Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,285 Year: 5,542/9,624 Month: 567/323 Week: 64/143 Day: 7/19 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God's Day 1 Billion Years?
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 61 (254548)
10-24-2005 7:40 PM


An interesting thing happens when you take the approximate number for the Creation of the Earth is 4.7 Billion Years ago and “homo sapiens” at between 130 - 195 Million Years Ago divided by the 5 days given in the Biblical account in Genesis 1, you get approximately 1 Billion Years and the fist life supposedly appeared 1 Billion Years after Earth Creation. So is 1 Billion Years God’s Day? To get a closer number one would need to know how those dates were arrived at and what margin of error they contain.
Dates except “homo sapiens” dates taken from Arizona University:
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/...gins_of_Life/origins.html
This message has been edited by jimrlong.com, 10-24-2005 07:44 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 10-24-2005 7:57 PM jimrlong.com has replied
 Message 4 by joshua221, posted 10-24-2005 7:58 PM jimrlong.com has not replied
 Message 6 by jar, posted 10-24-2005 8:08 PM jimrlong.com has replied
 Message 11 by happy_atheist, posted 10-27-2005 3:55 PM jimrlong.com has replied
 Message 44 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 6:23 AM jimrlong.com has not replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 61 (254562)
10-24-2005 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
10-24-2005 7:57 PM


That makes between day 2-6 closer to a billion... Thanks
This message has been edited by jimrlong.com, 10-24-2005 08:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 10-24-2005 7:57 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 61 (254565)
10-24-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
10-24-2005 8:08 PM


Re: The theory show that once again the Biblical account is wrong.
24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
God gives them to man on day 6 they were created before as you noted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 10-24-2005 8:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jimrlong.com, posted 10-24-2005 8:15 PM jimrlong.com has not replied
 Message 9 by jar, posted 10-24-2005 8:25 PM jimrlong.com has replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 61 (254567)
10-24-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jimrlong.com
10-24-2005 8:12 PM


Re: The theory show that once again the Biblical account is wrong.
Here is what God has reveled to me to explain the differences in Genesis 1 & 2 in the story of Creation and incorporate science differences found in the fossil record with Creation theory and allows me to place the Creation far further back than 7,000 years.
God revealed to Moses two separate stories: The Creation of everything (Genesis 1) story and then God fast forwarded to the Neolithic Revolution 7,000 years ago (Genesis 2) story. Genesis does not say that 1 & 2 stories are directly connected; they are two separate chapters. They are two completely different stories, and didn't have to happen one following the other exactly at the same time. I have long believed the Garden of Eden story as a lesson. I will post later the likely placing of the garden adjacent to the Mesopotamian Plain where 5,000 years ago one of the earliest civilizations existed.
To support my hypothesis that two different stories are being told, Genesis 1:1-2:-3 give different account than is given in Genesis 2:4-25 for the creation of everything.
And in the story of Cain and Able, Cane in Genesis 4:14 “that everyone who finds me will slay me” and in Genesis 4:16-17 Cane went to Nod, and “lay with his wife”
This sequence of events suggest to me that from Cane’s fear of others and his wife indicates more people than people were in existence than Adam, Eve, Cane, and Able being murdered, that the Bible tells us were alive from the text.
Neolithic Revolution 7,000 years ago was the beginning of man cultivating crops (Cane), and domesticating animals (Able). The account given in Genesis 2:4-15 happened 7,000 years ago. An important time in man’s development for God to pick up the next part of our story.
And the funny twist to this whole thing is that where once a lush garden existed is now an industrial wasteland, and we truly can't return to the garden.
Love to all of God's Creations, Jim
This message has been edited by jimrlong.com, 10-24-2005 08:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jimrlong.com, posted 10-24-2005 8:12 PM jimrlong.com has not replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 61 (254573)
10-24-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
10-24-2005 8:25 PM


Re: The theory show that once again the Biblical account is wrong.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning”the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning”the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning”the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights”the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning”the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning”the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground”everything that has the breath of life in it”I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning”the sixth day.
Genesis 2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [c] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 10-24-2005 8:25 PM jar has not replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 61 (255726)
10-30-2005 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by happy_atheist
10-27-2005 3:55 PM


Time is relative
Time is relative to the observer and is not constant. Projectiles always move faster at the point of explosion and move slower as time progresses. The speed of things after the “Big Bang” would have warped time and would have made predictions of time elapsed of the creation of the universe relative to an observer at that point and would be impossible to calculate without knowing the magnitude and velocity of the explosion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by happy_atheist, posted 10-27-2005 3:55 PM happy_atheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by kuresu, posted 10-08-2006 4:55 PM jimrlong.com has not replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 61 (255727)
10-30-2005 11:18 PM


Sequence of events of cration
One further note on the sequence of events stated in Gen 1:1 - 2:3 is exactly what science believes today. First the earth, then vegetation, then animals, and finally man. How would someone in ancient times predict this sequence?

