What does the Bible say about the origins of the Earth in relation to what science say?

[JJ50]

Holy mackrell, I can put this in the King James version and it would not contradict each other.
View attachment 30556

You have no proof the Genesis creation story is no more that a mythical tale, however much you wish it to be factual.

 

[SA Huguenot]

This comes out of Michael henbests

You have no proof the Genesis creation story is no more that a mythical tale, however much you wish it to be factual.

Oh but the proof is comming very soon at an outlet near you.
Please be patient, your call will be answered!

 

[JJ50]

This comes out of Michael henbests

Oh but the proof is comming very soon at an outlet near you.
Please be patient, your call will be answered!

YAWN! No doubt some saddos will be threatening people with that silliness well into the future if religion is still practised then.

 

[SA Huguenot]

And here it is!
Emmanuel Kant on his Universal natural history and theory of the Heavens based on Newtonian principals.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf

Now let me explain.
Emmanuel kant was a philosopher who wrote this essay in 1755 on how the Solar system and Universe came to shape as it did.
It is called "The Nebular Theory" in short.
He described everything in detail as I did on what science today display as the Origins of the Universe.
Laplace, and all other who followed, tried to alter this descriptions, some with success, others with failure; but the Nebular Theory remain the model for all scientists today.
Read a small summary here.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf
Even more interesting was that to Laplace it sounded a bit too Biblical, and he made an attemot to change the Nebular theory of kant by making a claim that the Planets in our solar system "Popped" out of the Sun, which gave rise to the hadian or "Hellish" eon of the Earth where the Earth was a boiling ball of Magma which took a billion and a half years too cool down.
laplace presented his theory to Napoleon, and when Napoleon asked, where does God fit into this theory, Laplace answered, there is no need for that theory in mine!
Napoleon replied, oh, but the theory of God explain much!
Anyhow, there is consencus that the Hadean theory of Laplace is incorrect, and all science reverted back to Emmanuel Kant's nebular Theory.
There is many examples in science that destroys the Hadean theory where science gained evidence that the Earth was wet with its birth., but we will get to that.
Doesnt the Bible say:
"And the Spirit hovered above the Waters"
and
2 Peter 3: 4“Where is the promise of His coming?” they will ask. “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6through which the world of that time perished in the flood.…
Enjoy

 

[SA Huguenot]

YAWN! No doubt some saddos will be threatening people with that silliness well into the future if religion is still practised then.

Now my answer to you is as such.
Can you now tell me how is it possible that what science and the Bible describes are one and the same?
The answer is very simple, and might be a sting to your bias.
Emmanuel Kant was a Pietist, and very religious.
He knew the Bible by heart, read Hebrew, and Greek, and...
he found the sescription of the Nebular theory in Genesis 1: 1 to 30!!!

And to top it off!!!!
All the Bible critisizers never knew that their scientific description was plagerized from the Bible.
God has the last laugh!!!!

 

[sooda]

This comes out of Michael henbests

Oh but the proof is comming very soon at an outlet near you.
Please be patient, your call will be answered!

There are hundreds of creation myths.

 

[HonestJoe]

Great, Now that I understood the way the Bible described the formation of our Earth which was
1. a collection of gas liquid and solids...
2. that changed into a sphere turning around its axis...
3. that turned into Land and Sea...
it was obvious that this was all done by gravity, if we take the appearance of land and sea in mind.
Now, what happened to the Sun, Moon and other planets?

Well, they also underwent the same metamorphosys as did the Earth.

That is still not what the Bible actually says, it is your preferred interpretation and development of what the says because it fits your preconceived preferences. You’ve been told this multiple times but have continued to ignore it. You’re either a liar or a fool and I’ve no interest in discussing anything further with you either way.

 

[JJ50]

Now my answer to you is as such.
Can you now tell me how is it possible that what science and the Bible describes are one and the same?
The answer is very simple, and might be a sting to your bias.
Emmanuel Kant was a Pietist, and very religious.
He knew the Bible by heart, read Hebrew, and Greek, and...
he found the sescription of the Nebular theory in Genesis 1: 1 to 30!!!

And to top it off!!!!
All the Bible critisizers never knew that their scientific description was plagerized from the Bible.
God has the last laugh!!!!

I rest my case.

