Evidence for God from Science

This is not a "vapor canopy model", this is a description given by science, Genesis, and Job of the earth before the seas existed as such, shortly after the planet formed and while it was still a hot mess. Yes, the planet was unlivable, the atmospheric pressure was very high, and it was pitch black at what is now sea level, but it didn't matter because there was no life yet anyway. This was some 4.5 billion years ago after all. Thus when God said "let there be light", he was talking from the point of view of sea level on earth, which is specifically mentioned just before that so that we would know. He was not talking about creating light in a completly dark universe, the entire Genesis passage was written to humans, and thus is entirely from the point of view of humans who live on the surface of this earth and generally live only a small ways above sea level.

The reason this atmosphere did not condense during this fairly breif time shortly after the formation of this planet is because, if it rained, the planet was still so hot that the rain immediatly evaporated. Result "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'?" This is clearly talking about a time just before there were any seas, " when it burst forth from the womb" states that therefore it must have just before that been unborn, ie no seas, they were all up in the air as those clouds, stated as a garment which wrapped around like one. Then the planet cooled, the rain could then fall and not evaporate, and so it did, result, seas. later, the planet cooled more and the crust buckled some, result, wrinkles, ie continents, dry land. It's all in genesis.

thanx for clearing that up
However was he really talking from a point of view from sea level, is something that is open to debate. i am not sure this is a de-facto stance for all Christians.
If it was written to humans, it would be from God's point of view. If humans wrote it themselves only then would it be from their own point of view.

However was he really talking from a point of view from sea level, is something that is open to debate. i am not sure this is a de-facto stance for all Christians.
If it was written to humans, it would be from God's point of view. If humans wrote it themselves only then would it be from their own point of view.

The reason I say it was fron the point of viwew of sea level is because that's what it says, however, you really have to look at EXACTLY what it says to see that. What it says is Gen 1:2 "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Look and you see " the surface of the deep", well, why is this even here? First, we know that there was no "surface of the deep" if that means the surface of the sea, because we see an actual sea only here Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." Gen 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. We therefor see that , prior to this , there was no sepration of water, all the water was up in the air. Therefore there was no sea, and thus "the surface of the deep" seems meaningless, since there is no surface. So why did God day it? Because God is talking to humans, and trying to explain it in terms most humans living in most times can understand. Furthermore, note the phrase "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters", well, a spirit cannot be said to actually "be" anywhere. A spirit does not have extention in space, it is not made of atoms or photons or even neutrinos or anything which we can detect, it is extra dimentsional. Thus saying "hovering over the waters" is meaningless physically, God is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, and cannot be said to be "at" any one place, so why say God IS "at" one place? Simple, to call our attention TO THAT PLACE, and thus to point out to us that the phrase "Let there be light" applies only TO THAT SPECIFIC PLACE. otherwise, the entirity of Gen 1:2 is meaningless, why even put it there? If Jesus was right, and every dot and dash in the bible is there for a reason, what is the only possible reason for Gen 1:2 ?

Not also Rom 1:19 "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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." This clearly states that the evidences we see now, even those " since the creation of the world", are evidence that show God and his attributes. We should therefore look at it. When we do, we see starlight that took so long to get here that it started on its way here before the earth ever existed. Therefore, the common idea that God only created light in Gen 1:3 must be a false one, since we see EVIDENCE of light from before then, and if we ignore the evidence, we are saying that Romans is lying. If light already existed, then the evidence we see, backed up by Romans which says we should and indeed must considere it, shows that the above explaination of the point of view that God is specifically stating to us must be the correct one, since it is the only possible one that fits both the evidence and the bible (and it fits both exactly).

If it was written to humans only from Gods point of view, we would not even be able to understand it. It was clearly written to humans, and thus God will write it in a way we can understand. This means God will use specific phrases, like "the surface of the deep" and "the Spirit of God" to convey specific meanings to us in terms we can understand from our point of view.

The "de-facto stance for all Christians" is irrelevent. For instance, the de-facto stance before the Great Reformation was one thing, after it another, did the fact that justification by faith was not the de-facto stance mean it was not the correct stance? The only stance that matters is the stance that God takes, all other stances are irrlevent. If "all christians", even 100% of them, take one stance, and Gods word clearly states another, which stance will you take? Why?

The reason I say it was fron the point of viwew of sea level is because that's what it says, however, you really have to look at EXACTLY what it says to see that. What it says is Gen 1:2 "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Look and you see " the surface of the deep", well, why is this even here? First, we know that there was no "surface of the deep" if that means the surface of the sea, because we see an actual sea only here Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." Gen 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. We therefor see that , prior to this , there was no sepration of water, all the water was up in the air. Therefore there was no sea, and thus "the surface of the deep" seems meaningless, since there is no surface. So why did God day it? Because God is talking to humans, and trying to explain it in terms most humans living in most times can understand. Furthermore, note the phrase "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters", well, a spirit cannot be said to actually "be" anywhere. A spirit does not have extention in space, it is not made of atoms or photons or even neutrinos or anything which we can detect, it is extra dimentsional. Thus saying "hovering over the waters" is meaningless physically, God is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, and cannot be said to be "at" any one place, so why say God IS "at" one place? Simple, to call our attention TO THAT PLACE, and thus to point out to us that the phrase "Let there be light" applies only TO THAT SPECIFIC PLACE. otherwise, the entirity of Gen 1:2 is meaningless, why even put it there? If Jesus was right, and every dot and dash in the bible is there for a reason, what is the only possible reason for Gen 1:2 ?

