GOD of the BIBLE, is The CREATOR

[cybercoma]

I don't see how your beliefs are relevant. You can stick to what the text says all you want, but you still end up with your interpretation of that text. This is utterly irrelevant if you're going to make statements about what someone else believes.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't see how your beliefs are relevant. You can stick to what the text says all you want, but you still end up with your interpretation of that text. This is utterly irrelevant if you're going to make statements about what someone else believes.

Just what the Bible says...

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and Earth.

[DogOnPorch]

To add to this conversation, lets not forget that the Christian churches clung to the idea of a Ptolemaic Universe even when proven otherwise...and the irony being the Ptolemaic model was chosen initially by the church to be more progressive appearing to a more sophisticated and harder to convert population at hand.

[BubberMiley]

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and Earth.

Wait a minute. That suggests God existed before the beginning. How can that be? Since Betsy is backsliding, can someone else copy and paste a reply that has nothing to do with the question?

[DogOnPorch]

Wait a minute. That suggests God existed before the beginning. How can that be? Since Betsy is backsliding, can someone else copy and paste a reply that has nothing to do with the question?

Actually, it suggests Bronze Age humans had little clue what was going-on ten miles over yonder let alone the origins of the Universe.

Edited May 26, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Moonlight Graham]

Irrelevant, when we look out in space (telescope, radio, naked eye) we are looking back in time as well.

Which, by the way, is awesome, because if we ever invent faster-than-light travel we can zoom long ahead of the earth and then look back, and literally see back in time on earth. We could watch WWII unfold again!

Edited May 26, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[kimmy]

Since betsy is MIA,

Just a quick note: Betsy is not ducking questions. She has received a short vacation for a rules violation, but when her suspension is up I am sure that she will be back ready to take on all comers!

-k

[kimmy]

I don't see how your beliefs are relevant. You can stick to what the text says all you want, but you still end up with your interpretation of that text. This is utterly irrelevant if you're going to make statements about what someone else believes.

Betsy started this thread off claiming that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, practically authored by God himself, and that science corroborates that fact. Given such bold claims, falling back to using "oh, this part's allegorical" and "that part isn't meant to be taken literally" and "if you think about it creatively it kind of makes sense..." seems like serious backtracking.

I already pointed out a swath of stuff right from the first page that's not possible to reconcile with any scientific account of the creation of the universe, so I think Betsy's claim is already pretty much DOA.

-k

[kimmy]

What is the "earth" in the beginning when he goes on to create the lands, oceans, and sky?

As I pointed out earlier, it doesn't say the land was "created" at the later point, it says that it was exposed when God moved the waters together to form oceans. Taken at face value, it seems apparent that the first thing God created was a water-covered planet with no air. Air came later (when God took some of the water and put it above the roof!) and land shortly after (when God took the water that was beneath the firmament and pushed it together to form oceans.)

-k

[cybercoma]

So we're just going to pretend that the idea of a clockmaker is impossible? That is what the NAS is saying does not contradict the science.

For the record, I think religion is nonsense, but let's not be all baffled about how anyone could believe these things.

Edited May 27, 2016 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

So we're just going to pretend that the idea of a clockmaker is impossible?

None of this invalidates the "watchmaker" concept. However, that's not what Betsy is arguing in this thread. Reread her opening post if you're unclear on that point. What she's arguing is that science has proven the Bible to be scientifically accurate. I have nothing at all to say about the premise of a watchmaker, in general. But the premise that's being proposed by Betsy is a load.

-k

[eyeball]

For the record, I think religion is nonsense, but let's not be all baffled about how anyone could believe these things.

Or why they would believe these things if believing helped allay their fear of mortality. It should be no surprise that scientists in foxholes might blink on occasion or that people will make a point of it when they do.

Edited May 27, 2016 by eyeball

[?Impact]

Or why they would believe these things if believing helped allay their fear of mortality.

Does it really? While I cherish life, I don't think I fear death. I may fear dying, but that has more to do with the discomfort, disorientation, and pain that often accompanies it; a God however does nothing to allay that fear. For those who believe, I would say the fear of final judgement is more significant than what comfort they may receive. Even the most saintly amongst us have regrets, and it is those regrets they fear judgement on. I don't see faith as necessary for morality and ethics, history has in fact demonstrated countless times that those with [professed] faith are often the worst transgressors against their fellow man.

I can only answer to the foxhole argument on an academic level, but acknowledge that reason is sometimes trumped by emotion.

Just a quick note: Betsy is not ducking questions. She has received a short vacation for a rules violation, but when her suspension is up I am sure that she will be back ready to take on all comers!

Noted, thanks.

Edited May 27, 2016 by ?Impact

[?Impact]

You're free to discard parts of science that don't fit with your world view. That doesn't mean there are no Pop III stars.

You misquoted me in the second part...typical for a Creationist.

I tried to be typical, someone has to hold up the fort

I don't think I misquoted you however, because your qualification doesn't change the context. If population III stars are too dim to see, then what evidence do you have to support them. Regardless what your opinion is on the theory surrounding their existence, it is still 'faith' until supporting evidence is found.

(this being a creationist is tuff stuff when you try to be factual as well).

On being 'too dim to see', you should qualify that as apparent magnitude. I don't see why their absolute magnitude should be a problem, it is simply the issue about distance in time and space. I also believe there should be enough contrast with the cosmic background radiation, but if you think otherwise I would like to hear that argument.

There is plenty of evidence of Population II stars, they are not that distant, although I am not sure what their apparent magnitude is. Certainly spectroscopy predates the theory that predicts them, although I don't know if any were found and documented prior to that; did the theory explain the findings or were the stars searched for to support the theory?

