How old is Earth? Evolution?

[Reba]

"They were there when God created before He rested."

Wrong. They were extinct by the 7th day.

No animals were extinct by the seventh day because no animals died prior to Adam and Eve's fall into sin. Sin brought death after that.

 

[RedFox]

yeah where does Rock comes from, where these gas and fire and elements... where they all come from? huh huh??

The rocks was made out of the cloud of dust and gases that was around the sun when the solar system formed. We've seen examples of forming stars with disks. The elements heavier than hydrogen and helium that the rocks, dust and gases are made of were made by stars, supernove and maybe colliding neutron stars by fusion processes. Most of the helium and the heavy hydrogen and was made by the fusion of some of the hydrogen within the first three minutes after the Big Bang. Stars are making more helium now. The hydrogen nuclei with single protons were created, of course, when the protons were created when the quarks combined very soon after the Big Bang.
Radiometric dating of rocks on Earth, from the Moon and space tell us that the oldest ones are billions of years old. Since the Earth, Moon and space rocks are made of rocks, they must be at least that old.
Read science books to find how scientists had figured out how all of this happened. The discovery process is interesting.

where germs come from, huh huh?

Germs are unicellar organisms. I read that protocells can self assembly from lipids to make double layered lipid membranes that are like cell membranes. They figured that germs can't form in one step from inanimate matter and that there was precellar life. The RNA world theory says that there was RNA life. It's the leading theory of precelluar life. RNA can act as both genes and enzymes. The RNA formed from the bases and sugars, possibility with clay as a catalyst. Atoms formed those molecules because the molecules were in a lower energy state than the seperate atoms. Nobody forced them together, it was energically favored. Then later, some of that stuff got enveloped by the protocell membranes. Those became more common than bare RNA because the membranes protected the insides. Then later on, DNA was used as well as RNA.

 

[Reba]

The rocks was made out of the cloud of dust and gases that was around the sun when the solar system formed. We've seen examples of forming stars with disks. The elements heavier than hydrogen and helium that the rocks, dust and gases are made of were made by stars, supernove and maybe colliding neutron stars by fusion processes. Most of the helium and the heavy hydrogen and was made by the fusion of some of the hydrogen within the first three minutes after the Big Bang. Stars are making more helium now. The hydrogen nuclei with single protons were created, of course, when the protons were created when the quarks combined very soon after the Big Bang....

Where did the original elements come from? What caused "The Big Bang"?

 

[Daft]

Yes, dinosaurs were extinct by the seventh day. Scripture tells us that a day is like a 1,000 years to God. And 1,000 in Scripture is symbolic for infinity or a very huge number. So, yes, dinosaurs were extinct by the "seventh" day.


Edit

I think people are also confused on what Genesis meant by "death" in the Adam and Eve story. It doesn't mean physical death. It means spiritual death. God told Adam he would die on the day he ate the Forbidden Fruit. Well if you continue to read the story, you will see that Adam and Eve did not die a physical death on that day. They died a spiritual death - they were separated from God that day.

 

[Reba]

Yes, dinosaurs were extinct by the seventh day. .. So, yes, dinosaurs were extinct by the "seventh" day...

What verse/verses do you reference for that statement?

 

[Daft]

One day to God is like a thousand years.

Seems a lot of people on this board are getting the spiritual and the physical confused!!

 

[Reba]

Behemoth was a hippo!

Behemoth is a huge elephant than regular elephant....

Job 40:15-24

"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like as of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."

Behemoth's tail moved like a cedar tree. That is much larger than the tail of an elephant or hippo.

God did not need to explain what behemoth was to Job. Job was already familiar with the creature, so it must have been a common animal that was still living during Job's lifetime.

 

[Daft]

Job 40:15-24

"See, besides you I made Behemoth, that feeds on grass like an ox. Behold the strength in his loins, and his vigor in the sinews of his belly. He carries his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are like cables. His bones are like tubes of bronze; his frame is like iron rods. He came at the beginning of God's ways, and was made the taskmaster of his fellows; For the produce of the mountains is brought to him, and of all wild animals he makes sport. Under the lotus trees he lies, in coverts of the reedy swamp. The lotus trees cover him with their shade; all about him are the poplars on the bank. If the river grows violent, he is not disturbed; he is tranquil though the torrent surges about his mouth. Who can capture him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a trap?"

It says he "carries his tail like a cedar" - it doesn't say his tail was the size or a cedar or that it looked like a cedar.

Behemoth was a hippo. Calling Behemoth is dinosaur is a stretch of the imagination!

 

[Reba]

... Scripture tells us that a day is like a 1,000 years to God...