Not also Rom 1:19 "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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." This clearly states that the evidences we see now, even those " since the creation of the world", are evidence that show God and his attributes. We should therefore look at it. When we do, we see starlight that took so long to get here that it started on its way here before the earth ever existed. Therefore, the common idea that God only created light in Gen 1:3 must be a false one, since we see EVIDENCE of light from before then, and if we ignore the evidence, we are saying that Romans is lying. If light already existed, then the evidence we see, backed up by Romans which says we should and indeed must considere it, shows that the above explaination of the point of view that God is specifically stating to us must be the correct one, since it is the only possible one that fits both the evidence and the bible (and it fits both exactly).

If it was written to humans only from Gods point of view, we would not even be able to understand it. It was clearly written to humans, and thus God will write it in a way we can understand. This means God will use specific phrases, like "the surface of the deep" and "the Spirit of God" to convey specific meanings to us in terms we can understand from our point of view.

If surface of the deep & "he Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" means nothing than there is no point of writing it, and holding it on account by romans doesn't prove anything, romans wasn't written to address the genesis question. The "to call our attention to that specific place" is vague as implying anything, if God wanted our attention and he was describing it to moses than he would have just told him, but no, he specifically mentions his spirit moving on the waters, where were the waters, you say they were all up in the air, yet genesis never says that, in fact by some, a sea existed in genesis 1:2. but that is not the point the point is that you are building a scenario on deductive arguments.

Exactly how it happend, can't be determined . "Let There Be Light" is a powerful command of God, calling light into existence. If you say that it only meant that the son of God just rolled off the thick watery layer up in the clouds, is quite trivial. Since if Big bang happened God would not have to do anything, it would just happen consequently, As for the sea that was up in the clouds, the gravity and air pressure would give in to the enormous amount of water it was holding up. also if all the water was up in the air, that means we are talking about many miles wide thick cloud and practically a cloud that would have to cover the entire globe and that is not proven. Deductive reasoning doesn't prove something much less inductive outcomes.

The "de-facto stance for all Christians" is irrelevent. For instance, the de-facto stance before the Great Reformation was one thing, after it another, did the fact that justification by faith was not the de-facto stance mean it was not the correct stance? The only stance that matters is the stance that God takes, all other stances are irrlevent. If "all christians", even 100% of them, take one stance, and Gods word clearly states another, which stance will you take? Why?

By defacto standard I meant that a lot of Christians say what you are saying right now, that what they think is right (that their interpretation tells the stance of God), but it can't be tested. So everyone thinks they are right, how do you know the stance you have is absolutely God's, that is just you thinking wishfully...(no offense).

btw are you a Hugh Ross fan? most of what you have written marks striking resemblance to what he believes?

If surface of the deep & "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" means nothing than there is no point of writing it, and holding it on account by Romans doesn't prove anything, Romans wasn't written to address the genesis question. The "to call our attention to that specific place" is vague as implying anything, if God wanted our attention and he was describing it to Moses than he would have just told him, but no, he specifically mentions his spirit moving on the waters, where were the waters, you say they were all up in the air, yet genesis never says that, in fact by some, a sea existed in genesis 1:2. but that is not the point the point is that you are building a scenario on deductive arguments.

Tell me, how can God, who is omnipresent, be only said to be at one place, "the surface of the deep"? If you are omnipresent, you are everywhere, if you are at only this one place, you are not omnipresent. Do you believe God is omnipresent? Do you believe God was at only this one place? Than why did God specifically mention only this one place here? Could it be that he is telling you the context of "let there be light"? If not, YOU tell me why God said "darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Why did not God say "darkness was everywhere", and "the spirit of God was hovering everywhere"? That appears to be what you believe, but did GOD say it?

Are spirits physical, and thus can be said to be physically AT some specific place? Perhaps Jesus would dispute that, as he said Luke 24:39 "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." Then why did God SPECIFY "spirit" in Genesis? Why not just say "God hovered over the waters"?

So tell me, why, exactly, do YOU think God included this specific verse? Gen 1:2 "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

"if God wanted our attention and he was describing it to Moses than he would have just told him", well...he did. Exactly what do you want him to say to Moses, other than what he actually said? If he were calling our attention to a specific place, exactly how WOULD he do it? How would he do it so that people in the pre science ages would understand, and ALSO so that people in the age of science would also understand? How would he do so using the Hebrew language?

"you say they were all up in the air, yet genesis never says that", excuse me, Genesis never says that?! Lets LOOK and see Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." Gen 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. Gen 1:8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day. Notice that Gen 1:6 is in "day" TWO, and before that, we clearly see the END of "day" one. Last I heard, the letter two comes after the letter one. Notice that God specifies "separate" and "separated", which clearly states that before that, they were NOT "separate". Therefore, in day ONE, when God said "let there be light", the waters above and below were specified to be NOT SEPERATE, and in day TWO, which comes after day one has ended, THAT is when God specifically stated that they DID become separate. Therefore your statement is shown to be completely false, and you should amend it, and realize that when you do, some of your ideas will need to change.

