[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[cupid dave]

... if God created light without creating a source for that light, one is rather left wondering about its physical attributes.

The source of visible light is ALWAY Electrons rising and dropping down into lower orbits within the shell of the Atoms.

God created the first light in the Unuverse as it cooled down and neutral Atoms appeared with the electrons needed for that light.

Prior to them, for 400 million years, there had been a Cosmic Dark Age just after the Big Bang:



Gen. 1:3 And God, (next, afterthe creation of the Heavens), said, Let there be light : and therewas light, (which had been delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bangby a Cosmic Dark Age throughout all the universe).

Gen. 1:4 And (Father Nature,the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, saw the light, that itwas good: and (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality),God, divided the light from the darkness (as the stars formed).



Gen. 1:5 And (Father Nature,the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, called the light Day, andthe darkness he called Night.

 

[cupid dave]

There is observational data that can support that the "light" was first and the plants may have been in place before our sun. And I never once have to state because the bible told me. This observation turned me from a non believer to a believer. I don't like saying I was an atheist, I was never like them. They are a mean fundamental lot. I'll let lord explain the data. He is much better at writing than me.

The bible does NOT usethe word Created in regard to the Sun.
The Sun was part of the heavens that came to be at the Big Bang, though formless and not void of its shape and place in the Unuverse at that instant.

That God MADE the sun time keeper of the Solar Clock is the proper reading of gen 1:14-19:



The Sun and the Moon and all the Starswere "MADE the authority over the circadian Earth Time as soon ashad life appeared in the late Archean or 3rd duration of the geological rockformation:



Gen. 1:14 And God, (The First Cause), said,Let there be (Sidereal Time), lights in the firmament of the heaven,(for the reason) to divide the (12 hour) day from the (12 hour)night; and let them be for (the purpose of) signs, (astronomical,symbolic references), and for (the purpose to designate) times, (thefour seasons), and for (the 24 hour period to be called) days, (the "day" of 24 hoursas distinguished from the days of long Eras), and years (of 365 day):





Strong's Concordance

Transliteration:`asah = made [H6213] =

made: [asah = appoint, ordain,institute]

 

[Arch Angle]

The sun is not the time keeper per say.

So I go to a cook book tofind out about cooking chicken. I go to a math book to see how to add. I go to science books to see how god did it. And I go to the bible to try and understandwhat I am an how, and, if at all possible, I can be a better person. Or atleast, no worse than I was yesterday. With "Christ" as mycentral focus, of course, and not a book.

 

[Adam]

Light existed before and during the cosmic dark age. The term is used to specify that there were no stars and the universe was filled with a sort of fog of opaque glowing plasma so the universe was visibly impermeable, ei: "dark."

However, there was light since the photon epoch, begininning about 10 seconds after the big bang.


I do want to point out that I find it troubling that you will easily say that the earth existed "in the beginning" but insist that light did not. Indeed, light existed before the earth was formed, even if we are just confining the discussion to our particular solar system. Claiming that the earth existed "in the beginning" implies that light existed at least that long, yet you claim it came later. That seems rather inconsistent.

It also is not true.

 

[Arch Angle]

To a degree you are right atom.

At the big bag the process was in place to form the earth. It was probably inevitable. So the sun and earth were in place at the same time really. That is the difference, or line if you will, between literal, what I call "earth bound view",and Universal View.

It's yang and yang really. Very inconsistent. Like most of what you are is "empty space". So if we did a percentage of stuff that makes "you" up versus the volume that "you" occupy,"you" are mostly nothing. You are not here. That's about as inconsistent as it gets I guess.

It seems inconsistent to some because scientist does not have all the answers. It is ok to have more than one possible answer until we get more data. There doesn't have to be "one" and"only one" answer if your data set is incomplete.

It is worth saying again: Science looks at the data to draw a conclusion. If it can't single one out then more than one will have to do.

For example: "where did life come from?

1) life came from god in the six days story.

2) Life started here on earth.

3) The building blocks of life came in from space.

"science" addresses all three. Of the three, it seems that the 6 day story is less probable. But the other two are possible for now. So it is ok to talk about the last 2 separately, thus having their only story line. Or together, where the story line seems inconsistent.

 

[cupid dave]

To a degree you are right atom.

