Does God Exist?

[Newtonian]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

Where's the water? Its still here! What you are missing is early earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature when Genesis 1:2 was occurring. Not to mention what God's spirit was doing going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure. The boiling point of water is much higher under great pressure.

The amount of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates is over 64 million petagrams as Britannica has stated. That is roughly the same amount as the carbon in Venus' atmosphere - what is the air pressure on the surface of Venus?

Remember, earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which removes CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere as CO3 (carbonate) ions and combines it with Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) ions to form carbonates.

See:

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...

www.britannica.com

I will post more on this in my next post.

 

[Newtonian]

From the above Britannica link concerning the evolution of earth's atmosphere and specifically the geologic carbon cycle:

"Carbon in Earth's crust

form	total amount (Pg* C)
*One Pg (abbreviation for petagram) equals one quadrillion (1015) grams. Entries refer to amounts of carbon.
atmospheric CO (as of 1978)	696
oceanic carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion	34,800
limestones, other carbonate sediments	64,800,000
carbonate in metamorphic rocks	2,640,000

See the chart for more details. Britannica also notes:

"The table also emphasizes the dissolution of atmospheric gases by the ocean. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with, and far less abundant than, the oceanic inventory of carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ions (HCO3−), and carbonate ions (CO32−)."

Bottom line - The oceans removed over 64 million petagrams of CO2 from the atmosphere.

So, what would the boiling point of water at atmospheric pressures like that on Venus today?

 

[Newtonian]

Water - Boiling Points at Higher Pressures

Online calculator, figures and tables showing boiling points of water at pressures ranging from 14.7 to 3200 psia (1 to 220 bara). Temperature given as °C, °F, K and °R.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com

From the chart in the above link, the boiling point of water goes from 100 C/212 F to 374 C/706 F as atmospheric pressure goes from 14.7 psia (the current pressure at sea level) to 3,226 psia.

So there were two factors involved with the boiling point of earth's hot primordial waters:

1. Atmospheric pressure (see the link).

2. The cooling of the planet's surface over time.

These processes would likely have caused a number of condensation catastrophes - I can detail that if any of you would like me to. This is also likely a cause for the separation of earth's surface waters and waters at higher elevations - likely including waters that ended up rotating around the planet - described in the Genesis creation account, to wit:

Genesis 1:6,7
Then God said: “Let there be an expanse+ between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.”+ 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse.+ And it was so.

[expanse = atmosphere]

A good way to check the boiling point of water when earth's atmosphere had over 64 million petagrams of carbon as carbon dioxide is to check the atmospheric pressure on Venus which has roughly the same amount of CO2 in its atmosphere. So what is the atmospheric pressure on Venus?

From Bing search:

"The pressure on Venus is 1334 PSI or 92 times the pressure at sea level on Earth, which is 14.5 PSI. Now, in our oceans the pressure increases by 14.5 PSI every 33 feet."

[water pressure 1450 psi at depth of 3,300 feet?]

So, from the above link, the boiling point of water at c. 1334 psi is c. 300 C/575 F.

So, when did the surface of earth's crust lower from its hot molten state at origin down to 575 degrees F? Certainly earth's shield rock solidified about 4 billion years ago (according to K-40 dating). But at what temperature would this shield rock have solidified? I suspect higher than 300 C/575 F.

Bottom line: when earth's surface cooled to 575 F earth's primordial waters would have condensed from vapor to liquid. This would then increase water pressure on the surface, likely causing buckling of the relatively thin crust which, in turn, would cause volcanic activity including volcanic outgassing and a rise in surface temperature which would boil off the water and thicken earth's crust.

I think this would have caused repeated condensation catastrophes - what do you all think?

Also, do you all think these scientific details belong on the science forum section?

Note: Genesis 1:2-7 and the evidence of earth's carbonates deposited by the geologic carbon cycle in LIQUID water favors God's spirit first creating extremophiles like those currently found in deep ocean thermal vents under great water pressure and very hot - as per Genesis 1:2.

 

[Hollie]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

Where's the water? Its still here! What you are missing is early earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature when Genesis 1:2 was occurring. Not to mention what God's spirit was doing going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure. The boiling point of water is much higher under great pressure.

The amount of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates is over 64 million petagrams as Britannica has stated. That is roughly the same amount as the carbon in Venus' atmosphere - what is the air pressure on the surface of Venus?

Remember, earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which removes CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere as CO3 (carbonate) ions and combines it with Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) ions to form carbonates.

See:

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...

www.britannica.com

I will post more on this in my next post.

I missed the parts where Genesis provides a description of the earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature.

Could you elaborate on God's spirit going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure?

BTW, Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle you described.

 

[Newtonian]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

Where's the water? Its still here! What you are missing is early earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature when Genesis 1:2 was occurring. Not to mention what God's spirit was doing going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure. The boiling point of water is much higher under great pressure.

The amount of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates is over 64 million petagrams as Britannica has stated. That is roughly the same amount as the carbon in Venus' atmosphere - what is the air pressure on the surface of Venus?

Remember, earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which removes CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere as CO3 (carbonate) ions and combines it with Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) ions to form carbonates.

See:

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...

www.britannica.com

I will post more on this in my next post.

I missed the parts where Genesis provides a description of the earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature.

Could you elaborate on God's spirit going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure?

BTW, Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle you described.

Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began. I did elaborate concerning what I think Genesis 1:2 is referring to.

So, what do you believe early earth's atmospheric content was? And how do you think earth accreted its water?

 

[Hollie]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

Where's the water? Its still here! What you are missing is early earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature when Genesis 1:2 was occurring. Not to mention what God's spirit was doing going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure. The boiling point of water is much higher under great pressure.

The amount of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates is over 64 million petagrams as Britannica has stated. That is roughly the same amount as the carbon in Venus' atmosphere - what is the air pressure on the surface of Venus?

Remember, earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which removes CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere as CO3 (carbonate) ions and combines it with Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) ions to form carbonates.

See:

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...

www.britannica.com

I will post more on this in my next post.

I missed the parts where Genesis provides a description of the earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature.

Could you elaborate on God's spirit going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure?

BTW, Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle you described.

Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began. I did elaborate concerning what I think Genesis 1:2 is referring to.

So, what do you believe early earth's atmospheric content was? And how do you think earth accreted its water?

If Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began, how many water cycles are there? Where in the Bible are we given a description of evapotranspiration?

The problems with Biblical cosmology are profound. In several places in the Bible, the sky is referred to as a vault, with the stars stuck on it. Genesis 1 refers to water above this vault (an idea no doubt borrowed from the Babylonian cosmology, which pictured the Earth as a flat disk inside a cosmic bubble in a cosmic sea). The Bible says little about the shape of the Earth, referring in one place to the "circle" of the Earth (a disk shape), and in another place to the "four corners" of the Earth (a rectangular surface shape). In one of the Gospels, the Devil tempted Jesus by taking him up a mountain where he could see "all the kingdoms of the world" (no further info on this remarkable mountain). This would only be possible if the Earth was flat.

