Also, let me give my original posting again which documents how closely Genesis follows current planetary formation theories and and the link that I gave above. Please keep in mind that the vantage point is established in verse 2 as "on the surface of the waters", i.e. on the earth's surface. It is very difficult to make sense of Genesis unless you notice that key point. "Well, here's why I believe in the JudeoChristian version: it matches the astronomical and fossil record perfectly. Here is the order it gives in Genesis (keeping in mind that the vantage point of the observer/writer of Genesis is given in verse 1 as on the surface of the earth): 1. Creation of the physical universe. (1:1) 2. Transformation of the earth's atmosphere from opaque to translucent. (1:3) 3. Formation of a stable water cycle. (1:7) 4. Establishment of land from predomiant oceans. (1:9) 5. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent, i.e. sun, moon and stars became visible on the earth for the first time. (1:14-16) 6. Production of small sea animals. (1:20)7. Creation of sea mammals (nephesh as gms likes to point out). (1:21) 8. Creation of birds. 9. Making of land animals (nephesh). (1:24) 10. Creation of man. (1:26) Coincidence? I think not..."
To be fair and balanced, let me post the page numbers of the original posts and objections dealing with this subject in case any body is really enthusiastic and wants to back read. 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 38, 39, 40, 48
Stu also semi-objected to the idea of a lunar event. This article mentions this event and shows Iâm not smoking anything. Here is my original posting about the lunar event in case anyone has forgotten. It is imo another incredible example of fine tuning and design in the universe http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/early_earth_010110.html "The lunar event is an incredible (of course in my opinion) example of Design. Let me give a little background before I get to the details: The change in the earth's atmosphere (in its early history) presents a serious challenge to scientific understanding. The rule of thumb in planetary formation is that the greater a planet's surface gravity and the greater a planet's distance from its star, the heavier and thicker its atmosphere. Yet earth departs from that rule. Theoretically, Earth should have an atmosphere heavier and thicker than that of Venus, but in fact it has a far lighter and much thinner atmosphere. This leads us to the "Moon Miracle". The solution to this mystery apparently lies with the Earth's moon. Most moons in our solar system are formed from the same solar disk material that generated the planets. As such, the are relatively small compared to their planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that have been captured. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It orbits a planet that is close to the sun and it is huge compared to its planet. The moon is younger than the Earth. According to the Apollo's lunar rock samples, it is only 4.25 billion years old, compared to earth's 4.59 billion years. The same lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's. Its distinct chemical makeup and its younger age establish that the moon and Earth did not form together. Astronauts have seen and measured the moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and the slowing of Earth' rotation. Their calculations suggest that the moon was in contact or near contact with Earth about 4.25 billion years ago. This implies some kind of collision at that time. Only one collision scenario fits all the observed Earth-moon parameters and dynamics: a body at least the size of Mars, possibly twice as large, made a nearly head-on hit and was absorbed, for the most part, into Earth's core. Such a collision would have blasted almost all of Earth's original atmosphere into outer space. The shell, or cloud of debris, arising from the collision would orbit Earth and eventually coalesce to form our moon. This remarkable event, if it occurred as the evidence indicates, delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and produced a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface. It increased the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight 18) for billions of year, but no so high as to keep life-threatening quantities of ammonia (molecular weight 17) and methane (molecular weight 16). It also elevated the iron content of Earth's crust as to permit a huge abundance of ocean life. (Algae is dependent on iron and is the basis for all ocean life.) I could go on and on about the Design aspects of this: how it tilted our planet, left our planet spinning at the exact right angular velocity, etc., etc. for life. But I've got to go. Suffice it to say that 4.25 billion years ago the Earth was the 8 ball and imo opinion Someone perfectly hit us with a cue ball...â
Also: If anybody does read this link, keep in mind that hydrosphere="the aqueous vapor of the atmosphere".