At the big bag the process was in place to form the earth. It was probably inevitable. So the sun and earth were in place at the same time really. That is the difference, or line if you will, between literal, what I call "earth bound view",and Universal View.

It's yang and yang really. Very inconsistent. Like most of what you are is "empty space". So if we did a percentage of stuff that makes "you" up versus the volume that "you" occupy,"you" are mostly nothing. You are not here. That's about as inconsistent as it gets I guess.

It seems inconsistent to some because scientist does not have all the answers. It is ok to have more than one possible answer until we get more data. There doesn't have to be "one" and"only one" answer if your data set is incomplete.

It is worth saying again: Science looks at the data to draw a conclusion. If it can't single one out then more than one will have to do.

For example: "where did life come from?

1) life came from god in the six days story.

2) Life started here on earth.

3) The building blocks of life came in from space.

"science" addresses all three. Of the three, it seems that the 6 day story is less probable. But the other two are possible for now. So it is ok to talk about the last 2 separately, thus having their only story line. Or together, where the story line seems inconsistent.















[/FONT ]

I REPEAT THAT UNTIL NEUTRAL ATOMS FORMED VISIBLE LIGHT HAD NO SOURCE AND COULD NOT EXIST.


For those people who differ with this Fact, they would need to explain where the visible light came from while the Cosmos was too hot for electrons to be captured by the plasma state of the nuclei.



THIS AMAZING AND ASTOUNDING REPORT OF THINGS SCIENCE DID NOT KNIOW UNTIL THE 20TH CENTURY CONFIRMS DIVINE REVELATION:


Gen. 1:3 And God, (next, afterthe creation of the Heavens), said, Let there be light : and therewas light, (which had been delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bangby a Cosmic Dark Age throughout all the universe).

Gen. 1:4 And (Father Nature,the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, saw the light, that itwas good: and (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality),God, divided the light from the darkness (as the stars formed).

Gen. 1:5 And (Father Nature,the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, called the light Day, andthe darkness he called Night.

 

[cupid dave]

The sun is not the time keeper per say.

So I go to a cook book tofind out about cooking chicken. I go to a math book to see how to add. I go to science books to see how god did it. And I go to the bible to try and understandwhat I am an how, and, if at all possible, I can be a better person. Or atleast, no worse than I was yesterday. With "Christ" as mycentral focus, of course, and not a book.

Then why not "go to the dictionary" on this one...???


Go to the dictionary/strong's concordance TO FIND THE DEFINITION FOR "MADE" IN THE HEBREW:


Gen. 1:15 And let them be (time keepers) for (sources of) lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth (such that the Earth day might regulate the circadian rhythms of the new life forms which had just appeared): and it was so.

Gen. 1:16 And (Father Nature, the force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, (with almighty authority) made, (i.e.; assigned these) two great lights (to be the time keepers); the greater light to rule (time during) the day, and the lesser light to rule (time during) the night: (With almighty authority), he made the stars also (to keep Earth time as a Sidereal Clock).


Strong's Concordance Transliteration:

`asah = made [H6213] = made: [asah] = appointed, ordained, instituted

Gen. 1:17 And God, (Father Nature, Reality), set: [Hebrew: nathan = appointed, assigned, designated] them, (Sun, Moon, and Stars), in the firmament of the heaven (for the purpose of keeping Earth time by means that they were) to give light upon the earth,

nathan
verb
Set

1) to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribed, employed, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend
2) to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appointed, assigned, designated

Gen. 1:18 And to rule (with authority) over the (cycle of the @12 hours) day and over the (cycle of the @12 hours) night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God, (Father Nature, the force behind the ever unfolding Reality), saw that it was good.

 

[Arch Angle]

cupid, you can repeat all you want.

are you confused as to what I am saying?


until neutral atoms formed there can be no light? I didn't so. But maybeI am just misunderstanding you. Ions can, and do emit light. What about plasmas? they emit light.

Also, is electrons changing energy levels is the only way foremr to be formed? I didn't know that.

 

[Arch Angle]

Then why not "go to the dictionary" on this one...???


