"Where is Noah?" Then and now.

neo-x · Post by **neo-x** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:33 am

well, I didn't imply that Job knew the scientific method, I just said how do you know that he didn't know about stars? astronomy is an old science. Im not going to defend what I never claimed, but my rest of the criticism stands still.

Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,
Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,
Job 38:10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place,
Job 38:11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?
Clearly, it talks of WHEN God did this, which means WHEN God fixed the limites of the sea, which only happened when the planets crust had cooled enough after it had first formed that it started to wrinkle and hump up out of the sea that covered it. Also, the "burst forth from the womb" was earlier, when the ice in the comets and other icey bodies that had joined the rocky bodies in forming the first part of planet earth where vaporised into steam from the heat from the friction of all those infallling rocks. That would cause the steam to expand, and be lighter than the surrounding magma, and so it would rise upward, reach the surface, and "burst forth". Job could not have been present then, that was almost 4.5 billion years ago, and even if he had been, it would have killed him. He was also not present when the earth was completly surrouned by a thick band of clouds and thick darkness.

Yes, this certainly means creation but not what is written in Genesis 1. If Gen 1:2 holds true than this was before Gen1:2 happened. Because the water, the vast ocean was already present on earth. Also on or earlier debate about oxygen, this much water could not be present on earth without abundant oxygen, which the earth lacked.

Legatus · Post by **Legatus** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:59 am

Here is a question for you, where does oxygen come from in this universe? Did it exist before the earth existed? In fact, when oxygen first comes into existance in this universe, is it not pretty reactive? And what is the most abundant element it is likley to react with? And did it exist at the same time as hydrogen existed, before the earth existed? And what happens if this oxyegn and this hydrogen meet before the earth existed, what compound do they form? After they form it, is it still free oxygen? So we see that oxygen can exist, but no longer as FREE oxygen, long before the earth existed, as water. And thus we see that water can exist without any need at all for even one plant to make free oxygen, and many billions of years before the earth ever existed.

And is there evidence of water in this universe that comes from a source that has never had any connection waith plants that create free oxygen at all? Let is look: http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/19 ... omet-water "The existence of these main-belt comets suggests that asteroids and comets are much more closely related than previously thought and supports the idea that icy objects from the main asteroid belt could be a major source of Earth's present-day water."
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... omets.html "A controversial theory that the Earth is being bombarded constantly by comet-like objects the size of small houses and consisting mostly of water has received support from recent satellite observations. If such a bombardment has continued for long periods, it would have enormous implications for our understanding of the origin and evolution of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, and perhaps for the evolution of life itself on the planet. For example, the present estimated rate of this bombardment is of order 10 per minute, with each event believed to deposit 20-40 tons (!) of water vapor in the upper atmosphere. This influx would add approximately 1 inch of water to the surface of the Earth every 20,000 years. If an appreciable fraction of this rate has been sustained over the 4.5 billion year history of the planet, such small comets might be responsible for all the water in the oceans and in our atmosphere. Furthermore, there may might be compounds other than water in the bombardment, which could have important implications for various geochemical and biological cycles.

This would imply a rather different scenario than the traditional one that our atmosphere and oceans were formed by gases emitted from the crust of the Earth after its formation."

Note that in both scenerios, the first where water arrives on earth as comets, and the second, as gasses from inside the earth, gasses like steam/water vepor, we have water existing long before plants ever could have existed.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... st18may_1/ "New research shows Comet LINEAR was likely made up of water with the same isotopic composition as water found here on Earth. The finding supports a controversial idea that cometary impacts billions of years ago could have provided most of the water in Earth's oceans."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/1 ... 78960.html "Scientists now have close-up pictures of a hyperactive comet that seems to be spewing water.Hartley 2 isn't the only such comet, but it's the first to be visited by a spacecraft during a flyby, researchers report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.University of Maryland astronomer Michael A'Hearn says when warmed by the sun, dry ice deep in the comet's body turns to carbon dioxide gas jetting off the comet. The gas drags water ice along with it."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141658.htm "ScienceDaily (July 31, 2009) — Comets have contained vast amounts of liquid water in their interiors during the first million years of their formation, a new study claims."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet "Comet nuclei are known to range from about 100 meters to more than 40 kilometres across. They are composed of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia.[11
http://www.space.com/11307-comet-sample ... rdust.html "Scientists have found convincing evidence of liquid water inside a comet for the first time ever, according to a new study.The result, which was obtained by studying tiny granules of comet material sent back to Earth by NASA's Stardust spacecraft, should help astronomers better understand how comets form and evolve, researchers said. In particular, it shows that comets can get warm enough to melt the ice that makes up the bulk of their mass — which will likely come as a surprise to many scientists."

The above links (22 million of them) are simply to show that water can exist independant of plant life making free oxygen, the below links are specifically about how our oceans came about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth "Some of the most likely contributory factors to the origin of the Earth's oceans are as follows:
The cooling of the primordial Earth to the point where the outgassed volatile components were held in an atmosphere of sufficient pressure for the stabilization and retention of liquid water.
Comets, trans-Neptunian objects or water-rich meteorites (protoplanets) from the outer reaches of the main asteroid belt colliding with the Earth may have brought water to the world's oceans. Measurements of the ratio of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and protium point to asteroids, since similar percentage impurities in carbon-rich chondrites were found to oceanic water, whereas previous measurement of the isotopes' concentrations in comets and trans-Neptunian objects correspond only slightly to water on the earth.
Biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis.
Gradual leakage of water stored in hydrous minerals of the Earth's rocks.
Photolysis: radiation can break down chemical bonds on the surface.

Currenlty there are, as you can see, various theories for how the oceans got here. The bible clearly supports the first theory, since it says "Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness," It is quite possible that all these theories are at least somewhat true, with the comet and asteroid water that arrived first in the asteroids that came together to form the earth outgassing their steam to the surface from the early hot earth just after it formed (too hot at first for the water to exist as liquid on it's surface, though it would cool and that would change, as the bible says that it did), later water from later infalling water rich asteroids and comets, biochemically, leakage, and photolysis. The majority would have arrived from the asteroids and comets first, since we know that they have been seen with large amounts of water ice in them even today. Such photosynthesis as occurred later (much later, you first have to have life before it happens) would meen you would have to have water FIRST, since life needs water, so there must have been signifigent amounts of water FIRST if we are to have life.And, in fact, the bible agrees with that, it mentions water well before it mentions plants.

And what about this "gap" theory? Here is acoverage of it http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gap.html , its cheif problems are, first, that it is an extreme stretch to say that the bible says this, and contradicts partws of the bibel, and "If the earth at one point "became waste and wild" through a "pre-Adamic flood" there remains no physical evidence for this event. If you want me to beleive this, could you show me the physical evidence? What about the biblical evidence? If satan could do it once, why can't he do it again, if he is so powerfull? If God is now preventing Satan from doing it agian, if God can do that, why not do it agian? Who does the bible say was the first to sin? Are any sinners mentioned before Adam? Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- Rom 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Rom 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. Note, sin entered through ONE MAN (just one, not one and another before him), death (of mankind) reigned ffrom the time of Adam, not before Adam, only from Adam on. Clearly, this ONE MAN, ADAM, mentioned as the very first sinner, absolutly denies any possibility of their being any sinners before him. If there had been others before him, it could not use the word one, could it?

And looking into gap theory, I find this, a very close look at the original wording used to support this theory http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/my-p ... ap-theory/ Just a small part of this long and detailed article:
"There is nothing in this passage [Isa 45:18] that would suggest a chaotic state of the earth ‘which is opposed to and precedes creation.’ Thus, the term tohu here too signifies ‘a desert-like place’ and refers to ‘an uninhabited place’…. It should be further noted that lo’-tohu here [Isa 45:18] is a resultative object, referring to the purpose of God’s creative action. In other words, this verse explains that God did not create the earth so that it may stay desert-like, but to be inhabited. So this verse does not contradict Gen 1:2, where God created the earth to be productive and inhabited though it ‘was’ still tohu wabohu, in the initial state."
This articale goes on to explain in detail why "formless and void" is not always used to describe jusgment, but can simply mean empty, as the earth would be when first formed. It is too long to quote too much here, it covers this topic from just about every angle possible, going into quite great detail of the original languages, with extensive footnotes and source list (unlike the pro gap pages I looked, at, which tend to be simplistic).

The "formless and void" is only saying that when originally created, the earth was, first, a bunch of rocks and gas and ice floating in the emptyness of space, then a chaotic mess of a planet as it was first forming, all completly and totally consistant with all theories of planetery formation. The verses after that go one to describe the steps that God went through to turn an earth that could not be inhabited by humans into one that could, a world without darkness (or thick darkness as further described in Job), a world with an ocean, with dry land, with plant life, with an atmosphere like the one we know know that you can actually see through (compared to the thick murkey early atmosphere), with fish and birds and animals, all coming along before mankind, of which the first one anywhere in the bible stated or even hinted at is Adam.

As far as I can see, the "gap theory" was invented to try and reconcile 24 hour day creation with the fossile record and proven long age of the earth, by making a gap between a long formation of a habitable annd inhabited earth, and a later 6 day "recreation", to preserve the idea of 6 day creation (which is not demanded in scripture and in fact denied .http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html ) Most gap theory pages I find are young earth creationism ones. There is no biblical basis for it, it is an argument from silence, saying that somethng happened between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 when there is not a single word between the two and it must all be purely invented. Putting in invented bible words is not a good idea, as seen here Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. This is a warning of the last verses of the last book of the bible.