 

[JJ50]

That is still not what the Bible actually says, it is your preferred interpretation and development of what the says because it fits your preconceived preferences. You’ve been told this multiple times but have continued to ignore it. You’re either a liar or a fool and I’ve no interest in discussing anything further with you either way.

Good post.

 

[SA Huguenot]

That is still not what the Bible actually says, it is your preferred interpretation and development of what the says because it fits your preconceived preferences. You’ve been told this multiple times but have continued to ignore it. You’re either a liar or a fool and I’ve no interest in discussing anything further with you either way.

Yet, how is it possible that what I read, was exactly the same as what Emmanuel Kant got from Genesis?
He did not have a pre conceived idea on what science said, because what he wrote became Scientific accepted!
Yhis remains a check mate to Atheists.

I wish I can see your face now while you are sweating to find an answer on how is it possible that what we as atheists uses to attack the Biblical description of the Origins of the Universe, somehow came from the Bible and we had long term memory loss of the source!!!

Ha, Ha!
I love it!

 

[SA Huguenot]

Allow me to rub some more salt in your wound.
Isaac Newton was not only the world's most brilliand scientist, but an even greated Bible student.
he said:
Throughout my life I read the Bible (Old Testament), and I could not find a single error when applied with theoretical and experimental science.
Now tell me, who should I believe?
You with your bias against the Old Testament, or Isaac newton who wrote more than a million words on the Bible and who compared it with science.
You had better take note of where science got their knowledge from, or I will have the leaver to keep on overturning you.

Here is another fact you dont know about.
Isaac Newton told his friend that he came upon the laws of Gravity when an apple fell on his head.
he loved mysteries and analogies, and this is one of the greates ones everyone missed out on.
The Apple is something he used in the place of Genesis with reference to the Fruit Adam and Eve supposedly ate.
Check this out,
Isaac Newton actually said, when I read the genesis epoch of creation, I understood gravity!!
Then again, I dont have proof for the above, but just as you can shoot out of the Hip, so I can coulor the Apple of Newton.
Enjoy!

 

[SA Huguenot]

OK, we can take it a bit further.
if Gravity was the reason why this matter in the Universe shaped and formed the galaxies and Solar system, and shaped the Sun satelites and Planets into round spheres, and grew so strong that the Sun collapsed into its own mass creating nuclear fission, what was the effect on the Earth.

In this analysis we saw that the Earth was originally a wet and smooth entity, and eventually solids and liquids seperated.
This would mean that the earth was much more smoother, and its mountains had no geologic activity as we now know about.
Therefore, the earth still underwent its metamorphosys, as I call it, the passionfruit Event.
At first the Earth was smooth and fat, with very low mountain ranges, a swampy surface that supported life with a atmosphere that was very wet.
Gravity increased up untill a catasrtophy occured 1 500 years later where the solids in this wet earth simply got pulled into the earth, and pushed out all this captured water beneath the surface of the Earth.
At the same time, the wet atmosphere collapsed, an possibly the rings the Earth had around it brought Ice to the surface too.
Whilst this crust collapsed, mountain ranges appeared, and Oceans formed and this water settled therein.
Now the apearance was as a dried passion fruit with high mountain ranves, and deep Ocean trenches.
Over hte next 4500 years this surface started to dry out, the North African Jungle changed into the Saharah and so on.
The earth started to loose its glaciers, and lakes.
Lake Misoula is a good example.
Today evidence suggest that Egypt had more lakes than land, but it all dried up and eventually entered the Ocean.
if one looks at the Light House reef in the Bahamas, stalactites shows that 3 600 years ago, the sea level was more than 300 meters lower.

The once fertile swamps and jungles dried up, and the habitat changed resulting in mass extinctions of animals.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yet more examples of the Gish Gallop.

Throw so much BS out there that refutation gets lost in the wall of words and no single point ever gets resolved, then claim victory.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Yet more examples of the Gish Gallop.

Throw so much BS out there that refutation gets lost in the wall of words and no single point ever gets resolved, then claim victory.

Nice, but at least you cant say the Bible creation story contradicts with what science says.

Even if you call this B******t, it defies your argument.
Tell you what, why dont you try to tell me why Emmanuel Kant read the Nebular Theory in Genesis, and you use this same theory to say the Bible is wrong.
Do you see what a predicament you are caugt in?
I call this the
"Atheist science check mate"!
I love it!!!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Explain please.
I went through the SR and GR theories, and I could not find such a claim.