The Peace of the lord be with you :-)

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nwr, posted 10-30-2005 11:39 PM jimrlong.com has not replied
 Message 15 by happy_atheist, posted 10-31-2005 3:17 PM jimrlong.com has not replied
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 10-31-2005 6:54 PM jimrlong.com has not replied
 Message 17 by jar, posted 10-31-2005 6:54 PM jimrlong.com has not replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 61 (312063)
05-15-2006 4:01 PM


Here is a little biology lesson on the complexity of a single cell
Evolutionists wish you to believe the following was created by mere chance. They believe the life started from nothing and began to populate the Earth.
Here is a little biology lesson on the complexity of a single cell.
The cell membrane is made up of protein molecules and fat (lipid). Let us first exam the complexity of the protein molecule. Protein molecules are an assembly of hundreds and some thousands of amino acids (not just any of the 80 in nature but just 20 are found in living organisms). Now one point to be made according to NASA an environment capable of producing amino acids has never been present on Earth and another fact is amino acids are more likely to be attracted to other molecules than other amino acids. Now these amino acids are assembled in certain ways at right angles. Not to mention that 100’s and sometimes 1000’s of amino acids that are required in order to form a single protein molecule, and we need a lot of protein. But well maybe by chance, let’s not forget chance. Now if you assembled enough and made a cell membrane, you would have to also by chance have other structures inside the cell membrane, all without wind and rain destroying it.
Inside this cell membrane are other structures; but now let us focus on the nucleus of a cell contains DNA, the building block of life. DNA is made up of just 4 amino acids out of the 80 in nature to form nucleotides, and the polymer is known as a "polynucleotide” in specific sequences on on double helix design. All by chance remember.
Now through some astronomical chance we have a cell our next task is to do what some believe impossible bring it to life. Through some chance cosmic force yet identified we have brought this miracle of nature to life. How? Electricity, radiation, heat are more likely destroy our concoction than to bring it to life. Any period of time and wind and rain are going to break up the cell.
I don’t have enough faith in chance to believe that life began without a Creator. I call the Creator God the father. You can read about His Son, my Savior, Jesus Christ on my forum.
Edited by jimrlong.com, : Needed to ad helix design.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Belfry, posted 05-15-2006 9:56 PM jimrlong.com has not replied
 Message 20 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2006 10:10 PM jimrlong.com has not replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 61 (338224)
08-06-2006 11:07 AM


Makeup of DNA
I made a mistake about the makeup of DNA:
Inside this cell membrane are other structures; but now let us focus on the nucleus of a cell contains DNA, the building block of life. DNA is a polymer. The monomer units of DNA are nucleotides, and the polymer is known as a "polynucleotide." Each nucleotide consists of a 5-carbon sugar (deoxyribose), a nitrogen containing base attached to the sugar, and a phosphate group. There are four different types of nucleotides found in DNA, differing only in the nitrogenous base. The four nucleotides are given one letter abbreviations as shorthand for the four bases:
A is for adenine
G is for guanine
C is for cytosine
T is for thymine
All by chance remember.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2006 11:46 AM jimrlong.com has replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 61 (338267)
08-06-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
08-06-2006 11:46 AM


Re: Makeup of DNA
I think more to the point is why you think it wouldn't be if it proves a common ancestry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2006 11:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2006 3:20 PM jimrlong.com has replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 61 (338292)
08-06-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
08-06-2006 3:20 PM


Re: Makeup of DNA
"the genetic mechanism is identical. (Which substantiates the evolutionary position of shared common ancestry.)"
"What you've described is how it works now. What makes you think that was how it worked in the beginning?"
So why don't you believe this is not what it was like in the beginning?
If DNA proves a common ancestry, why wouldn't original life have it?
The reason I ask is because if the original life form's didn't have a cell makeup with DNA, then by chance I think we would find different origins; with several common ancestries!
So if all life as we know it now has a common ancestor then I would extrapolate that the original life would have it too. Because if I remember how evolutionists put it would be through subtle changes in the most basic DNA that produced life’s abundance today. Subtle Changes in DNA. If DNA didn’t exist in the origins of life; how and when did we get a common ancestor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2006 3:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2006 5:46 PM jimrlong.com has replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 61 (338405)
08-07-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
08-06-2006 5:46 PM


Re: Makeup of RNA
1) first living thing evolves with RNA-based genetics and enzymes
RiboNucleic Acids consist of:
Ribose (a pentose = sugar with 5 carbons)
Phosphoric Acid
Organic (nitrogenous) bases: Purines (Adenine and Guanine) and Pyrimidines (Cytosine and Uracil)
An RNA molecule is a linear polymer in which the monomers (nucleotides) are linked together by means of phosphodiester bridges, or bonds. These bonds link the 3' carbon in the ribose of one nucleotide to the 5' carbon in the ribose of the adjacent nucleotide.
It is no more likely this got created by accident either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2006 5:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 08-08-2006 2:04 PM jimrlong.com has replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 61 (339266)
08-11-2006 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ringo
08-08-2006 2:04 PM


"Chemistry is pretty deterministic - if the components are there and the conditions are right, the bonds will form"
From: Here is a little biology lesson on the complexity of a single cell:
"another fact is amino acids are more likely to be attracted to other molecules than other amino acids"
"The "likelihood" (probability) may be low, but as long as it is non-zero, it will happen, given enough time"
From: Here is a little biology lesson on the complexity of a single cell:
"Now one point to be made according to NASA an environment capable of producing amino acids has never been present on Earth"
Also, Given enough time the proverbial 747 could be built out of spare parts by wind, but will the jet fly or the cell live?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 08-08-2006 2:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 3:31 PM jimrlong.com has replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 61 (339281)
08-11-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
08-06-2006 11:46 AM


Re: Makeup of DNA
"Well, that's what it's like now, to be sure. And remember too that the structure of DNA is universal"
If life has DNA now, what is your proof that it can work without DNA.... It might make your case for time developing from RNA, but it is without proof that life can exist without DNA.
Jim
Edited by jimrlong.com, : Grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2006 11:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 08-14-2006 12:39 AM jimrlong.com has not replied

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 61 (339292)
08-11-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
08-11-2006 3:31 PM


From the Miller-Urey experiment
"Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system
The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.
These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.
There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced." http://www.chem.duke.edu/...uise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 3:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 4:02 PM jimrlong.com 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