Here is a question for you, why do you WANT the creation account in Gnesis to NOT be literal and factual and scientifically verifiable? I mean, you seem to go on the side of any theory that will alow you to beleive that it is not any of this, even when it is a weak argument, or an argument from silence, or without a single shred of physical evidence (the gap theory would HAVE to show SOME evidence, it does not), or when it is denied even by biblical evidence. I mean, to take such weak, contradictory, or even easily disproven arguments as fact, you must really WANT them to be true. When you try and reconcile Genesis with science, and look into early planetery formation and the verious steps the planet went through to get to what it is today, we find that it matches the Genesis acount exactly, why do you preffer weak ideas unsupported by both biblical and scientific evidnce to this? From what I see, you so very much want genesis to be not scientifically true that you will accept any idea, however ubsurd, that will support that idea. Ideas such as that plants could exist on this planet before any water, which denies the biblical chronology, and is scientifically ubsure since it would mean that plants could somehow exist without a single shred of water, and then somehow create so very much free oxygen to react with hydrogen (which would esult in fire, which would kill said plants) to create so very much water that it will fill the entire ocean. That is a lot of work for those poor, water starved plants to do, don't you think? Does that even sound reasonable? Do you know that water creates certain traces of its existance, and that these traces exist in rocks from the very early earth, long before there were any plants? How do you reconcile that? http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-05e.html Research funded partly by NASA has confirmed the existence of liquid water on the Earth's surface more than 4 billion years ago. Scientists have found that the Earth had formed patterns of crust formation, erosion and sediment recycling as early as 4.35 billion years ago. Their findings came during a study of zircon crystals formed during the earliest period of Earth's history, the Hadean Eon (4.5 billion to 4.0 billion years ago).

If you want me to accept a 'gap" creation account, you will have to show me some actual, positive evidence FOR it. Argument from silence (there is no verse between Gen 1:1 and 1:2) won't do, if God had sone such an important thing, he would have mentioned it somewhere. If such as thing had happened, there would be physical evidnce. Where is this biblical and physical evidence?

neo-x · Post by **neo-x** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:33 pm

leg, lets get somethings straight,

First, i don't want u to beleive in a gap theory. The way u jump to conclusion and draw meaning out of context to the original verses is weird enough for me to think u do not follow a consistent method of interpretation, always shifting goal posts to adjust your theory.

secondly, the question of oxygen is not answered by your long copy pasted articles. The point is not if oxygen existed at all but in what proportion.

I am baffled that u think comets have been bombarding earth, have u ever looked up to the moon and seen the heavy pockmarks, the result of comet impacts, well, if we got bombared where the hell is that residue evidence, comet remnants are rare on earth. If u say they brought water where is the comet where is the hole in the ground. These things just do not disappear. If such a bombardment was happening why havent we blown up, do u have any idea what a 40 km comet could do to earth when it strikes. And to think this kept happening for millions of years...well what have u been reading?

oxygen was produced by the first cynobacteria that did not need any water at all, oxygen was a by product for them and it is a very popular thoery. Water can exist independantly of plants, but for that the oxygen in earth's rock crust must be in huge amounts, which is not the case. Early earth had that much oxygen as mars has today. About .2%. Comet theory is crap, its been ridiculed enough, don't even go there.

As for evidence, i said it before didn't i? there is none, i said it was my pov that something existed before us. No new revelation here u brought, no proper evidence exists, not for ur position, not for mine, no evolution, gap, yec, oec, theistic, adaptive, there is no solid concrete evidence for any one, single, sole theory. So we got some interpretation and the rest are hunches, like urs. No problem, wear what suits you.

Sin was brought into the world by the devil, the father of sin, it entered human race through adam but he was a chanel not the source. Get ur facts straight.

As for me I like to keep the possibility open that there is something beyond our knowledge. That god must have been doing something before he made us. He wasn't sitting idly around eternity just for us. Nops, i do not think so. I just am not sure which way exactly god did it. I lean towards a few possibilities which make sense to me. i do not want to claim that i know exactly how genesis 1 happened. but i know, that the bible was not written to prove scientic facts. And that approach is wrong - to push biblical content to adjust to scientific findings, just to get ur theory sound perfect. That is an absurd approach. U should know that.

Legatus · Post by **Legatus** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:59 pm

[quote}well, I didn't imply that Job knew the scientific method, I just said how do you know that he didn't know about stars? astronomy is an old science. Im not going to defend what I never claimed, but my rest of the criticism stands still.[/quote]
Actually, as I have already pointed out, God in Job was not talking about stars here, but about the formation of the earth (my earlier reference to stars was in error). My earlier critisism also still stands, God clearly said that Job was NOT present when God made the early earth:
Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
Job 38:5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
Job 38:6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone--
Job 38:7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?
Job was clearly NOT present immediatly afterwards when God also describes the sea starting from outgassing from inside the early earth:
Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,
Job was clearly NOT present when this steam made for thick clouds and thick darkness (helped along by volcanic ash and other gasses):
Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,
Job was clearly NOT present when God made the dry land appear as the early crust cooled and wrinkled:
Job 38:10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place,
Job 38:11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?
Job clearly had never taken a submarine (a very deep diving one at that) down to the deep sea recesses:
Job 38:16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?
He had not traveled the whole earth, nor seen it from space, as seen here:
Job 38:18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this.
He had not travelled to outer space and seen the sun up close, or the darkness between the stars:
Job 38:19 "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?
Job 38:20 Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
These things are stated to have been created by God LONG before Job was ever born:
Job 38:21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!

Conclusion, God says, very very VERY clearly, that these are things that Job did NOT witess, things that Job COULD NOT have witnessed, since they happened LONG before Job was ever born, and/or in places Job had never been and could not possibly go to. Therefore, now, if you want to say that all the things that God described to Job in this book are things Job knew personally or had seen himself, you must directly contradice the clear, stated words you see here. You must simply call God a liar. It is a simple as that, and there is no way around it. To say that this is not so now you have to really WANT that to be so, with such very clear evidence right in front of your eyes (not even counting the evidence of science). Do you still beleive Job personally knew of these things? Why do you WANT to beleive that so much?

And if Job did not personally know of these things, could it be that he also did not personally know of other things described after this? What animal fits this description?
Job 40:19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
How about a sauropod, "They are notable for the enormous sizes attained by some species, and the group includes the largest animals to have ever lived on land".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropoda
And yes, they did have a tail like a cedar:
Job 40:17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
"Some, like the diplodocids, possessed tremendously long tails which they may have been able to crack like a whip to deter or even injure predators".
How about hollow bones:
Job 40:18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
"The bird-like hollowing of sauropod bones was recognized early in the study of these animals".

Even if you say that this is not a dinosaur (despite it's description), a question, when God makes the Genesis account, why would God choose to include things that are not factually true, when the world is full of so many facts that are true? After all, God has a choice, why not choose facts? Even if Genesis isn't writen as a detailed scientific paper, why include things that, however simplified they may be to fit in this one chapter, are not factually true? Does that make sense, when you have the choice? Why would God do that, when God has that choice?

The Bible was not intended as a primitive science manual that presented rudimentary scientific facts that would be verifiable at a later date when science caught up.

Aaaand, you KNOW this...how? Did God say that? Where? Could at least part of the bible be exactly this? If not, exactly WHY was Genesis the first chaper written, exactly? The problem is not that you are not allowed to have your own point of view, the problem is that if your point of view disagrees with what the bible and thus God says, then you must alter your point of view. Romans clearly says that the physical facts of this world "from the foundation of the world", written of in genesis 1, DO verify God, and that therefore this point of view is directly contradicted by God himself.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
What is "what has been made"? Made by whom? Are not things that have "been made" physical things? Is that why it says "since the creation"? Is that why it clearly differentiates things "clearly seen" and '"been made" from things that are 'invisible qualities"? What was created at the creation, theological principles, or the universe and the world, physical things? What is stated in Genesis, where it is talking about Gods creation, was it physical things? Is it not clearly stating here that invisible things, like "God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature", are shown by visible things, "what has been made"?

Clearly, so very clearly that we cannot possibly miss it, without lying to ourselves outragously, God is here saying that invisible things like Gods attributes are shown by visible things, physical things, and that these have been shown "since the creation of the world". Where is the creation of the world covered, exactly, in the bible? Has the creation of the world been looked at, to see what these physical things are? Is that cosmology, a branch of science? If Romans is true, should not that cosmology allow us to "clearly see" "Gods invisible qualities" "from what has been made" "since the creation of the world"? What is the scientific method, except a method to "clearly see" "what has been made" through a cerefull method designed to screen out bias and arror (a method invented by Christians who know that man is fallible)? What other method would you use to "clearly see" "what has been made" "since the foundation of the world"?

If Romans is not saying exactly what I am saying here, that science, observing the physical world to see 'what has been made" will show "God's invisible qualities", well then, tell me, what is it saying? Be detailed, show me exactly how these words, in exactly this order, in this verse, can mean anything else? Yes, you can include the context from verses before it, but you must include the exact words in THIS verse. You will have to explain how "the creation of the world" and 'what has been made", are NOT physical things, scientifically studiable things, that when studied God said will show "Gods invisible qualities". And you will have to explain how Genesis 1 is NOT talking about 'the creation of the world", and how a study of that physical creation will show "Gods invisible qualities" if Genesis is not factually, scientifically true. If it is not true, than Gods invisible quality is that God is a liar. Is God a liar? Is there evidence that God is not a liar? http://www.oldwireroadchurch.com/fulfil ... omises.php. So if God is not a liar, is God also not a liar in Genesis?

Legatus · Post by **Legatus** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:04 pm

secondly, the question of oxygen is not answered by your long copy pasted articles. The point is not if oxygen existed at all but in what proportion.

