Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

[Indeependent]

For a Conservative to survive an Ivy League school is an achievement.
My daughter went to one and had to ignore all the idiot Liberals who surrounded her.

So you're saying that the smartest, most learned, and highest achieving people are Liberals? I have to agree.

Did you miss my post about how Conservatives survive Ivy League schools?
If you give the administration the impression you don't worship MSNBC, you don't get admitted.
Actually, I have yet to meet a LWer or RWer who I couldn't crush within 15 minutes.

Never saw it. I think the crushing takes place exclusively in your own head.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how single-celled, asexual organisms accidentally became millions of male/female pairs.
But I know an atheist will never address that issue.

 

[Hollie]

“…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….

But I thought you don't believe in evolution? I guess if the Bible supports evolution, the Bible must be inaccurate.

You really don't read carefully....probably not much of a hindrance in government schooling.



It is the Darwinian thesis that I regularly prove to be false.

When have you proved Darwinian theory (as opposed to Darwinian thesis), false?

You're obviously struggling with terms and definitions you don't understand. Pretty typical for Harun Yahya madrassah groupies.

 

[Indeependent]

“…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….

But I thought you don't believe in evolution? I guess if the Bible supports evolution, the Bible must be inaccurate.

You really don't read carefully....probably not much of a hindrance in government schooling.



It is the Darwinian thesis that I regularly prove to be false.

When have you proved Darwinian theory (as opposed to Darwinian thesis), false?

You're obviously struggling with terms and definitions you don't understand. Pretty typical for Harun Yahya madrassah groupies.

Nobody's proven it true and it's mathematically impossible due to the number of accidents required to produce millions of male/female species by accident.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

….that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 1923 – 28 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.

On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”



Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.

Is this the kind of quackery that you learned in hom skooll? We don't know so it means it's an invisible guy who cares what we do? Um... no. It's only a theory until properly proven otherwise.

Human Evolution Evidence from the Smithsonian.

I hate it when the first response is by a pooh flinging monkey

 

[alang1216]

Why would an atheist such as yourself pay any heed to a ninth commandment given by an entity you insist doesn't exist?
By the way, you got the ninth commandment incorrect because you haven't studied it.

Seems to me "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" is a good ethic to have regardless of where it came from.

I see you have no idea what it means.
Any statement that God knows is false is considered to be bearing false witness.
All humans are considered your neighbors.

Thanks but that is exactly what I thought it meant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now….you government school grads:



You’ve been taught to ridicule religion, to call it superstition. But you’re not a scientist, you’re simple a malleable object of the neo-Marxism so pervasive in our culture.



10. “Today scientists don’t hesitate to acknowledge this wondrous fact of how tailor-made to life our universe is. Or, as Anthony Flew declared in There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, that ‘the laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe towards the emergence and sustenance of life.’2



And what precisely is the cause of this enchantment? Or on what grounds do so many cosmologists believe that the universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to emerge in it? Well, it all has to do with our universe’s remarkable fine-tuning of its most basic, fundamental forces. Let me elaborate:

Cosmologists tell us, for instance, that had the force of gravity been a fraction weaker than it is: by 1 part in 1040[ten to the 40th power] (that is, one followed by forty zeros), matter couldn’t have clumped together to form galaxies or stars. The universe would have been a lifeless sea of drifting gas of interminable darkness.

Had gravity been ever so slightly stronger, the universe would be radically different than it is now. Matter would clump together more aggressively. Stars could still exist, but they would be far smaller and burn out much more quicker than the time needed for complex planetary life to evolve. If it did manage to evolve, even insects would need thicker legs to support themselves because of the increased gravitational tug; indeed gravity would crush anything as large as ourselves. And that is assuming that planets could be stable. For in a strong-gravity universe, stars will be packed far closer together, making stellar collisions frequent. Planetry existence would thus be very unlikely, or extremely unstable.



So precisely-tuned is the force of gravity in relation to the other forces which operate throughout the universe that, had the initial explosion of the Big-Bang differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, [ten to the 6oth power] then the universe would have either collapsed back on itself or expanded too rapidly for stars to form.

This incredibly slim margin is likened to firing a bullet at a fifty pence coin at the other side of the universe, billions of light-years away, and actually hitting the target!”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Just a web of coincidences????

 

[Hollie]

9. Let’s take a look at Parker’s thesis:



God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
“The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.

And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’

Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the sorts of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?

What are the odds?

Not good, actually.


