|  eat | Dec 12, 2005 7:54pm | In its original Hebrew, the day used throughout the first chapter of Genesis is "yôm." The following is a footnote from answersingenesis.com [answersingenesis.com]: "M. Saebo, in his Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 6:22, says that yôm is: 'the fundamental word for the division of time according to the fixed natural alternation of day and night, on which are based all the other units of time (as well as the calendar).' Cited from Ref. 1, p. 72." If Moses wrote 'day' to mean 'an indefinite period of time' as asserted in your previous post, then he could have used 'yom' combined with 'light and darkness'; however, in Genesis 'day' is combined with 'evening' and 'morning' ("And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day").
Moses used other Hebrew words to describe indefinite spans of time in other parts of the Pentateuch, but not in Genesis 1. In Genesis 9:12, he writes Genesis 9:12 'for perpetual generations [olam dor]'; in Deuteronomy 30:20, 'He is thy light and the length of thy days [yôm orek]; in Deuteronomy 32:7, 'Remember the days of old [yôm olam]'. If Moses meant 'indefinite span of time', then why did he not use these words? The most logical conclusion is that Moses meant what he wrote-- day as used in Genesis 1 means one rotation of Earth around its axis.
With this established, the problem of relative time and time dilation (the tensor calculus or even basic concepts supporting which I would humbly request you to explain, rather than just say "GR says x") is resolved. The rate of expansion of the universe is irrelevant when discussing a local system like Earth (since all things on Earth experience the same acceleration, etc., there is no significant time dilation among things on Earth). If anything, I think you should argue that it took Earth an exceedingly long time to complete one rotation, however difficult it may be to reconcile such a claim with data that indicates days are getting longer over time. But then that presents another set of problems, and so on. Arguing from general relativity as to the meaning of "And there was evening, and there was morning-the [1st-7th] day" seems not to be not only a misapplication of such physics but bordering on obfuscatory debate.
The problem of fossil distribution among millions of years of strata remains, as do the problems presented in my previous posts. |
|
| 
Sponsor |  CelticWarrior | Dec 12, 2005 8:46pm | Your post does not resolve the issue of relative time or time dilation. Your footnote makes assumptions I take issue with. Saying that Moses "could" have said something else therefore the issue of relative time and time dilation is resolved?
My post resolves your question which I will re-post here to remind you:
"So, putting evolution aside for the moment, how do you defend Genesis's statement that Earth came before light? If Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and the universe is ~13.7 billion years old, then what did all the stars that preceded Earth's formation emit during nuclear fusion in the ~9.2 billion year interrum?"
Relative time and time dilation are well known theories. I do not accept your "demand" that I also post the supporting equations to these concepts. We are not here to re-invent the wheel. |
|
|
| | eat | Dec 12, 2005 9:33pm | I am disappointed that you won't be posting the tensor calculus and the mathematics of time dilation with which you appear to be so familiar. Some may argue that explaining one's equations (or even briefly summarizing one's basic logic)in such advanced mathematics and concepts is hardly tantamount to 'reinventing the wheel'.
How does post 16 (time dilation- a matter of speeding up or slowing down time) address the problem of sequence presented by Earth coming before light?
I incorrectly assumed that you were addressing the problem of fossil distribution in your post on time dilation and general relativity. While I now acknowledge that you weren't addressing that problem, I would nevertheless maintain that time dilation and general relativity are unrelated to the fossil distribution problem (since all time would be consistent inside Earth because of everything's nearly equal velocity).
Which aspects of the footnote do you disagree with, and for what reasons? Do you also disagree with the several subsequent examples of Moses using different words to specify indefinite amounts of time, and my claim that he would have used such words had he meant 'days' as you seem to be arguing he did? |
|
|
Sponsor | | CelticWarrior | Dec 12, 2005 9:36pm | "Which aspects of the footnote do you disagree with, and for what reasons? Do you also disagree with the several subsequent examples of Moses using different words to specify indefinite amounts of time, and my claim that he would have used such words had he meant 'days' as you seem to be arguing he did?"