Edited May 27, 2016 by ?Impact

[cybercoma]

None of this invalidates the "watchmaker" concept. However, that's not what Betsy is arguing in this thread. Reread her opening post if you're unclear on that point. What she's arguing is that science has proven the Bible to be scientifically accurate. I have nothing at all to say about the premise of a watchmaker, in general. But the premise that's being proposed by Betsy is a load.

-k

But that's what I'm saying. Depending on your interpretation of biblical text--I don't buy into DOP's conception that text can be read without interpretation--science does corroborate what's in the Bible. There was darkness, then light, then the earth was formed, the lands and sea and air were formed, then plant life, then animal life. The gist is pretty damn close considering who wrote the stuff and the fact that it's essentially superstition, as opposed to observed phenomena.

[DogOnPorch]

...or if low mass Pop III stars do exist...

...was the quote.

The evidence to support Population III stars is that Population II stars have SOME metallicity [Fe/H].

http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/rbc/a534/redman.pdf

Pretty good ^^^.

Population II stars are observable. They are most common in the central core/bulge of galaxies....the halo...and globular clusters. In our region of the disc, they are far less common. The odd red dwarf, perhaps.

Population II star...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayrel's_Star

Pair Instability Supernovae: the fate of high mass/metal poor stars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair-instability_supernova

But that's what I'm saying. Depending on your interpretation of biblical text--I don't buy into DOP's conception that text can be read without interpretation--science does corroborate what's in the Bible. There was darkness, then light, then the earth was formed, the lands and sea and air were formed, then plant life, then animal life. The gist is pretty damn close considering who wrote the stuff and the fact that it's essentially superstition, as opposed to observed phenomena.

Stars were made after the Earth in the Bible. Stars and our Sun were two different things to Bronze Age humans. Plants were formed before the Sun....photosynthesis? Water needs oxygen to be able to form...oxygen is a product of ancient supernovae. It just goes on and on...

Edited May 27, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[kimmy]

But that's what I'm saying. Depending on your interpretation of biblical text--I don't buy into DOP's conception that text can be read without interpretation--science does corroborate what's in the Bible. There was darkness, then light, then the earth was formed, the lands and sea and air were formed, then plant life, then animal life. The gist is pretty damn close considering who wrote the stuff and the fact that it's essentially superstition, as opposed to observed phenomena.

Betsy's claim is that it was written using knowledge received direct from God himself.

Viewed from that perspective, the idea that the earth and the lands and seas and plants and animals came along before the sun and the stars is a major screw-up.

-k

[DogOnPorch]

What racial classification were Adam and Eve? They would have had to be super-recessive in the gene department...brown eyes are dominant, etc.

[DogOnPorch]

And another issue/question: why is the Bible's creation fable the correct one and not the Hindu version (et al)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

I realize Christians have some skin in the Genesis Myth...but surly all those other myths are valid to the appropriate person.

[?Impact]

...was the quote.

Sorry about the misquote, that was unintentional. Perhaps when playing creationist you acquire new talents.

Thanks for the links, I agree the first one is a great reference.

It confirms what I suspected about absolute magnitude of Pop III stars (slide 12). I am curious however about slide 3 where they say that some Pop III stars can contain trace amounts of iron, I thought by definition it was none.

Where did you see that some Pop II stars can be in our region of the galaxy, I thought they were only present above and below the galactic disk. I guess if they formed elsewhere and somehow drifted here that would be possible, but would they actually form here?

I am wondering if any Pop II stars are naked eye visible. Cayrel's star that you reference obviously is not (apparent magnitude 11.7), and I can't think of any individual stars in globular clusters that are, only a few of the clusters as a whole are. I guess if one went supernova than it could be, although I don't know if any have been documented.

[DogOnPorch]

In theory, even a Pop III star can synthesis iron in its core. But stellar age seems to be a limiting factor as well...those hyper-giants couldn't have lasted more than a few 10s of millions of years...a flash in the pan, Cosmos-wise.

I'm not sure re: visible to the naked eye Population II stars...the background glow of the Milky Way near Sagittarius would definitely be mainly Population II stars.

Ancient humans couldn't tell the difference, mind you. The only stars that seemed truly different to ancients were red super-giants. One needed a prism to learn more...

[?Impact]

One needed a prism to learn more...

Does a prism have the needed resolution? On a side note, the reflection gratings used in most of the early stellar spectroscopy were a Canadian invention. While I have driven by the Dominion observatory, I have never been in it. I wonder if they are open to the public, and have any historical artifacts about this creation.

[DogOnPorch]

Does a prism have the needed resolution? On a side note, the reflection gratings used in most of the early stellar spectroscopy were a Canadian invention. While I have driven by the Dominion observatory, I have never been in it. I wonder if they are open to the public, and have any historical artifacts about this creation.

It was a simple prism that first showed absorption lines in the spectrum. Our first clue that all light was not the same...

[?Impact]

Getting back to religion, before we get a #StopThreadDrift warning...

I wonder what the absorption spectrum of the light (as in "I have seen the light") would look like.

Edited May 27, 2016 by ?Impact

[DogOnPorch]

It took science to discover the lines (hats-off to Newton). The Bible mentions no such lines or different parts of the spectrum other than visible light....only that God put the Sun and the Moon in the sky to rule day and night...or some similar drivel.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, ¹⁵ and let them be lights in the vault 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 vault 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.

As even a child would point-out, the Moon is often in the daytime sky...