Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Alan]

IIRC, there was no visible light associated with the initial expansion, it was hundreds of thousands of years later the the first light illuminated the universe?

Yes, it's called the Era of Recombination, 240-300 thousand years after the initial expansion, still, that is a minute amount of time compared to the age of our universe.

[Carey]

Yes, it's called the Era of Recombination, 240-300 thousand years after the initial expansion, still, that is a minute amount of time compared to the age of our universe.

Not if it is only ten thousand years old. 

[AVZ]

Yes, it's called the Era of Recombination, 240-300 thousand years after the initial expansion, still, that is a minute amount of time compared to the age of our universe.

Still, light was not the first thing in the Big Bang.
Comparatively long or short time is not relevant. If something else was before light, then light could not have been first.

[Alan]

Not if it is only ten thousand years old. 

Yep 

[The Barbarian]

IIRC, there was no visible light associated with the initial expansion, it was hundreds of thousands of years later the the first light illuminated the universe?

The "Photon Epoch"  in which there was only light, lasted from about 10 seconds after the initial expansion to about 370,000 years, when it all cooled sufficiently for matter to condense out of the light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_epoch

Would God have been O.K. with a ten-second delay?   I don't see why not.

[The Barbarian]

Not only that, but Barbarian is also making a false claim.
The first thing that existed in the Big Bang was not light, but a singularity that could not have been but yet was, and which could not have "exploded" yet did.

It wasn't an explosion.   "Big bang" is a figure of speech, invented by a critic of the theory.   It was an expansion, not an explosion.

Light was not the first thing that "banged" into existence, space was.
Light came later.

About ten seconds after the initial expansion. 

But it was the first thing in the universe, as it formed.

[AVZ]

The "Photon Epoch"  in which there was only light, lasted from about 10 seconds after the initial expansion to about 370,000 years, when it all cooled sufficiently for matter to condense out of the light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_epoch

Would God have been O.K. with a ten-second delay?   I don't see why not.

Still not the first thing, now was it?
Besides, the photons were made of gamma rays and the universe was not transparent: still no light.

[AVZ]

About ten seconds after the initial expansion. 

If it came AFTER something then it couldn't be the first thing.

[4WD]

What is light?  Technically it is simply a very narrow range of frequency of electromagnetic energy.  And it may well be that the initial energy of the big bang may have been some extremely dense form of electromagnetic energy.  But no matter, it seems apparent that whatever the specific form or the initial energy of the big bang, God called it light.  There was no Hebrew word for electromagnetic energy or for whatever was the form of the energy initially.  Light is as good a description of that energy as any for the Hebrew in Moses' day and for most people today.

[Alan]

When a Black Hole engulfs light, is it still considered light? 

[Ginger Rella]

IIRC, there was no visible light associated with the initial expansion, it was hundreds of thousands of years later the the first light illuminated the universe?

Please prove to me light was hundreds to thousands of years after what you call the initial expansion.

BTW , perhaps I missed it.... will you explain to me if there was an initial expansion.... from what did it expand?

[Ginger Rella]

It wasn't an explosion.   "Big bang" is a figure of speech, invented by a critic of the theory.   It was an expansion, not an explosion.

About ten seconds after the initial expansion. 

But it was the first thing in the universe, as it formed.

You too Barbarian....

From what was there an expansion?

And where did that "what" originate and how?

[Amo]

Yes, it's called the Era of Recombination, 240-300 thousand years after the initial expansion, still, that is a minute amount of time compared to the age of our universe.

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, 10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? 12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; 13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? 14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. 15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken. 16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? 17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? 18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all. 19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, 20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof? 21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great? 22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, 23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? 24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? 25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; 26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; 27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth? 28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? 29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? 30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. 31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? 32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? 33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? 34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee? 35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are? 36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart? 37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven, 38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together? 39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions, 40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait? 41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat................................

40:1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said, 2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it. 3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said, 4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. 5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further. 6 Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. 8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? 9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him? 10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty. 11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him. 12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place. 13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret. 14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

Poor Job. If only you were there Alan, you and your evolutionist scientists, you could have answered God, couldn't you? You weren't there, but you know don't you? Oh yea, you know what happened thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions, and billions of years ago don't you? If Job was vile in his own eyes for presuming to know and understand things beyond him, what are you and yours? Proud, puffed up scientists spouting off things they cannot possibly know concerning ions of times past, let alone yesterday, as fact because they said so.

2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Why do you deny the power of God revealed by His servants in the creation of this world, yet still hold to a form of godliness? Your pride in your own understanding undermines exactly who and what scripture says God is.

Rom 1:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.


Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[Texas Conservative]

When a Black Hole engulfs light, is it still considered light? 

Yes, as the singularity opens to fluidic space.

[The Barbarian]

You too Barbarian....

From what was there an expansion?

The singularity.

And where did that "what" originate and how?

Science can't say.   We can only say what happened at the beginning, not what happened before.

If you ever read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis, there's a passage wherein he writes that the witch knows the magic at the beginning, but not the deep magic before the beginning.   That's only known to God. 

He wrote a children's book, but there are profound truths in it.

[Alan]

Poor Job. If only you were there Alan, you and your evolutionist scientists, you could have answered God, couldn't you? You weren't there, but you know don't you? Oh yea, you know what happened thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions, and billions of years ago don't you? If Job was vile in his own eyes for presuming to know and understand things beyond him, what are you and yours? Proud, puffed up scientists spouting off things they cannot possibly know concerning ions of times past, let alone yesterday, as fact because they said so.

You weren't there either, nor was the author of Genesis. The undeniable fact lies in the evidence which most definitely makes your interpretation incorrect.

Carry on with your puffed up religious spirit, spouting off things that you can't possibly know for certain. 

[Alan]

You too Barbarian....

From what was there an expansion?

And where did that "what" originate and how?

I would say that the answer is with God, it is the same answer as "what existed before God create the heavens and the earth?" As for what set the expansion into motion? Same answer as before; GOD.

[Amo]

You weren't there either, nor was the author of Genesis. The undeniable fact lies in the evidence which most definitely makes your interpretation incorrect.

Carry on with your puffed up religious spirit, spouting off things that you can't possibly know for certain. 

I'm not the one claiming I do know for certain. My faith is in the account given in scripture. Your's is in the account given by fallen humanity. The former claims to be the testimony God given to His servants for us, the latter is built upon the testimony of fallen humanity, a large majority of whom do not even believe in God.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

[Alan]

I'm not the one claiming I do know for certain. My faith is in the account given in scripture. Your's is in the account given by fallen humanity. The former claims to be the testimony God given to His servants for us, the latter is built upon the testimony of fallen humanity, a large majority of whom do not even believe in God.

Again, you just don't understand the scriptures.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Yep, but nowhere does it say that we should see Amo for clarification.

Stepping outside of this discussion, you are a minority with your Sabbath and denominational beliefs. Do you honestly think that everyone outside of your views are fallen?

[Amo]

Again, you just don't understand the scriptures.


Yep, but nowhere does it say that we should see Amo for clarification.

Stepping outside of this discussion, you are a minority with your Sabbath and denominational beliefs. Do you honestly think that everyone outside of your views are fallen?

You know where the minority argument leads according to scripture don't you? It certainly doesn't support the notion that following the majority is a safe course of action.

I'm not the one between us that cannot explain what the scriptures mean regarding what I believe, you are. The creation account means pretty much just what it plainly states. OK, your turn now. What does the creation account mean, and why was it given to us the way it was? Thank you.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=gw9akeGPVgc

A good one addressing where all the evidence really points.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE

Another good one.

[AVZ]

When a Black Hole engulfs light, is it still considered light? 

Lets stick to the comparison brought forth by Barbarian.
Clearly the light described in Genesis is visible light. God called the light day, and the dark night.

But it is funny to see how quick you guys appeal to a pure materialistic description of light.
Like: well, it could just have been electromagnetic rays, or maybe is was light that wasn't visible, or well even if it wasn't first...it was close enough etc.

Yet, when creationists point out that God created light on the first day, you are quick to note that that's ridiculous because the sun wasn't created yet.

Obviously you guys are willing to embrace any proposition, except the one in Genesis.

[4WD]

From what was there an expansion?

From nothing.

And where did that "what" originate and how?

God

[4WD]

Lets stick to the comparison brought forth by Barbarian.
Clearly the light described in Genesis is visible light. God called the light day, and the dark night.

But it is funny to see how quick you guys appeal to a pure materialistic description of light.
Like: well, it could just have been electromagnetic rays, or maybe is was light that wasn't visible, or well even if it wasn't first...it was close enough etc.

Yet, when creationists point out that God created light on the first day, you are quick to note that that's ridiculous because the sun wasn't created yet.

Obviously you guys are willing to embrace any proposition, except the one in Genesis.

What is funny is how quick you are to accept the metaphoric reference to light before there is a sun, moon or stars as a source for light, but demand that a metaphoric reference to day is absolutely wrong. 

The fact is, both God and the Bible established that there was light on the first day.  It is the creationist that has no real answer for it.

It is quite apparent here that you mock the scientific explanation of what happened when you know nothing whatsoever about what the scientific explanation even is.

[The Barbarian]

Lets stick to the comparison brought forth by Barbarian.
Clearly the light described in Genesis is visible light. God called the light day, and the dark night.

But it is funny to see how quick you guys appeal to a pure materialistic description of light.

The YE creationist guidelines: "Genesis is literal, except where we don't want it to be literal."

Like: well, it could just have been electromagnetic rays,

Light is electromagnetic rays.

or maybe is was light that wasn't visible,

So you're saying that light that isn't visible changes night to day?   How so?

or well even if it wasn't first...it was close enough etc.