Anyone with a decent background in natural science who undertakes an impartial but critical look at the first chapter of Genesis should have no trouble denouncing its claims as rubbish. At best, the author has offered a poorly constructed allegory for the creation of the universe; at worst, and far more plausible, Genesis 1 is a total fabrication. This section will of course demonstrate why the creation account in the opening chapter fails miserably to be scientifically accurate.

Early in the creation, God allegedly separated the waters into two distinct bodies so that land could appear between them. He called the water below seas and the water above sky, which he presumably held aloft by the use of a firmament (Verses 6-10). While the NIV translated this verse using expansion, the Hebrew word utilized by the author is raki’a, which the KJV more accurately translated as a solid body.

Why is the KJV translation more in line with the author’s intent? First, it’s the primary use of the word. Second, it reinforces the aforementioned idea of a sky ocean because a solid protective layer would be required to suspend the water if there truly were an ocean above us as the Bible suggests. Third, it complements the known widespread primitive beliefs. Take the mindset of an ancient Hebrew for a moment by ignoring any contemporary understanding you have of the world. You can glance at the sky above and observe that it’s the color of water, while, periodically, water falls from above. With no further evidence to consider and no further understanding of this phenomenon, the perfectly logical conclusion would be that there’s a mass of water in the sky. If this is true, it certainly follows that a solid body, a firmament, would be necessary to contain this oceanic reservoir. Perhaps windows even open in the firmament to allow rainfall (Genesis 8:2).

Although the pursuit of knowledge has proven these outdated beliefs untrue, we are far richer in scientific understanding than our Hebrew predecessors and should not scoff at the author for his proposal. We now know that the sky is blue due to the scattering of a particular wavelength of light passing through the atmosphere at a certain angle, not because there’s an ocean in the sky. While we cannot fault the author for believing this ancient hypothesis, we can conclude that his guess on the properties of the sky was incorrect. Already, a critical analysis has demonstrated the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate and undeniably imperfect.

God allegedly created the sun and moon on the fourth day of the creation (14-19), but this curious statement creates a plethora of troubles because God had already divided the day into lightness and darkness as his first creation (3-5). How can there be night and day without the sun, the only appreciable source of light for our planet? Again, we must take the probable mindset of the author to understand his position. Look into the sky away from the sun. It’s unreasonable to conclude that the earth is bright at its distal boundaries just because the sun is shining, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, because the light originating from this enormous ball of fire appears to stop very near its edges. Besides, everyone knows that the horizon is luminous well before and well after the sun is in the visible regions of the sky. Thus, there’s no solid reason to conclude that the sun has anything to do with creating the illumination, only that it accompanies the somewhat concurrent periods of lightness. In fact, the Bible explicitly states that the sun and moon are merely symbols “to divide the day from the night” (14). In the biblical world, however, God controlled morning and evening by this mysterious force called light (3-5), an entirely different entity created much earlier than the sun. We now know that the sun is the determining factor between morning and evening, yet the Bible clearly proclaims morning and evening existed prior to the sun’s creation.

An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense

www.biblicalnonsense.com

 

[Indeependent]

Why would an atheist such as yourself pay any heed to a ninth commandment given by an entity you insist doesn't exist?
By the way, you got the ninth commandment incorrect because you haven't studied it.

Seems to me "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" is a good ethic to have regardless of where it came from.

I see you have no idea what it means.
Any statement that God knows is false is considered to be bearing false witness.
All humans are considered your neighbors.

Thanks but that is exactly what I thought it meant.

And yet not one atheist civilization, which, by the way, never existed, ever insisted on these notions being strictly obeyed.
Although the closest civilizations to being atheist do commit the most atrocities, even today, on a daily basis.

 

[Indeependent]

9. Let’s take a look at Parker’s thesis:



God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
“The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.

And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’

Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the sorts of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?

What are the odds?

Not good, actually.


Anyone with a decent background in natural science who undertakes an impartial but critical look at the first chapter of Genesis should have no trouble denouncing its claims as rubbish. At best, the author has offered a poorly constructed allegory for the creation of the universe; at worst, and far more plausible, Genesis 1 is a total fabrication. This section will of course demonstrate why the creation account in the opening chapter fails miserably to be scientifically accurate.

Early in the creation, God allegedly separated the waters into two distinct bodies so that land could appear between them. He called the water below seas and the water above sky, which he presumably held aloft by the use of a firmament (Verses 6-10). While the NIV translated this verse using expansion, the Hebrew word utilized by the author is raki’a, which the KJV more accurately translated as a solid body.