Go to the dictionary/strong's concordance TO FIND THE DEFINITION FOR "MADE" IN THE HEBREW:


Gen. 1:15 And let them be (time keepers) for (sources of) lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth (such that the Earth day might regulate the circadian rhythms of the new life forms which had just appeared): and it was so.

Gen. 1:16 And (Father Nature, the force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, (with almighty authority) made, (i.e.; assigned these) two great lights (to be the time keepers); the greater light to rule (time during) the day, and the lesser light to rule (time during) the night: (With almighty authority), he made the stars also (to keep Earth time as a Sidereal Clock).


Strong's Concordance Transliteration:

`asah = made [H6213] = made: [asah] = appointed, ordained, instituted

Gen. 1:17 And God, (Father Nature, Reality), set: [Hebrew: nathan = appointed, assigned, designated] them, (Sun, Moon, and Stars), in the firmament of the heaven (for the purpose of keeping Earth time by means that they were) to give light upon the earth,

nathan
verb
Set

1) to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribed, employed, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend
2) to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appointed, assigned, designated

Gen. 1:18 And to rule (with authority) over the (cycle of the @12 hours) day and over the (cycle of the @12 hours) night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God, (Father Nature, the force behind the ever unfolding Reality), saw that it was good.

Don't really care about the dictionary.

the sun is not the "time keeper". The earth's rotation is.

 

[cupid dave]

cupid, you can repeat all you want.

are you confused as to what I am saying?


until neutral atoms formed there can be no light? I didn't so. But maybeI am just misunderstanding you. Ions can, and do emit light. What about plasmas? they emit light.

Also, is electrons changing energy levels is the only way foremr to be formed? I didn't know that.

Probably I have misunderstood you, but yes, ONLY neutral Atoms can produce light.

The light you see emitted from plasma is doing exactly that, as the energy level of a flame here on earth is just enough to force electrons out of the seven Prime Orbits, but not enopugh to keep them out.
Hence, they immediately drop back into orbits, and subsequentally emit a photon of energy call light.

But during the first 400 million years of the Dark Cosmic Age the energy levels of the Universe where extremely high, and no Atoms could form with their necessary electron shells full.
Hence, the universe was opaque and light had to await the cooling off period which also allowed the Stars to form.

This is such an uncanny correspondence with genesis, in that specifically, the Bible mentions this separation intime between the Big Bang beginning and the transmission of visible light from what had been dark night into the day that Christians NEED embrace the science, not disparage it.

 

[Arch Angle]

oh I see, neutral atom, you really mean the ability to be a neutral atom. Igot ya, I think I would use the words "ground states" as opposed to "neutral". Ground state being the lowest energy level that electrons will go in a given system. You can excite electrons in ions to produce light. They never have to be"neutral". But I get what you are saying.

so what form was the energy in before particles started to"freeze" out?

emr? or something else? I think emr is part of the family "gauge boson", right?


can quarks jumping around energy levels emit emr?

 

[cupid dave]

Don't really care about the dictionary.

the sun is not the "time keeper". The earth's rotation is.

?
Then why do we call it the Solar Clock, which uses a Sun Dial?

But Genesis 1:14-19 went so far as to mention the Moon which is the basis for the Calendar and keeps time for us monthly.
It also includes the Stars, which are the authority that rules over another kind of clock, one which keeps Sidereal Time.

Sidereal Time:

It seems tome that Christians are ignoring the Science that supports scripture, while defending their personal explanation of Genesis that directly contradicts what genesis actually says, if we use the dictionary.

 

[Arch Angle]

The sun dial works because of the earth's rotation, not changes in thesun. They didn't know that back then sothey called it a sun dial. No big deal to me.

I think you right about Christians.Learn how we were formed. As we learnmore the stories we create will hold up longer because they are true-er. So that mean people in the future will usestories similar to ours.

For example

We came from"dirt". that it is true enough. There is absolutely no need to worryabout if what came first. Now it seemsthe dirt is big bang debris.

 

[cupid dave]

oh I see, neutral atom, you really mean the ability to be a neutral atom. Igot ya, I think I would use the words "ground states" as opposed to "neutral". Ground state being the lowest energy level that electrons will go in a given system. You can excite electrons in ions to produce light. They never have to be"neutral". But I get what you are saying.

so what form was the energy in before particles started to"freeze" out?

emr? or something else? I think emr is part of the family "gauge boson", right?


can quarks jumping around energy levels emit emr?