Your idea that God did not specify in Gen 1:6 and 1:7 that the events of day ONE did not happen before that events of day TWO makes you look quite foolish, as if you cannot even count to two. Who would want you to look that foolish? Might Satan want you to look and sound so foolish that anytime you mention Christ, everyone will simply laugh, believing you to be a fool? In fact, all around the world, millions, even billions, of people think that Christians are fools, with minds still stuck in the dark ages. Also, should you not actually read the passage of the bible before commenting on it, and saying something like "genesis never says that"? 2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

Exactly how it happened, can't be determined . "Let There Be Light" is a powerful command of God, calling light into existence. If you say that it only meant that the son of God just rolled off the thick watery layer up in the clouds, is quite trivial. Since if Big bang happened God would not have to do anything, it would just happen consequently, As for the sea that was up in the clouds, the gravity and air pressure would give in to the enormous amount of water it was holding up. also if all the water was up in the air, that means we are talking about many miles wide thick cloud and practically a cloud that would have to cover the entire globe and that is not proven. Deductive reasoning doesn't prove something much less inductive outcomes.

If God had called light into existence only then, then there would be no light before that. And yet, we can see light coming to us from distant galaxies that originated long before that, which shows that light did exist before that. Romans says that the "clearly seen" evidence of this universe shows us about God, how does that distant galaxies light show us about God if it is a lie, if it tells us that Genesis is false?

"just rolled off the thick watery layer up in the clouds, is quite trivial". trivial, you try doing it, that sure doesn't sound trivial to me. The reason you think these things are "trivial" is because you don't know much about them. Example, scientists now agree that for the big bang to create a universe with the natural laws that we see is so very non trivial that it is impossible. The smallest number I have seen for the chance for a big bang to create what we see is one chance in one followed by 120 zeroes, and that was just for one single aspect of this universe, if you add up all the many aspects, that tiny chance becomes so very small that scientists are calling it "this preposterous universe". For God to assure that the big bang DID create a universe like this one would therefore take infinite intelligence. In fact, what you are calling "trivial" is, in fact, the most non trivial of anything that has ever been. For God to do it "within the rules", that is, without breaking any natural laws (once he created those laws in an act of infinite intelligence at the big bang) is so much HARDER than doing it with a miracle (breaking natural laws) that they aren't even close. For a God who, in the presents of witnesses could, indeed, break natural laws by, say, walking on water, making the universe, or separating out the water above from that below, and doing so by once again breaking natural laws, would indeed be trivial compared to doing it the hard way, inventing the rules, and then in these two cases playing only by them. I mean, how, exactly, is creating a universe like this one, or separating water, any "bigger" a miracle that walking on water, for an infinitely powerful God? And why do you need more miracles anyway, are not the miracles of Jesus, attested to you by many witnesses, enough? If they are not, what would be enough, how big of a miracle do you need?

"that means we are talking about many miles wide thick cloud and practically a cloud that would have to cover the entire globe and that is not proven", yes, that is exactly what I am talking about, and it is proven. First, lets look at the bible 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?" Note that it says the clouds were it's garment, that means it was covered with them, and note the thick darkness, clearly only very thick clouds could do that. We can see that Job 38:8 and 38:9 are talking about Gen 1:1 to 1:5, and Job 38:10 and 11 are talking about Gen 1:6 to Gen 1:10, since only in Gen 1:6 do we see waters above spirited from waters below, and only in Gen 1:9 do we see dry land appear as in "here is where your proud waves halt". That is the bible, science says that when this planet first formed from a bunch of space rocks and dust and gas, all that colliding together made for a planet that was very hot (as in red hot). This would mean that all water would vaporize to steam if it touched the surface, so it would indeed be all up in the air, resulting in "thick darkness" exactly as described in Job. This makes Rom 1:20 true, since we see that the bible describes exactly in Job and Genesis what we now know actually happened, "being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse". If Job and Genesis do not agree with what we now know happened, and from the natural laws MUST have happened, then Romans is false, and Job is false, and Genesis is false, and the bible is false. Is the bible false?

Your idea that Romans does not have any connection with Genesis is shown wrong by this Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities", note "the creation of the world;, where is that described? In Genesis, therefore, we can clearly see that that verse of Romans has some connection with Genesis.

By defacto standard I meant that a lot of Christians say what you are saying right now, that what they think is right (that their interpretation tells the stance of God), but it can't be tested. So everyone thinks they are right, how do you know the stance you have is absolutely God's, that is just you thinking wishfully...(no offense).

"but it can't be tested", incorrect, it can be tested, one can simply see what the bible actually says, and as for testing to see what "interpretation" of the bible matches what we know of the natural world, we can use this thing called "the scientific method", which is ALL about testing, and which is really just looking at the natural world from a Christian viewpoint, assuming than mankind is fallible and sinful and that therefore you have to use this method to screen out bias and error. It has been tested and science and the bible are in agreement. However, for what you believe, science and the bible are not in agreement. Apparently, therefore, you do not believe that the statement in Romans is true, "clearly seen, being understood from what has been made".

Defacto standard means the majority of people hold that standard, in fact, your idea, not mine, is held by the majority of Christians. However, simply because a lot of people hold that view does not make it the correct view. I have already explained that above in the previous post.

btw are you a Hugh Ross fan? most of what you have written marks striking resemblance to what he believes?

I am not a "fan" of Hugh Ross or anyone else, not even that guy I see in the mirror. If some of my views and his agree, that is simply because that is what the bible and science both say. It does not matter if I am a fan or not, what is written is written. I did not write it, and Hugh Ross did not write it, God wrote it.

God's omnipresence doesn't preclude any specific place from being recognized as a place of His revealing of Himself. That's obvious in the incarnation of Christ. There are multiple instances of God's presence being placed in the context of a single place whether through the burning bush, the giving of the law in Mt. Sinai, the piller of cloud by day and flame by night, the Shekinah glory presence of the Holy Spirit descending upon the Temple in Jerusalem and then again in the New Testament at the Baptism of Christ where all 3 members of the Godhead are manifest in an observable manner at the same time. It's pretty common and it's use in Genesis 1:2 may be understood idiomatically but I've never seen a convincing argument that it is used in that manner there. Take the appeal in John 1 back to Genesis 1 to argue for the inferred presence of Christ at creation and I think there's ample evidence to not attempt to appeal to omnipresence as a proof against a specific locational understanding in creation.