The question was not oxygen, the question was water, on the early earth, existing before there was life on the earth. Your idea about oxygen insists that water only comes from the mixture of hydrogen and FREE oxygen on the earth. FREE oxygen and oxygen that is not free, such as oxygen that is bound up in the compound called water are two very different things. One can have tones of water without there being any free ozygen at all.
You sem to be under the impression that the only exygen that can exist to mix with hydrogen must be only the free oxygen that must exist only on the earth and only after it has been created by life. Are you aware that for life to create free oxygen, it must first have the element oxygen, in a non free form, to do so? So we see that all that oxygen was not created out of nothing by the life, it existed in it's elemental form LONG (billions of years) before it ever was freed from any non free form, like water, or carbone dioxide. To say that the elemetnal oxygen on this earth was actually CREATED by the life is to say that life can create new matter out of nothing. Life can use existing oxygen bound up with other elements, such as water, or carbon dioxide, but it cannot actually create elemental oxygen, it can only use such oxygen, free or more likely unfree, as is already present. EVERY BIT of oxygen on this planet, free OR bound up in compounds like water (unfree oxygen) or carbone dioxide (also unfree oxygen), including every (or at least most of it) of the oxygen bound up with hydrogen as water can and did exist long before there were any plants or any FREE oxygen.
Simply put, no life, of any kind, ever, will be able to change the propertion of oxygen on this planet. Every bit of elemental oxygen that exists on earth was created (mostly in the hearts of exploding stars, nova's and supernova's) long befor it ever even arrived here. Oxygen is reactive stuff, so it did not arrive as free oxygen since it would have reacted long before it arrived here with other elements, to create unfree oxygen compounds, like water (hydrogen being so common after all). My posts which show absolutly uncontested evidence that water exits now on comets and has been detected is simply to show that oxygen, bound up with hydrogen, and thus called water, can and does exist without ever having been anywhere near a plant or any other kind of life. Therefore you cannot say that water can only exist if it is first created from free oxygen freed up by plants.on earth.
Evidence of water on the earth long before there was life:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-05e.html Research funded partly by NASA has confirmed the existence of liquid water on the Earth's surface more than 4 billion years ago.
This is evidence for water long before life, and therefore long before free oxygen.
Yes, there are some scientists that beleive that water arrived as comets, hoever, I was not intending to show that that was the primary way that water arrived here, that is, as comets after the earth was already formed and mature. It is possible that such water can and even does arrive, even now, without blasting a hole in the planet, as seen here http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... omets.html In the image shown below the suspected track of such a cosmic snowball is captured by the visible imaging system of the Polar Satellite as the object vaporized at an altitude of 5,000 to 15,000 miles over the Atlantic Ocean and Western Europe in September, 1996. We know that no hole was blasted in the earth in Sept 1996, your idea that we could not survive such an impact assumes that all such icy bodies must be very large, not made entirely of ice (which would melt in the upper atmosphere), and that they must all have arrived recently, and thus torn big holes in the recent earth. Hoever, I am not suggesting that water got to planet earth primarily as comets that arrived long after the earth had formed and thus fairly recently, but that it arrived as it WAS forming, when it wouldn't matter if it slammed into the earth (such as there was of it yet). it is therefore irerlevent if you beleive that no water arrived on comets recently, after the earth was formed and fairly mature. I am simply showing that water, as such, can exist in space long before the earth ever even started to form, and thus we cannot say that the sole source, or even the major source, of water on this planet came from FREE oxygen freed up by plants

ALL that I am trying to show from the ice we have very clearly seen in comets is that water exists outside of this earth, and thus outside of any influence from free oxygen generated from unfree oxygen compounds like carbion dioxide and WATER. If water can exist before life, such as plants or bacteria, ever existed, and outside of this earth and it's life, then it could have arrived as comets, on asteroids, as small ice crystals freely floating, or on small moonlets, as the earth was still forming. That would mean some would have arrived first, and been buried under the later ones that landed on top of it. All those infalling rocks, some with ice on them, would make for a lot of heat. That heat would vaporise the ice, creating steam, which as steam does would force it's way up out of the magma and erupt like so "Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb," and all that steam would make for a comprehencive cloud cover and thick darkness as seen here "Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness", and when the planet cooled a bit the water would be able to fall on the cooler earth without immediatly vaporising, and then that cooler earths crust would start to wrinkle and dry land would appear up out of that water that now completely covered it as seen here "Job 38:10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, Job 38:11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?"
In short, your idea that water (in ocean sized quantities) could only exist on this earth if it first started as FREE oxygen somehow created by plants (from what exactly?) is an idea that not even one single scientist on this planet would agree to. You need to look into the evidence of 1) where elemental oxygen comes from 2) when it formed as elemental oxygen (was it before there ever was an earth?) 3) if oxygen, as compouns such as water, exists outside this planet (note, this is non free oxygen) 4) and therefore, if water, composed of non free oxygen, could have existed when this earth was first forming from a collection of various space rocks and stuffs, and could have been part of those space stuffs.

Sin was brought into the world by the devil, the father of sin, it entered human race through adam but he was a chanel not the source. Get ur facts straight.

I am saying that Adam was the first human who brought sin to HUMANITY. I am also saying tha Adam was the first human to sin, because the bible clearly states that. Are you saying that non human aliens existed, somehow without leaving a trace, on planet earth at some unknow time in the past, sinned, were all whiped out, and that God started again? That is both unpupported by the bible (the people who say it is supported, well, their biblical evidence heas been clearly shown false) and by the fossil record. I fail to see why you want to beleive soemthing with no supporting evience, when there ae ideas out there that are supported by all the evience. This is why I wonder why you WANT so much to belive that Genesis (and Job, supported by Romans) have no factual scientific basis, when there is that option that they DO, and it is supported by all the evidence. I mean, you must want to belive that a lot to ignore such a well supported and more logical idea.

My idea is not that you will go to hell or anything if you believe such a thing. People believe all sorts of silly things now, and have, there are flat earthers in heaven. My idea is that OTHER PEOPLE WILL go to hell if we all keep going around and completly denying the physuical evidence that God gave us, and said he gave us in Rom 1:20, which points us directly to Gen 1. This is because in every school in practically the world now, it is taught as "fact" that science "proves" there is no God and that the bible is just "myth", 'fable", and "literature", with no fact. Rom 1:20 states in absolutly clear and certain terms, so that we are 'without excuse", that that is the exact opposite of the truth. When I see the exact opposite of the truth, which leads people away from God, who should I suspect created that lie, God or Satan? Beleiving in a flat earth will not send you to hell. Beleiving that the bible is merely fable, and is thus not true, and so doesn't even deserve a hearing, will. So if you say I am "defensive", that I care about this issue, well, shouldn't you?

neo-x · Post by **neo-x** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:21 pm

Leg, do you even read what I wrote? My understanding is that you do not.

You sem to be under the impression that the only exygen that can exist to mix with hydrogen must be only the free oxygen that must exist only on the earth and only after it has been created by life. Are you aware that for life to create free oxygen, it must first have the element oxygen, in a non free form, to do so? So we see that all that oxygen was not created out of nothing by the life, it existed in it's elemental form LONG (billions of years) before it ever was freed from any non free form, like water, or carbone dioxide. To say that the elemetnal oxygen on this earth was actually CREATED by the life is to say that life can create new matter out of nothing. Life can use existing oxygen bound up with other elements, such as water, or carbon dioxide, but it cannot actually create elemental oxygen, it can only use such oxygen, free or more likely unfree, as is already present. EVERY BIT of oxygen on this planet, free OR bound up in compounds like water (unfree oxygen) or carbone dioxide (also unfree oxygen), including every (or at least most of it) of the oxygen bound up with hydrogen as water can and did exist long before there were any plants or any FREE oxygen.
Simply put, no life, of any kind, ever, will be able to change the propertion of oxygen on this planet. Every bit of elemental oxygen that exists on earth was created (mostly in the hearts of exploding stars, nova's and supernova's) long befor it ever even arrived here. Oxygen is reactive stuff, so it did not arrive as free oxygen since it would have reacted long before it arrived here with other elements, to create unfree oxygen compounds, like water (hydrogen being so common after all). My posts which show absolutly uncontested evidence that water exits now on comets and has been detected is simply to show that oxygen, bound up with hydrogen, and thus called water, can and does exist without ever having been anywhere near a plant or any other kind of life. Therefore you cannot say that water can only exist if it is first created from free oxygen freed up by plants.on earth.
Evidence of water on the earth long before there was life:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-05e.html Research funded partly by NASA has confirmed the existence of liquid water on the Earth's surface more than 4 billion years ag\
o.
This is evidence for water long before life, and therefore long before free oxygen.
Yes, there are some scientists that beleive that water arrived as comets, hoever, I was not intending to show that that was the primary way that water arrived here, that is, as comets after the earth was already formed and mature. It is possible that such water can and even does arrive, even now, without blasting a hole in the planet, as seen here http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... omets.html In the image shown below the suspected track of such a cosmic snowball is captured by the visible imaging system of the Polar Satellite as the object vaporized at an altitude of 5,000 to 15,000 miles over the Atlantic Ocean and Western Europe in September, 1996. We know that no hole was blasted in the earth in Sept 1996, your idea that we could not survive such an impact assumes that all such icy bodies must be very large, not made entirely of ice (which would melt in the upper atmosphere), and that they must all have arrived recently, and thus torn big holes in the recent earth. Hoever, I am not suggesting that water got to planet earth primarily as comets that arrived long after the earth had formed and thus fairly recently, but that it arrived as it WAS forming, when it wouldn't matter if it slammed into the earth (such as there was of it yet). it is therefore irerlevent if you beleive that no water arrived on comets recently, after the earth was formed and fairly mature. I am simply showing that water, as such, can exist in space long before the earth ever even started to form, and thus we cannot say that the sole source, or even the major source, of water on this planet came from FREE oxygen freed up by plants

This was what I wrote

Early earth had that much oxygen as mars has today. About .2%. Comet theory is crap, its been ridiculed enough, don't even go there.

Mars does not have free oxygen, it has elemental, I wrote this in my last post. Early earth had elemental oxygen but it was very very little, not enough for big oceans to form. As for scientists, they do not even agree within their own circles when it comes to theories. There are arguments on both sides leg. But all evidence suggests that earth own elemental oxygen was not enough to form oceans, it only started when the first Cyanobacteria formed and gave way to aerobic life forms. This was when the earth was still hot. Water in ocean sized quantity came later. Earth was not bombarded by comets. There is plenty of evidence to say that.

Are you saying that non human aliens existed, somehow without leaving a trace, on planet earth at some unknow time in the past, sinned, were all whiped out, and that God started again? That is both unpupported by the bible (the people who say it is supported, well, their biblical evidence heas been clearly shown false) and by the fossil record. I fail to see why you want to beleive soemthing with no supporting evience, when there ae ideas out there that are supported by all the evience. This is why I wonder why you WANT so much to belive that Genesis (and Job, supported by Romans) have no factual scientific basis, when there is that option that they DO, and it is supported by all the evidence. I mean, you must want to belive that a lot to ignore such a well supported and more logical idea.