Why is the KJV translation more in line with the author’s intent? First, it’s the primary use of the word. Second, it reinforces the aforementioned idea of a sky ocean because a solid protective layer would be required to suspend the water if there truly were an ocean above us as the Bible suggests. Third, it complements the known widespread primitive beliefs. Take the mindset of an ancient Hebrew for a moment by ignoring any contemporary understanding you have of the world. You can glance at the sky above and observe that it’s the color of water, while, periodically, water falls from above. With no further evidence to consider and no further understanding of this phenomenon, the perfectly logical conclusion would be that there’s a mass of water in the sky. If this is true, it certainly follows that a solid body, a firmament, would be necessary to contain this oceanic reservoir. Perhaps windows even open in the firmament to allow rainfall (Genesis 8:2).

Although the pursuit of knowledge has proven these outdated beliefs untrue, we are far richer in scientific understanding than our Hebrew predecessors and should not scoff at the author for his proposal. We now know that the sky is blue due to the scattering of a particular wavelength of light passing through the atmosphere at a certain angle, not because there’s an ocean in the sky. While we cannot fault the author for believing this ancient hypothesis, we can conclude that his guess on the properties of the sky was incorrect. Already, a critical analysis has demonstrated the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate and undeniably imperfect.

God allegedly created the sun and moon on the fourth day of the creation (14-19), but this curious statement creates a plethora of troubles because God had already divided the day into lightness and darkness as his first creation (3-5). How can there be night and day without the sun, the only appreciable source of light for our planet? Again, we must take the probable mindset of the author to understand his position. Look into the sky away from the sun. It’s unreasonable to conclude that the earth is bright at its distal boundaries just because the sun is shining, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, because the light originating from this enormous ball of fire appears to stop very near its edges. Besides, everyone knows that the horizon is luminous well before and well after the sun is in the visible regions of the sky. Thus, there’s no solid reason to conclude that the sun has anything to do with creating the illumination, only that it accompanies the somewhat concurrent periods of lightness. In fact, the Bible explicitly states that the sun and moon are merely symbols “to divide the day from the night” (14). In the biblical world, however, God controlled morning and evening by this mysterious force called light (3-5), an entirely different entity created much earlier than the sun. We now know that the sun is the determining factor between morning and evening, yet the Bible clearly proclaims morning and evening existed prior to the sun’s creation.

An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense

www.biblicalnonsense.com

A Rohr-keea is a separation, which is not necessarily molecule thin.
For instance, an wall or curtain used to divide an area can be any shape, color or consist of various levels of transparencies.

 

[Hollie]

Now….you government school grads:



You’ve been taught to ridicule religion, to call it superstition. But you’re not a scientist, you’re simple a malleable object of the neo-Marxism so pervasive in our culture.



10. “Today scientists don’t hesitate to acknowledge this wondrous fact of how tailor-made to life our universe is. Or, as Anthony Flew declared in There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, that ‘the laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe towards the emergence and sustenance of life.’2



And what precisely is the cause of this enchantment? Or on what grounds do so many cosmologists believe that the universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to emerge in it? Well, it all has to do with our universe’s remarkable fine-tuning of its most basic, fundamental forces. Let me elaborate:

Cosmologists tell us, for instance, that had the force of gravity been a fraction weaker than it is: by 1 part in 1040[ten to the 40th power] (that is, one followed by forty zeros), matter couldn’t have clumped together to form galaxies or stars. The universe would have been a lifeless sea of drifting gas of interminable darkness.

Had gravity been ever so slightly stronger, the universe would be radically different than it is now. Matter would clump together more aggressively. Stars could still exist, but they would be far smaller and burn out much more quicker than the time needed for complex planetary life to evolve. If it did manage to evolve, even insects would need thicker legs to support themselves because of the increased gravitational tug; indeed gravity would crush anything as large as ourselves. And that is assuming that planets could be stable. For in a strong-gravity universe, stars will be packed far closer together, making stellar collisions frequent. Planetry existence would thus be very unlikely, or extremely unstable.



So precisely-tuned is the force of gravity in relation to the other forces which operate throughout the universe that, had the initial explosion of the Big-Bang differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, [ten to the 6oth power] then the universe would have either collapsed back on itself or expanded too rapidly for stars to form.

This incredibly slim margin is likened to firing a bullet at a fifty pence coin at the other side of the universe, billions of light-years away, and actually hitting the target!”

Was the Universe Expecting Us?

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…

thehumblei.com

Just a web of coincidences????

Just a web of nonsense.