OMG, I am left

Legatus, thank you for the wonderful post, as always you spent a lot of time proving nothing and asserting everything including me as a FOOL.

The reason you think these things are "trivial" is because you don't know much about them.

WOW! what a claim, you make there "with minds still stuck in the dark ages". YOU CAN READ MINDS AND THOUGHTS. Well, don't worry I will spare you the counter sarcasm and insult.

Lets talk about the scientific method, you seem to think of me as a dumb-hard headed unscientific Christian, well you can think what you want but as for your claims that you are so surely lecturing - might I ask that you first actually look at the definition of "Scientific method " and how it is done? Here are the points which generalize it,

Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists

can you apply them to your theory and then come here and tell me about it, until then its all talk talk, nothing else. Saying "scientists now agree" well which scientists, not all scientists. this is as vague as saying, "humans agree that there is no God." of course there is no such thing as this and its not proven either

For a theory to be absolutely proven, it needs to be observed and tested. well you can neither observe Genesis 1:6, 1:7 nor test them. and for all your testing mumbo jumbo, it fails here, you can make assumptions and false theories, which I will just show you a little further down, YOU CAN'T TEST IT, listing verses from Job and Romans tells me God did it, that I believe, but it doesn't say God did it as you say he did and that "it was scientific" the way your telling!, well lets look at that as well.

What you are saying is more unscientific than I imagined, I mean I think you just read scientific journals and become impressed with it or whatever, not my problem, the problem is you are blindly making such a defending stance of Genesis 1 with the explanation that you are forgetting and countering other scientific facts. I think you need to study more before starting to go "all scientific".

"that means we are talking about many miles wide thick cloud and practically a cloud that would have to cover the entire globe and that is not proven", yes, that is exactly what I am talking about, and it is proven

How it is proven, who approved it scientifically? last I searched, it is a theory (not a very popular one for that matter, some people even ridicule it) that a bunch of scientists hold, a lot of others don't. On the other hand gravity is proven, all agree to it. You are just cherry picking claims, not tested or proven statements. That is a major blunder in itself and in no way counted as evidence, just valueless statements.

For water to be up in the air as you say, and covering the entire globe, which I tried to foolishly deny according to you that means it was H2O, and being H20 it was 2 molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen. Which means that when this so called cloud of yours was covering the entire globe, it consisted of 2:1 ratio of hydrogen and oxygen on the entire globe.

With the above being established, time to evaluate your little scientific explanation

"you say they were all up in the air, yet genesis never says that", excuse me, Genesis never says that?! Lets LOOK and see Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." Gen 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. Gen 1:8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day. Notice that Gen 1:6 is in "day" TWO, and before that, we clearly see the END of "day" one. Last I heard, the letter two comes after the letter one. Notice that God specifies "separate" and "separated", which clearly states that before that, they were NOT "separate". Therefore, in day ONE, when God said "let there be light", the waters above and below were specified to be NOT SEPERATE, and in day TWO, which comes after day one has ended, THAT is when God specifically stated that they DID become separate. Therefore your statement is shown to be completely false, and you should amend it, and realize that when you do, some of your ideas will need to change.

Your idea that God did not specify in Gen 1:6 and 1:7 that the events of day ONE did not happen before that events of day TWO makes you look quite foolish, as if you cannot even count to two. Who would want you to look that foolish? Might Satan want you to look and sound so foolish that anytime you mention Christ, everyone will simply laugh, believing you to be a fool? In fact, all around the world, millions, even billions, of people think that Christians are fools, with minds still stuck in the dark ages. Also, should you not actually read the passage of the bible before commenting on it, and saying something like "genesis never says that"? 2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

Have you ever read about "oxygen" and how it originated on our planet. if what you say Genesis is claimed to be true, than it fails as there is no way free oxygen was present before plants came (which makes a fact called, photosynthesis) which was on day three. And last I heard DAY 3 comes AFTER DAY2. So can you now see the flaw in your analysis . Also by your explanation, how come oxygen is 21 percent (20.8 to be exact) of our atmosphere, and how come it created all that water THAT COVERED THE ENTIRE GLOBE. well if it covered the entire globe, it should be more than 21 percent? And how could water even form without oxygen in the first place. Throughout History oxygen increased in our atmosphere to make it habitable, it increased because aerobic lifeforms increased. and this is why the lack of photosynthesis shows that our surrounding planets have very very little oxygen in their atmosphere. On Earth it is NOW the 3rd most abundant element by mass.

Oxygen originated roughly 2.5 billion years ago before that micro-aerobic lifeforms which were not dependent on water but hydrogen alone survived independent of water or oxygen. It was not until "Cyanobacteria" that the first photosynthetic process started and it gradually altered the atmosphere with producing oxygen as a byproduct, giving way to more advanced aerobic life forms to flourish.

