[_ Old Earth _] A New Found Planet

[jasonc]

Jasonc, I used to teach Science as a teacher to secondary students, for over 11 years, Physics, Chemistry and Junior Science, science does reveal God's work in nature...yes that is a great thing to do....but explaining has limits...and some science people push God out and keep pushing naturalism.... really do we know everything about God's creation ?

For example, a photon is massless, yet travels as energy and according to E=Mc2 it should have mass....they avoid this problem to over come mass and speeds at light ...
it's convenient to formulate we do not know everything about anything....

God is a simile of light, so I suspect understanding light is impossible...

Stuff like that....

Ps 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

Let's face it, science will never fully understand anything about God's work of his hands...and it reaches a point where natural laws cannot describe...

Shalom

so we should stop because we cant know? I don't like how they interpret data but we do learn even from the studies to see if th bbt is real or not.

I don't call theories of origins science per se. creationism/evolution and other like aren't able to be tested. yet I hesistate to say we shouldn't study the stars and ponder how they work. what if we are able to construct a dison sphere?

 

[rthom7]

Jasonc, I hesistate to say we shouldn't study the stars and ponder how they work.

I wholeheartedly agree with you...we should ponder the things of GOD reveals in science...
That's part of the joy of being with God....

If your interested have a look at the way I use a science bunch of laws about light to apply it to the 1 John book, that says God is light, ,and use this science to explain the "Sin that is not unto death" Have a read and tell me what you think ?
http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-759.htm

Using science to teach us spiritual truths is a wonderful thing indeed !
Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

That's a beautiful photo, showing the power of God in nature....I thought you believed in evolution, so how does GOD fit into your picture ?

I agree with St. Paul. Creation can show us His work and we can learn from it. It is another way to see His power and majesty. Knowing how it all works, enhances this understanding.

Nuclear binding energy is the energy required to split the nucleus of an atom into its component parts

No. Nuclear binding energy is the energy required to hold a nucleus together.

Splitting a nucleus say Carbon 6 protons and 6 neutrons... to 6 protons and 5 neutrons , the kicked out neutron is lost or broken down ?

Hmm... carbon 11 can be synthesized in high-energy equipment, but it doesn't last long. Breaks down to boron very quickly.

Really ? I thought Carbon has a mass of 12.000000, so science says it's real mass is 11.999999999 ...never heard of that ? How do you measure mass of a proton and a neutron with accuracy to 10 decimals ?

Actually, it's the average mass of carbon. Actually it's a bit higher than 12. (Barbarian checks)... about 12.011.

Are we taking about C 6p-6n becoming C 6p-5n + n and this releases energy due to reversing nuclear fusion...

Since carbon is lighter than iron, it takes energy to remove a neutron.

How does Hydrogen (H) have any electrons at 50,000 degrees heat ?

At temperatures like that, it's in the form of plasma. The protons and electrons are essentially unbound. But they are still present, so the plasma has a net charge of zero.

The nuclear fusion process works as follows: five billion years ago, the new Sun formed when gravity pulled together a vast cloud of gas and dust, from which the Earth and other planets also arose.

It was produced by the shockwave of a supernova. How do we know this? The presence of elements heavier than iron, which can only be produced by the implosion of a supergiant star.

Well Barbarian I suppose you also believe in Stella evolution of the sun too ?

It comes down to evidence. And that's what the evidence says.

When this began to happen, protons combined into deuterium and then helium, with some protons changing in the process to neutrons (plus positrons, positive electrons, which combine with electrons and are destroyed). This released nuclear energy now keeps up the high temperature of the Sun's core, and the heat also keeps the gas pressure high, keeping the Sun at its present size, and stopping gravity from compressing it any more. There is now a stable balance between gravity and pressure.
Am I supposed to just believe all this based on faith ? Where's the evidence ?

Nuclear physics. Get a text and read about it.

Unfortunately, no earthly laboratory can match one feature of the solar powerhouse: the great mass of the Sun, whose weight keeps the hot plasma compressed and confines the nuclear furnace to the Sun's core.

So science cannot replicate nuclear fusion into releasing energy as an ongoing process can it ?

It can, but presently, the process takes more energy to contain, than it produces.

What about Tesla ideas of cold fusion experiments ? Why are they ignored ?

They aren't. Texas A&M researchers reported the such a process a few years back, but it turns out, they were in error. Still, some people are working on it.

Small nuclei that are larger than hydrogen can combine into bigger ones and release energy,

Assumption.

Observed phenomenon. Hydrogen bombs work that way, for example.

How can man measure mass to 10 decimal places?

Instruments. I'm not sure how many decimal places are possible now, but it's got to be better than that.