Honestly, it is thought the universe has no "center", however, you will not that in all points in Euclidean space, the speed of expansion is consistent, that is, telescopes looking as far as possible from both poles of Earth see galaxies receding somewhat evenly. So, for one of multiple examples, IF the solar system is near the center, at time of BB singularity expansion, far less light-time would pass here than at the galactic extremities. Old galaxies, young Solar System...

Please also understand--a great deal of conjecture revolves around (pun not intended) the presumed long age of the solar system. For example, the Oort Cloud is nothing less than "But it has to exist, otherwise we cannot explain why the comets haven't burned away after billions of years!" Or see the "Young Sun Paradox" issues, again, an older Sun would have possibly existed where the Earth was in space billions of years ago! Etc., etc.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Oh and if you were wondering if science still upholds the hellish lawa ball earth theory, look at this.
Water was present during birth of Earth, study of silver suggests
Oh, and just look at what science now discovered.
The Earth was wet when it formed!
Early Earth less 'Hellish' than previously thought

I love it when science proves the Bible correct, and Atheists dont like what we learn.
Dont you think it is evidence that the Author of Genesis was giving a simple description on how He created it all?
I think this is evidence that God exists.
Note No other religious book on earth has such detailed information that was recorded over 4000 years ago, and continiously claimed to be wrong, only to be proven correct and maks Atheists even more derranged about God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet, how is it possible that what I read, was exactly the same as what Emmanuel Kant got from Genesis?
He did not have a pre conceived idea on what science said, because what he wrote became Scientific accepted!
Yhis remains a check mate to Atheists.

I wish I can see your face now while you are sweating to find an answer on how is it possible that what we as atheists uses to attack the Biblical description of the Origins of the Universe, somehow came from the Bible and we had long term memory loss of the source!!!

Ha, Ha!
I love it!

You reinterpreted your book of myths after the fact. Classic Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yet, how is it possible that what I read, was exactly the same as what Emmanuel Kant got from Genesis?

He did not have a pre conceived idea on what science said, because what he wrote became Scientific accepted!

Kant didn’t get his scientific ideas from the Bible, he based them on the earlier work of other natural philosophers and scientists of the period. They didn’t agree on everything, didn’t have all the answers and suggested aspects we now know to be wrong. Kant, like many of his contemporary’s, were obviously influenced by the theocratic dictatorships they lived under of course, both in what they believed and how they were forced to present their work, but that led to as many of the errors and false assumptions as it did to breakthroughs and revelations.

I’ve no idea if your ideas are exactly the same as Kant’s but if they are, I’d suggest the same kind of influence from that as you have from current established science. Or, equally likely, you’ve quite intentionally taken Kant’s conclusions and retrofitted them to spin out your weak religious-motivated gotcha (which strikes me as something of an insult to the great philosopher).

Yhis remains a check mate to Atheists.

Why? Even if the text of Genesis could legitimately be read to match the actual development of the solar system, that wouldn’t automatically grant us a definitive conclusion and certainly not one leading unquestionably to the specific form of the Christian God you’re presumably trying to work towards. If anything, validating a part of the OT alone supports Judaism more than Christianity. Maybe we should both give up the bacon sandwiches just in case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh and if you were wondering if science still upholds the hellish lawa ball earth theory, look at this.
Water was present during birth of Earth, study of silver suggests
Oh, and just look at what science now discovered.
The Earth was wet when it formed!
Early Earth less 'Hellish' than previously thought

I love it when science proves the Bible correct, and Atheists dont like what we learn.
Dont you think it is evidence that the Author of Genesis was giving a simple description on how He created it all?
I think this is evidence that God exists.
Note No other religious book on earth has such detailed information that was recorded over 4000 years ago, and continiously claimed to be wrong, only to be proven correct and maks Atheists even more derranged about God.

You misunderstand. The Earth was not wet. The water that made our oceans was already here, but mixed in with other minerals within the Earth. They are using the term "wet" very very loosely.

 

[corynski]

Oh, but you will be surprised once I am done on this forum.
Remember your words, for I will show you that what we are discussing is actually evidence that the Author of Genesis is God.

I would be more than happy to be enlightened, but it will have to be soon, as I'm 81 years old now. And can you please tell me who 'us' refers to in verse Gen 1:26: 'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...."