The Non-Fine-Tuned Universe: The Astronomical Failure of the Cosmological Argument for Theism

How significant are we as humans within the universe? Could the universe have been fine-tuned for our existence? In this week’s eSkeptic, Jérémie Harris and Edouard Harris examine the nature and extent of universal fine-tuning.

www.skeptic.com

How Do You Quantify Fine-Tuning?

One of the biggest problems with the fine-tuning argument is that the extent of fine-tuning is, at least presently, utterly impossible to measure. In order to estimate the probability that a given universe could sustain life, one needs at least two pieces of information: first, the number of possible universe configurations; and second, the number of such configurations that are conducive to the development of life, however one may define it.3 Since neither of these quantities is known, no discussion of fine-tuning can begin without a frank acknowledgement that the key premise of the fine-tuning argument is entirely speculative.

Nevertheless, frequent attempts have been made to present the fine-tuning argument in quantitative terms. These attempts have produced a wide range of dubious, and largely inconsistent, results. Often, their underlying assumptions are characterized by shocking failures of the imagination; some, for example, rely upon the conjecture that only carbon- based life is possible; others investigate the effect of changing just one cosmological parameter at a time, while keeping all others fixed, and thereby deny themselves almost the entire space of possible parameter values.4

 

[Indeependent]

9. Let’s take a look at Parker’s thesis:



God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
“The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.

And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’

Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the sorts of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?

What are the odds?

Not good, actually.


Anyone with a decent background in natural science who undertakes an impartial but critical look at the first chapter of Genesis should have no trouble denouncing its claims as rubbish. At best, the author has offered a poorly constructed allegory for the creation of the universe; at worst, and far more plausible, Genesis 1 is a total fabrication. This section will of course demonstrate why the creation account in the opening chapter fails miserably to be scientifically accurate.

Early in the creation, God allegedly separated the waters into two distinct bodies so that land could appear between them. He called the water below seas and the water above sky, which he presumably held aloft by the use of a firmament (Verses 6-10). While the NIV translated this verse using expansion, the Hebrew word utilized by the author is raki’a, which the KJV more accurately translated as a solid body.

Why is the KJV translation more in line with the author’s intent? First, it’s the primary use of the word. Second, it reinforces the aforementioned idea of a sky ocean because a solid protective layer would be required to suspend the water if there truly were an ocean above us as the Bible suggests. Third, it complements the known widespread primitive beliefs. Take the mindset of an ancient Hebrew for a moment by ignoring any contemporary understanding you have of the world. You can glance at the sky above and observe that it’s the color of water, while, periodically, water falls from above. With no further evidence to consider and no further understanding of this phenomenon, the perfectly logical conclusion would be that there’s a mass of water in the sky. If this is true, it certainly follows that a solid body, a firmament, would be necessary to contain this oceanic reservoir. Perhaps windows even open in the firmament to allow rainfall (Genesis 8:2).

Although the pursuit of knowledge has proven these outdated beliefs untrue, we are far richer in scientific understanding than our Hebrew predecessors and should not scoff at the author for his proposal. We now know that the sky is blue due to the scattering of a particular wavelength of light passing through the atmosphere at a certain angle, not because there’s an ocean in the sky. While we cannot fault the author for believing this ancient hypothesis, we can conclude that his guess on the properties of the sky was incorrect. Already, a critical analysis has demonstrated the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate and undeniably imperfect.

God allegedly created the sun and moon on the fourth day of the creation (14-19), but this curious statement creates a plethora of troubles because God had already divided the day into lightness and darkness as his first creation (3-5). How can there be night and day without the sun, the only appreciable source of light for our planet? Again, we must take the probable mindset of the author to understand his position. Look into the sky away from the sun. It’s unreasonable to conclude that the earth is bright at its distal boundaries just because the sun is shining, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, because the light originating from this enormous ball of fire appears to stop very near its edges. Besides, everyone knows that the horizon is luminous well before and well after the sun is in the visible regions of the sky. Thus, there’s no solid reason to conclude that the sun has anything to do with creating the illumination, only that it accompanies the somewhat concurrent periods of lightness. In fact, the Bible explicitly states that the sun and moon are merely symbols “to divide the day from the night” (14). In the biblical world, however, God controlled morning and evening by this mysterious force called light (3-5), an entirely different entity created much earlier than the sun. We now know that the sun is the determining factor between morning and evening, yet the Bible clearly proclaims morning and evening existed prior to the sun’s creation.