And oh, alternatively SOME scientists also believe that oxygen rose in our atmosphere because of hydrogen that diffused out in space because the volcanoes were pumping out hydrogen and plants were pumping out oxygen. The problem with your view is that if you take this approach then another glitch occurs. There was no Cyanobacteria at that time present, they came later alongside plants which came on the 3rd DAY. Earth was way to hot for inhabiting any life forms since it would vaporize anything on DAY 1,as you said. And if volcanoes pumped hydrogen and plants pumped oxygen than a water cloud could only have formed on the third day or after it (but then Earth could not have been clicking hot since plants ). Since it was only then when there was enough oxygen to create water and still it wouldn't have been enough to cover the entire globe. You would need a very HUGE HUGE amount of oxygen to create a water cloud that big, on day 1. If it were, than life was present of earth on Genesis' Day one. But even if you say that it was so, then it will clash with DAY3, not to mention that on DAY 1 earth was clicking hot and inhabitable.

Some people erroneously make the mistake that oxygen released from earth's own rocks was good enough for rain. Earth had very little oxygen to begin with in its own rock structure, it wasn't free oxygen and later photosynthesis produced free oxygen it, this is why we don't see rain or water on planets like mercury, mars or Venus today. Even if they are clicking hot, the oxygen that is trapped in rock is not enough. It wasn't enough for Earth. On Earth when there was no photosynthesis, there was very little oxygen, trapped between rocks as little as probably mars has today (which is 0.2%) and it was insufficient to create water, NOT to mention an entire water cloud that covered the globe.

Without oxygen there can be no water, so your up in the air water cloud is miserably flawed. Your entire explanation falls short on this ground because you take it for granted that oxygen was present in abundance when the earth was so hot that it vaporized everything and the entire globe was covered with water. Well it wasn't. And by any luck If you do get oxygen on day First, your DAY sequence would go all wrong and again you will end up in a big gap .

So who needs to change his views?

My advice, next time you start thinking about making flawed loud mouthed claims about science, about scriptures or calling someone foolish and how your explanation is in perfect harmony with Science and Bible, better do your own homework first. At least think about other scenarios or why someone thinks your view can be utterly ridiculous. It would save you the embarrassment, were you to speak in academic non-believers, in fact even some of your educated scientific fellow believers may find your views absurd, which are hardly scientific to begin with.

P.S

I am not a "fan" of Hugh Ross or anyone else, not even that guy I see in the mirror. If some of my views and his agree, that is simply because that is what the bible and science both say. It does not matter if I am a fan or not, what is written is written. I did not write it, and Hugh Ross did not write it, God wrote it.

Lol, no. most definitely Hugh Ross wrote this kind of explanation, you read and took it as the only "Scientific" explanation

I suppose we may never know the truth about the Earth... it probably is rather like an amoeba that is carried away by water from a boat propeller, which tries to explain why it was carried away. We may think we know the answers, but we probably never will (that is, until we finally get to meet our creator!!!).

Of course, a great deal of Genesis was probably just written in a manner that the early Hebrew people could understand, I mean, I highly doubt that any of them would have been able to comprehend "4.6 billion years ago, God flung a massive cosmological projectile at the forming speck of the earth to instantly liquefy its solid metals"... did they even have a word for billions back in the day? I don't know, ask a specialist. The point is, to instantly fling a monumental and shocking piece of information, likely unfathomable and extremely in conflict with the understanding of the world at the time, at a culture that had been developing mainly on the basis of oral tradition in the previous years could be horrid and pointless. Maybe God or Moses did use day, morning, evening and the like, originally, in a broader sense or a more metaphorical sense to accommodate for the people in a way which they could actually interpret, while for modern society which has changed so extremely the meaning has been mixed up. Or maybe He intended for it to mean a literal reading. Or maybe neither. Or maybe both. Or maybe somewhere in between. The point is, no matter how much we look, or speculate, or use the "Scientific Method" which by any measure is still limited by the fallacies of our humanity and the finiteness of our universe's parameters, we are still just amoebae with a vastly limited perspective on reality. It really doesn't matter "which spec is here" or "how long that bit of dirt has been floating there", all that matters is what we CAN know, the Word, through the revelation of the Holy Spirit; and, by God, I KNOW that is what matters because I can feel it in my heart, and read it in the Book, and hear it through the Spirit. I apologize for causing an argument on this board, I really did not intend for that, I was just expressing another possibility.

Most atheists aren't going to be turned by scientific "proof", they will be turned by the only way they can know the Word: the Word! (Specifically through the Spirit). I really apologize again for causing such a debate, and if I am read to be harsh I further apologize. But I really would not prefer to debate about this (as there are really no grounds on which to debate)... only that our observations should reflect the Word in glorification of our Lord.

God bless!

I suppose we may never know the truth about the Earth... it probably is rather like an amoeba that is carried away by water from a boat propeller, which tries to explain why it was carried away. We may think we know the answers, but we probably never will (that is, until we finally get to meet our creator!!!).

That was exactly my point, we both can be wrong but I don't get ppl either when they say, "this is how it happened, cuz I know 100% sure", anyways. No offense held against anyone.

I see now the problem. The problem is that I am looking at the bible and science, and you, apparently, don't actually know much of this science. I shall point out some of it below.


You seem to believe that it takes FREE oxygen plus hydrogen to produce water. It does not, water can and does exist without the need for FREE oxygen at all.

how come oxygen is 21 percent (20.8 to be exact) of our atmosphere, and how come it created all that water THAT COVERED THE ENTIRE GLOBE..And how could water even form without oxygen in the first place.

You seem to believe that if there is no free oxygen, then there will be no water, and that therefore there cannot be water on or above the earth until Genesis day 3 and the first life. And you seem to believe that, since you must have free oxygen to make water, there can be now water without life. So, how do you explain this?

Comets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet
Comet nuclei are known to range from about 100 meters to more than 40 kilometers across. They are composed of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia.