Except in the Genesis chapters, God is very specific, and He numbers each day, with a beginnning and end.

From where did the 7-day week come? Days, months, and years follow the movements of the earth (revolution and rotation), and the phases of the moon. So how did we get a 7-day week? From God. The week is the most perfect division of time. Months vary (28 days, 29 days, 30 days, 31 days) and years vary (Gregorian, Aztec, etc.). Calendars are always changing. But God's 7-day week is always a 7-day week.

I think people are also confused on what Genesis meant by "death" in the Adam and Eve story. It doesn't mean physical death. It means spiritual death. God told Adam he would die on the day he ate the Forbidden Fruit. Well if you continue to read the story, you will see that Adam and Eve did not die a physical death on that day. They died a spiritual death - they were separated from God that day.

The spiritual death was immediate. The physical death was a process. Adam and Eve were created with bodies that would have lasted throughout eternity but with their sin their bodies began to break down. Sin infected all their physical systems and broke them down, right down to the molecular level.

 

[Reba]

It says he "carries his tail like a cedar" - it doesn't say his tail was the size or a cedar or that it looked like a cedar.

A little "wiggly" tail cannot move like a cedar. Something has to have actual mass in order to move in a massive way.

Do you think a hippo's tail would be impressive enough for God to make a point of describing it that way?

 

[Daft]

Too bad a hippo's tail isn't a wiggly mess. Hippos don't wag their tails like cats and dogs. So God told us how a hippo moves his tail - like a cedar. It hangs down and can move back and forth swaying like in a wind.

When you read Genesis, God says that on the DAY that Adam and Eve would eat the Forbidden Fruit they would die. Well, they ate the fruit and they did not die on that specific day. God was not speaking of physical death. He was speaking of a spiritual death. He was telling them they would be separated from Him.

The entire story of Creation was never, ever to be taken literally. It was the story of God's relationship humanity. It tells of our fall and even has hidden prophesy of our redemption. God uses a lot of symbolism within the Scripture to give us deeper meanings of the Biblical stories.

"Except in the Genesis chapters, God is very specific, and He numbers each day, with a beginnning and end." Exactly where in Scripture does it say, "A thousand years is like a day to God - well, there are a few exceptions like in the Creation"?

One can not take the Creation story literally.

 

[Reba]

...One can not take the Creation story literally.

Maybe you cannot, but many people can. God gives understanding and discernment through the Holy Spirit to those who believe.

 

[Reba]

Too bad a hippo's tail isn't a wiggly mess. Hippos don't wag their tails like cats and dogs. So God told us how a hippo moves his tail - like a cedar. It hangs down and can move back and forth swaying like in a wind.

The description of behemoth in Job was to demonstrate a creature of impressive mass and strength. If the animal had a wispy tail, how would that description fit the picture God was trying to convey?[/QUOTE]

 

[Daft]

Job does a great job of describing a hippo in detail.

One simply can not take the Creation story literally - or else one would have to admit God made woman twice.

 

[Reba]

One simply can not take the Creation story literally - or else one would have to admit God made woman twice.

God did not create Eve twice. The Genesis verses use a literary device of introducing the topic first in a general way, and then going back to give the details. One event, two descriptions.

"One" can simply take the Creation story literally.

 

[Daft]

Literally, Genesis says that God created woman twice.

Genesis 1:27 states "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them." God has created a man and a woman.

Genesis 2:21-22 states "So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man"

So literally, he made woman twice. If you go by a strict literal interpretation, there is no "general description and then goes back and does a more detailed description". A strictly literal interpretation says that God made a mistake. God doesn't make mistakes. A literal interpretation of the Creation story of Adam and Eve is wrong. The Bible is about spirituality - not about history or science.

Even modern theologians affirm there is no conflict in Evolution theories and Genesis.

The Creation story is a story of faith and there are ties to the New Testament. St Augustine even pointed out that the New Testament is hidden inside the Old Testament.

 

[The Heretic]

Daft, you're giving people way too much credit. Since people use only one intellectual faculty when they read the bible, they take the literal meaning at face value, because their grammatical skills are usually below average. On top of that a lot of deaf people have poor reading and writing skills, and that compounds their understanding of the Scripture, which was written under different conditions at a different time. For instance, plagiarism was not considered as an evil in the days of the ancients: you were supposed to rip off the classical works whenever writing something.

That's why your repeated appeals to theologians, who are enlightened themselves, won't go over well with people who do not use any other tool than basic grammar to understand the bible. All that matters is a literal interpretation, even though the biblical language has many more layers of meaning (allusions and figurative wording).