So if H is pushed together under heat and pressure it releases energy by becoming He ? Has anybody made He from using H in a lab ?

Hydrogen bombs do that. But yes, it's done in labs.

Is this story telling with details ? I was told protons are made of sub atomic particles, such as quarks etc....do we know anything about atomic structure at all ?

Yep. Protons, neutrons, and electrons are easy to demonstrate.

 

[rthom7]

You're a very knowledgeable fellow Barbarian, I enjoy talking with you, but something you believe in puzzles me ? How does God fit into your religion with evolution as well? I was going to make a thread about theistic evolution, so I am not sure that is the correct label, nor do I understand what theistic evolution is, my personal feeling is you cannot have God and evolution combined, it's one or the other, not both. What is your opinion of this and how do you see science, God and evolution fitting into mankind's belief of origins?

Shalom

 

[Lewis]

What is theistic evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

 

[rthom7]

Lewis
Thanks for the link, read it OK and was astounded , do Christians really believe they can mix God and Satan together and call this a religion that saves us....the atheists must be laughing the theistic evolutionists to scorn !

But if you remove solar scriptoria as your source of authority, so that your only source of authority is science, then yes I can see where science overpowers the mind of humans and presents them with theories of faith that eventually emerge totally different to Scripture, after all the so called believers no longer know Scripture do they, it is not the basis of their authority. So I can fully rationalize where such manmade religions come from.

Thanks for the share.
Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

You're a very knowledgeable fellow Barbarian, I enjoy talking with you, but something you believe in puzzles me ? How does God fit into your religion with evolution as well?

You might as well ask a plumber how God fits into his religion with plumbing. It makes no sense, since neither science nor plumbing have anything to do with religion. That is beyond the scope of science or plumbing.

I was going to make a thread about theistic evolution,

Don't see how you can have theism as part of science. I can, as a person capable of spiritual understanding and scientific understanding, realize that science merely describes nature at the same time I can see that evolution and all the rest were created by God.

so I am not sure that is the correct label, nor do I understand what theistic evolution is

Maybe "evolutionary creationism" would be a better term. Why would anyone think there should be an inconsistency between God and nature?

my personal feeling is you cannot have God and evolution combined

In the same way you can't have God and plumbing combined. But plumbers can be theists.

it's one or the other, not both. What is your opinion of this and how do you see science, God and evolution fitting into mankind's belief of origins?

Evolution isn't about the origin of the universe, or the origin of the Earth, or the origin of living things. So you'd have to go to other sciences for that. I don't see any conflict between God and anything in his creation, except for those things capable of thinking.
And that's our fault, isn't it?

 

[Barbarian]

But if you remove solar scriptoria as your source of authority,

Sola Scriptora? That's man's invention, not God's. The Bible itself says that it is not the only source of authority about God.

so that your only source of authority is science

That's even more absurd than sola scriptura. Science is a very limited method, which only works for the natural universe.

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian, so I am not writing this well, help me out...what is evolution then, and how does it fit with God in your opinion ?

The Bible itself says that it is not the only source of authority about God.

What sources of authority do we have then for our faith?

Shalom

 

[Lewis]

The Bible itself says that it is not the only source of authority about God.

Where is that at ?

 

[jasonc]

asking a catholic about that. do note that. they consider the papal authority equal to the bible.

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible nowhere endorses Sola Scriptura. It has never been in the Bible. It's a relatively new idea, invented by Martin Luther.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Jesus to His disciples:
Matthew 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

So, sola scriptura is self-refuting, since the Bible specifically says that scripture is not the only authoritative source of truth about God.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, so I am not writing this well, help me out...what is evolution then, and how does it fit with God in your opinion ?

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. That takes in everything from variation within a species to common descent of all living things on Earth, just as gravity (attraction matter has for other matter) takes in everything from an apple falling from a tree, to the interaction of galaxies.

Since God created nature, including evolution, it is just the way He intended things to be here. Makes sense. Engineers have discovered that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design, when the problem is complicated. So again, God knew best.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian, thanks for the reply

The Bible nowhere endorses Sola Scriptura. It has never been in the Bible. It's a relatively new idea, invented by Martin Luther.

I see.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

I would agree God's work in Creation is also a source of authority, and that science properly understood reveals the invisible things of GOD....

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Is this not referring to the traditions of salvation already found in Scripture?


Jesus to His disciples:
Matthew 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Pardon my reading, how does this relate to a source of authority?


So, sola scriptura is self-refuting, since the Bible specifically says that scripture is not the only authoritative source of truth about God.

Have you not considered the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament for the torah? Most Jews consider torah not just the first five books of the Bible, but broadly all scriptures including the OT and NT, ( I am assuming a Messianic Jew definition).