An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense

www.biblicalnonsense.com

Choshek is not "Black", it is Darkness or Chaos.
Ohr is light, which need not exist in a globe; are you going to state that light comes from the match or the accelerated oxidation?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

….that human beings would be along soon.



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……it boils down to just that.



2. Freeman John Dyson (15 December 1923 – 28 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― Freeman John Dyson




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and, most of all, religion. The name for this attempt is ‘neo-Marxism.’ And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the facts revealed by physicists such as Dyson refute that….but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here.




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.

On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”



Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.

Is this the kind of quackery that you learned in hom skooll? We don't know so it means it's an invisible guy who cares what we do? Um... no. It's only a theory until properly proven otherwise.

Human Evolution Evidence from the Smithsonian.

Those are actual physicists being quoted.....compared with the windbag you have been exposed as.



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you?

My Smithsonian link beats your TWO guys who have to pay to get into the Smithsonian. Too bad for you.

If you were an Ivy league grad you'd a) have a good job and wouldn't be here all the time, and b) you can't get through an Ivy League school by ranting and copy&pasting. EPIC FAIL.

We need a pooh flinging monkey icon

 

[alang1216]

For a Conservative to survive an Ivy League school is an achievement.
My daughter went to one and had to ignore all the idiot Liberals who surrounded her.

So you're saying that the smartest, most learned, and highest achieving people are Liberals? I have to agree.

Did you miss my post about how Conservatives survive Ivy League schools?
If you give the administration the impression you don't worship MSNBC, you don't get admitted.
Actually, I have yet to meet a LWer or RWer who I couldn't crush within 15 minutes.

Never saw it. I think the crushing takes place exclusively in your own head.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how single-celled, asexual organisms accidentally became millions of male/female pairs.
But I know an atheist will never address that issue.

Single-celled, asexual organisms exchanged DNA before there was sexual differentiation. They still do it. Once that mechanism was in place it was simple for evolution to create males and females.

 

[Indeependent]

For a Conservative to survive an Ivy League school is an achievement.
My daughter went to one and had to ignore all the idiot Liberals who surrounded her.

So you're saying that the smartest, most learned, and highest achieving people are Liberals? I have to agree.

Did you miss my post about how Conservatives survive Ivy League schools?
If you give the administration the impression you don't worship MSNBC, you don't get admitted.
Actually, I have yet to meet a LWer or RWer who I couldn't crush within 15 minutes.

Never saw it. I think the crushing takes place exclusively in your own head.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how single-celled, asexual organisms accidentally became millions of male/female pairs.
But I know an atheist will never address that issue.

Single-celled, asexual organisms exchanged DNA before there was sexual differentiation. They still do it. Once that mechanism was in place it was simple for evolution to create males and females.

Exchanging DNA?
How?
In mathematically impossible numbers...Accidents by the millions?

You should lose your teaching license.

 

[alang1216]

Why would an atheist such as yourself pay any heed to a ninth commandment given by an entity you insist doesn't exist?
By the way, you got the ninth commandment incorrect because you haven't studied it.

Seems to me "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" is a good ethic to have regardless of where it came from.

I see you have no idea what it means.
Any statement that God knows is false is considered to be bearing false witness.
All humans are considered your neighbors.

Thanks but that is exactly what I thought it meant.

And yet not one atheist civilization, which, by the way, never existed, ever insisted on these notions being strictly obeyed.
Although the closest civilizations to being atheist do commit the most atrocities, even today, on a daily basis.

Every civilization insists on truth and honesty and every one, atheist or not, has failed to provide it. Including ours.

 

[Indeependent]

Why would an atheist such as yourself pay any heed to a ninth commandment given by an entity you insist doesn't exist?
By the way, you got the ninth commandment incorrect because you haven't studied it.

Seems to me "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" is a good ethic to have regardless of where it came from.

I see you have no idea what it means.
Any statement that God knows is false is considered to be bearing false witness.
All humans are considered your neighbors.

Thanks but that is exactly what I thought it meant.

And yet not one atheist civilization, which, by the way, never existed, ever insisted on these notions being strictly obeyed.
Although the closest civilizations to being atheist do commit the most atrocities, even today, on a daily basis.

Every civilization insists on truth and honesty and every one, atheist or not, has failed to provide it. Including ours.

That'not at all true.
Might makes Right for most civilizations.
The overwhelming number of people on earth today do not live in just societies; we just ignore them for our own comfort.

 

[alang1216]

For a Conservative to survive an Ivy League school is an achievement.
My daughter went to one and had to ignore all the idiot Liberals who surrounded her.