Leg, how long will you go to misconstrue my positions, you are always claiming funny things I never said in the first place. What is unsupported from the Bible, I know it was unsupported by the Bible that the earth revolves around the sun. On the event of Joshua's prayer, the church held the position that earth was the sole center of the known universe. But the exact opposite existed. I do not think the scriptures are in error, what they concluded was simple relativity that could not be known other wise.

You think your idea of a comet rain is supported by evidence? There is no evidence of it. there are roughly five or six impact comets that struck earth in its 4 billion year old history.

I believe what Job, Romans and Genesis say, I just do not think your explanations carry any weight. The events of these books happened. It is the interpretation that I am not agreeing with. You say its scientific, it would be since it did happen, but at least not perfectly as you are saying, there are other probabilities as well. But I think you have already made up your mind that it only happened the way which makes sense to you.

It astounds me when someone says,

yeah I know how this happened, pin point perfect - and all the rest are idoits.

This is by far and large - your position. The Holy Bible is silent on the issues you are so fervently asserting about. And that is the reason why people believe and interpret it independently. Your idea supports one explanation, others have theirs.

And so far you have been going around the same words of yours over and over again, Do you have anything new to share, you could have written me to read your previous posts, since that was all you repeated again.

My idea is not that you will go to hell or anything if you believe such a thing. People believe all sorts of silly things now, and have, there are flat earthers in heaven. My idea is that OTHER PEOPLE WILL go to hell if we all keep going around and completly denying the physuical evidence that God gave us, and said he gave us in Rom 1:20, which points us directly to Gen 1. This is because in every school in practically the world now, it is taught as "fact" that science "proves" there is no God and that the bible is just "myth", 'fable", and "literature", with no fact.

I completely empathize with you on the fact that the bible is being called myths in schools, but that is not the issue we are dealing with here, schools say what your govt. approves. Hence you are going in the opposite way but that logic doesn't automatically proves your point. As I said there are large gaps present, and they are clearly shown by people arguing on both sides. And those gaps will stay, because the Bible doesn't answer them, that is why it is happening. If you want to change the perception of atheists by proving genesis is scientific, I can assure you, it ain't gonna change a thing. The atheist doesn't believe in the Bible because it is unscientific, he is in it because he can't tolerate God at any cost, proved or not.

Hey Leg, I ain't stopping you from believing what you want, go ahead, believe what you like, say what you think, but at least do justice to an argument and keep it clear on resting it in logic and evidence, not logic alone and then blaming others for contradicting you.

And saying that what others think is a lie of the Satan, that they are silly, well who died and made the authority to say that?

Legatus · Post by **Legatus** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:40 am

You think your idea of a comet rain is supported by evidence? There is no evidence of it. there are roughly five or six impact comets that struck earth in its 4 billion year old history.

Uh, read my post agian, I did not say that I thought the way the majority of the water arrived was though comet impacts during the last 4 billions years. I was merely pointing to comets to show that water exists independantly of plant life and free oxygen liberated by it.

What I DID say was that when the earth was first forming, 4.5 or even 4.7 billions years ago, it was formed from a lot of space junk, including asteroids, comets, and moonlets that contained water ice. It would not matter then what these bodies did damage wise to the earth, since it was just the initially forming earth, not the earth AFTER all that junk had collided together to form a planet. Once it had all come together, the space junk now would BE earth, and so not much more would fall in, it all having been used up to form the earth. So it really is not related to any comets that arrived in the last 4 billion years, this was 500 millions years or more BEFORE that. Did you click on the link that shows that water existed over 4 billion years ago? http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-05e.html Now, tell me again that there was no water over 4 billion years ago, that it is just my idea and no one elses, that there is no evidence. Really, the evidence says so, the bible says so (in genesis AND Job), so, why don't you say so? I mean, what kind of evidence WOULD convince you?

"Rocks formed as a result of the thermal energy from meteorite impacts would be bone dry and melt at greater than 900 degrees Celsius," said Harrison. "In contrast, our study has found that Hadean rocks melted at a consistent average temperature of 690 degrees Celsius. Water, which is a very powerful catalyst, must have been present in very large amounts for rocks to melt at such a relatively low temperature."

This discovery supports the proposal by Harrison's group four years earlier that a heavy oxygen isotope signature in the Hadean zircons is evidence for liquid water at or near the Earth's surface by 4.3 billion years ago.

Not one but TWO different kinds of proof right here, and not just water but "in very large amounts" (like, big enough to form an ocean).

{quote] Mars does not have free oxygen, it has elemental, I wrote this in my last post. Early earth had elemental oxygen but it was very very little, not enough for big oceans to form. [/quote]
Note one little thing, some people call "free oxygen" "elemental oxygen", I was speaking of "the element oxygen", I didn't care whether it was free or not (most of it isn't), only if it was the chemical element oxygen. This calling free oxygen "elemental oxygen" could result in some confusion.

Mars has oxygen, in it's carbon diOXIDE atmosphere, it may not have much of that, or much water left, but that is simply because it is smaller, has less gravity, and the atmosphere and water have been swept away over time by the solar wind (this also happens on earth, just more slowly).

Venus also has a lot of oxygen, "The atmosphere of Venus is composed mainly of carbon dioxide", carbondiOXIDE, thats lots of oxygen, once again, not FREE oxygen, but still, lots of oxygen in Vensuses thick atmosphere.

What evidence do you have that the earth had little elemetnal oxygen? By elemental oxygen I was meaning the element oxygen, whether in compound form or not, not the sometimes used "elemental oxygen", also known as free oxygen. If it had little elemental oxygen (the element oxygen), than cynobactria or not, it would still have little oxygen (either as free oxygen OR as water, a compound of oxygen). Cynobacteria do not CREATE oxygen from nothing, they LIBERATE oxygen from compounds, like water. In fact without water, existing on earth BEFORE cynobactria, there would be NO elemental oxygen to make into free oxygen to begin with. Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynobacteria "Cyanobacteria utilize the energy of sunlight to drive photosynthesis, a process where the energy of light is used to split water molecules into oxygen, protons, and electrons." So, they USE WATER to make free oxygen, water that already has elemental oxygen (not FREE oxygen yet, but oxygen just the same). Without WATER, for the cynobacteria to use, NO OXYGEN (exept in the water as H2O, a compound of hydrogen AND OXYGEN). Thus, cynobacteria do not prove that there was no water, in fact they prove that there WAS.

Plants, including cynobacteria, cannot create oxygen. The only way to create oxygen where none exists is by nuclear fusion, such as in a star. Cynobacteria can liberate oxygen from already existing oxygen that is bound up in compounds, like water, but they can only liberate as much oxygen as there already exists in that water, they can never actually CREATE oxygen from non oxygen becaus cynobacteria do not use nuclear fusion. if there is free oxygen on this planet, and there is, it came FROM WATER. Water comes first, cynobacteria comes second, free oxygem from water, comes last.

I do not think you know what oxygen actualy is. Oxygen is a certain type of molecule, 8th on the periodic table (8 protons, neutrons, and electrons). Free oxygen is not new oxygen and it is not the only oxygen, there is lots and lots of oxygen out there that is not free, on earth and elsewhere, including the oxygen in water, which is not free. It is possible to have tones of oxygen, as the earth actually has, even if you have not a shred of free oxygen. Because of this, it is possible to have tones of water, which contains non free oxygen, even if that water has never been anywhere near any cynobacteria or any free oxygen (except briefly when the oxygen met some hydrogen right after that oxygen formed in a nuclear furnace and reacted with that hydrogen to form water) Here is what is said of oxygen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen

Oxygen is a member of the chalcogen group on the periodic table, and is a highly reactive nonmetallic element that readily forms compounds (notably oxides) with almost all other elements. By mass, oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen and helium[1] and the most abundant element by mass in the Earth's crust, making up almost half of the crust's mass.[2] Free oxygen is too chemically reactive to appear on Earth without the photosynthetic action of living organisms, which use the energy of sunlight to produce elemental oxygen from water. Elemental O2 only began to accumulate in the atmosphere after the evolutionary appearance of these organisms, roughly 2.5 billion years ago.[3] Diatomic oxygen gas constitutes 20.8% of the volume of air.[4]

So, the third most abundant element in the entire universe, doesn't sound so rare to me. The very most abundant element in the earths crust, well, that is definatly NOT "very very little". There is absolutly NO difference between elemental oxygen (that is, the element oxygen) and free oxygen, they both have 8 protons, neutrons, and electons. The only difference with free oxygen is that it is not attatched to anything. Oxygen in compounds, like water, is attached, but is identical to the unattached free oxygen otherwise. Oxygen is very reactive with pracically anything, so it reacts to form compounds, like water. It does this whenever it gets a chance, like right after it forms (in a nuclear furnace), thus, if it eventually arrives to earth (such as when the earth is first forming), it will be bound up in compounds, like water. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe, hydrogen is the most abundant, what is the chance for that very reactive osygen, being so abundant, to meet up with some hydrogen, also very abundant, and form water, lomg before it ever meets any cynobacteria? FREE oxygen, which only happenes when cynobacteria meet water and sunlight, is rare, relatively speaking. However, it cannot exist unless water, which already has lots of oxygen in it, first exists. All the free oxygen on this planet came FROM water, NOT the other way around.