So rather than misquote concepts from Scripture, wouldn't you be better off, to start with a single Bible word ? For example what does "torah" mean to you ? This word is found in both OT (torah) and NT (nomos) writings?

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

2 Thessalonians 2:14

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Is this not referring to the traditions of salvation already found in Scripture?

Nope. Scripture was not transmitted orally, but by writing. So those other traditions were apart from the Bible.

Jesus to His disciples:
Matthew 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Pardon my reading, how does this relate to a source of authority?

Here, Jesus is saying that as a group, what the Apostles say is authoritative. He gave that to them, as He also gave it to Peter singularly.

So, sola scriptura is self-refuting, since the Bible specifically says that scripture is not the only authoritative source of truth about God.

Have you not considered the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament for the torah?

Show me sola scriptura in either OT or NT. Doesn't exist. But as you see, the Bible itself says that it's not the only source of authority about God.

So rather than misquote concepts from Scripture

I showed you God's word. If you think it's false, take it up with the Author.

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian,

Nope. Scripture was not transmitted orally, but by writing. So those other traditions were apart from the Bible.

What are you saying here ? That whatever a person writes is authoritative ?


Here, Jesus is saying that as a group, what the Apostles say is authoritative. He gave that to them, as He also gave it to Peter singularly.

So you saying Peter could write anything He wanted to, and it would be considered
authoritative ? Are you suggesting Peter was the only source of authority in the early Christian church ?


Show me sola scriptura in either OT or NT. Doesn't exist. But as you see, the Bible itself says that it's not the only source of authority about God.

I will come to this in time, but as a good teacher knows, knowledge and bridge building begins as fast as my student allows...so pardon me in asking you questions, as I want to know where you are on this topic....


I showed you God's word. If you think it's false, take it up with the Author.

You have shown me a few Bible passages so far....

I asked you what does "torah" mean? and you did not acknowledge my question. Please answer the question.

Second, so far your replies refer to a group of words, which is called a context, or a phrase, which is open to interpretation...hence you free to write you own conclusions...which people do....even scholars....but I want you to acknowledge Bible words only....Bible words do not change meaning over time...any dictionary tells you words have meanings, are more or less fixed over time, some words may have multiple meanings, but generally words are the same in their sentences of context. WORDS are easier to study than PHRASES, because all people can see the meaning of words, and science study will make the presentation of such words honourable. Context of words is far more difficult to unravel....that could come later if one wanted to...but consider first things first....

What does the Hebrew word "torah" (same as Greek word nomos) mean to you ?

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian oberves:
Nope. Scripture was not transmitted orally, but by writing. So those other traditions were apart from the Bible.
2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

What are you saying here ?

That the traditions of God's people, both written in scripture, and passed down orally, are both authoritative, as the Bible says.


Here, Jesus is saying that as a group, what the Apostles say is authoritative. He gave that to them, as He also gave it to Peter singularly.

Jesus to His disciples:
Matthew 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

So you saying Peter could write anything He wanted to, and it would be considered
authoritative ?

It means He gave Peter personally, and the Apostles as a group, the understanding and authority to make those decisions.

Are you suggesting Peter was the only source of authority in the early Christian church ?

Jesus named three. Scripture, St. Peter, and the Apostles as a group.

Show me sola scriptura in either OT or NT. Doesn't exist. But as you see, the Bible itself says that it's not the only source of authority about God.

I will come to this in time,

Wouldn't seem to me to be that hard, if it exists. If you can't find one, isn't that a pretty good clue?

Barbarian observes:
I showed you God's word. If you think it's false, take it up with the Author.

You have shown me a few Bible passages so far....

Which of them do you think is wrong?

I asked you what does "torah" mean?

It literally means "teaching" or "law" in the sense of guidance. It refers to the written and oral tradition of Judaism. Sometimes, it's assumed to be "The Old Testament", the Pentateuch, but that's not the entire story. A cognate refers to an archer, on target. Interestingly,
hamartanó, the Koine Greek for "sin" is something like "missing the mark." So the implication is a way that is shown, something imparted to help one on a specific way.

Second, so far your replies refer to a group of words, which is called a context, or a phrase, which is open to interpretation...hence you free to write you own conclusions...which people do....even scholars....but I want you to acknowledge Bible words only....Bible words do not change meaning over time...

Sounds like an easy way to fool yourself. But go on and show us.

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian that was a good reply, and we can continue and be honest and have a friendly discussion:


(1) hold the traditions = both written in scripture, and passed down orally, are both authoritative, as the Bible says.

Is this your understanding so far?


(2) Jesus to His disciples: Matthew 18:16 whatsoever the church bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever the church shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. = as a group, what the Apostles say is authoritative.