Read the second sentence of my last post for your answer. |
|
|
| | eat | Dec 13, 2005 11:54am | The second sentence of your post before last reads "Your footnote makes assumptions I take issue with." I do not see how this answers the question "which aspects of the footnote do you disagree with, and why?" Stated in other words, which assumptions in the footnote do you take issue with, and why?
The footnote: M. Saebo, in his Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 6:22, says that yôm is: 'the fundamental word for the division of time according to the fixed natural alternation of day and night, on which are based all the other units of time (as well as the calendar).' Cited from Ref. 1, p. 72.
-
Furthermore, neither time dilation nor general relativity allows for a near ceasation of time anywhere but outside the edge of a black hole (hypothetical white holes). However, the white holes mentioned in post 16 disappear once matter is introduced and thus would not exist if they (somehow) emitted matter such as Earth. curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php [curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php].
Also, if Earth were subject to the extreme conditions in or around white holes then it would disintegrate to the point of being unrecognizable. It would certainly not be covered with water as stated in Genesis 1:2. To suggest that a watery Earth was ejected from a reversed black hole (which many astronomers say could not exist in the real world anyways) in more or less its present shape is unreasonable.
Cosmological evolution and geology state that Earth accreted together from planetesimal discs about 9.2 billion years after the Big Bang. During this Big Bang, a considerable amount of energy in the form of light was emitted. Thus, contrary to the account of creation in Genesis, light preceded Earth. Your proposed model of cosmological evolution seems to take issue with basic cosmological concepts-- are there any articles about it available in scientific journals?
Also, this questionable argument from physics does not explain the problem of fossil distribution across millions of years of strata rather than six days. |
|
| 
|  LanMarkx | Dec 21, 2005 6:39pm | 1: Evolution makes no claim on where or how life came to be.
This has been and is being researched by several prominent scientists. In short, they have studied the chemistry of life's most basic molecules (amino acids, nucleotides and the proteins and nucleic acids they make) and the conditions that facilitate their formation. These conditions (a reducing atmosphere, oceans rich in organic compounds and ammonia, etc.) are very likely to have existed in prebiotic Earth. Together, much research in biochemistry suggests, abiogenesis (life coming from non-life) could have been just a matter of time. For further information, I'd suggest reading the essay "Origin of Life" at geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html [geocities.com].
First off, I wouldn't recommend geocities as a `resource' on most scales, but I must ask this of you, did you know that the infamous experiment by Stanley L. Miller you are referring to also destroys the same building blocks it creates? His experiment was also set up with original condition that even evolutionists claim did not exist on Earth at the time. Most knowledgeable evolutionists no longer use this argument in any way due to the problems with the experiment and the setup. Take the following quote:
"Stanley Miller's classic 1953 synthesis of life's `building blocks' in the test tube, as well as Sydney Fox's `proteinoids' (which produced circular blobs claimed to be `protocells') are now largely regarded as dead ends."
-John Horgan, `Trends in Evolution: In the Beginning...', Scientific American, February 1991, p. 100-109. |
|
|
| 
Sponsor | | LeapOfFaaaith | Dec 29, 2005 9:28am | Eat,
I think one of my major objections to evolution rests with sciences inability to actually observe its evolutionary theories. While we can observe life today, only traces of life of yester-year are observable. That leaves us making remarkable leaps of faith to accept probable and improbable scenarios. Therefore, our conclusions are both based on scant evidence that is interpreted largely by our world-views. The same mathematical analysis that you use to question the veracity of the Genesis account can be used to question (admitted by your own words) the veracity of the evolving evolutionary account.
So we both sit, with scenarios that are presently improbable and unprovable. We are left with our world-view to help us define what we will accept and not accept. As your perspective seems remarkably different than mine, could you please define yours. It will help me appreciate your perspective and write in terms that you will understand?
Truly, the more we know, the more we find that we can learn, as a man once wrote, We see through the looking glass darkly - In other words, we understand so little. Please help me understand your perspective by describing your world-view.
Perhaps we should start by agreeing on a definition of the term World View.... |
|
|
| | eat | Dec 29, 2005 3:06pm | "I think one of my major objections to evolution rests with sciences inability to actually observe its evolutionary theories."