http://www.geocities.com/saint7peter/PossibletoActual.html Heisenberg, 'Physics and Philosophy', pages 54-55: "Therefore, the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place during the act of observation. If we want to describe what happens in an atomic event, we have to realize that the word 'happens' can apply only to the observation, not to the state of affairs between two observations. It applies to the physical, not the psychical act of observation, and we may say that the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place as soon as the interaction of the object with the measuring device, and thereby the rest of the world, has come into play; it is not connected with the act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer. The discontinuous change in the probability function, however, takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change of our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change of the probability function." Ontologically, "the physical act of observation" has to do with the action of the physical on the etheric, the essence of von Neumann's I on von Neumann's II, while "the psychical act of observation" has to do with the action of the etheric on the physical. The physical act is characterized by [potential - actual event], while the psychical act is characterized by [state vector - substance]. Together, the physical act and the psychical act constitute "the *interaction* of the object with the measuring device". To explain how the physical act of observation can be both physical and etheric, one must realize that the physical act of observation is in the causal world of the phenomenological system of worlds, while the action of the physical on the etheric by way of the emotional potential and the mental actual event takes place in the ontological system of worlds. The ontological system of worlds is comprised by the following worlds: physical, emotional, mental, etheric, phenomenal, causal, and archetypal or meta-physical. The causal world contains an ideal representation of the four lower worlds, since it is in a sense the cause of them. The phenomenological system of worlds is very similar to the ontological system of worlds except that it is more or less rotated in metaphysical space. It employs the same elements of reality but in somewhat different capacities. Each system of worlds is in a sense just a Gestalt of the structured aggregate of the elements of reality. In the phenomenological system of worlds, the representation of the four lower worlds within the causal world does not have an ideal character but rather a psychical character, and there is another representation, as above so below, with a physical character. "The act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer" is ontologically the establishment of a mental faculty in nature capable of greater determination than the [state vector - substance] determination. That mental faculty has to do with the capacity for conceiving of the *body-world* as a *schema*. This constitutes the true principle of *action*. The intentional act of consciousness is then ontologically the *affection* resulting from that action, but it is more than that because it belongs to consciousness. It is the intentional act or *noesis* stemming from the fact of a *noema* held in the mental faculty, but only insofar as it can be identified as an intentional act *of consciousness*. It must reflect back on the mind that emanated the *body-world schema* in the first place. This constitutes the enfoldment of the quantum explicate order. The way that it does this is through the concepts of *time* and *place*: action is to affection as time is to place, but time supersedes action as an active principle and causes both action and affection to be localized in a place. This *place* then becomes the nexus of all the Aristotelian categories, including potential, actual, state, substance, body-world schema|noema, action, affection, time, and place. It is this nexus that carries over into the phenomenological perspective. It is what is retained in the phenomenological reduction. It is noumenal content reduced to phenomenal content and then to the phenomenological content of Heisenberg's selection process. So, the intentional act of consciousness corresponds to the enfoldment of the quantum explicate order in this way. The enfoldment is therefore the material correlate of consciousness. There is a hierarchy of concepts associated with the body-world schema, which constitutes the unfoldment of the quantum explicate order, as the phenomenal base and phenomenal reality of the observer reaches down into the quantum noumenal reality of the observed: 1. body 2. body-world 3. body-world schema 4. body-world schema|noema 5. body-world schema|noema|dianoia-noesis 6. body-world schema|noema|dianoia-noesis|noumenon ...phenomenal|-----mental-----|---emotional---|physical The intentional act of consciousness should be regarded as the fourth element of Heisenberg's selection process: 1. the physical act of observation, 2. the psychical act of observation, 3. the act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer, and 4. the intentional act of consciousness; and the four elements of the selection process correspond to the following groups of enfolded categories: 1. potential - actual event, 2. state vector - substance, 3. body-world schema|noema, and 4. action - affection - time - place. "The transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place [only with the intentional act of consciousness], and we may say that the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place as soon as the interaction of the object with the measuring device, and thereby the rest of the world, has come into play". "The interaction of the object with the measuring device" is signified by #1 and #2, while "the rest of the world" is signified by #3, which signifies ontologically the *body-world schema*. The intentional act or *noesis* reaches down into the noumenal world as well, which is altered by the noeses ontologically and entirely constituted by them phenomenologically. The 