Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)

[Baruch]

I'm always interested in the cognitive dissonance that goes on in there heads, when scientific evidence shows their beliefs has no weight to it, how they block out the facts and tell themselves anything that contradicts it is a lie or trying to lead them astray from the 'truth' the bible or preachers tells them to believe.

Do you trigger Robbie too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GSd92zgqAs

[aitm]

oh boy....cartoons.

[SoldierofFortune]

Do you trigger Robbie too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GSd92zgqAs

Rules which robots must abide by which was introduced by Asimov : )

[Mike Cl]

Hard to get a good 8 hours of sleep when the night's only 2 hours long...

Oh!  So you know about my nights, huh?

[Unbeliever]

Well, I think I've heard that older folks need less sleep. ;-)

[SoldierofFortune]

Well, I think I've heard that older folks need less sleep. ;-)

This is not true.
But because they have siesta in afternoon, they need less sleep at night.

[sdelsolray]

Rules which robots must abide by which was introduced by Asimov : )

Yes, the three Laws of Robotics were introduced in Issac's short stories and early Robot Novels in the late 1940s and early 1950s, although I can't remember his first published listing of the three laws.  Much later, I believe late in the Foundation Series, he introduced the "Zeroeth Law", which superseded the Three Laws of Robotics, in essence making them the Four Laws of Robotics.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Now I showed what the Biblical description of the Origins of the Universe is.
Tomorrow I will look at what science says!

Why wait? I can do that right now, saying what science actually says and the sequence of events.

1. The sun gathers into a protostar, glowing from the Kelvin-Helmholtz process. There are no planets yet. Instead, a multitude of planetesimals form from cosmic dust. These planetesimals would already be spinning, due to conservation of angular momentum.

2. The sun finally ignites into a young star, full-on nuclear fusion. The resulting solar wind blows away the lighter elements from the inner solar system, leaving it a gas- and ice-poor region filled with nothing but rock-like planetesimals. These planetesimals start collecting into larger protoplanets via gravitational attraction. These protoplanets differentiate due to internal  heating, and then collide with each other and break apart again. There are still no planets.

3. The sun has now fully developed as a main sequence star. Meanwhile, the debris of the protoplanets have coalesced again into a smaller number of larger bodies. When they again reach protoplanetary size, they again begin heating. Only, because they are not colliding with similar-sized bodies anymore, they are not smashed apart and continue to grow and heat up further.

4. The outer protoplanets begin collecting light gasses and such to become gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), while the smaller asteroids and Kuiper belt objects just don't have the gravity to hold those volitiles, so they remain relatively small. In the inner system, at least four large rocky bodies have coalesced, the future Earth, Venus, Mercury, and Mars. There is at least two appreciably sized bodies buzzing around. More on those later.

5. All of the inner planets are basically huge rocks. Venus, Earth and Mars are large enough such that their primordial gravitational heat has melted them totally. This causes the heavier elements to sink to their cores, while lighter silicate material forms the crust. Because the planets are now molten, volitiles dissolved and produced from chemical transformation of the initial rocks are now free to migrate towards the planetary surfaces. Basically, their atmospheres came from outgassing of bubbling rocks and later volcanoes.

6. Mars, being smaller, cooled enough first to support a liquid water ocean. Perhaps life began here. But we do know that Mars was smacked early on, blasting away much of its atmosphere and disrupting what little magnetism it had. Eventually, Mars dried up because it lost most of its atmosphere and water to the solar wind. Occasionally, you would get springs of water even today, but they would dry up relatively quickly.

7. Earth, being bigger, did not cool as fast, and while it might have gotten a primordial hot ocean, it would have been destroyed by a similar impactor. This impactor almost certainly intermixed with the pre-Earth crust. The impact also remelted the combined body, the new Earth, and blew a large portion of crust into a debris disk around the planet. This disk was mostly gaseous rock, which through the exchange of matter from the Earth's surface and a forming large moon. This would work to homogenize the chemical and isotopic composition of both bodies.

8. The disk accretes into a large moon about the Earth, mostly silicates but iron poor. The iron from the impactor would mostly go to the center of the Earth, where the abundance of molten iron would start a magnetic dynamo from the large amount of convecting molten iron. Now the Earth can hold on better to any atmosphere that will form. And one is forming, from the molten rock releasing volitiles.

9. Earth's outgassing drops off as the surface solidifies, and the only source of outgassing is via volcanism. The first surface of the earth is completely rock, as it forms from solidified lava. There is no silt for mud yet because there is no weathering yet. The Earth (both atmosphere and land) is still way too hot for liquid water and rain.

10. Finally, the Earth cools enough for rain to fall. The rain fills the rocky ocean basins. Here weathering begins, and thus we have our first mud.