 

[Newtonian]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

Where's the water? Its still here! What you are missing is early earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature when Genesis 1:2 was occurring. Not to mention what God's spirit was doing going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure. The boiling point of water is much higher under great pressure.

The amount of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates is over 64 million petagrams as Britannica has stated. That is roughly the same amount as the carbon in Venus' atmosphere - what is the air pressure on the surface of Venus?

Remember, earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which removes CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere as CO3 (carbonate) ions and combines it with Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) ions to form carbonates.

See:

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...

www.britannica.com

I will post more on this in my next post.

I missed the parts where Genesis provides a description of the earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature.

Could you elaborate on God's spirit going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure?

BTW, Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle you described.

Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began. I did elaborate concerning what I think Genesis 1:2 is referring to.

So, what do you believe early earth's atmospheric content was? And how do you think earth accreted its water?

If Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began, how many water cycles are there? Where in the Bible are we given a description of evapotranspiration?

The problems with Biblical cosmology are profound. In several places in the Bible, the sky is referred to as a vault, with the stars stuck on it. Genesis 1 refers to water above this vault (an idea no doubt borrowed from the Babylonian cosmology, which pictured the Earth as a flat disk inside a cosmic bubble in a cosmic sea). The Bible says little about the shape of the Earth, referring in one place to the "circle" of the Earth (a disk shape), and in another place to the "four corners" of the Earth (a rectangular surface shape). In one of the Gospels, the Devil tempted Jesus by taking him up a mountain where he could see "all the kingdoms of the world" (no further info on this remarkable mountain). This would only be possible if the Earth was flat.

Inaccurate post - e.g. "vault?" Satan gave Jesus a vision. What are the definitions of Hebrew chuwg in Isaiah 40:22?

The current water cycle is stated simply here:

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the winter torrents+ are going forth to the sea,+ yet the sea itself is not full.+ To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.+

See:

Creation Says, “They Are Inexcusable” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

 

[Newtonian]

Hollie - If you insist Hebrew chuwg is only 2 dimensions (circle) in Isaiah 40:22, note the same Hebrew word in Job 26:10

He has described a circle upon the face of the waters,+
To where light ends in darkness.

The fact that the terminator is a circle is proof earth is a sphere - the definition of chuwg in 3 dimensions.

 

[Hollie]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

Where's the water? Its still here! What you are missing is early earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature when Genesis 1:2 was occurring. Not to mention what God's spirit was doing going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure. The boiling point of water is much higher under great pressure.

The amount of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates is over 64 million petagrams as Britannica has stated. That is roughly the same amount as the carbon in Venus' atmosphere - what is the air pressure on the surface of Venus?

Remember, earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which removes CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere as CO3 (carbonate) ions and combines it with Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) ions to form carbonates.

See:

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...

www.britannica.com

I will post more on this in my next post.

I missed the parts where Genesis provides a description of the earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature.

Could you elaborate on God's spirit going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure?

BTW, Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle you described.

Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began. I did elaborate concerning what I think Genesis 1:2 is referring to.

So, what do you believe early earth's atmospheric content was? And how do you think earth accreted its water?

If Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began, how many water cycles are there? Where in the Bible are we given a description of evapotranspiration?

The problems with Biblical cosmology are profound. In several places in the Bible, the sky is referred to as a vault, with the stars stuck on it. Genesis 1 refers to water above this vault (an idea no doubt borrowed from the Babylonian cosmology, which pictured the Earth as a flat disk inside a cosmic bubble in a cosmic sea). The Bible says little about the shape of the Earth, referring in one place to the "circle" of the Earth (a disk shape), and in another place to the "four corners" of the Earth (a rectangular surface shape). In one of the Gospels, the Devil tempted Jesus by taking him up a mountain where he could see "all the kingdoms of the world" (no further info on this remarkable mountain). This would only be possible if the Earth was flat.

Inaccurate post - e.g. "vault?" Satan gave Jesus a vision. What are the definitions of Hebrew chuwg in Isaiah 40:22?

The current water cycle is stated simply here:

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the winter torrents+ are going forth to the sea,+ yet the sea itself is not full.+ To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.+

See:

Creation Says, “They Are Inexcusable” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

You haven't studied your Bible'ology.
Genesis 1:6-8 6And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." 7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

Genesis 1:20 20And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."

Ecclesiastes 1:7 says that water returns to the source of streams; it does not say how. It was once believed that the water returned underground.

We're still left with nothing in the Bible describing the water cycle (evapotranspiration). The water going to sea describes rivers. Nothing really godly about water flowing downstream. Evapotranspiration is the process of evaporation, condensation in the atmosphere, cooling and rainfall. Ecclesiastes 1:7 tells us nothing of that.

Job 38:22 says that snow and hail are kept in storehouses.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie - If you insist Hebrew chuwg is only 2 dimensions (circle) in Isaiah 40:22, note the same Hebrew word in Job 26:10

He has described a circle upon the face of the waters,+
To where light ends in darkness.

The fact that the terminator is a circle is proof earth is a sphere - the definition of chuwg in 3 dimensions.

Actually, the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras was among the first to propose the sphericity of the Earth in the 6th century BC, (<---- before the invention of Christianity), using among his proofs how the sail of a ship could be observed to disappear over the curvature of the Earth.

 

[Newtonian]

Well, obviously thermodynamics are involved in Miller type experiments but using heat as the energy source instead of lightning/spark discharge. The chart on table 3-4 on page 27 gives the chemical reaction product proportions from experiments done by Harada and Fox using a simulated atmosphere of CH4 (methane), ammonia (NH3) and water (H2O) and heating to 950 degrees Centigrade using a quartz sand catalyst (and cooling quickly).

That temperature is VERY hot - hotter than any theorized early earth environment when life began on earth. This is just another example of different amino acids prefering different environments for synthesis. Table 3-4 only lists acidic amino acids, not basic (i.e. acid vs base/alkaline) amino acids.

The source of the chart:

From K. Harada and S. Fox, 1964. Nature 201, 335.

The chart notes amino acids used in proteins; the highest proportions are Glycine and Alanine - similar to Miller's results. The top 8 by proportion are:

Glycine - 60.3%
Alanine - 18.0%
Glutamic acid - 4.8%
Aspartic acid - 3.4
Leucine - 2.4
Proline - 2.3
Valine - 2.3
Serine - 2.0

However, these results are disputed. Boynton & Lawless used the same environment and came up with totally different chemical reaction product proportions - see table 3-5 on page 28.

That chart if from:

From Lawless and Boynton, 1973. Nature 243, 450

They only found 3 amino acids used in proteins and the primary amino acid produced was beta-alanine (90% at 1060 degrees C) which is not found in proteins. Alanine, not beta-alanine is found in proteins. The chart also shows a distinct change in proporitions with lower hot temperature.

At 1060 C (with quartz sand catalyst) 90% was beta-alanine and only 1% for Alanine and Glycine. Aspartic acid was 3%.