'possible' itself refers to the infinite potential of consciousness without an object, while the 'actual' is the residue of consciousness with an object. The intentional act of consciousness with an object is the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual'. The 'possible' itself is not transformed by this transition, so in that sense there is no reduction, and yet the transition is real in a constitutive sense. It is a transition from the infinite to the finite by way of the real. It is also a transition from the infinitely structured, or the unstructured, to the finitely structured by way of Derrida's *differance*. Subjective experience, pertaining to consciousness with an object, is an expression of *differance*, not of the unstructured consciousness without an object. It is the infinitely structured, or the unstructured, that is deconstructed, bringing forth the actual world of finite structure. True deconstruction is thus a negation of a negation, and not a simple negation. It is a creative act. The secondary connection between the categories and the phenomenological elements of the selection process is this: the actual has the structure of self and other, but the categories are a proxy for self, so that the actual is itself a quantum process, whereby self is actualized as other. Self is, like the infinite potential of consciousness without an object, not transformable, but yet the actual allows for its actualization in the other. Thus, *differance* is not enough; one must also discern the *trace* of the internal reflection of the infinite potential, which is *cogitavi ergo sum*. This trace occurs not in the actual per se, but in the other, as though the double reflection of 'possible' into 'actual' and 'self' into 'other' sets free the possible from the limitations of the actual. It is this freedom that is the essence of the selection process. The double reflection indicates that we are dealing with something like a Hilbert space of Hilbert spaces, since the 'actual' itself, with respect to consciousness, contains a new quantum potentiality to be actualized in the 'other'. This is an indication of how matter is created from consciousness.
Another item worth noting is that I was given a pretty hard time about stating that during the time life was forming, the earth very likely experienced many life-extinguishing meteor blows. This same link actually states this virtually identically. (See last line of article.) http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/early_earth_010110.html
Here is a summary of the actual time frames given by the link mentioned: Earth formed 4.5-4.6 billion Molten surface 4.5/4.6-3.8/4.4 billion Earth cooled below 100 degrees C 3.8-4.4 billion Intense meteor bombardment 4.5-3.5 billion Lunar event 4.45 billion Earliest Life for a Hydrosphere 3.85 billion Microfossils 3.5 billion
Axe, Many, many, oh so many, posts ago I said the debate was pointless. People grow up believing something and will never change their minds. It matters not how many facts to the contrary you present. They must come to a differnet conclusion through there own experiences in life. There is only one statement worth presenting: Why do you believe in one god and not another? Granted, I am positive you did write something similar if not the same exact words.
There is only one statement you can present: Why do you believe in one god and not another? t0yland ___________________________________________ How about the animists that basically believe in multiple gods? Your question is actually a great one. The answer to that question should definitely be asked and answered early on in anyones' search.
If I may introject for a moment. Of course people can believe in whatever they want, and I am not in a position to say they are wrong. However, think about this for a moment. We can have a concept of God, in which God is the Supreme being. Not 2nd, 3rd, 4th....but number 1. The highest possible power, the greatest, etc. How can this notion of only one God be reconciled with the reports by different people that their God is different in nature than other religion's understanding of God's nature? Think of Sir Laurence Olivia, or Robert De Niro, or any other great character actor. They were/are able to portray many different personalities. One person, capable of portraying many different personalities. Someone who only saw De Niro in Godfather II would not believe if if you described De Niro in "Bang the Drum slowly." They would say, not the same person, as their respective personalities were so different. Now, look at an adult with children. His children know the adult one way, the spouse another way, the co-workers another way...as all interact and know the adult according to the circumstances and relationship they have. Same adult, but the adult behaves, shows parts of his personality differently according to the situation and level of understanding of the person he interacts with. If you saw Einstein playing with a 4 year old, saying "goo goo" would you think him childish? How could such a brilliant man appear so limited in intelligence? No, human beings have the ability to act in many different ways, and project many different aspects of their personality. So why would it be so difficult for God, the one and only God who is all powerful and all knowing, to appear in an infinite number of forms and play with man in an infinite variety of personalities so that man could have a relationship with God? If a man can bring himself to the level of a child to communicate, what is so difficult about the concept of God being able to do the same? I am a firm believer in only one God, who appears in an infinite number of forms. Choose what form of God you want, and love that form of God. You want to love an angry God, fine. You want to love a jealous form of God, fine. God can delivery any form you wish. You want to love a most loving, kind, playful, friendly, intimate God, fine...that is my personal choice, but we are all free to have any type of relationship with God we choose, as long as we know that we are intending to have a relationship with the one absolute God.