
Over thousands or tens of thousands of generations, small beneficial variations will accumulate sufficiently to produce new species.

Have you learnt these basic principles? If not, why not?
 

icant

Member
Long before. So far as I understand it, oil is found in accumulations of sedimentary rocks that were originally deposited in continental shelf seas, not on the floors of the ocean basins.
I know that there are accumulations of sedimentary rock in the oceans. But oil is not formed from rocks. Oil under the sea is formed from the remains of ancient marine life. Over Billions of years, these organisms settled on the ocean floor and were buried under layers of sediment. organisms, such as plants, algae, and small animals. The organic matter was then subjected to high heat and pressure, transforming it into hydrocarbons through a process called diagenesis and catagenesis.

I was just trying to figure out how long would it take for enough of those critters to live and die and to go through the process to be what we pump out of the ground.

I have been trying to find the answer to that question since 2008 and I talked to quite a few knowledgeable people. After a very little discussion no one would attempt to help me find the answer. Maybe you could help me find that answer.
 

icant

Member
It is possible that the total energy of the universe is zero and if so the question is moot. Look it up, everything you say is so far just your imaginative understanding, based on misunderstandings of even the words used to discuss the subject.
You know as well as I do the zero energy universe that Alan Guth's proposed never got any higher than his head.

Enjoy,
 
Last edited:

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I know that there are accumulations of sedimentary rock in the oceans. But oil is not formed from rocks. Oil under the sea is formed from the remains of ancient marine life. Over Billions of years, these organisms settled on the ocean floor and were buried under layers of sediment. organisms, such as plants, algae, and small animals. The organic matter was then subjected to high heat and pressure, transforming it into hydrocarbons through a process called diagenesis and catagenesis.

I was just trying to figure out how long would it take for enough of those critters to live and die and to go through the process to be what we pump out of the ground.

I have been trying to find the answer to that question since 2008 and I talked to quite a few knowledgeable people. After a very little discussion no one would attempt to help me find the answer. Maybe you could help me find that answer.



The problem again may lie in your rather fantastical understanding of science and other forms of knowledge.
It is not billions of years and it is not an answer like 142.6.
 

Argentbear

Well-Known Member
I know that there are accumulations of sedimentary rock in the oceans. But oil is not formed from rocks. Oil under the sea is formed from the remains of ancient marine life. Over Billions of years, these organisms settled on the ocean floor and were buried under layers of sediment. organisms, such as plants, algae, and small animals. The organic matter was then subjected to high heat and pressure, transforming it into hydrocarbons through a process called diagenesis and catagenesis.

I was just trying to figure out how long would it take for enough of those critters to live and die and to go through the process to be what we pump out of the ground.

I have been trying to find the answer to that question since 2008 and I talked to quite a few knowledgeable people. After a very little discussion no one would attempt to help me find the answer. Maybe you could help me find that answer.
a quick check with google says about 60 million years
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
You know as well as I do the zero energy universe that Alan Guth's proposed never got any higher than his head.

Enjoy,
Certainly never higher than your head since Alan Guth's work is about the inflation of the universe and not the total energy.
On the other hand, I and others would be interested in your proof that zero energy universes are not possible.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Yes.

Can you show me one instance, other than a mule. But that mule cannot reproduce anything.
She can produce a lot of work.

Enjoy,

Yes.
But the animals and fowl will produce offspring of like kind
Show me one critter that produced a totally different critter.

Enjoy,
Well it seems to have taken two of them.
But your demand for this evidence qualifies you for dismissal of discussion by knowledgeable people.
220px-Kirkcameroncrocoduck.JPG
 

icant

Member
The problem again may lie in your rather fantastical understanding of science and other forms of knowledge.
It is not billions of years and it is not an answer like 142.6.
What is the difference in what you referenced and what I said?
 
Top