So now you need to ask yourself, why have I been trying so hard to prove that the bible does not say that the darkness mentioned in Gen 1:2 and Job 38:8 and Job 38:9 (where is is clearly said to be the sea, ie water, and lots of it) has anything to do with thick clouds of water around the very early earth, such that you invoke the idea that this water cannot exist without there first being free oxygen created by cynobacteria, when in fact your cynobacteria argument proves the exact opposite, that water must exist for the cynobacteria to do its thing and liberate oxygen from that water? I mean, your argument proves the exact opposite of what you are trying to say, so why have you persisted so long and hard to say it? Why do you WANT the bible to be non factual and completly non scientific (even in a simple way, your words) so much that you will use any argument, however easily disproven (as this one now is totaly disproven) to make it so? I mean, if you can argue so long and hard using an argument which turns out to prove the exact opposite of what you say it does, what other arguments could you be using, with yourself, that are equelly wrong? Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate what you believe, and even more importantly, why you beleive it.

neo-x · Post by **neo-x** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:29 am

gaahh,

Leg, I said, oxygen was present but in what proportions and state, is is that hard to understand? I said, oxygen was present but not enough to produce great oceans alone, it could only happen when there is a water cycle, gravity shaping up rivers, lakes, poles condensing and then using the sun uv to create. What little was there made little bodies of water and that itself could only happen when the earth cools down else you end having vapor oxygen in atmosphere but only as much as oxygen which is trapped in the rock. The early Cyanobacteria in fact did not need oxygen to grow, but they produced it as a by-product. I never said there was no water, I just said it wasn't enough to fill the earth. Water could only be present in small shallow ponds and only when the earth cooled down. And somewhere along here the Cyanobacteria started photosynthesis, accelerating the water cycle but also populating itself, meaning more oxygen by-production, meaning more condensation as earth cooled down, in turn producing more rain and that would create oceans. It would take millions of years before it gets to the point of gen 1:2. It would take a cool earth to do that, not a hot one as you imply. The oxygen atmosphere that we depend on generated when cyanobacteria photosynthesizing during the Archaean and Proterozoic Era made the great oxidizing event. They were the first organisms on Earth to perform oxygenic photosynthesis. They evolved from the earliest prokaryotes 2.5 to 3.5 billion years ago. Cyanobacteria only evolved later with the same kinds of chlorophyll found in plants. And gave rise to plants. Like plants, cyanobacteria have the photosynthetic pigment chlorophyll A and they use water as an electron donor during photosynthesis. When molecules split, oxygen is liberated. This is the process resulted in oxygen accumulating in the earth’s early atmosphere.

They produce organic carbon, the building blocks of life's molecules, and release oxygen gas (O2) which then enters into the seawater, and from there some of it escapes into the atmosphere

When cyanobacteria first began producing oxygen, much of the oxygen reacted with iron, sulfur and other chemicals, in the oceans, and in Earth's surface rocks, when raindrops containing dissolved oxygen weathered and eroded the rocks. These processes carried the oxygen into seafloor sediments and eventually into Earth's interior. That we have proof of today.

The presence of water is a natural occurence due to the presence of the elements of hydrogen and oxygen on this planet. The comets did not bring the majority of Earth's water to the planet, although many comets are covered and/or filled with ice, but if it does enter earth (which we have no prof of) most of that would burn off in entrance into the atmosphere. When you say that hydrogen and oxygen combined in early earth atmosphere then it is not possible first at that point earth's gravitation pull was not strong enough to hold light gases in atmosphere, a condensation could never occur while the earth was hot.

H20 cannot exist in active stars, but H and O separately can. Hydrogen is the basic building material of the universe, created in the Big Bang. Oxygen is created by nuclear reactions in stars. If you put H and O together in the cold of space, you get H2O. There are enourmous amounts of water in space. In fact, nearly all of the oxygen in space is in the form of water or carbon monoxide. If you think that comets brought water then you are largely mistaken.

The thingy, is you are saying that this formation of water rose when the earth started, I say is very unlikely, you and I can not agree since we are assuming different assumptions to start our explanations.

Here's your problem

I believe what Job, Romans and Genesis say, I just do not think your explanations carry any weight. The events of these books happened. It is the interpretation that I am not agreeing with. You say its scientific, it would be since it did happen, but at least not perfectly as you are saying, there are other probabilities as well. But I think you have already made up your mind that it only happened the way which makes sense to you.

You counter this with a worthless assumption that I think it is not scientific which I never claimed, in fact I agreed that since Gen 1 happened these events are scientific. I said I do not agree with your interpretation.

May be it would help you and save some of your writing time if you actually know what we are talking about here and stop making arguments having useless straw man tactics, its a waste of time.

kmr · Post by **kmr** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:32 am

Weeeeeee more fun arguments! So much fun to read!

I'm hardly the physics expert, so could you remind me, is free oxygen just plain O in its furthest-broken-down state and elemental oxygen like when it binds to itself, like O2? I can't remember... I know the difference between an atom and an element (quantity) but I doubt that helps much...?

neo-x · Post by **neo-x** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:42 am

I'm tired of fun arguments..lol

Legatus won't have it any other way except his

kmr · Post by **kmr** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:03 am

Haha!

neo-x · Post by **neo-x** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:11 am

I'm hardly the physics expert, so could you remind me, is free oxygen just plain O in its furthest-broken-down state and elemental oxygen like when it binds to itself, like O2? I can't remember... I know the difference between an atom and an element (quantity) but I doubt that helps much...?

Oxygen atom O doesn't normally occur in nature, alone. Oxygen is a combination of two oxygen elements atoms, i.e. O2, hence it is classified as a diatomic molecule ('di' meaning 'two'). This is due to the bonding capability of its outer electrons. Elemental Oxygen is HIGHLY corrosive due its high affinity to form oxidative bonds and hence is found rarely as a separate entity, elemental oxygen occurs primary as O2.

O stands for one atom of oxygen. Oxygen atoms are joined in pairs. To write a pair of oxygen atoms using symbols, they use the symbol O and the number 2. So, Oxygen would be (O2). The highly reactive ozone is O3 having three oxygen atoms.

Legatus · Post by **Legatus** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 1:33 am

The basis of the disagreement between Neo-X and myself here is that I believe that the natural world, if studied through science, and the bible, agree on what they say, and Neo-x does not. In fact, Neo-x always shows up whenever I post anything that dares to suggest that what is written in Genesis and what science now shows are one and the same. This is especially true about the first chapter of Genesis about the progression from what this planet started out like to what it finally became by the time people showed up, and also about that whole flood and Noah thing and the genetic evidence that supports the existence of Noah (and the earlier Eve). Also, Neo-x does not seem to believe that the bible says that we even should bother expecting that such should be true, despite the very clear Rom 1:20 (it even uses that word). One wonders why Neo-x likes to frequent a site called God and Science dot org, if he does not believe that there is any connection between God and science?

And the "argument" is usually kind of like the one on Monty Python, seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM . I post something that says that this part of the bible agrees with science of some type (say, evidence that Genesis the first chapter is scientifically factual about the cosmology of earth), and I post links to science supporting that, and perhaps an appropriate quote from that source, and then Neo-x comes along and says "no it isn't", usually with simple unsupported statements without any links or quotes, and sometimes with arguments that are against science, even basic science like chemistry and biology. He then says "Legatus won't have it any other way except his", to which I answer, you are right, I wont have it anyway but my way, and the scientific method way, and the way that agrees with the known physical evidence, and chemistry, and biology, and cosmology, and geology, and the bible as it was written (the specific words in that specific order). I might be willing to change my mind IF I saw any EVIDENCE to support what Neo-x states, however, what I generally see is only bald statements without any evidence to back them up, and vague generalities about what the bible actually says without ever actually saying how those specific words, in that specific order, can mean anything other than what they say. I will show below specific examples of this.

It started when I dared to suggest that the physical evidence from genetics supports the idea of an actual woman called Eve (mitochondrial Eve), and of a later man called Noah (incorrectly named y-chromosonal Adam). Neo-x posted some of what scientist believe (providing some links and quotes, a good thing), I then show the scientific problem with that, that if what "scientists believe" (since when did belief become science?) is true, that there were also many others besides the earlier Eve and the later Noah, that left problems with science (specifically, why don't we have genetic evidence of these others?) such that the proposed solutions to that problem (to avoid admitting the one obvious possibility, that the reason we only have evidence of that one is because there was only one) are described as "farfetched" http://www.dubage.com/API/ThePolymath/1 ... 1ebam.html .

He then asks the question, do I believe that Genesis 1 says that God also created dinosaurs, probably because Neo-x does not seem to believe that Gen 1 has any connection with scientific fact, and does not see the word dinosaur in Genesis (Hebrew doesn't have a word for dinosaurs anyway, that is a recent invention along with the recent inventions of science and the study of fossils). I assume therefore that he hoped to show that, since Genesis does not mention dinosaurs, that therefore Genesis is not factual ( I assume that because he immediately attacked my idea that Genesis does say dinosaurs, if indirectly). I then point out that it does mention birds, created at an earlier stage than other land animals, and that most scientists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Despite the fact that Neo-x'es profile says he believes in "theistic evolution", he immediately attacks that idea, which is a little strange... Apparently, he simply wishes to bring up any idea which can discredit the idea that Genesis and science are in agreement, regardless of whether he agrees with that idea himself or not. I then point out that Job includes a description by God to Job Job 40:15 of what is exactly like a Sauropoda (brontosaurus type critter) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropoda, Neo-x then says that Job could only know about a Sauropoda if Job had seen one, I point out that there are a number of things in Job that Job could not have known about personally, such as when God first created the earth Job 38:3, when the sea first came into existence Job 38:8 (as water/steam in a cloud at first Job 38:9, producing "thick darkness" written of in Gen 1:2, and later condensing on the surface as in Gen 1:7, followed by the cooling crust starting to wrinkle and dry land hump up out of the water as seen in Gen 1:9 and Job 38:10 and Job 38:11) , as well as other things Job could not know about, like the bottom of the sea Job 38:16, and even gives a reason why Job could not know about these things Job 38:21, because Job would have to have been billions, or at least many millions, of years old to know of them. Therefore, it is clear that some things written in Job are things Job could not have ever personally experienced, and thus a dinosaur could be another thing he had not personally experienced.

Neo-x then challenges the idea that Rom 1:20, which says that we can know about God from the evidence of the natural world going all the way back to it's creation spoken of in Genesis, is talking about the same creation, by basically saying that Genesis is not factual, as shown by his saying that a large ocean could not have existed as written there:

Yes, this certainly means creation but not what is written in Genesis 1. If Gen 1:2 holds true than this was before Gen1:2 happened. Because the water, the vast ocean was already present on earth. Also on or earlier debate about oxygen, this much water could not be present on earth without abundant oxygen, which the earth lacked.

