Summations Only

There were 7 disciples too!
1) Andrew
2) John
3) Philip
4) Nathaniel
5) Thomas
6) Judas Iscariot
7) Matthew You appear to have forgotten to include several other eras.Planck Era
Grand unification Era
Electroweak Era
Matter domination Era
Recombination EraSo - that brings the number of eras to at least 12.
And I am sure that there are more...

Then the source you are using has missed out several eras.
Your use of incomplete information means that any conclusions you make is wrong. And it is also incomplete. So does many, many, many, many other numbers - which is the problem with the cherry-picking confirmation bias that is numerology.
But those other numbers are off-topic, I think.So - that brings the number of eras to at least 12.
And I am sure that there are more...How does the 12+ eras support the biblical account of creation?

George Firth lists nine (9) eras.
But you only quote eight (8).Why did you 'forget' to quote all nine of the eras in George's post?
Why are you excluding the other eras I listed?There are clearly more than 7 cosmological eras - even your own link says that.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I know that you only see 7.
But there are 9 in the link you provided. That is just plain wrong.
They overlap, but they are not the same.
It is as wrong-headed as saying "Today = this year = this century - therefore they are all the same period of time!"

quote:

---

Separation of the Electroweak force
Close to the end of the quark era, the Electroweak force separated and the weak interaction, from then on, the forces of nature and physical laws were as they are now experienced. This era was about 1.1 microseconds and temperatures reached 1000 trillion degrees.

---

(I emphasised a part of the quote in case you decide to claim it is not an era.)You also excluded the Matter era, even though it began before the earth was formed (which puts it firmly within the scope of the Genesis account).
In fact, most of the Genesis account occurs after the Matter Era began.

quote:

---

Matter Era
At the start of our present era, photons were free to travel through the Universe. Most electrons were bound to atoms until the first stars formed, reheating matter. The diameter of the Universe is currently 100 million light years and rising. (1 light year = 9.6 trillion kilometres)

---

And why are you excluding the other eras I listed?
(bolded due to your reluctance to answer.)There are more than 7 cosmological eras - your own link says so.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If the number of eras is just quibbling, then why do you keep saying it is 7?
It is clearly more than 7 - but you keep quibbling over it. The article's inclusion of an 8th era is indicative of its fondness for the number 7?
hahah! How about '9'?So far you have provided:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era
And from your own link:
8) The Planck Era
9) Separation of the Electroweak forceThen there are other eras you are conveniently ignoring:
10) Grand unification Era
11) Recombination EraIs '11' a good number as well?

Yes - I know you only gleaned eight (8) eras from that link.So, let's accept that for the sake of argument.There are other eras you are conveniently ignoring:
9) Grand unification Era
10) Recombination EraIs '10' a good number as well?

Why only look at sites that provide 7 or 8 eras?Why not sites that describe 1 era?
The Universe Adventure - The Plank EpochWhy not sites that describe 5 eras?
The Five Ages of the Universe - WikipediaWhy not sites that describe 13 eras?
Chronology of the universe - WikipediaYou want the 7 cosmological eras to correspond to the 7 genesis days - but even you acknowledge that there are at least 8 eras.
But ignoring the other eras is just delusional: they exist; you can learn about them.Can you explain why you are ignoring the other eras?

But can you explain why you are ignoring the other eras?The other eras exist.
You are choosing to ignore them.
Why? That is not the question I raised.The question I raised is:Other eras exist.
You are choosing to ignore them.
Why?

I have already named 2.
Here they are again: Grand unification Era and Recombination Era.
Why are you excluding them? No. You were not.
You were correlating 7 cosmological eras - while ignoring several other eras.
Do you not remember?
Here is a link to one of your own messages: Message 77.
(It is strange that you have already forgotten what you have posted.)You claim there are 7 (or is it 8?) cosmological eras.
But other cosmological eras exist.
Why are you ignoring them?Is the question too difficult?
I have asked it many times and you appear unable to answer.
Maybe if I rephrase the question it will help?Why aren't you including all cosmological eras?
Why are you only using an arbitrary sub-set of eras to support your claims?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Fair enough. 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. And you prefer it not because it is correct but because you want it to support your claims about the bible. 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: 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.

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. . 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. . 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.

Good - now we can move on to the geological eras: There is no connection between the number of geological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.Do you agree with this?
OR am I going to have to spend another 11 posts explaining your cherry picking and confirmation bias, to finally have you claim that no connection was implied?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Your claim that there are 7 (or is it 8?) cosmological eras is wrong.
It is wrong, even if you try to deny having claimed it is true.And from your silence, I assume that you accept the rest of my post where I accurately describe your cherry picking.
Good - we are getting somewhere at last.Your claim that there are 7 cosmological eras is wrong.

No. I greed to skip one era for argument's sale.
But, as long as you admit that your claims about geological eras are refuted, we can move on......or not. Have you forgotten already?
There are more than 7 cosmological eras!
The links you provided are to geological eras - NOT cosmological eras.
The Big Bang Theory is NOT connected to geological eras.So - now I have to repeat:
There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story. And let the thread show that the only way you can support your claims about cosmological eras is by intentionally ignoring more than half of the eras.
In fact, you admitted that not only was there no connection between the cosmological eras and the number 7, but you denied claiming that there was: "nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied."
Could you possibly make up your mind? There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.
Do you agree or not?Because you are currently contradicting yourself: directly contradicts:

You provided links to geological eras.
The Big Bang Theory is NOT connected to geological eras.Your links are unconnected to the Big Bang Theory - therefore they don't support your claims about the BBT.They are as irrelevant as providing links to General Motors and claiming they support the existence of aliens.You seem to have a real problem differentiating between cosmological eras and geological eras.
You do understand that they are different, yes?
You do understand that there are more than 7 cosmological eras, yes?
You do understand that the BBT is unconnected to geological eras, yes?