So you're saying that the smartest, most learned, and highest achieving people are Liberals? I have to agree.

Did you miss my post about how Conservatives survive Ivy League schools?
If you give the administration the impression you don't worship MSNBC, you don't get admitted.
Actually, I have yet to meet a LWer or RWer who I couldn't crush within 15 minutes.

Never saw it. I think the crushing takes place exclusively in your own head.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how single-celled, asexual organisms accidentally became millions of male/female pairs.
But I know an atheist will never address that issue.

Single-celled, asexual organisms exchanged DNA before there was sexual differentiation. They still do it. Once that mechanism was in place it was simple for evolution to create males and females.

Exchanging DNA?
How?
In mathematically impossible numbers...Accidents by the millions?

You should lose your teaching license.

And the bumble bee is aerodynamically incapable of flying.

Genetic exchanges among bacteria occur by several mechanisms. In transformation, the recipient bacterium takes up extracellular donor DNA. In transduction, donor DNA packaged in a bacteriophage infects the recipient bacterium. In conjugation, the donor bacterium transfers DNA to the recipient by mating.

 

[Indeependent]

For a Conservative to survive an Ivy League school is an achievement.
My daughter went to one and had to ignore all the idiot Liberals who surrounded her.

So you're saying that the smartest, most learned, and highest achieving people are Liberals? I have to agree.

Did you miss my post about how Conservatives survive Ivy League schools?
If you give the administration the impression you don't worship MSNBC, you don't get admitted.
Actually, I have yet to meet a LWer or RWer who I couldn't crush within 15 minutes.

Never saw it. I think the crushing takes place exclusively in your own head.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how single-celled, asexual organisms accidentally became millions of male/female pairs.
But I know an atheist will never address that issue.

Single-celled, asexual organisms exchanged DNA before there was sexual differentiation. They still do it. Once that mechanism was in place it was simple for evolution to create males and females.

Exchanging DNA?
How?
In mathematically impossible numbers...Accidents by the millions?

You should lose your teaching license.

And the bumble bee is aerodynamically incapable of flying.

Genetic exchanges among bacteria occur by several mechanisms. In transformation, the recipient bacterium takes up extracellular donor DNA. In transduction, donor DNA packaged in a bacteriophage infects the recipient bacterium. In conjugation, the donor bacterium transfers DNA to the recipient by mating.

That is true.
I Googled "single celled male/female" and found a scant few unfounded, pathetic theories on the subject.

I would just like some atheist scientist to have the gumption to address that issue outright.

 

[alang1216]

Every civilization insists on truth and honesty and every one, atheist or not, has failed to provide it. Including ours.

That'not at all true.
Might makes Right for most civilizations.
The overwhelming number of people on earth today do not live in just societies; we just ignore them for our own comfort.

Can you name a civilization that espoused dishonesty? Every civilization believes in "Might makes Right" and justice, they just all disagree on what exactly that means.

Do we live in a 'just' society? Your answer may differ from someone in the BLM movement.

 

[alang1216]

For a Conservative to survive an Ivy League school is an achievement.
My daughter went to one and had to ignore all the idiot Liberals who surrounded her.

So you're saying that the smartest, most learned, and highest achieving people are Liberals? I have to agree.

Did you miss my post about how Conservatives survive Ivy League schools?
If you give the administration the impression you don't worship MSNBC, you don't get admitted.
Actually, I have yet to meet a LWer or RWer who I couldn't crush within 15 minutes.

Never saw it. I think the crushing takes place exclusively in your own head.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how single-celled, asexual organisms accidentally became millions of male/female pairs.
But I know an atheist will never address that issue.

Single-celled, asexual organisms exchanged DNA before there was sexual differentiation. They still do it. Once that mechanism was in place it was simple for evolution to create males and females.

Exchanging DNA?
How?
In mathematically impossible numbers...Accidents by the millions?

You should lose your teaching license.

And the bumble bee is aerodynamically incapable of flying.

Genetic exchanges among bacteria occur by several mechanisms. In transformation, the recipient bacterium takes up extracellular donor DNA. In transduction, donor DNA packaged in a bacteriophage infects the recipient bacterium. In conjugation, the donor bacterium transfers DNA to the recipient by mating.

That is true.
I Googled "single celled male/female" and found a scant few unfounded, pathetic theories on the subject.

I would just like some atheist scientist to have the gumption to address that issue outright.

Maybe you're asking the wrong question, try: "bacteria exchange genetic material"