In July 2005, the Deep Impact probe blasted a crater on Comet Tempel 1 to study its interior. The mission yielded results suggesting that the majority of a comet's water ice is below the surface, and that these reservoirs feed the jets of vaporized water that form the coma of Tempel 1.[66

In April 2011, scientists from the University of Arizona discovered evidence for the presence of liquid water in a Comet Wild 2. They have found iron and copper sulfide minerals that must have formed in the presence of water. The discovery shatters the existing paradigm that comets never get warm enough to melt their icy bulk.[73]

Any plants growing on comets? How about plants growing out in the Kuiper belt? Mighty far out, pretty cold out there way beyond even the outer planets. Pretty dark to, the sun is just an unusually bright star seen that far out. Not exactly a hospitable place for a garden.

Conclusion, water existed, and still exists, entirely without any need for life to produce free oxygen. One could either cover a planet with water, and/or cover a planet with thick clouds of water vapor, without there being any free oxygen (or life) on that planet at all. This is because the oxygen that is present in water IS NOT FREE. It is bound up with the hydrogen. There is also much other non free oxygen, like that in carbon diOXIDE and many other gaseous and solid compounds. These things can be present or absent, and water can still be around, even around in great abundance, without any need for any free oxygen at all (or the life that created it). I know that it takes early life to create FREE oxygen; I simply fail to see how that has any bearing on water, in the air or on the ground, at all.

And then there are things like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth . This is what I mean by a hot early earth "Nevertheless, during the early Archaean (about 3.0 Ga) the mantle was still much hotter than today, probably around 1600°C." Note, it does not need to be that hot to boil water, only when enough of the crust would get cool enough that water did NOT boil when it touched it would seas form (probably slowly at first). In addition, in this early earth, there would have been a lot of other stuff in this atmosphere, such as volcanic ash. Add surface hot enough to boil off any water that touches it and volcanic ash, and it is mighty dark at sea level. Just as it is written Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness.

Note that there are a number of scenarios of this early earth. ALL of them include a time when, at a place we would now call sea level "the surface of the deep", it would be very very dark. These include the scenario where the earth starts out as a sort of mini gas giant, and has that stripped off by a planetary collision, which forms the moon, as well as the scenario of the hot early earth and its vaporized water and volcanic ash. EITHER WAY, you end up with an early earth with "thick darkness" at the surface. There simply is no way to get around at least one time in the early earths history that there was not "thick darkness" at the surface, regardless of what caused it. And Job connects that thick darkness to the sea. You either accept Job, and God, or you do not. Job 38:8 Job 38:9

I should also point out that the time specified for light at sea level was NOT day two, when the waters above and below were separated, but on day one. It was not ONLY the great amount of unseperated water which produced the pitch blackness, but also all that other crud, volcanic ash and gasses, stuff thrown up from the still infalling meteorites and comets and even small planetoids (and possibly one big one), and oh yes, the sun only putting out 70% of what it does not didn't exactly help either. Thus day one was the first day one could see ones hand in front of ones face (if you were there), it might not be very light yet, but at least there was a little light. In fact, it appears that the atmosphere was slowly clearing up from day 1 all the way to day 4 Gen 1:14 , when after life had appeared and affected the atmosphere, the atmosphere finally cleared up enough so that one could see through it to see the sun and moon.

Second, what does the bible say? You say "Without oxygen there can be no water, so your up in the air water cloud is miserably flawed" Yet look here Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." Gen 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. Gen 1:8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day." Now, you say that water cannot exist without free oxygen, yet we clearly see here, on day TWO, which comes before day THREE when life first appears, water. Thus, there is indeed water, and enough to form an ocean, BEFORE there was any life.

Also, we clearly see that that water was only separated "under the expanse from the water above it". Clearly, they must have NOT been separate before than. How do you explain the waters above NOT being separate from the waters below, and then later being separate? If they are NOT as all one big lump, and thus all up in the air, they are NOT separate, as this clearly says they WERE before GOD separated them. And you cannot just say they are all on the ground, either, Job clearly talks about both the sea, clouds, and thick darkness being connected Job 38:8 Job 38:9 Job 38:10 Job 38:11

And what do you do about this "Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness". What do you do about that "thick darkness? Are you going to tell God that there was no thick darkness? Where you there? :Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand."

And what do you do about Romans, specifically Rom 1:19 and Rom 1:20 , where God says we can understand him "from what has been made"? What do you do about light coming to us from distant stars that clearly started on its way before the earth ever formed? Are you going to deny this evidence, which is part of "what has been made"? Are you going to say that it's apparent age is a lie, and thus say that "what has been made" is a lie from God?

Lastly, yes, God has appeared in bodily form at times, or in something that can be seen (burning bush, say) at a specific place. However, the text does not allow that. It says, not that God was hovering over the waters, but that the SPIRIT of God was. Spirits are not physical, thus for you to say that because God could and did appear physically in some place at some time is completely irrelevant to this text, which is why God pointedly put the word SPIRIT there in the first place. He could have left it out, so why DID he include it?

I have to assume that you (along with many others these days) are unaware of basic logic and reason, which were once taught but are no longer. I present this little, uh, "lesson" in logical argument, which, if it doesn't tell you a lot about how to do it, at least tells you how NOT to do it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM .

suppose we may never know the truth about the Earth...
Most atheists aren't going to be turned by scientific "proof", they will be turned by the only way they can know the Word: the Word! (Specifically through the Spirit). I really apologize again for causing such a debate, and if I am read to be harsh I further apologize. But I really would not prefer to debate about this (as there are really no grounds on which to debate)... only that our observations should reflect the Word in glorification of our Lord.