Evidence of evolutionary theory, that is, of changes in allele frequency within a population over generations, is observed every day. It is only some of the more controversial historical applications of evolution (the emergence of homo sapiens from apes, the emergence of birds from reptiles, etc.) that have not been observed in laboratory experiments or in natural environments.
For this type of claim, geology, genetics and other sciences are used to infer evolutionary claims. While not experimental, the evidence lent to evolution by historical sciences like geology and paleontology is valid because it follows theories established by harder, experimental sciences like physics and chemistry.
"That leaves us making remarkable leaps of faith to accept probable and improbable scenarios. Therefore, our conclusions are both based on scant evidence that is interpreted largely by our world-views."
Drawing conclusions about how life evolved from how fossils are distributed among strata, the conditions of the prebiotic atmosphere from the composition of ancient rocks, the evolution of man from ape by increasing degrees of skeletal similarity found in fossils, and determining the age of these claims with various forms of radiometric dating-- none of these can accurately be described as faith, which is belief that doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The evidence for evolutionary theory is not scant, it is voluminous. Evidence for microevolutionary change, or evolution within species, is clearly seen whereever living things are found. Evidence for macroevolution, or change between species, is found in experimental biology, genetics, geology and various other fields of science.
My perspective, or worldview, is scientific-- that which is empirical, falsifiable, quantifiable and testable.
-
LanMarkx,
While I had heard beforehand that the conditions used in the Miller-Urey experiment are not considered to have been similar to those on prebiotic (specifically, the early Archaean) Earth, I forgot while writing that it is now generally agreed that ammonia (NH3) was not present in signficant amounts. Note that the mistake I made was saying the prebiotic earth was abundant in NH3; I did not assert that the Urey-Miller experiment was cogent evidence for abiogenesis. Neither does the essay I cited make such a suggestion; in fact, the end of the paragraph on the experiment reads "Such coincidences lent credence to the idea that Miller's protocol approximated the chemistry of the prebiotic earth. More recent findings have cast some doubt on that conclusion."
While geocities isn't at all authoritative in itself, the particular essay I linked was written by Dr. Leslie Orgel, a scientist who, when the essay was written in 1974, was working with NASA's exobiology division. A number of his technical papers on biochemical evolution can be found by entering his name on Google Scholar. scholar.google.com/scholar [scholar.google.com/scholar]
Amino acids have been produced in four differents experiments using possible early Archaean atmospheric conditions, different from those in the 1953 Miller-Urey experiments: ncseweb.org/icons/Figure01.htm [ncseweb.org/icons/Figure01.htm]. I do not know whether they employed cold-traps, a point which many critics cite as an infeasible circumstance in natural environments.
Admittedly, abiogenesis is a very hypothetical area of biology and current hypotheses may well need a lot of revision before they show how, if at all, what is considered biology evolved from biochemistry and chemistry. But let's imagine that, in the future, life is created from nonlife in conditions that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports were those in early Earth. What then?
-
Since I have offered reasonable explanations for evolutionary theory, I'd like someone to offer a reasonable explanation for Noah's Flood. Among numerous things, it seems implausible that there would have been a flood large enough to cover the globe that would not leave significant evidence of such in ice cores, the sea floor, or tree ring dating.
Also, how could a ship of dimensions 137m x 22.9m x 13.7m hold "two of all living creatures, male and female...Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground..." (Genesis 6:19-20) as well as "every kind of food that is to be eaten...for you and for them" (Genesis 6:21). To take every kind of species, multiple the volume and mass of a specimen of each by two and then add the volume and mass of the food they would eat in 40 days would overwhelm such a large ship. So, how do Biblicists reconcile this factual impossibility? |
|
| 
| | fuzzycraig | Jan 1, 2006 6:36pm | 1518750 cu ft noahs ark
5238 cu ft typical 50 ft box car 70 ton
my math tells me 290 box cars.......big train lotsa room......
56250 cubic yards..... my dump truck is 25 cu yards.....
some animals swim. some float... every kind known to Noah...would fit in 290 box cars |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion