"(For instance, I think the sun was created after the atmosphere in Genesis, which probably wasn't the case... But the sun would have been visible from earth only after the creation of the atmosphere..."
WHAT??? Light does not need an atmosphere to travel or be seen! Do you think there is an atmosphere all the way to the sun - and the stars? Man, it is time for a basic science course for you.
Science 101 wrote:
"(For instance, I think the sun was created after the atmosphere in Genesis, which probably wasn't the case... But the sun would have been visible from earth only after the creation of the atmosphere..."
WHAT??? Light does not need an atmosphere to travel or be seen! Do you think there is an atmosphere all the way to the sun - and the stars? Man, it is time for a basic science course for you.
You know, I disagree with thejeff on many things. At the same time he appears to be a sincere and respectful poster. You folks should learn how to reply in a similar respectful manner.
In case this presents you with challenges let me give you an example. Your post above could have included the same substance without the disrespect if you said something along the lines of:
"thejeff - I do not understand what you are saying here. Light does not need an atmosphere to travel or to be seen. Could you say a bit more about what you meant in your post?"
Holy Law and eternal damnation levels the playing field. The rich become equal to the poor. Kings become equal to peasants. Priests become equal to prostitutes in the eyes of the Holy Law.
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:
Science 101 wrote:"(For instance, I think the sun was created after the atmosphere in Genesis, which probably wasn't the case... But the sun would have been visible from earth only after the creation of the atmosphere..."
WHAT??? Light does not need an atmosphere to travel or be seen! Do you think there is an atmosphere all the way to the sun - and the stars? Man, it is time for a basic science course for you.
You know, I disagree with thejeff on many things. At the same time he appears to be a sincere and respectful poster. You folks should learn how to reply in a similar respectful manner.
In case this presents you with challenges let me give you an example. Your post above could have included the same substance without the disrespect if you said something along the lines of:
"thejeff - I do not understand what you are saying here. Light does not need an atmosphere to travel or to be seen. Could you say a bit more about what you meant in your post?"
Why would you want to hear more from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about?
Science 101 wrote:
"(For instance, I think the sun was created after the atmosphere in Genesis, which probably wasn't the case... But the sun would have been visible from earth only after the creation of the atmosphere..."
WHAT??? Light does not need an atmosphere to travel or be seen! Do you think there is an atmosphere all the way to the sun - and the stars? Man, it is time for a basic science course for you.
Sorry, I wrote that on the pot during a break from helping my in laws move... I shoulda waited until I had everything in front of me to post.
OR, you coulda just gone to the link I provided.
DAY 4: Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). I believe that at this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years - obviously more than 24 hours long.
Either way... be kind :-)
Respectfully disagree wrote:
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:You know, I disagree with thejeff on many things. At the same time he appears to be a sincere and respectful poster. You folks should learn how to reply in a similar respectful manner.
In case this presents you with challenges let me give you an example. Your post above could have included the same substance without the disrespect if you said something along the lines of:
"thejeff - I do not understand what you are saying here. Light does not need an atmosphere to travel or to be seen. Could you say a bit more about what you meant in your post?"
Why would you want to hear more from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about?
Not wanting to further engage in conversation with someone for whatever reason is perfectly valid. Still, it can be done in a way that is not disrespectful.
For example:
"thejeff - I do not understand what you are saying here. Light does not need an atmosphere to travel or to be seen. Can you provide an explanation that comports with what we know about the nature of light? Otherwise I don't see how your statement holds up and there probably isn't much further that we can take this discussion.
- Cheers"
Respectfully disagree wrote:
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:You know, I disagree with thejeff on many things. At the same time he appears to be a sincere and respectful poster. You folks should learn how to reply in a similar respectful manner.
In case this presents you with challenges let me give you an example. Your post above could have included the same substance without the disrespect if you said something along the lines of:
"thejeff - I do not understand what you are saying here. Light does not need an atmosphere to travel or to be seen. Could you say a bit more about what you meant in your post?"
