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

[Cavebear]

Well, maybe.  But think of his name--mousetrap.  I think he regards you (and the rest of us) as the mouse.

We are the cats...  Right?  MOL!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"This one weird trick turns atheists into believers!"

[Cavebear]

"This one weird trick turns atheists into believers!"

OK, try it on me.

[trdsf]

Well, maybe.  But think of his name--mousetrap.  I think he regards you (and the rest of us) as the mouse.

I was thinking more of the board game.  The set up takes forever, for a fundamentally pointless denouement.

[Mike Cl]

We are the cats...  Right?  MOL!

Yeah, and he's trying to herd us.................

[Cavebear]

I was thinking more of the board game.  The set up takes forever, for a fundamentally pointless denouement.

The Mousetrap game?  That never worked for us.  We always made sure it didn't work. LOL!

[Unbeliever]

It's more like this slo-mo version of the game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy840XvnQRA

[Cavebear]

It's more like this slo-mo version of the game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy840XvnQRA

Bet that was faked...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

OK, try it on me.

I never click on those links, so I can't fake one.

[Hydra009]

Too simple.  The Genesis account is just a fable and there was no identifiable "third day", or "second day", or even "first day".  The Earth coalesced out of the solar debris disk over millions of years.  There was no particular day before which there was no Earth, and after which there was, alakazam*poof!*.  Just a continuum of development over geological/astronomical time.

That sounds awfully nuanced and complicated.  Goddidit fits better on a bumpersticker.

[Hydra009]

I was thinking more of the board game.  The set up takes forever, for a fundamentally pointless denouement.

I thought that was the point.  Mousetrap teaches nihilism, Monopoly teaches self-serving bias and ruthlessness, and Battleship is just fun.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Now this is what I am talking.
An Atheist that did take the scientific and Biblical description into consideration.
What you are actually propose is the Nebular Theory, mixed with Laplace's Hadean theory.

Well, stars are born in nebulae. There's no controversy in astrophysics that stars are born in nebulae, and as such, the sun and the rest of the solar system would be, too. As to the Hadean theory, it does explain why our crust is lacking in heavy elements, paricularly iridium. The explanation is that the Earth must have at some point been in a molten state, which not only fits our simulations of the coalescence of the Earth, but also why iridium and similar iron-loving elements are so rare in the Earth's crust. Iridium dissolves well in iron, and most of the iron in the Earth sunk to the center when it was molten. Hell, most of the Earth is still molten or nearly so. Unless the earth's crust did melt sometime in its early history, then those elements wouldn't have the mobility to sink down into the Earth's deep interior.

The plain fact is that the amount of energy of the Earth coalescing together represents a HUGE amount of energy, to the tune of at least 2e32 Joules (a number familiar to Star Wars fans everywhere), that has to be dissipated into space. That takes a while to radiate away, and meanwhile, it's freaking hot â€" too hot to hold an atmosphere or a liquid ocean.

Yet this is absent from the description of the Bible. It's something that the ancients would note, even if they didn't know what they were looking at, because it would have effects as plain as the nose on your face.

Great stuff. As for the formation of the Moon and the forming of oceans a few billion years after the formation of the Earth, it is a theory proposed by scientists. There are however many scientific critisizim against this theory, and with the latest discoveries about the formation of water on the Earth taken from Meteorites, silver ions and Zircon crystals, there are more theories about the age of the ocean, and the Moon.

At present, there is no real serious criticism to the giant impact theory. While there are some details that the basic theory does not explain very well, no other theory really explians why we have a nearly co-planar moon of such size. But there is little doubt that the material of the moon and the upper layers of the Earth are the same material, as the isotopic and chemical composition of the both prove, and any event able to throw that much material up high enough and into orbit to form a moon that big would have melted the Earth's crust. If there had been any ocean there previously, it would have been destroyed. The present ocean was formed after the impactor hit, and after the moon had formed the Earth cooled enough for liquid water to exist once again on its surface, and would rain down from on high.

All theories of the origin of the moon have to explain how the material that forms the moon and the Earth's crust ended up with such similar composition, both chemical and isotopically, which constitutes a 'signature' that precludes mere coincidence. Either the material came from Earth, which required nuking of the Earth, or whatever object the moon originated from fell down upon the Earth to almost entirely replace that of the Earth's original crust, which again requires nuking the Earth. Either way, the original surface, including any ocean, would have been utterly destroyed. And this is not even getting into the Late Heavy Bombardment, which may have destroyed the ocean multiple times. Since the moon had already formed by the LHB, such a destruction would have absolutely put the formation of the current ocean later than the moon's.

Now, the water of the oceans did separate from the rock during this period, but not in an ocean. It was the primitive atmosphere. Water would separate from rock as water vapor, a gas, because this separation occurs at very high temperature, far above the boiling point of water, and as such no recognizable liquid water ocean would have formed at that stage. Only after the planet had cooled sufficiently to allow liquid water again would the ocean reform. But again this reformation would require the coming together (not separation) of liquid water and dry land in the form of rain.

Yet, again, this is absent from the description of the Bible. Absent is the impactor which imparted the energy from crustal material to make the moon, and the accompanying heating that would result from such an impactor. Any ocean that came before the moon would have been destroyed at least once, and then reformed. I think that this is something that the ancients would notice had they experienced a vision of this. Even if they wouldn't understand what they were seeing, the effects would be as plain as the nose on your face.

But we will come to all of that.
I think what you did and wrote is excelent.
However, I would like you to keep in mind that I said I want to take the Biblical description FIRST. then we will compare that description with what science said.
I love your information, but allow me the time to continue with the Biblical description first.
Great stuff

I'm beginning to think not. You have been remarkably cagey with your Biblical description, and what little you do provide does not match up what science says at all, despite your insistence otherwise. You have STILL to explain why science says that the formation of the sun and moon straddle the Earth, in contrast to the plain-as-day description of the Bible having the sun formed AFTER the Earth. We know the sun formed first because it has to be shining by the time the Earth forms to blow away most of the light elements. Otherwise, the planet we call Earth would be a gas giant like Jupiter or Neptune. Those light elements make up the majority of any planetary disk, because they are the majority of any nebula. The sun shining prior to the Earth forming is the reason you live on a rocky world. Period.

Again, an ancient would note that the sun already was glowing by the time the Earth formed, because again, the effects are as plain as the nose on your face.

Now, you may not agree with my description. If so, bully for you, but then you're not talking about any science recognized by any astrophysicist on Earth, and I've kept myself to what is well-established by that science. The astrophysicist is the professional knowledgeable in the relevant field of planetary formation, which is what you are trying to get at with your reference to Genesis. If you want to claim that the Bible describes the science, it had better match those of the descriptions in the relevant field, or you're just talking crap.

So far, you have only presented us with a literal reading of the first few lines of Genesis, insisting that what was plainly described (such that a third grader would be able to describe it) would match what science says. Meanwhile, those of us who do know the science don't see anything of the sort. So hit us with the good stuff, no pussyfooting around. Describe a scene in the Bible that lines up with science that an ancient would not know what to make of, even if he could (and did) describe it. That is, after all, the challenge: that the Bible is scientifically accurate, n'est-ce pas?*

(*Doesn't actually speak French)

[Unbeliever]

He wants to play us like sport fish, not interact on a sensible basis. You're wasting your time.

[Hakurei Reimu]

My time to waste. And furthermore, I'm morbidly curious what the hell this empty promise of a scientifically accurate Biblical description looks like. I'm sure it'll be hilarious.

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, it might be fun - if we ever get around to seeing it.