Is this your understanding so far?

(3) Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; It means He gave Peter authority personally, and singularly.

Is this your understanding so far?

Jesus named three. Scripture, St. Peter, and the Apostles as a group.

==============So I take it this is your sources of authority....?

==============So let's consider my sources of authority....

Torah

It literally means "teaching" or "law" in the sense of guidance. It refers to the written and oral tradition of Judaism. Sometimes, it's assumed to be "The Old Testament", the Pentateuch, but that's not the entire story. A cognate refers to an archer, on target. Interestingly, hamartanó, the Koine Greek for "sin" is something like "missing the mark." So the implication is a way that is shown, something imparted to help one on a specific way.

That's a very good understanding of "torah" so far Barbarian....

Now if you have to convince somebody something authoritative from scripture or some other source, what would you use to make a powerful discussion?

Your reply is based on three concepts :

(1) "hold the traditions" - used only once in Scripture
(2) "whatsoever the church" - used once or
(2) "the church" used 69 times in Scripture
(3) "build my church" - used once

As I said these phrases are open to interpretation, and how can you make them persuasive ?

But if you consider the word "torah" and it's Greek equal "nomos"

(1) torah - 213 verses in OT Scripture and nomos - 158 verses in NT Scripture, makes a total 371 verses that give us context about how this word is used.

You right the word means to throwing of the finger or archer, the directions of life, the pointing the way to go, teachings.... sounds to me a good place to learn about authority in the Scripture don't you think?

We could also look at the word "scripture" but it's only used 51 times in the NT and once in the OT, so not likely to show us much in it's context....

But "torah" should be more useful to study, than the 3 verses you have supplied
they are used only once....

I would trust the word "torah" used over 300 times, and learn what we find from that? Or are you assuming you can build a church doctrine on a single context?
I am assuming church doctrine should be formed many contexts of evidence?

I will continue to study this word "torah" with you, only if you agree it might promise to be more persuasive than just three verses you showed me, used only once in Scripture.

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

(1) hold the traditions = both written in scripture, and passed down orally, are both authoritative, as the Bible says.

Is this your understanding so far?

It's what God says. Who am I to disagree?

Jesus to His disciples: Matthew 18:16 whatsoever the church bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever the church shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. = as a group, what the Apostles say is authoritative.

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; It means He gave Peter authority personally, and singularly.

Singularly. Jesus named three. Scripture, St. Peter, and the Apostles as a group.

So let's consider my sources of authority....

It literally means "teaching" or "law" in the sense of guidance. It refers to the written and oral tradition of Judaism. Sometimes, it's assumed to be "The Old Testament", the Pentateuch, but that's not the entire story. A cognate refers to an archer, on target. Interestingly, hamartanó, the Koine Greek for "sin" is something like "missing the mark." So the implication is a way that is shown, something imparted to help one on a specific way.

That's a very good understanding of "torah" so far Barbarian....

Now if you have to convince somebody something authoritative from scripture or some other source, what would you use to make a powerful discussion?

St. Thomas Aquinas observed that grace builds on nature and that faith is entirely reasonable. So did St. Paul:

We are tempted to forget this, though Pope John Paul II urgently reminded us in Fides et Ratio: reason works. Reason can climb all the way to God. On some level, says St. Paul, there is “no excuse” for failing to know, not only moral truth, but even the truth about God: his “invisible things,” his “eternal power and Godhead.” Whatever that may mean, it’s pretty high up.
http://www.hprweb.com/2014/02/grace-and-reason-according-to-st-paul-and-st-thomas/

Your reply is based on three concepts :
(1) "hold the traditions" - used only once in Scripture
(2) "whatsoever the church" - used once or
(2) "the church" used 69 times in Scripture
(3) "build my church" - used once

I'd be willing to listen to your argument that if God only says it once, (or a limited amount of times) it's false. Tell us about it.

As I said these phrases are open to interpretation

All of scripture is open to interpretation, if one is so inclined.

and how can you make them persuasive ?

God said them. That pretty much settles it for me.

You right the word means to throwing of the finger or archer, the directions of life, the pointing the way to go, teachings.... sounds to me a good place to learn about authority in the Scripture don't you think?

Which is why it is also authoritative. But as you see, the Bible itself says that it's not the only source of authority about God.

I will continue to study this word "torah" with you, only if you agree it might promise to be more persuasive than just three verses you showed me, used only once in Scripture.

Feel free to show that if God says it only once or a few times, it isn't true.

 

[turnorburn]

Say Barbarian Matthew 18:16 doesn't say that

Jesus to His disciples: Matthew 18:16 whatsoever the church bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever the church shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

tob