 

[Daft]

Heretic, it really does boggle the mind.

 

[RedFox]

Where did the original elements come from? What caused "The Big Bang"?

Let's take a tour from the creation of the original elements to the Big Bang.

The original elements were mostly the usual kind of hydrogen, deuterium and helium. The helium and deuterium were created by fusion of the usual hydrogen nuclei, which are single protons, with each other and neutrons. This happened from one to three minutes after the Big Bang and the process is called the Big Bang's nucleosynthesis.

Where did those protons and neutrons come from? The single protons and neutrons were made when quarks and gluons combined by 0.00001 second after the Big Bang. This process is called baryogenesis because protons and neutrons belong to a class of particles called the baryons. There are three quarks in each baryon. Gluons are the particles that hold the quarks together.

Before baryogenesis, they existed in a soup called the quark-gluon plasma. They think that they may have created some of this in particle accelerators by accelerating particles and having them collide to make them as energetic as particles were soon after the Big Bang.

Where did the quark-gluon plasma come from? They are still working on that by accelerating particles to even higher energies and it could be a good idea to watch for very high energy cosmic ray particles from space that collide with air molecules, making showers of particles we can detect.

Before baryogenesis happened, they say that the universe increased in size very quickly for various reasons you could read about if you want to.

They say that once they get down to small enough scales, they won't be able to go down any further because they'd reach the smallest possible units of space and time allowed by quantum mechanics. This is Planck length and Planck time. Planck length is 1.6x10^-35 meters and Planck time is 5.4x10^-44 seconds. Written out longhand, they would be 0.000000000000000000000000000000000016 meters and 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000054 seconds.

Planck time is the time light takes to travel Planck distance. On this scale, space and time are not smooth. For the first Planck time after the Big Bang, the four forces of the universe were one force and there were no elementary particles. It's as if there was no room for any of those particles. Maybe it would be more meaningful to say that the Big Bang started at one Planck length and one Planck time.

To understand what's going on at those scales would require a theory of quantum gravity that does not exist yet unless you count superstring theories that people are working on. Those string theories say that particles are made of strings one Planck length long and they viberate in a number of dimensions in different ways, giving them different apperances. Those different modes of vibratation would be what we would see as different kinds of particles. They're still working on it now. Currently, it's a protoscience, which means that they're thinking of ideas and models and preparing ways of collecting evidence.

Where did those strings or whatever particles are made of come from to make a Big Bang? Now they have some ideas about that. One idea, currently a protoscience, is brane cosmology, which got some ideas from superstring theories. There are various versions of this. The idea is that our universe is contained by a thing called a brane that is moving though higher dimensions. Other branes could be moving around in those higher dimensions and affect our brane. Some people say that if branes hit each other, they would have Big Bangs.

Does this model make any testable predictions? Yes, they say that maybe the reason why gravity is much weaker than the other three forces of the universe is that gravity is the only force that could spread out in all dimensions, including the higher ones. They say that gravity would be much stronger than expected at sub millimeter scales because not as much of it had leaked away yet over the small distances like it would for distances over a millimeter. Now they're doing experiments to test the strength of gravity at sub millimeter distances to test the ideas of branes and higher dimensions that gravity leaks into loses strength to.

Where do those branes and higher dimensions come from? It could go on forever, but could there be anything at a top level that everything got created in or by? Some people could say that the brane stuff is what made everything. Others could say that a god did it. People could say that god made the brane stuff and made a Big Bang by causing branes to collide.

But we could ask what made the god and what made the maker of the god and go on forever. It's best to stick to things we have evidence for. They've thought of ways of testing the ideas of branes and higher dimensions and are doing it now. If we get evidence for the brane idea, we could say that it's possible that the branes had always existed and had always been colliding to make Big Bangs.

Why not put in a god? We could use Occam's razor, which says "Do not multiply entities unless necessary." It means that we should make the least number of assumptions possible. It's also imporant for hypothesises to make testable predictions.

The branes ideas makes testable predictions about the strength of gravity at smaller scales that they are now working on measuring. Adding a god that made create the branes and make them collide or do whatever else to make the Big Bang happen adds another thing to our model, so it must be tested to see if there is any evidence of a god doing such a thing.

Nobody had shown me such evidence or a way to collect such evidence for such a god yet. So for now, the brane comoslogy is one of the possible ideas for what may be at the top level in scale and what caused the Big Bang that made our universe, without any assumptions about gods.

 

[Daft]

If the Big Bang theory is true (which I highly suspect is), I do believe it was done by God and not within any "24 hour" time frame. The entire Creation process took billions of years - which theologians would agree with.