This is the old "gap" argument, which says that there was some kind of earth created in Gen 1:1 and then destroyed and remade in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, and then he goes back to the old argument that there could not be an ocean if there was not free oxygen. The gap argument is first, unsupported by any physical evidence at all, or by any biblical evidence, supposedly existing between two verses, and denied by 1 Cor 15:45 Luke 3:38 which says Adam was the first man, and the first man to sin 1 Cor 15:22 Rom 5:14. If Adam was the first man, and the first man to sin, then there was no man before Adam, who could have or did sin and thus result in God destroying some imaginary (unsupported by any evidence) earth because of some people's wickedness. If you say that the ones who sinned before that were not people, then we have intelligent, sentient non-humans on earth, essentially, aliens. There is no physical evidence of them, there is physical evidence of "hominids", specifically Neanderthals, who had brains as big (actually slightly bigger on average) than our brains today, had fire, cooked food with it, had burial customs (which suggests belief in an afterlife), constructed tools and sophisticated traps, constructed complex structures, skinned animals, had language (one would have to have language to be able to tell the kid to go get firewood, to be able to plan ahead and know that you will need firewood later, and to teach how to do all this stuff to others, making fire aint easy, try it sometime) and even made jewelry and pigments. Since the bible gives no dates for Adam, or Noah, it is quite possible that Neanderthals are pre flood type humans (humans who could live the hundreds of years the pre flood humans did, who are thus seen to be genetically different than us today), or were an offshoot of pre flood humans who existed after the flood (there being a rather small localized human population pre flood, shown by the fact that one flood could get them all, we may not have any fossils of them) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior. (If you want to go into the old "Neanderthals are animals argument, I suggest a new thread, this one is about Noah and whether the bible contains scientific fact)

Neo-x then goes into his argument, which is basically that the early earth could not have had an ocean until such time as it had life, which is used to attack the idea that Genesis contains any scientific fact

The Bible was not intended as a primitive science manual that presented rudimentary scientific facts that would be verifiable at a later date when science caught up.

(an argument he gives without any support other than his say so). In this way he says that since an ocean could not have existed before life in Gen 1:11, that therefore Genesis is not scientifically factual, and that therefore the whole Noah thing is also not factual. There are so many huge scientific problems with this idea that water in ocean sized quantities did not exist on earth before life that the idea is completely impossible. The first is the actual physical evidence, seen here http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-05e.html ""Rocks formed as a result of the thermal energy from meteorite impacts would be bone dry and melt at greater than 900 degrees Celsius," said Harrison. "In contrast, our study has found that Hadean rocks melted at a consistent average temperature of 690 degrees Celsius. Water, which is a very powerful catalyst, must have been present in very large amounts for rocks to melt at such a relatively low temperature." Note, what they discovered, that of the couple of hundred zircon crystals they could date at over 4.2 billions years, ALL of then were of the type that could only form in the presence of liquid water, which means that wherever they formed, no matter where it was, there was liquid water, which says that the earth was largely or even completely covered with liquid water ("in very large amounts"). Don't know about you, but that sounds completely different than Neo-x'es completely unsupported statement "Water could only be present in small shallow ponds", some shallow ponds would have meant that at least some of those zircon crystals would have formed in the absence of water, yet ALL of them formed in the presence of water, hence, a lot more than a few shallow ponds.

Then there is chemistry and biology, which are completely against this idea. First, to have free oxygen released by microorganisms, you must first have unfree oxygen, organisms cannot create oxygen, only use what they find. And where do they find oxygen, FROM WATER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria "Cyanobacteria utilize the energy of sunlight to drive photosynthesis, a process where the energy of light is used to split water molecules into oxygen, protons, and electrons." Thus, if you say that water in these quantities can only come from free oxygen combining with hydrogen, the free oxygen first came from water, result, use water, create water, no net gain in water. There is no mention of these early microorganisms being able to eat rock with oxygen in them and then release that as free oxygen, and that would not work anyway since that free oxygen would then simply be absorbed back into the rocks again. There is also the fact that many of the early microorganisms could only live IN water, and thus cannot even exist without plenty of water to live in.
And all this assumes that when we break down water to make free oxygen, we can use all that oxygen to make water, however, see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
The most widely accepted chronology of the Great Oxygenation Event suggests that oxygen began to be produced by photosynthesis by organisms (prokaryotic, then eukaryotic) that emitted oxygen as a waste product. These organisms lived long before the GOE,[2] perhaps as early as 3,500 million years ago. The oxygen they produced would have quickly been removed from the atmosphere by the weathering of reduced minerals, most notably iron. This 'mass rusting' led to the deposition of banded-iron formations, shown for example in sediments in Minnesota
Thus we see that before there was free oxygen in the atmosphere, there were large amounts of oxygen being released from water by microorganisms and then absorbed by iron and other minerals. We therefore have a very long time period when we not only are not creating water from free oxygen, we are breaking down water and turning it's oxygen into rust, result, a great long term net loss of water, which means you have to START with a LOT of water to begin with to create enough free oxygen to make all that rust (and other oxides) and still have any water left over.

Then there is the Great Oxygenation Event, where finally all the iron and suchlike oxides are oxidized, and we can finally build up some free oxygen in the atmosphere to create that water Neo-x is looking for. And in fact, this did happen, oxygen released combines with the methane present in the atmosphere and created water and carbon dioxide. Finally we are at least creating water, however, since we are creating it from free oxygen liberated from water, we use water to get water, result, no net gain in water.

And then there is the idea that somehow, the early earth started with little water, even though Neo-x admits that water must exist in large quantities in the universe before the earth formed. How, then, are you to keep this water from arriving at where the earth is starting to form from space rocks, when we can see that comets and asteroids are seen to often contain water ice? Were there some sort of space cops out there, pulling over any water containing rocks or ice crystal clouds and telling them that it is illegal to join with the other stuff in forming the earth, that it has been declared a water free zone? I mean, if all that water is out there, as Neo-x admits, how do you keep it out? And then there is this "although many comets are covered and/or filled with ice, but if it does enter earth (which we have no prof of) most of that would burn off in entrance into the atmosphere". Burn off, that means the water is somehow destroyed, disintegrated or something? What happens when you heat water, answer, steam, which is just another form of water, thus if a comet or smaller icy body arrives at earth it will turn to steam which is water which would then be part of the early earths atmosphere (clouds, later rain). And then there is the simple fact that if said comet or smaller icy body arrives early enough, there will be little or no atmosphere to begin with, it will simply plunk down, and then be covered by the rocks and comets and suchlike that arrive later, and then when the earth gets big enough and hot enough, turn to steam and be released up out of the ground as seen in Job 38:8, and form a thick dark cloud as seen in Job 38:9 and Gen 1:2 ending (to some extent) at Gen 1:7. The bible supports this latter idea especially, which makes sense, once all the space stuff comes together to form the earth, there would be less comets and other icy stuff left over to arrive later.

Conclusion, on one side we have Neo-x'es unsupported word for a low water early earth as evidence that the bible is not scientifically factual (not one shred of evidence has been given or linked to or quoted or even suggested to support this), on the other, physical evidence of 4.2 year old and older zircon crystals that ALL must have formed in the presence of water wherever they formed, plus chemistry and biology which says that it takes water for life to make free oxygen from and thus to make water from the free oxygen results in no net gain of water, plus geology and chemistry which says that for a very long time any free oxygen made ended up as rust and other non water oxides, plus the simple idea that there is, in fact, a lot of water out there in that big universe and there is no way to keep it out when the earth is first forming. The conclusion is that for Neo-x to go against all this evidence he must really WANT Genesis to be non factual. The question then is, why?

And the final point of contention is that Neo-x says that I am interpreting the bible wrong, especially Rom 1:20, which states in no uncertain terms that we have no excuse to say that there is no God and that therefore it is ok to suppress the truth about God and to sin (that is the context). He has yet to deal with the actual words, the definition of those words and the order that they are in, and show how those sentences can mean anything other than exactly what they say, that what can be known about God is plain, since the creation of the world (spoken of in Genesis the first chapter, and Job the 38th chapter), and that these show Gods invisible qualities, that they are clearly seen by what has been made, i.e. the created world, since it's first creation, spoken of in Genesis. Simply saying "your wrong" without offering WHY that "interpretation" is wrong doesn't cut it, just making some vague generalities that it must not mean what it actually says doesn't cut it, to say that it means something else you must give a REASON why, and that has not been done. In fact, not once has there even been mentioned what this alternative interpretation even is, I am just supposed to accept that my interpretation is wrong even though no "right" interpretation has been stated.

I can only guess that the method Neo-x and others are using for "interpretation" is the deconstruction or higher criticism way, where you decide what the authors "intent" was, and then paper what you call the intent over what it actually says, allowing you to basically make it say whatever you want, since you no longer need to actually consider the actual words used, and the order they are used in, only some "intent" that you have made up and substituted for those words. The higher criticism types also like to invent authors of the bible for which there is not a shred of evidence for who author things like "J documents" where there is not even one single example around to show that it ever existed. They also like to deny things like that Moses wrote Genesis, despite Jesus and his apostles saying different (and even seeing Moses once), and they also like to make up authors for the rest of the bible also, and to say that it was not made when those authors lived, but made up later out of tales or folklore or the tales gradually developed over time, thus avoiding the need to say that they are accurate. They continue to do this even when they have been caught out many times when archeology shows that it is in fact accurate. They also like to label it "myth" and "fable" and "literature" (in other words, fiction), all to claim that it is not factual, doing so to allow them to weaken it and thus allow them to substitute their own ideas for "what really happened". For instance, if it looks like Genesis is talking science, they label it "poetry", even if it was not written in the style of Jewish poetry (like Psalms was, for instance). They like to use the fact that many have heard it in the King James Version, which sounds more poetical in English, despite the fact that the original was not written in English and that therefore this argument has no weight at all.

Here is an example of higher criticism or deconstruction type "interpretation". The phrase to be interpreted is "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water". We first decide that this is not a factual statement about actual people, actual hills, and actual water (usually because it is saying something we don't want to believe). We decide arbitrarily that it is actually talking about 'spiritual stuff". In the bible, the only way we could say that we know the "intent of the author" (the stated author, such as Moses, having usually been deconstructed out of existence) would be to show that we had a working time machine, used it to go back in time to that author, and was able to use our powers of mind reading to tell what the actual intent of the author was. Failing that, the only real way to tell what the intent of the author was is THE ACTUAL WORDS THEY WROTE, however, we would never want to do that! Having decided, without a shred of actual evidence of any kind, that we know what the "real" intent of the author was, we now decide that the above phrase really means that Jack and Jill, who were of course not actually themselves but representative of all of us, had a spiritually uplifting experience and received the water which represents a cleansing and renewing of the spirit. In this way we have papered over the actual words written by the original author with an idea so foreign to it that I doubt the original author would even know what we are talking about (assuming that even we do).

If this is not an example of how to "interpreter" say, Rom 1:20, then, pray tell, how DO you interpreter it? Be specific, showing exactly why it should be interpreted in any other way than using the actual words it was written in. If you say the "intent of the author" was to say something or other, provide evidence of some kind to show that that is the actual intent, and tell us how you know this. Otherwise, having NO reason to do otherwise, I must say that the actual words written in Rom 1:20 say beyond the shadow of a doubt that God says that the evidence of the natural world (that which is seen), even all the way back to the creation of the world written of in Genesis, shows us "clearly" of Gods invisible qualities, so that we have no excuse to say that there is no God and that we know of at least some of his qualities.

In short, until Neo-x actually gives a REASON for why he says I am wrong, and what is actually right AND a reason for that as well, I see no reason why I should change my mind. I would need to see actual facts, not just personal opinion. I would need to see an actual "interpretation", and why that interpretation is the correct one, not just "your interpretation is wrong", without saying why it is or offering any alternative to it at all. In other words, I won't have it any other way except mine (and that of cosmologists, and chemists, and biologists, and geologists, and archeologists, and Hebrew and Greek scholars, and the actual physical evidence) until such time as I have been given a fact based reason to do so. So far, all I see is unsupported personal opinion.

I repeated some of my earlier arguments because I thought some of my earlier posts here, especially the one just before this one, wee a little muddy and hard to understand.

neo-x · Post by **neo-x** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:33 am

Legatus...Oh dear

The basis of the disagreement between Neo-X and myself here is that I believe that the natural world, if studied through science, and the bible, agree on what they say, and Neo-x does not.

WRONG...I only said I didn't agree with your interpretation and I'm not absolute sure how it happened. I never said it is unscientific.

In fact, Neo-x always shows up whenever I post anything that dares to suggest that what is written in Genesis and what science now shows are one and the same.

No body's stalking you...You have a right to post and I have the right to do the same.

Also, Neo-x does not seem to believe that the bible says that we even should bother expecting that such should be true, despite the very clear Rom 1:20 (it even uses that word). One wonders why Neo-x likes to frequent a site called God and Science dot org, if he does not believe that there is any connection between God and science?

I said we should never judge the word of God on theories, what if you get proven wrong, as in through history a lot of Christians were. Such treatment of verses is out of the context. Rests entirely on if what was written was metaphorical or literal?

And the "argument" is usually kind of like the one on Monty Python, seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM . I post something that says that this part of the bible agrees with science of some type (say, evidence that Genesis the first chapter is scientifically factual about the cosmology of earth), and I post links to science supporting that, and perhaps an appropriate quote from that source, and then Neo-x comes along and says "no it isn't", usually with simple unsupported statements without any links or quotes, and sometimes with arguments that are against science, even basic science like chemistry and biology. He then says "Legatus won't have it any other way except his", to which I answer, you are right, I wont have it anyway but my way, and the scientific method way, and the way that agrees with the known physical evidence, and chemistry, and biology, and cosmology, and geology, and the bible as it was written (the specific words in that specific order). I might be willing to change my mind IF I saw any EVIDENCE to support what Neo-x states, however, what I generally see is only bald statements without any evidence to back them up, and vague generalities about what the bible actually says without ever actually saying how those specific words, in that specific order, can mean anything other than what they say. I will show below specific examples of this.

You never gave solid, concrete evidence, only got out to fit every theory you can to fit your model of Gen 1. That's all you did. I just showed you the gaps in your theories, no wonder you're upset.

It started when I dared to suggest that the physical evidence from genetics supports the idea of an actual woman called Eve (mitochondrial Eve), and of a later man called Noah (incorrectly named y-chromosonal Adam). Neo-x posted some of what scientist believe (providing some links and quotes, a good thing), I then show the scientific problem with that, that if what "scientists believe" (since when did belief become science?) is true, that there were also many others besides the earlier Eve and the later Noah, that left problems with science (specifically, why don't we have genetic evidence of these others?) such that the proposed solutions to that problem (to avoid admitting the one obvious possibility, that the reason we only have evidence of that one is because there was only one) are described as "farfetched" http://www.dubage.com/API/ThePolymath/1 ... 1ebam.html .

It started when you started shoving your explanation as the true one and every other theory anybody holds as "a lie from Satan". Eve was a single contradiction, how about the proposed water cloud theory you gave, i even gave you a mathematical calculation to suggest what you were saying was impossible.

He then asks the question, do I believe that Genesis 1 says that God also created dinosaurs, probably because Neo-x does not seem to believe that Gen 1 has any connection with scientific fact, and does not see the word dinosaur in Genesis (Hebrew doesn't have a word for dinosaurs anyway, that is a recent invention along with the recent inventions of science and the study of fossils). I assume therefore that he hoped to show that, since Genesis does not mention dinosaurs, that therefore Genesis is not factual ( I assume that because he immediately attacked my idea that Genesis does say dinosaurs, if indirectly). I then point out that it does mention birds, created at an earlier stage than other land animals, and that most scientists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Despite the fact that Neo-x'es profile says he believes in "theistic evolution", he immediately attacks that idea, which is a little strange... Apparently, he simply wishes to bring up any idea which can discredit the idea that Genesis and science are in agreement, regardless of whether he agrees with that idea himself or not. I then point out that Job includes a description by God to Job Job 40:15 of what is exactly like a Sauropoda (brontosaurus type critter) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropoda, Neo-x then says that Job could only know about a Sauropoda if Job had seen one, I point out that there are a number of things in Job that Job could not have known about personally, such as when God first created the earth Job 38:3, when the sea first came into existence Job 38:8 (as water/steam in a cloud at first Job 38:9, producing "thick darkness" written of in Gen 1:2, and later condensing on the surface as in Gen 1:7, followed by the cooling crust starting to wrinkle and dry land hump up out of the water as seen in Gen 1:9 and Job 38:10 and Job 38:11) , as well as other things Job could not know about, like the bottom of the sea Job 38:16, and even gives a reason why Job could not know about these things Job 38:21, because Job would have to have been billions, or at least many millions, of years old to know of them. Therefore, it is clear that some things written in Job are things Job could not have ever personally experienced, and thus a dinosaur could be another thing he had not personally experienced.

I said if God gave the description in Job, why not in genesis? because you were saying that because there was no word in the language for dinosaurs so that's why they are skipped in genesis. This is an incoherent method of interpretation because it is followed whenever a verse agrees with you but the ones that contradict are left out.

Neo-x then challenges the idea that Rom 1:20, which says that we can know about God from the evidence of the natural world going all the way back to it's creation spoken of in Genesis, is talking about the same creation, by basically saying that Genesis is not factual, as shown by his saying that a large ocean could not have existed as written there:
Yes, this certainly means creation but not what is written in Genesis 1. If Gen 1:2 holds true than this was before Gen1:2 happened. Because the water, the vast ocean was already present on earth. Also on or earlier debate about oxygen, this much water could not be present on earth without abundant oxygen, which the earth lacked.

I never said genesis was non-factual. are you simply lying because you like to or you are disgusted that I am refuting you?

And Yes, if genesis 1:2 hold true then there are profound implications of that. So much water on the surface, must mean there had been a source of that, and Non comets did not bring water to earth, if the did, we'd have huge craters as impact zones left for us to wonder. That is evidence no one can refuse, but only when it exists.

This is the old "gap" argument, which says that there was some kind of earth created in Gen 1:1 and then destroyed and remade in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, and then he goes back to the old argument that there could not be an ocean if there was not free oxygen. The gap argument is first, unsupported by any physical evidence at all, or by any biblical evidence, supposedly existing between two verses, and denied by 1 Cor 15:45 Luke 3:38 which says Adam was the first man, and the first man to sin 1 Cor 15:22 Rom 5:14. If Adam was the first man, and the first man to sin, then there was no man before Adam, who could have or did sin and thus result in God destroying some imaginary (unsupported by any evidence) earth because of some people's wickedness. If you say that the ones who sinned before that were not people, then we have intelligent, sentient non-humans on earth, essentially, aliens. There is no physical evidence of them, there is physical evidence of "hominids", specifically Neanderthals, who had brains as big (actually slightly bigger on average) than our brains today, had fire, cooked food with it, had burial customs (which suggests belief in an afterlife), constructed tools and sophisticated traps, constructed complex structures, skinned animals, had language (one would have to have language to be able to tell the kid to go get firewood, to be able to plan ahead and know that you will need firewood later, and to teach how to do all this stuff to others, making fire aint easy, try it sometime) and even made jewelry and pigments. Since the bible gives no dates for Adam, or Noah, it is quite possible that Neanderthals are pre flood type humans (humans who could live the hundreds of years the pre flood humans did, who are thus seen to be genetically different than us today), or were an offshoot of pre flood humans who existed after the flood (there being a rather small localized human population pre flood, shown by the fact that one flood could get them all, we may not have any fossils of them) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior. (If you want to go into the old "Neanderthals are animals argument, I suggest a new thread, this one is about Noah and whether the bible contains scientific fact)

Well yeah, sure, what if its old, I never said I endorse it, but it does have some questions you never answered and before you ask me which ones, just re-read my posts. if you haven't already, that is.

