Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 106 of 310 (682568)
12-03-2012 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 5:51 PM


and the Cryptic morning of the Hadean Era/ = First Day
You have 4 days right there: Early Imbrian, Nectarian, "Ryderian", and Cryptic.
And the pattern continues with the other "days".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 5:51 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 7:49 PM Taq has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 107 of 310 (682572)
12-03-2012 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Panda
12-03-2012 6:00 PM


Re: Selective learning
I have already named 2.
Here they are again: Grand unification Era and Recombination Era.
Why are you excluding them?
Pleas accept my apology for confusing your post with another person whose conversation I thought was about the seven geological Eras that correspond to the seven "days."
You are quizzing me about the Seven stages of the Big Bang, I and i did not reply concerning that.
My answer to your question is simple in regard t, why do I choose to focus on those science reporter who sum to seven the multitude of events in the Big Bang.
I simply prefer the short list which incorporates the basic mechanics of the cosmic evolution.
There is no end to the infinitesimal enumeration of sub-concepts or detailed analysis a more comprehensive listing could include if so desired.
Why do you want as many as necessary in order to merely oppose my arbitrary choice among those available on the Internet?
Do YOPU have a single definitive listing of all the events with a particular number you will give us?
Or, is it impossible to specify a number which would be satisfactory to all scientists and readers?
What number do you recommend?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Panda, posted 12-03-2012 6:00 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Panda, posted 12-03-2012 9:37 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 108 of 310 (682575)
12-03-2012 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Taq
12-03-2012 6:27 PM


You have 4 days right there: Early Imbrian, Nectarian, "Ryderian", and Cryptic.
And the pattern continues with the other "days".
The scientific grouping of these parts to the "day" is sub-divided into parts, like the dawn, morning, afternoon, and evening.
I believe by now, though, that most readers see what the Theistic Evoution bible interpretation is saying in regard the seven durations actually being as factual as are the seven separate events listed and described in Genesis.
Take it or leave it dead wrong, the way the YECs do, if you like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 12-03-2012 6:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Taq, posted 12-04-2012 12:48 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 109 of 310 (682587)
12-03-2012 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 7:44 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:
Pleas accept my apology for confusing your post with another person whose conversation I thought was about the seven geological Eras that correspond to the seven "days."
Fair enough.
kofh2u writes:
There is no end to the infinitesimal enumeration of sub-concepts or detailed analysis a more comprehensive listing could include if so desired.
Excellent.
Then we agree that there is no actual correlation between the 7 (or is it 8?) cosmological eras and any usage of the number 7 in the bible.
You have simply arbitrarily chosen 7 eras because it matches your beliefs - and ignored any eras that don't support your claim.
kofh2u writes:
I simply prefer the short list which incorporates the basic mechanics of the cosmic evolution.
And you prefer it not because it is correct but because you want it to support your claims about the bible.
kofh2u writes:
What number do you recommend?
I don't recommend any particular number - that would involve more research than I care to do.
I was simply pointing out that your own chosen number of 7 (or is it 8?) is wrong.
But, from the small amount of research that I have done, it is more than 12.
So, from all the way back in Message 4:
kofh2u writes:
Let's objectively look first at whether Genesis records in the events of its "days" the things which science tells us actually did happen during those seven Eras.
Objectively, the Genesis records are unconnected to what science tells us about cosmological eras.
In summary, there is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 7:44 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 7:24 AM Panda has replied
 Message 116 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 7:32 AM Panda has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 310 (682588)
12-03-2012 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 1:17 PM


Re: Genesis 1 is falsified at the first verse.
I fail to distinguish between what you call two uses of "Let there be.
Compare the meaning of "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." which you seem to say describes God creating light and...
"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven" which you claim is not an act of creation of the sun, moon, or stars.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 1:17 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 8:08 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 111 of 310 (682602)
12-04-2012 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Selective learning
The universe isn't 700,000 years old. You are leaving off a shitload of time in which events occurred to get your number. Why don't you continue reading your source so you can finish your count and arrive at a more accurate number?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 1:26 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 112 of 310 (682603)
12-04-2012 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 3:07 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:
kofh2u Posts Only
Cheers/Jeers:
Message 92 of 111 (682548)
12-03-2012 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Panda
12-03-2012 1:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Selective learning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why only look at sites that provide 7 or 8 eras?
My thinking is that science information ordered in has the mnemonic power of that assocation is invaluable to people's cpability for order-out when they explain these concepts.
Since the subjective nature of the choice to do so is often presented, along the innumerable number of such nature sets of seven scientific facts, it makes sense to do so where possible, (which is almost always).
So, you admit that you didn't count seven because of events, but because you want things ordered in sevens because you think it is easier to remember.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 3:07 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 7:48 AM Eli has seen this message but not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 113 of 310 (682604)
12-04-2012 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 5:31 PM


Re: Re:Mnemonic learning
Yeah, no.
That's bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 5:31 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(1)
Message 114 of 310 (682610)
12-04-2012 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by kofh2u
12-01-2012 8:23 AM


quote:
Or, are the science-savy people here willing to accept that Geology has been used to record the History of the Earth as a series of seven major events marked in stone, i.e.; the rock layers?
Am I just a little bit thick or did you really make a simple mistake? In the story Ive heard and read the Deity rested on the seventh day. Thus he had only six working days or eras in your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by kofh2u, posted 12-01-2012 8:23 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 115 of 310 (682616)
12-04-2012 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Panda
12-03-2012 9:37 PM