However, this attitude is exactly the problem. First, because Gods word explicitly denies it, here: Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Rom 1:19 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.


It clearly says we can see Gods attributes "from what has been made" "since the creation of the world", and that it is "clearly seen". That clearly states that evidence of this world points to God. The obvious way to look at that evidence would be a Christian worldview. The "scientific method" is exactly that, a way to look at the world while acknowledging that mankind is full of sin and error, and thus coming up with a method to see what God says we should see without that sin and error covering it up. The scientific method is really nothing more than honesty codified. How can you get a more Christian worldview than that, acknowledging that mankind is sinful? So how is "the scientific method" anti Christian? It is a lie of Satan that it is anti Christian, to get you to reject science, to make Christianity look foolish and brainless, and to assure that you never use the evidence that God, in Romans, says is there, or ever to show it (or at least acknowledge it) to anyone. Or should we, instead, continue to do what many are doing, reject that evidence and even the idea of that evidences existence, reject the Christian world view of the scientific method, and thus reject Romans and thus, reject God? Either what God said in Romans is true or it is false, if we believe in God, we should believe what God said, and ACT ON IT. You want to use the word, then DO IT, EVEN THIS PART.


Do you know how many millions, perhaps billions of people now reject even the thought that Christianity even might be true, because "Christians" reject science, and often reject even the thought of science? Do you know how stupid that makes God look? People laugh at the very idea of God now, will you continue to contribute to that? Do you think that contributing to what causes people to laugh off the very idea of God, and thus never even consider that God MIGHT be true is fulfilling the great commission?


And how does "We may think we know the answers, but we probably never will" square with Rom 1:19 "plain to them" and Rom 1:19 "clearly seen"? If it is plain and clear, that sure sounds like we can know it! Either you believe Romans, or you do not. And either you believe Genesis, which shows us scientifically verifiable and now verified facts and how they show the bible to be TRUE, in a way we can show others, or we reject both Romans and Genesis. Either you believe the word, and USE IT, or you do not.


This idea that we should reject all science (thus rejecting a Christian world view invented by Christians), and reject both Romans and Genesis, is a lie of Satan.


And the idea that we should allow that lie to slide "in the interests of peace" or something, while millions reject Chrsit because of it, is, frankly, SIN. What if Martin Luthor had decided that the idea "the just shall live by faith" was "too controversial" and just decided to let that one slide? Did Paul the apostle let things slide in his many letters to churches in error, or did he call them on it? Did he not say things like Gal 3:1 "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" And what did he say about accommodating serious error, should we let it slide "in the interests of peace"? Gal 1:10 "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." How many must go to hell because of this specific attitude before we see that it is, in fact, serious error?


How many!

That was exactly my point, we both can be wrong but I don't get ppl either when they say, "this is how it happened, cuz I know 100% sure", anyways. No offense held against anyone.

Yes, we, humans, could indeed be wrong, but can God be wrong? If God very clearly and plainly says things about the natural world in Genesis, which can be and have been verified by science, which idea of science God explicity allows and even encourages here Rom 1:20 should we accept THAT?

I say not that we should "reject" science, I just don't think we should take any one position seriously, because no matter how we try to relate the Word to our observations, there will always be people who won't accept it. Taking stances on such trivial matters, in my opinion, only worsens the problem... people shouldn't come to God because God is proven beyond doubt, they should make the choice of their own and have their faith strengthened by scientific theories after. There doesn't have to be a common agreement about Genesis among Christians, only that Christians can worship the Lord as one. So many people reject God just because we argue so much about such matters... I certainly know most of my agnostic acquaintances do. Science and the Bible go hand in hand, certainly, but exactly how, we will never know. We can never know (not certainly, at least).

I agree kmr

@Legatus

I see that you are taking every minuscule scientific idea to prove it as theory. The basic logic is that comets carry water (Jupiter's moon Europa also does), but the oxygen they carry is not free and thus photosynthesis doesn't happen. And that oxygen is not enough to produce rain. Oxygen is an element and can be there without plants but in what proportion, is the question. I made it clear in my last post. and even if a comet carry water to earth the earth will have to be literally bombarded with comets and it would take billions of years of probability to determine how many comets are required that must all have water and they should be big enough to carry enough water that can form such a large cloud. You haven't calculated, go and do some research and not just Wikipedia, see how 1 mile of water body on earth would take space in the atmosphere before you begin to form such ideas. There is a flaw in your idea, which you haven't calculated
The amount of water that can exist as suspended fog droplets is limited in atmosphere or else it will condense.

consider a example

Fog and/or clouds are formed when warm air at 100% humidity is chilled. Taking an extreme example, if air at 110 deg F and 100% relative humidity is chilled to 35 deg F., the amount of water present as fog droplets will be the difference in the amount of water vapor at 110 deg F and 35 deg F.

The humidity values for 110 deg F and 35 deg F are 60.5 and 5.4 gms per cubic meter, respectively. The difference is: 60.5 - 5.4 = 55.1 grams of fog droplets per cubic meter, or 1/55.1 = 0.018 cubic meters per gram of fog droplets. The value for the liquid water is 0.000001 cubic meters per gram. The volume ratio is 0.018/0.000001 = 18,000. It would require a cloud 18,000 miles thick in order to account for a body of water with a thickness of one mile on Earth!