Now, let's imagine what an ancient would write about should he have seen this or have some grasp on this description. He would describe the situation as follows:

1. The sun forms first, and starts shining as bright as anything before any of the planets, including the Earth have formed. Instead we have at best a succession of floating gravel, flying mountains, and small moon-like objects filling the solar system to cause a fusillade of rocky debris in the inner system.
2. The rocky debris would form four very large rocks, bigger even than the moons, that would start glowing incandescently, and start to flow.
3. The smaller of the bodies would cool first, and at least one would form an atmosphere and liquid water ocean. However, Mars and Earth would each suffer an impact that would destroy such an ocean. Mars would be ruined for further life, as its magnetic field would be disrupted, but Earth's would not.
4. The ejecta from Earth's impact would form a cloud of gaseous rock that would glow as brightly as the now re-melted surface of the Earth. This gaseous halo would remain for some time, but then coalesce into an orbiting satellite, the Moon.
5. Due to the fact that the Moon is smaller, and made of rock, it will solidify into a recognizable solid body with distinct phases long before the Earth solidifies itself, let alone have another atmosphere and ocean.
6. The Earth solidifies into a solid rock. There is no mud. There is no rain, either.
7. Finally, it rains, and weathering begins. The first mud forms.

Now let's compare this to Mousetrap's description:

1. Despite MT's claim, the sun did not just glow red and then began shining brightly after the Earth formed, thus making day and night. The sun burning as a full main sequence star (full nuclear fusion) is the reason why the Earth did NOT form as a gas giant. The sun's nuclear ignition therefore preceded the Earth's and the other planets' formation.

2. The existence of time as the playing out of events in the universe is not predicated on the existence of a planet with a particular rotation catching rays from a particular star. There are many physical processes that can be used to judge time. The second, after all, is currently defined as a number of oscillations emitted by a particular atom â€" yes, atoms can be clocks. A feature of good clocks is that they agree. That MT has to make excuses for the fact that his clock disagrees so much with the scientific reckoning of the same period is simply evidence that he's using a bad clock, which should be ignored hereon.

This is the big picture.

3. The rest concerns MT's description above.
   * MT claims that the Earth began as a formless mass mixture of gas, water and matter. It did not. The only recognizable component of the earth's primordial material is a multitude of actually rather differentiated rock. That has form.
   * MT claims that the Earth, once a ball, was a soggy mess at the beginning. It was not. It was rock, owing to the fact that it was made solely out of rock in the beginning.
   * MT claims that when the Earth's atmosphere formed, that the rest of the Earth was a mud ball. This is not the case, for the atmosphere would have to be boiled out of the liquid rock first. Such a process would not allow for liquid water, let alone liquid water mixed in with fine material that would be mud.
   * MT misses the giant impact that would essentially turn the Earth into a body with remelted rock (if it were ever cool enough to be solid) bathed in a vaporous rock halo that would form the moon. I would think this detail rather important in any scientifically accurate account.
   * MT thinks there was a Noechian (worldwide) flood. There was no such flood. Floods leave behind a particular kind of rock statum called a diluvial deposit, with a particular distribution of sediment. This is not what we find. The geological column is not made out of largely diluvium, but rather diluvium is restricted to known flood plains and some valleys subject to glacial floods. Noah's Flood is a fiction.
   * MT thinks that the spherical shape of the Earth was due to its spinning. Actually, that tends to pull an object out of the spherical shape and into a disk. It's obvious that MT has never watched a pizza crust being made.
   * MT thinks that the Earth's gravitational field has been strengthening throughout its history and into geologically recent history, and only in the last 4000 years has been easing off. However, the strength of the gravitational field of the Earth is dependent solely on the mass of the Earth, and the mass of the Earth has not changed significantly since the impactor that made the Moon â€" the Earth's mass has been consistent for the last 4.2 billion years at least. Ergo, the Earth's gravitational field has been consistent for that period, too.

So, no. So far I'm not seeing anything in science consistent with what the Bible describes. I've taken your description and statements of how you interpret your Bible and contrasted it with not only what science teaches, but also what your Bible-writing ancients would have no doubt thought and described should they had born witness to any vision that even remotely resembles what science describes actually happened here.

[Mousetrap]

"Science" is just a murky two-syllable word to Mousetrap, I see.  And creating a graphic in MS Paint does not qualify as evidence.

but I still haven't given any facts from science yet. all I did is to show what I read from the Biblical description.

You haven't explained why these semantic gymnastics are appropriate for the Bible, but not for other scriptures.  I mean, you can do it pretty easily.  Hindu myth is even at an advantage over Judeo-Christo-Islamic myth, as it takes in scales of time that are genuinely geological and cosmological, rather than parochial.

But did I not say that I will read what the Biblical description say? I never said I am going to investigate what other religions are claiming. We can do that at a later stage. First we are going to look at what science says and compare this with what the Biblical description renders.

Mousetrap, you're also still evading the core problem: you've surrendered any evidentiary value you want to ascribe the Bible because you're engaged in interpretation, you're explicitly admitting that it doesn't say what it actually says.  And once you fall into interpretation, it's useless.