Photon epoch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physical cosmology, the photon epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe in which photons dominated the energy of the universe.
The photon epoch started after most leptons and anti-leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, about 10 seconds after the Big Bang.
Atomic nuclei were created in the process of nucleosynthesis which occurred during the first few minutes of the photon epoch.
For the remainder of the photon epoch the universe contained a hot dense plasma of nuclei, electrons and photons.


About 380,000 years after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe fell to the point where nuclei could combine with electrons to create neutral atoms.

 

[cupid dave]

The sun dial works because of the earth's rotation, not changes in thesun. They didn't know that back then sothey called it a sun dial. No big deal to me.

I think you right about Christians.Learn how we were formed. As we learnmore the stories we create will hold up longer because they are true-er. So that mean people in the future will usestories similar to ours.

For example

We came from"dirt". that it is true enough. There is absolutely no need to worryabout if what came first. Now it seemsthe dirt is big bang debris.

But the issue is not about what you think about why the Sun is the authority over Solar Time.

We are merely concerned with making sense out of the verse which tells us that God "MADE" the sun the time keeper, as opposed to the nonsense that the Sun was "CREATED," way after the heavens and the earth.

 

[Arch Angle]

oh I got ya. The original verse didn'tsay "created". it said only time keeper. i don't know what the original texted said.

What wasbefore the particles? before the leptons?

what wasthe energy in the form of?
I guess I will have to do some of that there reading.

thanks man, for time.

 

[Adam]

I REPEAT THAT UNTIL NEUTRAL ATOMS FORMED VISIBLE LIGHT HAD NO SOURCE AND COULD NOT EXIST.


For those people who differ with this Fact, they would need to explain where the visible light came from while the Cosmos was too hot for electrons to be captured by the plasma state of the nuclei.

You can try to alter the intent of the text all you want by adding 2x as many words as the original passage contains. That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing in the actual text that dictates that God is distinctly talking about VISIBLE light, especially since He says "Let the BE light" and not "Let the light that already exists go through a process by which it is able to move about freely in the universe."


There is nothing that justifies your insistence that 'Light" only refers to visible light.

 

[Arch Angle]

there is nothing in the text that would suggest it was meant to be taken as the literal creation story.
plus, the unified epoc would classify as "light". just not EMR.

 

[cupid dave]

there is nothing in the text that would suggest it was meant to be taken as the literal creation story.
plus, the unified epoc would classify as "light". just not EMR.

?
So God wasted a whole book, in your opinion, which we ought not take literally and choose to see as corresponding to real facts when that is possible?

Should I discover further on in scripture, that what is said there defies reason and science and knwoledge to the point that I can not accept those statements, I might comeback to Genesis and try to establish the coincidents found there as based upon mere chance.

But, one the other hand, if I accept the Theistic evolution analogies as already enumerated so far, up and through Genesis 9, and continue to find correspondences between Scripture and facts now known to us, I would further endorse the agreement between Genesis and Science as justified by the what then has become a very rational Bible free from supernatural events, but marked only by astounding reports that were merely beyond the times of the generations before our own.

To wit:
A fair minded person would grant the literal correspondence of Genesis with science fact as I have shown, and read on, with the expectation that such a condition ought continue between what is written and the real world we now know so much better.

The fool, the atheists, and the indoctrinated protectors of medieval interpretation by Protestant Churches would NOT be so fair minded because their own surrealistic, super natural, animism depend upon their Fundamentalism.

 

[Arch Angle]

what?

Wasted a whole book? How is it a waste? oh, the all or nothing approach, lmao, thats just silly.

Yes, we pick and choose. all of us. And when we focus on Jesus to help us discern the truth it is better I think. it gets back to the process of forming a belief on observations. The bible is not the sole word of god. God has many"langue". The bible is but one, in many facets of god. Unless you think you hold the truth only, and not god.

yes, evolution matches the creation story. For 2000 years ago they did a great job. evolution matches observation for writing acreation story about how god did it. The bible is incomplete, not wrong, in the creation story.

It is good you backed off of your story line. The literalist that doesn't flex in the light of god tries to be god. I don't follow such people.