Neo-x then goes into his argument, which is basically that the early earth could not have had an ocean until such time as it had life, which is used to attack the idea that Genesis contains any scientific fact
The Bible was not intended as a primitive science manual that presented rudimentary scientific facts that would be verifiable at a later date when science caught up.

Yes I hold by my stance, Bible was not written to verify scientific findings, this is a basic fact. Bible contains scientific evidence no body's refuting that. I said over and over again I do not agree with your interpretation, and because YOU THINK THAT YOUR THEORY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS POSSIBLE, that's why you
think I'm refuting the Bible, since you think you what you are saying is what the Bible says. Well there are many large gaps you are just skipping over and not admitting it.

And then there is the idea that somehow, the early earth started with little water, even though Neo-x admits that water must exist in large quantities in the universe before the earth formed. How, then, are you to keep this water from arriving at where the earth is starting to form from space rocks, when we can see that comets and asteroids are seen to often contain water ice? Were there some sort of space cops out there, pulling over any water containing rocks or ice crystal clouds and telling them that it is illegal to join with the other stuff in forming the earth, that it has been declared a water free zone? I mean, if all that water is out there, as Neo-x admits, how do you keep it out? And then there is this "although many comets are covered and/or filled with ice, but if it does enter earth (which we have no prof of) most of that would burn off in entrance into the atmosphere". Burn off, that means the water is somehow destroyed, disintegrated or something? What happens when you heat water, answer, steam, which is just another form of water, thus if a comet or smaller icy body arrives at earth it will turn to steam which is water which would then be part of the early earths atmosphere (clouds, later rain). And then there is the simple fact that if said comet or smaller icy body arrives early enough, there will be little or no atmosphere to begin with, it will simply plunk down, and then be covered by the rocks and comets and suchlike that arrive later, and then when the earth gets big enough and hot enough, turn to steam and be released up out of the ground as seen in Job 38:8, and form a thick dark cloud as seen in Job 38:9 and Gen 1:2 ending (to some extent) at Gen 1:7. The bible supports this latter idea especially, which makes sense, once all the space stuff comes together to form the earth, there would be less comets and other icy stuff left over to arrive later.

Oh and when did these comets bring that water, certainly in between genesis 1:1 and 1:2...and of course you are utterly disregarding the truth when you say that the earth became hot after being cold. Earth relatively cooled down and I know that now you will just bring up a remote theory as to how SOME scientists think it is like what you think is right. Huh...well, go on do what you like, no body's stopping you. Well what about the the people that do not see it in the same light. No body is refuting you because they would like to, it is because there are different interpretations available. But of course you rant about any theory that is against yours theory as "a lie of the devil", 'work of Satan', and to quote you on this, that I(Neo-x) will not go to hell, but a lot of people will be because they do not agree with your interpretation. When did God told you to decide that...huh?

Conclusion, on one side we have Neo-x'es unsupported word for a low water early earth as evidence that the bible is not scientifically factual (not one shred of evidence has been given or linked to or quoted or even suggested to support this), on the other, physical evidence of 4.2 year old and older zircon crystals that ALL must have formed in the presence of water wherever they formed, plus chemistry and biology which says that it takes water for life to make free oxygen from and thus to make water from the free oxygen results in no net gain of water, plus geology and chemistry which says that for a very long time any free oxygen made ended up as rust and other non water oxides, plus the simple idea that there is, in fact, a lot of water out there in that big universe and there is no way to keep it out when the earth is first forming. The conclusion is that for Neo-x to go against all this evidence he must really WANT Genesis to be non factual. The question then is, why?

Not gonna explain what I never claimed.

I can only guess that the method Neo-x and others are using for "interpretation" is the deconstruction or higher criticism way, where you decide what the authors "intent" was, and then paper what you call the intent over what it actually says, allowing you to basically make it say whatever you want, since you no longer need to actually consider the actual words used, and the order they are used in, only some "intent" that you have made up and substituted for those words. The higher criticism types also like to invent authors of the bible for which there is not a shred of evidence for who author things like "J documents" where there is not even one single example around to show that it ever existed. They also like to deny things like that Moses wrote Genesis, despite Jesus and his apostles saying different (and even seeing Moses once), and they also like to make up authors for the rest of the bible also, and to say that it was not made when those authors lived, but made up later out of tales or folklore or the tales gradually developed over time, thus avoiding the need to say that they are accurate. They continue to do this even when they have been caught out many times when archeology shows that it is in fact accurate. They also like to label it "myth" and "fable" and "literature" (in other words, fiction), all to claim that it is not factual, doing so to allow them to weaken it and thus allow them to substitute their own ideas for "what really happened". For instance, if it looks like Genesis is talking science, they label it "poetry", even if it was not written in the style of Jewish poetry (like Psalms was, for instance). They like to use the fact that many have heard it in the King James Version, which sounds more poetical in English, despite the fact that the original was not written in English and that therefore this argument has no weight at all.

Full of false claims, all based on a bias you have planted in your mind against all reason that contradicts you.

In short, until Neo-x actually gives a REASON for why he says I am wrong, and what is actually right AND a reason for that as well, I see no reason why I should change my mind. I would need to see actual facts, not just personal opinion. I would need to see an actual "interpretation", and why that interpretation is the correct one, not just "your interpretation is wrong", without saying why it is or offering any alternative to it at all. In other words, I won't have it any other way except mine (and that of cosmologists, and chemists, and biologists, and geologists, and archeologists, and Hebrew and Greek scholars, and the actual physical evidence) until such time as I have been given a fact based reason to do so. So far, all I see is unsupported personal opinion.

I repeated some of my earlier arguments because I thought some of my earlier posts here, especially the one just before this one, wee a little muddy and hard to understand.

Legatus no body's trying to convert you. What are actual facts you gave? gravity is a fact, it can't be refuted or alternative given. You gave ideas, fine, you said they were real, fine, you said, that is exactly how it happened, NOT FINE. The interpretations of the Bible are open to it different methods and you should recognize that fact. and we do how we see it makes more sense. You are not wrong if you think what you think, but only when you start saying that you are the only one right and others wrong. I just showed you, how your theory creates problems, how it produces gaps and does not answer a lot of things. Plus it is based on how to translate and what assumptions you make and never question before you start your theory and build your idea. There will always be a possibility and no one can tell for sure how Gen 1 actually happened. All anybody can do is make assumption, but you are extremely prejudiced against all else. By copy pasting articles and links your theory does not gets reality. because even the scientists begins by assuming somethings. and there are always others who will refute them. My point was to show you that alternatives are present not by prejudice alone but on reasoning.

You of course fail to see it claiming Neo-x thinks Genesis is not factual, that why does he comes to God and science if he doesn't believe it. what complete crap that is.

Stop whining, if you can't take criticism better not post, if you can, why complain, just saying that my criticism is false because i am unscientific and I do not give links to Wikipedia articles, does not makes my criticism wrong. You have brewed this to some kind of weird personal vendetta, which I have no intention of, yet you persist on saying that it is the case, that I show up whenever you post something. What makes you think like this. I can post wherever I want. I and Jilay for example, seldom agree but that doesn't mean we are after each other just for the sake of proving wrong one and another.

I'm sorry but this is just petty attitude, not able to take any candid criticism. For the record (for a thousandth time) Genesis 1 did happen, God did it and it is awesome. I'm just not sure about your theory. And I'm afraid a lot of other people don't, I have reason to believe what I think, makes you no better than any of us. So stop being judgmental, please. Claiming statements on me which I never claimed it unethical and you should know that by now. Just ruins the whole thread which by the way you have, when you claimed against all statements that what I am saying can not be answered just because it is the wrong question. fine. But as long as a gap is there I would point it out to you against your claim that it is the utmost, perfect method. The translation of the Bible depends on the context and relevant meaning. Rom was not written to support genesis scientifically, neither was job to give you a complete picture of how it happened, these are broad strokes, you are filling in details in between those strokes and then claiming that they are the underlying order, this is all suppositions and when someone contradicts you you see they contradict Genesis, Job and Romans, but in fact I am contradicting that little stuffing you filled in to complete those gaps. This is ridiculous, not sound logic and not a very good way to stretch Biblical truth to fit your theory. All depends on what assumptions you start with. If you start it with others you get a different result. If you can't see it than my words will have poor effect. I have no doubt about it. I'm not against you but don't expect me to buy it just because you think it happened like this.

That being said, you are brother in Christ, you have a right to say what you like, go ahead, I'm no one to stop you, but if you act like what you have been doing then why post for reasoning and discussion. I think you only post to tell your pov but don't want anyone saying any different to it. Just tell me, don't post or comment against what I say, I'll oblige you on that but do not make false claims, do not accuse others if they believe something else, that is simply not acceptable, not to me.

Legatus · Post by **Legatus** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:11 am

Just a few quick questions (for Neo-x):
1)About these "gaps, well, could I see one? Please show a place where there is a gap (especially in Gen 1), and the evidence that this gap exists.

2) About interperatation of Gen 1, is it literal or metaphorical, if the later parts are literal, such as the whole Abraham and Moses etc, is it reasonable to assume that the whole of it is literal, or are we to decide without evidence which parts are literal and which metaphorical?

3) Do you know the basic structure of the bible? The basic structure is that of a 4000 year old covenant beween a king and the people. This requires it to contain certain things, history, law, and other things. genesis includes the history and law parts. There is nothing in these old covenant forms about metaphorical history, only actual history of the king, the people, the laws, and how those laws were carried out, changed, or broken (the prophets covered the broken part).

4) The basis of why I beleive you do not beleive the bible does not contain scientific facts (besides the fact that you said so in no uncertain terms) is your interpreatation of Rom 1:20. Please whow your interpratation of Rom 1:20, and how it does not mean that. Please cover the actual words in the verse (you can of course cover verses before that, context and all that). So far, you have said you beleive my interpratation wong, but have provided no alternative interpratation along with reasons why it may be more correct.

This is not an attack or anything, I merely wish clarification of your position.

Evidence for God from Science

"Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.

Re: "Where is Noah?" Then and now.