Agreed, it is my interpretation, but if you have a problem with mine, keep in mind that I have a problem with yours. However, if you think my interpretation is incorrect, show me where I am in error. and wait until we investigate my interpretation as set out in 1755 already. You see, my interpretation will hold water once we investigate my sources. Yours, might not, we will have to wait and see.

I would have more respect for taking the position that the Big Bang represented the moment of Fiat lux! -- I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be a more respectable interpretation that at least stands back and says the universe is what we observe it to be otherwise.

And again I agree, but who said I do not agree with the Big Bang? we will also get to that, remember, I only, up untill now rendered the description from the Biblical perspective, nothing about science yet!

What you have here is not only wrong, it's wronger than wrong.

So, you already made up your mind no matter what I will show you by science? Atheist Biblephobia bias perhaps?

[Mousetrap]

I can already foretell the outcome.

"Science has no evidence for what started the big bang, only that an unknown force started it. This can only mean the unknown force was sentient, which must have been GAWD!"

The classic 'filling in the gaps with made up hokum' logic a theist uses. Because when science, which is a broad spectrum that is forever changing and growing, religion is just one set of rules that can't be changed otherwise it would contradict everything its about.

Not at all.
If ever I use such a lame argument, please remind me of this post.

[Mousetrap]

Not just that, but the Catastrophism ... is right out of Velikovsky ... the Russian solar system crank.  For him, Jupiter is responsible, the planet, not the god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Other early geological fads were Neptunism and Vulcanism.  Until Uniformitarianism and Gradualism took hold with James Hutton.  Mousetrap is from the Phlogiston school of physics ;-)

The only thing Velikofsky did right in my book, was to reconcile the Egyptian chronology, and proven standard Greek and Egyptian chronological dating incorrect.
I have huge problems with his other works such as World's in collision, due to the absence of Archaeological evidence.
But when he caught historians out about the dating of Egyptian chronology, and caught them lying about C14 tests on organic samples from Tutankhamen's tomb, he proved the dating of civilizations to no less than 4 000 years ago.
For the rest, If he does not have evidence, I can not support the Venus travelling theory at all.

[Mousetrap]

Doesn't surprise me that he thinks the universe is 6000 years old. The Cambrian Explosion is seen as far-fetched by these people, but they have no problem with an estimated 8.7 million species evolving within a period of a few thousand years...

You missed out on my remarks and claims that I believe the Universe as 6 000 years plus 6 days plus Zero time before time existed by the mechanism of an Earth and Sun.
Therefore, I say the Universe is as old as the Bible say, and that can obviously be billions of years.
If you want to talk about the age of Life, we will obviously have a huge contradiction with your perception, and the Biblical.
The Bible say about 6 000 years for life, but for the Universe, billions of years is no problem.
But we will obviously get to the age of life at a much later stadium.
We are now busy with what science say about the formation of the Earth, solar system and the universe.
Oh, and yes, the cambrian explosion are also correct.

[Mousetrap]

I'm always interested in the cognitive dissonance that goes on in there heads, when scientific evidence shows their beliefs has no weight to it, how they block out the facts and tell themselves anything that contradicts it is a lie or trying to lead them astray from the 'truth' the bible or preachers tells them to believe.

Remember your words.
As soon as we look at what science says, I would like you to say the above again.

[Mousetrap]

Why wait? I can do that right now, saying what science actually says and the sequence of events.

...

So, no. So far I'm not seeing anything in science consistent with what the Bible describes. I've taken your description and statements of how you interpret your Bible and contrasted it with not only what science teaches, but also what your Bible-writing ancients would have no doubt thought and described should they had born witness to any vision that even remotely resembles what science describes actually happened here.

WOW, you are incredibly correct about what science says about the Formation of the Universe.
I gave you a "Like" because you deserve it.

However, you should keep in mind that you have 2 claims that is different with what I postulated about.
Claim 1.
The Earth was not a soggy and wet entity during its' formation, but a solid boiling red rock after coalescing, and eventually turned into a cooler sphere that took millions of years, perhaps a billion or so, to collect moisture from it's core and meteorites to form an ocean. This hard rock then eroded producing mud. Before this happened, there was no way the Earth could have been a ball of MUD.

Claim 2, something bashed the Earth when it was still shapeless, and this material formed the Moon.

[Mousetrap]

the Earth was not wet in its formation, but a molten rock.

We all learn Geology and we are all taught from books that does not keep up with what the latest evidence shows about the formation of the Earth, and Solar system.
Laplace came up with a suggestion that the Earth was one red-hot boiling unit to steer clear of the findings of the Nebular theory. He hated the Nebular theory for reasons that will be clear in a few days.
Swedenborg originally started this theory, but was incorrect in his descriptions too.
Anyhow, what I will show you is that science does not say the Earth was a red hot ball of hellish fire.
This is BUT ONE THEORY!
today no scientist will sign such a theory anymore.
lets see why.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143457.htm

And look at this:
https://www.amnh.org/explore/science-bulletins/earth/documentaries/zircons-time-capsules-from-the-early-earth/article-zircons-recast-earth-s-earliest-era/

I will reply to the above later today.