Re: Selective learning
I don't recommend any particular number - that would involve more research than I care to do.
I was simply pointing out that your own chosen number of 7 (or is it 8?) is wrong.
But, from the small amount of research that I have done, it is more than 12.
And you prefer it not because it is correct but because you want it to support your claims about the bible.
Not that the scientists who report 7 eras are "wrong".
They are not "wrong."
I point out in Gen 1:1 that there are such short and appropriate summations expressed by the science commuynuty as tge many Chrats they have constructed illustrate.
These synoposis of the events which, by the nature of their brevity, still imply an overall comprehensiveness in general.
They infer that they include all the minor or less significant details and focus on the actually material changes rather than the points in a still unexplained Theory about why the changes are occurring, (i.,e.; GUT, etc).
I choose those summaries of 7 events that occur so much more frequently in the literature because they are useful in their brevity. And, though totally unnecessary to the context of Gen 1:1 without them, they are short enough to slip into the verse for emphasis of my point, the parallel between these two disciplines, Science/Theology.
And, because of what follows in the Bible, I chose to start wiy=th this demonstration tht seven is a very convenient number by which Science tends to sum up many ideas, especially those where seven is actually a factual basis for the science itself, such as in the Seven Prime Quantum Numbers that are so inherent to the very matter necessary for the materialization of the Universe.
But all of this is off the topic of the seven ays" paralleling our History of the Earth in seven eras.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Panda, posted 12-03-2012 9:37 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Panda, posted 12-04-2012 8:32 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 116 of 310 (682618)
12-04-2012 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Panda
12-03-2012 9:37 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:
Let's objectively look first at whether Genesis records in the events of its "days" the things which science tells us actually did happen during those seven (GEOLOGICAL) Eras.
Panda:
Objectively, the Genesis records are unconnected to what science tells us about cosmological eras.
In summary, there is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.
"There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story," nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied.
I believe when you read the first Opening Post you assumed that incorporated into Gen 1:1 was the assertion of an analogy between the famous 7 6 days of creation and that reference to seven divisions of the major BB events.
Sorry for the confusion that has followed since.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Panda, posted 12-03-2012 9:37 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Panda, posted 12-04-2012 8:38 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 117 of 310 (682619)
12-04-2012 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Eli
12-04-2012 2:01 AM


Seven the favorite number in Science books
So, you admit that you didn't count seven because of events, but because you want things ordered in sevens because you think it is easier to remember.
No,...
Of course not.
It is not I who wrote these lists of seven summary events nor constructed the Charts, of organized the Graphic representations that have been posted.
I have done no such a thing.
I have merely selected these illustrtaions which scientists, themselves, present to us as an example of using this favorite number of those scientists and of the Bible writers.
These illustrations, below, which divide the Big Bang into seven categorries of major events were not mine at all:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Eli, posted 12-04-2012 2:01 AM Eli has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 118 of 310 (682621)
12-04-2012 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by NoNukes
12-03-2012 10:16 PM


Re: Genesis 1 is falsified at the first verse.
Compare the meaning of "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." which you seem to say describes God creating light and...
"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven" which you claim is not an act of creation of the sun, moon, or stars.
The text says that the universe was dark initially (no visible light was flooding the cosmos yet).
But, at the moment of the creation, high energy electromagnetic energy was present in frequencies well beyond those of visible light.
The creation of visible light was implicit in Gen 1:1, with the appearance of the matter from which it is sourced.
The reference to "Let there be light" merely marks that moment when the Cosmic Dark Age ended:
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2012 10:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2012 8:28 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 310 (682624)
12-04-2012 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 8:08 AM


Re: Genesis 1 is falsified at the first verse.
"Let there be light" marks a moment
If there was no visible light prior to "Let there be light" but there was such light afterwards, then visible light was created at the marked time. That's what create means.
Perhaps you did not explain so well why 'Let there be' does not usher in a new appearance.
I agree that the creation of light should be implicit in the creation of the universe. That is why I see a contradiction between the text and your interpretation of the text which says otherwise. The marked moment involving light is not temporally in the right time.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 8:08 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 120 of 310 (682625)
12-04-2012 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 7:24 AM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:
Not that the scientists who report 7 eras are "wrong".
I didn't say that the scientists are wrong.
I said that you are wrong.
This can be seen in the message I posted: "I was simply pointing out that your own chosen number of 7 (or is it 8?) is wrong."
(I have emphasised the part where I identify yourself as the target of my criticism. I am unable to emphasise the part where I said the scientists are wrong as I didn't.)
If you incorrectly use data provided by scientists, that does not make the scientists wrong - it makes you wrong.
You are incorrectly using the data provided by scientists - your claims are false - you are wrong.
.
kofh2u writes:
I choose those summaries of 7 events that occur so much more frequently in the literature because they are useful in their brevity.
But mainly you choose them because they support your religious beliefs.
And you ignore anything that isn't compatible with your beliefs.
That is called Confirmation Bias
quote:
Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.
Which is pretty much exactly what you said: "I simply prefer the short list which incorporates the basic mechanics of the cosmic evolution."
You are also Cherry Picking:
quote:
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.
These lead you to making unevidenced and wrong claims.
.
kofh2u writes:
And, though totally unnecessary to the context of Gen 1:1 without them, they are short enough to slip into the verse for emphasis of my point, the parallel between these two disciplines, Science/Theology.
All you had was your assertion that they both numbered 7 (or was it 8?).
But that has been shown to be wrong.
There is no parallel.
.
Would you consider the fact that there are 7 months in the year to be evidence to support the genesis account?
Would you consider the fact that there are 7 suns in our solar system to be evidence to support the genesis account?
Would you consider the fact that there are 7 galaxies in our universe to be evidence to support the genesis account?
Would you?
Or would you point out that those 'facts' are wrong?
Well, your claim that there are 7 cosmological eras is wrong.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 7:24 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 8:45 AM Panda has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024