Also look at the Hebrew language and see how problem arises, Genesis 1:8a state, "And God called the expanse heaven"? Perhaps "heaven" is the proper translation for raqia.

if raqia means "heaven," was water placed above "heaven," as Genesis 1:7 states? If raqia means the atmosphere in which birds fly (Genesis 1:20), then how could the sun, moon, and stars be placed in the atmosphere (Genesis 1:14, 15, 17)? Since the sun, moon, and stars were placed in the raqia and the water of the canopy was placed above the raqia, then were all heavenly bodies inside the canopy? Either (1) we do not understand the true meaning of raqia, (2) we cannot be equally literal in understanding the highlighted prepositions above.

If raqia means "heaven," why was it necessary to add the phrase "of the heavens"? That would be redundant. Why do other uses of raqia, which do not have this added phrase, obviously mean a solid expanse?

Finally, notice that Genesis 1:8a defines heaven after the word "heavens" was first used in Genesis 1:1. Normally a word's meaning is understood from the context of its first usage. Furthermore, Genesis 1:1 says that the heavens were created on the first day, while Genesis 1:8 says that the thing called "heaven" was made on the second day. Genesis 1:8a seems inconsistent with many verses.

As for comets carrying water to earth, it is also highly criticized, just Google it up and you will know. A lot of scientists now think otherwise, it is getting old. anyways, you wanna stick to your theory fine, but it is hugely flawed and not 100% proven as you have been saying all along. just probabilities and they have many questions left unanswered because you are rolling them up in a single cut and dry explanation, but I am sorry it is not that simple and just by saying so, it doesn't prove anything. Personally I don't care if Genesis is scientific or not. I can always be wrong and you are wrong as I have time after time showed you.

And do not waste your time judging my attitude and I how I am sinning by believing a lie Satan told and how I am contradicting the Bible. You are a nobody to do that. I believe in my Bible, I just don't believe it like you do. If you can't get it down your throat, that is not my problem. Your ideas had flaws, i showed them to you. I have been a former atheist and I know very well hope people claiming such attitudes as yours, try to build a theory from hints and find themselves at a dead end when they are proven wrong.

However God did it, he did it awesomely.

God bless

ok i ve been reading some of the debate about genesis 1:2 and i may be able to add some simple logic to help someone. I didnt read every post so if this has been stated already i appologize..

We live on planet earth right? and Earth is part of a solar system right? in a solar system the star in it's center MUST begin to form FIRST, otherwise there is no solar system. now, that star doesn't have to ignite first in order for planets to form and this is what genesis starts off with. we have our star forming and our primitive planets have acreated and are still hot and full of different elements, vapors, gasses and what not. Anyway, at this point it wouldn't matter if you were outside the planet looking in or you were inside the planet, it would be dark. "then God said 'let light come to be' and gradually light came into being" this is the true form of that verse and is the ignition of the sun. It is backed up totally by the discovery that stars don't just click on or burst forth when they are born, instead they gradually begin to burn brighter and brighter. The igniting of the star in a solar system brings about many changes for its planets. The dividing of the waters from the waters is what the Bible records as happening on earth after the sun begins to burn. This is a clue about what POV Genesis was written in. This seperated the water that would be in liquid form on the surface from the vapor form that was in the atmosphere as the thick cloud layer. The words watery deep can be translated as "abyss" or "primeval ocean" in the early writings, meaning that yes, there was a surface ON the planet that God's spirit was hovering over. It would still be formless because liquids do not have a distinct form of their own and thus the POV of this part of genesis is on the planet. The expanse that is formed is called "sky" and is just that, the expanding and layering of our atmosphere.

Need more? ok look at verses 14-18. God places the luminaries in the heavens. I think few would argue that these luminaries are the sun, moon and stars. God also tells us their purposes, to serve as signs for seasons, days and years. Basically to keep time. He doesnt mention that the energy from the sun brings life, that it creates our orbit, that the moon stabilizes our rotation and causes the tides to flow, etc. Why? because all that stuff is outside of the planet and outside our view....outside the view of the writings. But wait, isn't this talking about the creation of the sun contradicting my first paragraph? Nope, we already know that the sun existed before this point. The existance of light, the dividing of the waters and the existence of plants tell us this. We know that there was division between light and dark in verse 4, which means the planet was rotating and if we are rotating we have our moon to keep our wobble under control. So what is happening in those later verses where God "places" these things in the heavens? well we've had dry land and plants appear and those plants have been doing what they do best for a long time. The atmosphere clears up, planet cools down, more clouds condense and fall as rain and for the first time, they are revealed and visible to someone standing on the planets surface. Thus they come to be placed in their proper spots in our persepctive and can now serve the purposes that God intended them to do for us. This is the best example to show that the physical POV of Genesis is from earth's surface and the mental perspective is from simple human understanding.

Genesis chapter one is written very poetically. its not coded with symbolism like Revelation and you cant read it literally like a text book. You must read it like you would any poetry in hebrew. It takes a bit more research and work, but the result is well worth it. God bless

secret fire, My only point was that Legatus claimed, genesis happened as it is written literally, and he fitted it with every theory he could find, filling large gaps that countered other scientific facts, not to mention he insisted that it was the only way it could happen. that i do not agree with. If you read the earlier posts you will know. i was showing him how so much water could not be on earth when the earth begin to form, it was only later that it came when free oxygen got into space and that would disturb the day sequence. I take genesis 1 not literally, i take it more as a summary and if something is not clear i do not try to fit it with wild speculations. anyways, I agree with you on this, it is not literally scientific. however anybody can be wrong on this, God alone knows exactly how he started it all.