[_ Old Earth _] If you reject knowledge because of the messenger dont bother

[jwu]

so using that word, was the original for this verse, jn 3;16. peter spoke and wrote in what lanugage in 2 peter and jesus spoke aramiac, so if its for god so love this "land that he gave his only begotten son to die for it. then only the children of isreal are to be saved.

a problem indeed.

with peter he used kosmos for the old world being judge by water, so what original language was spoken by peter, aramaic. or koine greek. when he wrote the epistles.

How is this a problem? Peter used the term kosmos appropriately in that verse, while eretz was improperly translated as such in other verses.

That some instances of eretz were improperly translated as kosmos does not mean that every mention of kosmos must mean the same as eretz.
That'd be faulty logic. Basically you're argueing that since apples are fruits, all fruits are therefore apples. Using the situation at hand, the analogy goes, "since eretz was translated to kosmos in that one case, kosmos always means eretz whereever it is used". That's obviously not correct.

And even if it were valid logic, that still wouldn't change the fact that eretz does not mean the same as kosmos.

 

[jwu]

I never said the stratum form evenly or universally. Do the soil in glass experiment. It doesnt distribute into even stratum either.

But the strata formed by that experiment are sorted by the physical properties of the particles that they consist of, are they not?

The Genesis creation and formation of earth and the oceans and the land is vague but it certainly could have formed some of them. The 'fountains of the deep" which are still active might have some sort of implications. The flood isnt the only thing but its the most obvious Biblical event.

I just want to know which ones in particular supposedly were formed by that event. Don't you agree that it should be child's play to identify those traces of the most cataclysmic event in earth's history?

If you were in my shoes, what would you think if you never ever got an answer to such a simple question - particular since it's supposed to be "obvious", as you said?

 

[Physicist]

the big bang isnt part of the toe, the toe only deals with life after the formation of the first cell.

how the cell got there is explained by the theory of abiogenesis.

the big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe came to be.

i direct this to ashua. and i dont accept the toe nor the the theory abiogenesis. the jury still out on the big bang for me.

Let me ask you this chicken and egg question.

What came first? The big bang which generated all of the matter in the cosmos, or the gases which generated the big bang?

The Big bang is a singularity in space-time. Physicists are used to dealing with singularities (e.g. zero Kelvin). At the Big Bang, there were no gases, or matter, only low entropy energy. As the Universe expanded, matter (hydrogen and helium) began to form from this energy. We have models to explain how this happened.. Gravity collected this gas into nebula and eventually stars, planets, etc.