At 980 C Glycine was the primary product - 59%, followed by 28% beta-alanine and 12% alanine.

At 930 C Glycine was 96% and Alanine was 4%.

Again, note how temperature changes the chemical reaction product proportions.

Thaxton et al report Fox's later conclusion that temperatures below 120 C are the most plausible for some amino acids - reference 20:

S.W. Fox, 1976. J. Mol. Evol. 8, 30.

Bottom line - as I posted repeatedly - some amino acids prefer hot, others cold, some acid others alkaline, some wet others dry. You can't have all these environments at the same place at the same time without an intelligent chemist.

Note my subsequent posts about early earth's environment when Genesis 1:2 applies.

Continuing with the evidence from chemistry and specifically origin of life synthesis experiments such as those by Miller-Urey, Fox & Harada, Lawless and Boynton - note that they all presume an atmosphere of Methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) which the evidence of earth's crustal carbonates disproves - from:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

Continuing from table 3-5 from page 28 -

"One important variation of thermal syntheses has been the Fischer-Tropsch type technique.21 In a typical synthesis, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and ammonia flow through a vycor tube filled with metal or clay catalysts. When heated to 500-700°C for about 1.2 min., the residence time in the tube, they react to yield a variety of amino acids. The usual Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is used industrially to make hydrocarbons from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Another version, a "no-flow" or static synthesis, consist of simply heating the gases in a vycor flask at 200-1000°C for 15-16 min., followed by sustained heating at lower temperatures (50-100°C. 15183 hrs.). Proteinous amino acids definitely confirmed* in Fischer-Tropsch type syntheses include glycine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, tyrosine, lysine, histidine, and arginine."

See the footnote on the means of confirming identification of the specific amino acids - much improved since 1970.

Reference 21 - D. Yoshino, R. Hayatsu, and E. Anders, 1971. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 35, 927; R. Hayatsu, M.H. Studier, and E. Anders, 1971. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 35, 939; E. Anders, R. Hayatsu, and M.H. Studier, 1973. Science 182,781.

Note, Thaxton et al fail to give the product proportion, but it seems like they in order from the most predominant (Glycine and Alanine) to the trace proportions tyrosine, etc.

See:

Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life

A number of theories propose that RNA, or an RNA-like substance, played a role in the origin of life. Usually, such hypotheses presume that the Watson–Crick bases were readily available on prebiotic Earth, for spontaneous incorporation into a replicator. Cytosine, however, has not been reported...

www.pnas.org

First discussing the lack of t)he amino acid Cytosine in meteorites and spark discharge experiments (like Miller-Urey) this PNAS article proposes "cyanoacetylene and its hydrolysis product, cyanoacetaldehyde" as likely starter molecules for the synthesis of Cytosine. It is then observed that the highest product proportion of Cytosine was at 30 degrees C, ph of 11+ (alkaline - neutral is ph 7, <ph 7 is acid). Then an alternate synthesis scenario providing 6% Cytosine is given with 100 degrees C, and a low concentration of Cyanoacetylene [C3HN] and cyanate [CNO]: "the stoichiometry [ratio of reactant compounds] requires two cyanates per cyanoacetylene."

[This again shows the need for different environments for the synthesis of different amino acids: hot vs. cold; wet vs. dry; acid vs. alkaline which do not occur naturally in the same place & same time.]

The PNAS article goes on:

"Questions arise, however, concerning the availability of the reactants on early Earth. Cyanoacetylene can be produced in a spark discharge in a CH4/N2 mixture as the second most prevalent product (up to a maximum of 8.4% of the principal product, HCN) (23, 24). This mixture, which introduces carbon in reduced form but excludes ammonia and water, is an unlikely candidate for Earth’s atmosphere at the time of the origin of life. That atmosphere was “… probably dominated by CO2 and N2, with traces of CO, H2, and reduced sulfur gases”, unless a volcanic source of methane and ammonia was present (25). By contrast, when ammonia (24) or hydrogen sulfide (26) are included in spark discharge experiments, little cyanoacetylene is produced. The aspartic acid and asparagine that are formed under those conditions arise to some extent from the reaction of cyanoacetylene with HCN and ammonia (27)."

Do you all see the need yet for an intelligent chemist to synthesize and select the 20 amino acids used in proteins? I.e. the need for specific different environments which do not exist at the same time and place naturally.

to be continued

 

[Hollie]

Well, obviously thermodynamics are involved in Miller type experiments but using heat as the energy source instead of lightning/spark discharge. The chart on table 3-4 on page 27 gives the chemical reaction product proportions from experiments done by Harada and Fox using a simulated atmosphere of CH4 (methane), ammonia (NH3) and water (H2O) and heating to 950 degrees Centigrade using a quartz sand catalyst (and cooling quickly).

That temperature is VERY hot - hotter than any theorized early earth environment when life began on earth. This is just another example of different amino acids prefering different environments for synthesis. Table 3-4 only lists acidic amino acids, not basic (i.e. acid vs base/alkaline) amino acids.

The source of the chart:

From K. Harada and S. Fox, 1964. Nature 201, 335.

The chart notes amino acids used in proteins; the highest proportions are Glycine and Alanine - similar to Miller's results. The top 8 by proportion are:

Glycine - 60.3%
Alanine - 18.0%
Glutamic acid - 4.8%
Aspartic acid - 3.4
Leucine - 2.4
Proline - 2.3
Valine - 2.3
Serine - 2.0

However, these results are disputed. Boynton & Lawless used the same environment and came up with totally different chemical reaction product proportions - see table 3-5 on page 28.

That chart if from:

From Lawless and Boynton, 1973. Nature 243, 450

They only found 3 amino acids used in proteins and the primary amino acid produced was beta-alanine (90% at 1060 degrees C) which is not found in proteins. Alanine, not beta-alanine is found in proteins. The chart also shows a distinct change in proporitions with lower hot temperature.

At 1060 C (with quartz sand catalyst) 90% was beta-alanine and only 1% for Alanine and Glycine. Aspartic acid was 3%.

At 980 C Glycine was the primary product - 59%, followed by 28% beta-alanine and 12% alanine.

At 930 C Glycine was 96% and Alanine was 4%.

Again, note how temperature changes the chemical reaction product proportions.

Thaxton et al report Fox's later conclusion that temperatures below 120 C are the most plausible for some amino acids - reference 20:

S.W. Fox, 1976. J. Mol. Evol. 8, 30.

Bottom line - as I posted repeatedly - some amino acids prefer hot, others cold, some acid others alkaline, some wet others dry. You can't have all these environments at the same place at the same time without an intelligent chemist.

Note my subsequent posts about early earth's environment when Genesis 1:2 applies.

Continuing with the evidence from chemistry and specifically origin of life synthesis experiments such as those by Miller-Urey, Fox & Harada, Lawless and Boynton - note that they all presume an atmosphere of Methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) which the evidence of earth's crustal carbonates disproves - from:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

Continuing from table 3-5 from page 28 -

"One important variation of thermal syntheses has been the Fischer-Tropsch type technique.21 In a typical synthesis, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and ammonia flow through a vycor tube filled with metal or clay catalysts. When heated to 500-700°C for about 1.2 min., the residence time in the tube, they react to yield a variety of amino acids. The usual Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is used industrially to make hydrocarbons from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Another version, a "no-flow" or static synthesis, consist of simply heating the gases in a vycor flask at 200-1000°C for 15-16 min., followed by sustained heating at lower temperatures (50-100°C. 15183 hrs.). Proteinous amino acids definitely confirmed* in Fischer-Tropsch type syntheses include glycine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, tyrosine, lysine, histidine, and arginine."

See the footnote on the means of confirming identification of the specific amino acids - much improved since 1970.

Reference 21 - D. Yoshino, R. Hayatsu, and E. Anders, 1971. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 35, 927; R. Hayatsu, M.H. Studier, and E. Anders, 1971. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 35, 939; E. Anders, R. Hayatsu, and M.H. Studier, 1973. Science 182,781.

Note, Thaxton et al fail to give the product proportion, but it seems like they in order from the most predominant (Glycine and Alanine) to the trace proportions tyrosine, etc.

See:

Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life

A number of theories propose that RNA, or an RNA-like substance, played a role in the origin of life. Usually, such hypotheses presume that the Watson–Crick bases were readily available on prebiotic Earth, for spontaneous incorporation into a replicator. Cytosine, however, has not been reported...

www.pnas.org

First discussing the lack of t)he amino acid Cytosine in meteorites and spark discharge experiments (like Miller-Urey) this PNAS article proposes "cyanoacetylene and its hydrolysis product, cyanoacetaldehyde" as likely starter molecules for the synthesis of Cytosine. It is then observed that the highest product proportion of Cytosine was at 30 degrees C, ph of 11+ (alkaline - neutral is ph 7, <ph 7 is acid). Then an alternate synthesis scenario providing 6% Cytosine is given with 100 degrees C, and a low concentration of Cyanoacetylene [C3HN] and cyanate [CNO]: "the stoichiometry [ratio of reactant compounds] requires two cyanates per cyanoacetylene."

[This again shows the need for different environments for the synthesis of different amino acids: hot vs. cold; wet vs. dry; acid vs. alkaline which do not occur naturally in the same place & same time.]

The PNAS article goes on:

"Questions arise, however, concerning the availability of the reactants on early Earth. Cyanoacetylene can be produced in a spark discharge in a CH4/N2 mixture as the second most prevalent product (up to a maximum of 8.4% of the principal product, HCN) (23, 24). This mixture, which introduces carbon in reduced form but excludes ammonia and water, is an unlikely candidate for Earth’s atmosphere at the time of the origin of life. That atmosphere was “… probably dominated by CO2 and N2, with traces of CO, H2, and reduced sulfur gases”, unless a volcanic source of methane and ammonia was present (25). By contrast, when ammonia (24) or hydrogen sulfide (26) are included in spark discharge experiments, little cyanoacetylene is produced. The aspartic acid and asparagine that are formed under those conditions arise to some extent from the reaction of cyanoacetylene with HCN and ammonia (27)."

Do you all see the need yet for an intelligent chemist to synthesize and select the 20 amino acids used in proteins? I.e. the need for specific different environments which do not exist at the same time and place naturally.

to be continued

Nothing in the above requires the need for an intelligent, supernatural chemist.

 

[Newtonian]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

Where's the water? Its still here! What you are missing is early earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature when Genesis 1:2 was occurring. Not to mention what God's spirit was doing going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure. The boiling point of water is much higher under great pressure.

The amount of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates is over 64 million petagrams as Britannica has stated. That is roughly the same amount as the carbon in Venus' atmosphere - what is the air pressure on the surface of Venus?

Remember, earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which removes CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere as CO3 (carbonate) ions and combines it with Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) ions to form carbonates.

See:

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...

www.britannica.com

I will post more on this in my next post.

I missed the parts where Genesis provides a description of the earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature.

Could you elaborate on God's spirit going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure?

BTW, Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle you described.

Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began. I did elaborate concerning what I think Genesis 1:2 is referring to.

So, what do you believe early earth's atmospheric content was? And how do you think earth accreted its water?

If Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began, how many water cycles are there? Where in the Bible are we given a description of evapotranspiration?

The problems with Biblical cosmology are profound. In several places in the Bible, the sky is referred to as a vault, with the stars stuck on it. Genesis 1 refers to water above this vault (an idea no doubt borrowed from the Babylonian cosmology, which pictured the Earth as a flat disk inside a cosmic bubble in a cosmic sea). The Bible says little about the shape of the Earth, referring in one place to the "circle" of the Earth (a disk shape), and in another place to the "four corners" of the Earth (a rectangular surface shape). In one of the Gospels, the Devil tempted Jesus by taking him up a mountain where he could see "all the kingdoms of the world" (no further info on this remarkable mountain). This would only be possible if the Earth was flat.

Inaccurate post - e.g. "vault?" Satan gave Jesus a vision. What are the definitions of Hebrew chuwg in Isaiah 40:22?

The current water cycle is stated simply here:

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the winter torrents+ are going forth to the sea,+ yet the sea itself is not full.+ To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.+

See:

Creation Says, “They Are Inexcusable” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

You haven't studied your Bible'ology.
Genesis 1:6-8 6And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." 7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

Genesis 1:20 20And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."

Ecclesiastes 1:7 says that water returns to the source of streams; it does not say how. It was once believed that the water returned underground.

We're still left with nothing in the Bible describing the water cycle (evapotranspiration). The water going to sea describes rivers. Nothing really godly about water flowing downstream. Evapotranspiration is the process of evaporation, condensation in the atmosphere, cooling and rainfall. Ecclesiastes 1:7 tells us nothing of that.

Job 38:22 says that snow and hail are kept in storehouses.

Yes, there are incorrect Bible translations like "vault."

Genesis 1:20 (NW ref)
And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls*+ and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.”+

The expanse where the birds fly is the atmosphere.

(ERV) Then God said, "Let the water be filled with many living things, and let there be birds to fly in the air over the earth."
(GNB) Then God commanded, "Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings, and let the air be filled with birds."
(GW) Then God said, "Let the water swarm with swimming creatures, and let birds fly through the sky over the earth."
(ISV) Then God said, "Let the oceans swarm with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth throughout the sky!"

See our Bible dictionary under "expanse" here:

Expanse — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

And they knew back then that the streams/winter torrents were from rain from clouds. What Solomon revealed (wisdom from Jehovah) is that the sea was the source of the water in clouds - the actual water cycle.

 

[Newtonian]

Well, obviously thermodynamics are involved in Miller type experiments but using heat as the energy source instead of lightning/spark discharge. The chart on table 3-4 on page 27 gives the chemical reaction product proportions from experiments done by Harada and Fox using a simulated atmosphere of CH4 (methane), ammonia (NH3) and water (H2O) and heating to 950 degrees Centigrade using a quartz sand catalyst (and cooling quickly).

That temperature is VERY hot - hotter than any theorized early earth environment when life began on earth. This is just another example of different amino acids prefering different environments for synthesis. Table 3-4 only lists acidic amino acids, not basic (i.e. acid vs base/alkaline) amino acids.

The source of the chart:

From K. Harada and S. Fox, 1964. Nature 201, 335.

The chart notes amino acids used in proteins; the highest proportions are Glycine and Alanine - similar to Miller's results. The top 8 by proportion are:

Glycine - 60.3%
Alanine - 18.0%
Glutamic acid - 4.8%
Aspartic acid - 3.4
Leucine - 2.4
Proline - 2.3
Valine - 2.3
Serine - 2.0

However, these results are disputed. Boynton & Lawless used the same environment and came up with totally different chemical reaction product proportions - see table 3-5 on page 28.

That chart if from:

From Lawless and Boynton, 1973. Nature 243, 450

They only found 3 amino acids used in proteins and the primary amino acid produced was beta-alanine (90% at 1060 degrees C) which is not found in proteins. Alanine, not beta-alanine is found in proteins. The chart also shows a distinct change in proporitions with lower hot temperature.

At 1060 C (with quartz sand catalyst) 90% was beta-alanine and only 1% for Alanine and Glycine. Aspartic acid was 3%.

At 980 C Glycine was the primary product - 59%, followed by 28% beta-alanine and 12% alanine.

At 930 C Glycine was 96% and Alanine was 4%.

Again, note how temperature changes the chemical reaction product proportions.

Thaxton et al report Fox's later conclusion that temperatures below 120 C are the most plausible for some amino acids - reference 20:

S.W. Fox, 1976. J. Mol. Evol. 8, 30.

Bottom line - as I posted repeatedly - some amino acids prefer hot, others cold, some acid others alkaline, some wet others dry. You can't have all these environments at the same place at the same time without an intelligent chemist.

Note my subsequent posts about early earth's environment when Genesis 1:2 applies.

Continuing with the evidence from chemistry and specifically origin of life synthesis experiments such as those by Miller-Urey, Fox & Harada, Lawless and Boynton - note that they all presume an atmosphere of Methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) which the evidence of earth's crustal carbonates disproves - from:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

Continuing from table 3-5 from page 28 -

"One important variation of thermal syntheses has been the Fischer-Tropsch type technique.21 In a typical synthesis, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and ammonia flow through a vycor tube filled with metal or clay catalysts. When heated to 500-700°C for about 1.2 min., the residence time in the tube, they react to yield a variety of amino acids. The usual Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is used industrially to make hydrocarbons from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Another version, a "no-flow" or static synthesis, consist of simply heating the gases in a vycor flask at 200-1000°C for 15-16 min., followed by sustained heating at lower temperatures (50-100°C. 15183 hrs.). Proteinous amino acids definitely confirmed* in Fischer-Tropsch type syntheses include glycine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, tyrosine, lysine, histidine, and arginine."

See the footnote on the means of confirming identification of the specific amino acids - much improved since 1970.

Reference 21 - D. Yoshino, R. Hayatsu, and E. Anders, 1971. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 35, 927; R. Hayatsu, M.H. Studier, and E. Anders, 1971. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 35, 939; E. Anders, R. Hayatsu, and M.H. Studier, 1973. Science 182,781.

Note, Thaxton et al fail to give the product proportion, but it seems like they in order from the most predominant (Glycine and Alanine) to the trace proportions tyrosine, etc.

See:

Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life

A number of theories propose that RNA, or an RNA-like substance, played a role in the origin of life. Usually, such hypotheses presume that the Watson–Crick bases were readily available on prebiotic Earth, for spontaneous incorporation into a replicator. Cytosine, however, has not been reported...

www.pnas.org

First discussing the lack of t)he amino acid Cytosine in meteorites and spark discharge experiments (like Miller-Urey) this PNAS article proposes "cyanoacetylene and its hydrolysis product, cyanoacetaldehyde" as likely starter molecules for the synthesis of Cytosine. It is then observed that the highest product proportion of Cytosine was at 30 degrees C, ph of 11+ (alkaline - neutral is ph 7, <ph 7 is acid). Then an alternate synthesis scenario providing 6% Cytosine is given with 100 degrees C, and a low concentration of Cyanoacetylene [C3HN] and cyanate [CNO]: "the stoichiometry [ratio of reactant compounds] requires two cyanates per cyanoacetylene."

[This again shows the need for different environments for the synthesis of different amino acids: hot vs. cold; wet vs. dry; acid vs. alkaline which do not occur naturally in the same place & same time.]

The PNAS article goes on:

"Questions arise, however, concerning the availability of the reactants on early Earth. Cyanoacetylene can be produced in a spark discharge in a CH4/N2 mixture as the second most prevalent product (up to a maximum of 8.4% of the principal product, HCN) (23, 24). This mixture, which introduces carbon in reduced form but excludes ammonia and water, is an unlikely candidate for Earth’s atmosphere at the time of the origin of life. That atmosphere was “… probably dominated by CO2 and N2, with traces of CO, H2, and reduced sulfur gases”, unless a volcanic source of methane and ammonia was present (25). By contrast, when ammonia (24) or hydrogen sulfide (26) are included in spark discharge experiments, little cyanoacetylene is produced. The aspartic acid and asparagine that are formed under those conditions arise to some extent from the reaction of cyanoacetylene with HCN and ammonia (27)."

Do you all see the need yet for an intelligent chemist to synthesize and select the 20 amino acids used in proteins? I.e. the need for specific different environments which do not exist at the same time and place naturally.

to be continued

Nothing in the above requires the need for an intelligent, supernatural chemist.

OK, show us how these different environments can exist in the same place and the same time without an intelligent chemist. And, btw, you introduced the term "supernatural" not me.

Show us how extreme alkaline environment (ph 11+ in the PNAS synthesis scenario for Cytosine synthesis) can exist at the same time and place as an acid environment. Ditto hot vs cold; dry vs. wet.

 

[Hollie]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

Where's the water? Its still here! What you are missing is early earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature when Genesis 1:2 was occurring. Not to mention what God's spirit was doing going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure. The boiling point of water is much higher under great pressure.

The amount of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates is over 64 million petagrams as Britannica has stated. That is roughly the same amount as the carbon in Venus' atmosphere - what is the air pressure on the surface of Venus?

Remember, earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which removes CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere as CO3 (carbonate) ions and combines it with Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) ions to form carbonates.

See:

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...

www.britannica.com

I will post more on this in my next post.

I missed the parts where Genesis provides a description of the earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature.

Could you elaborate on God's spirit going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure?

BTW, Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle you described.

Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began. I did elaborate concerning what I think Genesis 1:2 is referring to.

So, what do you believe early earth's atmospheric content was? And how do you think earth accreted its water?

If Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began, how many water cycles are there? Where in the Bible are we given a description of evapotranspiration?

The problems with Biblical cosmology are profound. In several places in the Bible, the sky is referred to as a vault, with the stars stuck on it. Genesis 1 refers to water above this vault (an idea no doubt borrowed from the Babylonian cosmology, which pictured the Earth as a flat disk inside a cosmic bubble in a cosmic sea). The Bible says little about the shape of the Earth, referring in one place to the "circle" of the Earth (a disk shape), and in another place to the "four corners" of the Earth (a rectangular surface shape). In one of the Gospels, the Devil tempted Jesus by taking him up a mountain where he could see "all the kingdoms of the world" (no further info on this remarkable mountain). This would only be possible if the Earth was flat.

Inaccurate post - e.g. "vault?" Satan gave Jesus a vision. What are the definitions of Hebrew chuwg in Isaiah 40:22?

The current water cycle is stated simply here:

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the winter torrents+ are going forth to the sea,+ yet the sea itself is not full.+ To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.+

See:

Creation Says, “They Are Inexcusable” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

You haven't studied your Bible'ology.
Genesis 1:6-8 6And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." 7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

Genesis 1:20 20And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."

Ecclesiastes 1:7 says that water returns to the source of streams; it does not say how. It was once believed that the water returned underground.

We're still left with nothing in the Bible describing the water cycle (evapotranspiration). The water going to sea describes rivers. Nothing really godly about water flowing downstream. Evapotranspiration is the process of evaporation, condensation in the atmosphere, cooling and rainfall. Ecclesiastes 1:7 tells us nothing of that.

Job 38:22 says that snow and hail are kept in storehouses.

Yes, there are incorrect Bible translations like "vault."

Genesis 1:20 (NW ref)
And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls*+ and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.”+

The expanse where the birds fly is the atmosphere.

(ERV) Then God said, "Let the water be filled with many living things, and let there be birds to fly in the air over the earth."
(GNB) Then God commanded, "Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings, and let the air be filled with birds."
(GW) Then God said, "Let the water swarm with swimming creatures, and let birds fly through the sky over the earth."
(ISV) Then God said, "Let the oceans swarm with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth throughout the sky!"

See our Bible dictionary under "expanse" here:

Expanse — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

And they knew back then that the streams/winter torrents were from rain from clouds. What Solomon revealed (wisdom from Jehovah) is that the sea was the source of the water in clouds - the actual water cycle.

You’re welcome to play fast and loose with Bible verses but nothing you posted changes the verses I supplied. Further, “Then God said...” is mere speculation. We have no evidence of any supernatural entity saying anything.

Why do you think the gods would allow such confusion?

 

[Hollie]

Well, obviously thermodynamics are involved in Miller type experiments but using heat as the energy source instead of lightning/spark discharge. The chart on table 3-4 on page 27 gives the chemical reaction product proportions from experiments done by Harada and Fox using a simulated atmosphere of CH4 (methane), ammonia (NH3) and water (H2O) and heating to 950 degrees Centigrade using a quartz sand catalyst (and cooling quickly).

That temperature is VERY hot - hotter than any theorized early earth environment when life began on earth. This is just another example of different amino acids prefering different environments for synthesis. Table 3-4 only lists acidic amino acids, not basic (i.e. acid vs base/alkaline) amino acids.

The source of the chart:

From K. Harada and S. Fox, 1964. Nature 201, 335.

The chart notes amino acids used in proteins; the highest proportions are Glycine and Alanine - similar to Miller's results. The top 8 by proportion are:

Glycine - 60.3%
Alanine - 18.0%
Glutamic acid - 4.8%
Aspartic acid - 3.4
Leucine - 2.4
Proline - 2.3
Valine - 2.3
Serine - 2.0

However, these results are disputed. Boynton & Lawless used the same environment and came up with totally different chemical reaction product proportions - see table 3-5 on page 28.

That chart if from:

From Lawless and Boynton, 1973. Nature 243, 450

They only found 3 amino acids used in proteins and the primary amino acid produced was beta-alanine (90% at 1060 degrees C) which is not found in proteins. Alanine, not beta-alanine is found in proteins. The chart also shows a distinct change in proporitions with lower hot temperature.

At 1060 C (with quartz sand catalyst) 90% was beta-alanine and only 1% for Alanine and Glycine. Aspartic acid was 3%.

At 980 C Glycine was the primary product - 59%, followed by 28% beta-alanine and 12% alanine.

At 930 C Glycine was 96% and Alanine was 4%.

Again, note how temperature changes the chemical reaction product proportions.

Thaxton et al report Fox's later conclusion that temperatures below 120 C are the most plausible for some amino acids - reference 20:

S.W. Fox, 1976. J. Mol. Evol. 8, 30.

Bottom line - as I posted repeatedly - some amino acids prefer hot, others cold, some acid others alkaline, some wet others dry. You can't have all these environments at the same place at the same time without an intelligent chemist.

Note my subsequent posts about early earth's environment when Genesis 1:2 applies.

Continuing with the evidence from chemistry and specifically origin of life synthesis experiments such as those by Miller-Urey, Fox & Harada, Lawless and Boynton - note that they all presume an atmosphere of Methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) which the evidence of earth's crustal carbonates disproves - from:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

Continuing from table 3-5 from page 28 -

"One important variation of thermal syntheses has been the Fischer-Tropsch type technique.21 In a typical synthesis, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and ammonia flow through a vycor tube filled with metal or clay catalysts. When heated to 500-700°C for about 1.2 min., the residence time in the tube, they react to yield a variety of amino acids. The usual Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is used industrially to make hydrocarbons from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Another version, a "no-flow" or static synthesis, consist of simply heating the gases in a vycor flask at 200-1000°C for 15-16 min., followed by sustained heating at lower temperatures (50-100°C. 15183 hrs.). Proteinous amino acids definitely confirmed* in Fischer-Tropsch type syntheses include glycine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, tyrosine, lysine, histidine, and arginine."

See the footnote on the means of confirming identification of the specific amino acids - much improved since 1970.

Reference 21 - D. Yoshino, R. Hayatsu, and E. Anders, 1971. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 35, 927; R. Hayatsu, M.H. Studier, and E. Anders, 1971. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 35, 939; E. Anders, R. Hayatsu, and M.H. Studier, 1973. Science 182,781.

Note, Thaxton et al fail to give the product proportion, but it seems like they in order from the most predominant (Glycine and Alanine) to the trace proportions tyrosine, etc.

See:

Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life

A number of theories propose that RNA, or an RNA-like substance, played a role in the origin of life. Usually, such hypotheses presume that the Watson–Crick bases were readily available on prebiotic Earth, for spontaneous incorporation into a replicator. Cytosine, however, has not been reported...

www.pnas.org

First discussing the lack of t)he amino acid Cytosine in meteorites and spark discharge experiments (like Miller-Urey) this PNAS article proposes "cyanoacetylene and its hydrolysis product, cyanoacetaldehyde" as likely starter molecules for the synthesis of Cytosine. It is then observed that the highest product proportion of Cytosine was at 30 degrees C, ph of 11+ (alkaline - neutral is ph 7, <ph 7 is acid). Then an alternate synthesis scenario providing 6% Cytosine is given with 100 degrees C, and a low concentration of Cyanoacetylene [C3HN] and cyanate [CNO]: "the stoichiometry [ratio of reactant compounds] requires two cyanates per cyanoacetylene."

[This again shows the need for different environments for the synthesis of different amino acids: hot vs. cold; wet vs. dry; acid vs. alkaline which do not occur naturally in the same place & same time.]

The PNAS article goes on:

"Questions arise, however, concerning the availability of the reactants on early Earth. Cyanoacetylene can be produced in a spark discharge in a CH4/N2 mixture as the second most prevalent product (up to a maximum of 8.4% of the principal product, HCN) (23, 24). This mixture, which introduces carbon in reduced form but excludes ammonia and water, is an unlikely candidate for Earth’s atmosphere at the time of the origin of life. That atmosphere was “… probably dominated by CO2 and N2, with traces of CO, H2, and reduced sulfur gases”, unless a volcanic source of methane and ammonia was present (25). By contrast, when ammonia (24) or hydrogen sulfide (26) are included in spark discharge experiments, little cyanoacetylene is produced. The aspartic acid and asparagine that are formed under those conditions arise to some extent from the reaction of cyanoacetylene with HCN and ammonia (27)."

Do you all see the need yet for an intelligent chemist to synthesize and select the 20 amino acids used in proteins? I.e. the need for specific different environments which do not exist at the same time and place naturally.

to be continued

Nothing in the above requires the need for an intelligent, supernatural chemist.

OK, show us how these different environments can exist in the same place and the same time without an intelligent chemist. And, btw, you introduced the term "supernatural" not me.

Show us how extreme alkaline environment (ph 11+ in the PNAS synthesis scenario for Cytosine synthesis) can exist at the same time and place as an acid environment. Ditto hot vs cold; dry vs. wet.

I’m not clear on what environments you’re referencing. Endlessly cutting and pasting material (which you apparently don’t understand), from a creationist with the Disco’tute who has an inherent bias is not making an argument. You’re simply confirming someone’s bias who has a predefined conclusion.

There’s a reason creationists don’t submit for peer review. Can you identify that reason?

 

[BreezeWood]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

In the beginning

God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

.
doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

The Big Bang could not have eventually produced H2O?
Are you retarded?

The Big Bang could not have eventually produced H2O?

.
certainly, within the evolutionary time table - far from the beginning - BB

and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

that water(s) ... where is that indeepedent.

How much time elapsed between the Big Bang and the 1st period of mixture followed by clarity.
Oh, I get it...You don't know Hebrew so you're reading the King James Version.
Look up the Hebrew for the "Mixed Multitude" that left Egypt with the Children of Israel.
You know how to say "Mixed Multitude" in Hebrew?
Of course you don't...Eruv (Mixture) Rav (Multitude).
Guess how to say Evening and Morning in Hebrew?
Erev (mixture) V'Boker (clarity).
Blame the Greeks and Romans for the bad translation.

I also like the fact that you make believe that you believe God can create a universe but can't cool down unbearable heat in an instant.

So tell us, can God create a universe in a moment?

Blame the Greeks and Romans for the bad translation.

the translation of what independent - the religion of antiquity is but a few words in length - that is all there is - to the religion - believe your story all you want where really has it gotten you.

- no doubt however long it took the moment for creation was spontaneous.

500 words that you don't know.
For a religion of antiquity, we Jews built a little US in a rather hostile region in 72 years.
Not bad for backwards people, huh?

500 words that you don't know.

the religion of antiquity is six words long - the triumph of good vs evil - precribed by the Almighty in no uncertain terms - - spoken in any language will remain the same - you have abandoned that religion for your idolatrous books. idols.

Is that the secular humanist’s anthem?

the religion of antiquity is six words long - the triumph of good vs evil - precribed by the Almighty in no uncertain terms - - spoken in any language will remain the same - you have abandoned that religion for your idolatrous books. idols.

Is that the secular humanist’s anthem?

.
is there anything about the religion of antiquity that includes a messiah, sinner.

your obsession with socialism is unhealthy.

Then God said: “Let there be an expanse+ between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.”+ 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse.+ And it was so.

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

Did you notice at the end of Devarim that God told Moshe he was correct for smashing the Tablets?
The Tablets were never meant for fallible humans.

.
then why are they in your book - moses is a liar - from the beginning to the end. you also have no idea what they were and have substituted your own - obviously where your religion abandoned the true religion for your own.

 

[Indeependent]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

Where's the water? Its still here! What you are missing is early earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature when Genesis 1:2 was occurring. Not to mention what God's spirit was doing going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure. The boiling point of water is much higher under great pressure.

The amount of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates is over 64 million petagrams as Britannica has stated. That is roughly the same amount as the carbon in Venus' atmosphere - what is the air pressure on the surface of Venus?

Remember, earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which removes CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere as CO3 (carbonate) ions and combines it with Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) ions to form carbonates.

See:

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...

www.britannica.com

I will post more on this in my next post.

I missed the parts where Genesis provides a description of the earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature.

Could you elaborate on God's spirit going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure?

BTW, Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle you described.

Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began. I did elaborate concerning what I think Genesis 1:2 is referring to.

So, what do you believe early earth's atmospheric content was? And how do you think earth accreted its water?

If Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began, how many water cycles are there? Where in the Bible are we given a description of evapotranspiration?

The problems with Biblical cosmology are profound. In several places in the Bible, the sky is referred to as a vault, with the stars stuck on it. Genesis 1 refers to water above this vault (an idea no doubt borrowed from the Babylonian cosmology, which pictured the Earth as a flat disk inside a cosmic bubble in a cosmic sea). The Bible says little about the shape of the Earth, referring in one place to the "circle" of the Earth (a disk shape), and in another place to the "four corners" of the Earth (a rectangular surface shape). In one of the Gospels, the Devil tempted Jesus by taking him up a mountain where he could see "all the kingdoms of the world" (no further info on this remarkable mountain). This would only be possible if the Earth was flat.

Inaccurate post - e.g. "vault?" Satan gave Jesus a vision. What are the definitions of Hebrew chuwg in Isaiah 40:22?

The current water cycle is stated simply here:

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the winter torrents+ are going forth to the sea,+ yet the sea itself is not full.+ To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.+

See:

Creation Says, “They Are Inexcusable” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

You haven't studied your Bible'ology.
Genesis 1:6-8 6And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." 7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

Genesis 1:20 20And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."

Ecclesiastes 1:7 says that water returns to the source of streams; it does not say how. It was once believed that the water returned underground.

We're still left with nothing in the Bible describing the water cycle (evapotranspiration). The water going to sea describes rivers. Nothing really godly about water flowing downstream. Evapotranspiration is the process of evaporation, condensation in the atmosphere, cooling and rainfall. Ecclesiastes 1:7 tells us nothing of that.