Why would you want to hear more from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about?
Well, he IS obviously browsing LetsRun in the first place...
"DAY 4: Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). I believe that at this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years - obviously more than 24 hours long."
Without a doubt, one of the most tortured, twisted ways to claim the words don't mean what they say. What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
Say what you mean wrote:
"DAY 4: Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). I believe that at this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years - obviously more than 24 hours long."
Without a doubt, one of the most tortured, twisted ways to claim the words don't mean what they say. What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
How do you mean?
here we go again... wrote:
Science 101 wrote:"(For instance, I think the sun was created after the atmosphere in Genesis, which probably wasn't the case... But the sun would have been visible from earth only after the creation of the atmosphere..."
WHAT??? Light does not need an atmosphere to travel or be seen! Do you think there is an atmosphere all the way to the sun - and the stars? Man, it is time for a basic science course for you.
Sorry, I wrote that on the pot during a break from helping my in laws move... I shoulda waited until I had everything in front of me to post.
OR, you coulda just gone to the link I provided.
DAY 4: Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). I believe that at this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years - obviously more than 24 hours long.
Either way... be kind :-)
But there's no reason to believe any of that. We know how stars and planets form and they come from nebulae. We see it in action today.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
here we go again... wrote:Sorry, I wrote that on the pot during a break from helping my in laws move... I shoulda waited until I had everything in front of me to post.
OR, you coulda just gone to the link I provided.
DAY 4: Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). I believe that at this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years - obviously more than 24 hours long.
Either way... be kind :-)
But there's no reason to believe any of that. We know how stars and planets form and they come from nebulae. We see it in action today.
Agreed. How does that happen, by the way?
Dense pockets of gas and dust coalesce under their growing gravity to form stars and planets.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Dense pockets of gas and dust coalesce under their growing gravity to form stars and planets.
on their own?
thejeff wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:Dense pockets of gas and dust coalesce under their growing gravity to form stars and planets.
on their own?
Under the operation of their own gravity, yes.
You know, gravity? A phenomenon that can be viewed and tested and verified by independent assay? You know, a concept based on physical evidence?
C. Sagan wrote:
thejeff wrote:on their own?
Under the operation of their own gravity, yes.
You know, gravity? A phenomenon that can be viewed and tested and verified by independent assay? You know, a concept based on physical evidence?
Do you think I don't know what gravity is?
thejeff wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:Dense pockets of gas and dust coalesce under their growing gravity to form stars and planets.
on their own?
Gravity. Within a nebula, gas and dust aren't distributed uniformly, with some areas denser than others. The more dense areas have greater gravitational pull than the surrounding areas due to their higher concentration of mass and draw more and more of the surrounding matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesisJeff Wigand wrote:
thejeff wrote:on their own?
Gravity. Within a nebula, gas and dust aren't distributed uniformly, with some areas denser than others. The more dense areas have greater gravitational pull than the surrounding areas due to their higher concentration of mass and draw more and more of the surrounding matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
That is an incredible design, isn't it?
thejeff wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:Gravity. Within a nebula, gas and dust aren't distributed uniformly, with some areas denser than others. The more dense areas have greater gravitational pull than the surrounding areas due to their higher concentration of mass and draw more and more of the surrounding matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesisThat is an incredible design, isn't it?
Speaking literally, yes: it's incredible to think that design is involved.
thejeff wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:Gravity. Within a nebula, gas and dust aren't distributed uniformly, with some areas denser than others. The more dense areas have greater gravitational pull than the surrounding areas due to their higher concentration of mass and draw more and more of the surrounding matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesisThat is an incredible design, isn't it?
What design?
thejeff wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:Gravity. Within a nebula, gas and dust aren't distributed uniformly, with some areas denser than others. The more dense areas have greater gravitational pull than the surrounding areas due to their higher concentration of mass and draw more and more of the surrounding matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesisThat is an incredible design, isn't it?
So?