Job 38:22 says that snow and hail are kept in storehouses.

"Riv" means vault?
You better switch dictionaries.
"Riv" is a separation that does not necessarily indicate a complete separation.

 

[Indeependent]

Hollie - If you insist Hebrew chuwg is only 2 dimensions (circle) in Isaiah 40:22, note the same Hebrew word in Job 26:10

He has described a circle upon the face of the waters,+
To where light ends in darkness.

The fact that the terminator is a circle is proof earth is a sphere - the definition of chuwg in 3 dimensions.

Actually, the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras was among the first to propose the sphericity of the Earth in the 6th century BC, (<---- before the invention of Christianity), using among his proofs how the sail of a ship could be observed to disappear over the curvature of the Earth.

The concept of a sphere is necessary to separate areas for Yom Tov and Shabbos.
The Talmud discusses that fact that's it obvious the earth is globe because sunrise and sunset vary within a half mile of each other.
Even in Egypt, Moshe told Pharoah that the plague of the Death of the Firstborn would occur k'chatzos (approx at midnight) because midnight varies within a half hour depending on where you are.

 

[Hollie]

Genesis 1

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

Say what???

Job 26:7 is really remarkable because most people believed earth was supported by something while the verse says Earth is hung upon nothing in empty space.

An example is the beliefs about Atlas (not Rand McNally's) - that Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas:

The Bible—A Reliable Source of Truth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"About 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) This differed greatly from the myths that described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only three hundred years ago, in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!"

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"How the earth is suspended

The Bible describes the earth as suspended “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There is no mention of our planet resting on the shoulders of a giant or on the backs of elephants that stand on a turtle, as some popular myths of ancient times had it. Rather, the Bible leaves the door open to scientific discovery. In time, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler described how the planets move around the sun driven by an invisible force. Isaac Newton later showed how gravitation governs the movement of all objects in space."

Ummmm, lets be honest, here. The Bible is not 3,500 years old. Job is a part of Hebrew scripture, the Tanakh, which was stolen by Christianity and made a part of the Christian Bible.

The Bible contains 66 books (depending on how they are counted) with different writers and different dates of writing spanning about 1600 years. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible - written by Moses about the same time as the written Torah/Pentateuch about 1513 BCE.

Why do you say the Hebrew Scriptures were stolen by Christianity? Jesus was a Jew and the only Bible he quoted was the Hebrew Scriptures - he did not steal the Hebrew Scriptures!

Tanach was kidnapped and raped by the early self-hating Jews.
Take a year or two to read the Torah and this will be obvious.
But you won't.

See my thread on Genesis - we are going pretty slow. When I joined our ministry school in 1958 we were on the book of Job. We have read and studied the entire Bible in our assigned Bible reading many times since then - this time we are actually going quite slowly.

Btw - no one ever graduates that school - we just keep learning!

Can you document what you are referring to?

The document is there...it's called the verses.

Tanach is impossible to read without going to the yeshiva called Gemara.
The English translations are purposefully horrendous...
No Jew from the moment of the completion of the Septuagint could read it and believe for a second that it was faithful because each verse can be read in an overwhelming number of ways and the Genesis 1:1 is completely wrong.

The closet you will get is from the Pritzger Edition Zohar available from Amazon.
When I first read it many years ago I thought I got ripped off.
Then I started learning Hebrew and realized the Artscroll is sort of a joke...to much catering to the King James Crowd.

Genesis 1:1 is accurate scientifically - the universe had a beginning contrary to what Aristotle taught and many believed for centuries.

You don't need any other book to read the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew, or in any good Hebrew-English interlinear.

It's a mistake to suggest that there is anything scientifically accurate about Genesis. A common mistake of religionists is to presume their holy texts are science journals.

Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, disagrees with you.

He told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly.

.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

.
the jew the christian and jehova witness - who's kidding who.

primordial Earth ...

View attachment 333006

10 billion years after "the beginning" - other than the book of forgeries, where's the water -

what water, howabout it newtonian ... is it "holy water".

Thank you for the research ding! .

doesn't take a whole lot to make some people happy or slightly intoxicated, the coincidental in depth research by - bing.

Where's the water? Its still here! What you are missing is early earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature when Genesis 1:2 was occurring. Not to mention what God's spirit was doing going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure. The boiling point of water is much higher under great pressure.

The amount of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates is over 64 million petagrams as Britannica has stated. That is roughly the same amount as the carbon in Venus' atmosphere - what is the air pressure on the surface of Venus?

Remember, earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which removes CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere as CO3 (carbonate) ions and combines it with Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Calcium (Ca) ions to form carbonates.

See:

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle

Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...

www.britannica.com

I will post more on this in my next post.

I missed the parts where Genesis provides a description of the earth's atmosphere and a more precise estimate of early earth's temperature.

Could you elaborate on God's spirit going to and fro over earth's hot primordial waters in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure?

BTW, Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle you described.

Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began. I did elaborate concerning what I think Genesis 1:2 is referring to.

So, what do you believe early earth's atmospheric content was? And how do you think earth accreted its water?

If Genesis 2:5,6 is way before the current water cycle began, how many water cycles are there? Where in the Bible are we given a description of evapotranspiration?

The problems with Biblical cosmology are profound. In several places in the Bible, the sky is referred to as a vault, with the stars stuck on it. Genesis 1 refers to water above this vault (an idea no doubt borrowed from the Babylonian cosmology, which pictured the Earth as a flat disk inside a cosmic bubble in a cosmic sea). The Bible says little about the shape of the Earth, referring in one place to the "circle" of the Earth (a disk shape), and in another place to the "four corners" of the Earth (a rectangular surface shape). In one of the Gospels, the Devil tempted Jesus by taking him up a mountain where he could see "all the kingdoms of the world" (no further info on this remarkable mountain). This would only be possible if the Earth was flat.

Inaccurate post - e.g. "vault?" Satan gave Jesus a vision. What are the definitions of Hebrew chuwg in Isaiah 40:22?

The current water cycle is stated simply here:

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the winter torrents+ are going forth to the sea,+ yet the sea itself is not full.+ To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.+

See:

Creation Says, “They Are Inexcusable” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

You haven't studied your Bible'ology.
Genesis 1:6-8 6And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." 7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

Genesis 1:20 20And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."

Ecclesiastes 1:7 says that water returns to the source of streams; it does not say how. It was once believed that the water returned underground.

We're still left with nothing in the Bible describing the water cycle (evapotranspiration). The water going to sea describes rivers. Nothing really godly about water flowing downstream. Evapotranspiration is the process of evaporation, condensation in the atmosphere, cooling and rainfall. Ecclesiastes 1:7 tells us nothing of that.

Job 38:22 says that snow and hail are kept in storehouses.

"Riv" means vault?
You better switch dictionaries.
"Riv" is a separation that does not necessarily indicate a complete separation.

I’m not clear you understand what you’re replying to.