You think that if the Bible says someone goes at once, it's a lie, if he took ten seconds to do it?  I don't think so.

Yet, when creationists point out that God created light on the first day, you are quick to note that that's ridiculous because the sun wasn't created yet.

No, that's not true.  Christians say that it's absurd to speak of mornings and evenings as literal things before there was a sun to have them.   Obviously you are willing to embrace any proposition, except the one in Genesis.

[Ginger Rella]

The YE creationist guidelines: "Genesis is literal, except where we don't want it to be literal."

Light is electromagnetic rays.

So you're saying that light that isn't visible changes night to day?   How so?

You think that if the Bible says someone goes at once, it's a lie, if he took ten seconds to do it?  I don't think so.

No, that's not true.  Christians say that it's absurd to speak of mornings and evenings as literal things before there was a sun to have them.   Obviously you are willing to embrace any proposition, except the one in Genesis.

Leaving Genesis out of things for the moment. I had assumed that God created light perhaps to be able to see what He was doing?

Nope... cannot leave Gen out of it... sorry.

Gen 1: 1-2

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [a]was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. (I deliberately left off the first day mention)

1. Tells us that earth was without form and God's Spirit was hovering over the face of the waters... ( the dark waters)

3 . Then God said "Let there be light". So He could easily see,

5. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. God always refers to the evening ( dark, and the morning (light) as day whatever.... So he was hovering over the waters in the dark in the evening ad then He created light and it was morning.

That should be as clear as the nose on your face.

HE did not need a sun or moon.... He only wanted light.

We can get a light from a flashlight to see by and there is no need of a sun or moon.

When the sn and the moon entered into the equation was when God was preparing for "life" and knew that "life" would need such as He was designing it that way.... He was setting up a calendar or dorts and guides that man could follow. HE did not need this. We did.

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great [d]lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

[AVZ]

You weren't there either, nor was the author of Genesis. The undeniable fact lies in the evidence which most definitely makes your interpretation incorrect.

Carry on with your puffed up religious spirit, spouting off things that you can't possibly know for certain. 

there is no evidence for a singularity either, so you too don't know for certain.

[AVZ]

The YE creationist guidelines: "Genesis is literal, except where we don't want it to be literal."

Typical instance of the pot calling the kettle
In Genesis 1 God tells us who created the universe, and how He did it.

You have no explanation for the existence if a singularity, so you are fully prepared to take Genesis 1:1-2 as literal truth.
"1 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."

After verse 2 however, you change your position and declare the rest of Genesis metaphorical.
You "accuse" YE Creationists for saying "Genesis is literal, except where we don't want it to be literal.", whilst in fact you do exactly the same.

Why not be a big boy and declare the whole chapter 1 of Genesis metaphorical including verses 1 & 2?

[4WD]

there is no evidence for a singularity either, so you too don't know for certain.

Of course there is.  Perhaps you just don't understand the evidence that exists.

[4WD]

Typical instance of the pot calling the kettle
In Genesis 1 God tells us who created the universe, and how He did it.

No, God doesn't tell us how He did it except in the most general sense.

You have no explanation for the existence if a singularity,

But we do have and explanation for the existence of the singularity;  It is God.

so you are fully prepared to take Genesis 1:1-2 as literal truth.

Actually, I believe that Genesis 2:1-2 is figurative speech from God as is most of the rest of the chapter.

You "accuse" YE Creationists for saying "Genesis is literal, except where we don't want it to be literal.", whilst in fact you do exactly the same.

No, we accept Genesis as literal where it seems appropriate and figurative where that seems appropriate.  That of course is the way the entire Bible is to be understood.

Why not be a big boy and declare the whole chapter 1 of Genesis metaphorical including verses 1 & 2?

Much of the whole of chapter 1 is indeed figurative language.

[Ginger Rella]

Actually, I believe that Genesis 2:1-2 is figurative speech from God as is most of the rest of the chapter.

No, we accept Genesis as literal where it seems appropriate and figurative where that seems appropriate.  That of course is the way the entire Bible is to be understood.Much of the whole of chapter 1 is indeed figurative language.

WOW!

Such dogmatic hypocrisy.

To cherry pick specific scriptures and biblical verses where that seems appropriate.... for what purposes???  Is it if you cannot understand then it cannot be fact?

That of course is the way the entire Bible is to be understood

WOW!

This out of the mouth of one who will argue till the cows come home that every scripture mentioning baptism must, unequivocally,  be regarded as dogmatic fact, when there have been more debates over that topic , then any other, because a lot of people regard that as figurative speech if not just saying ti wass meant for others and not them.

WOW....

I am not a YE person.

I do believe the bible is God's inerrant word even with man messing things up even with God impressing in his mind something that needs recorded.
And that makes them post things that they may not understand, but also could be that God just glossed over it as it really is not needed for us to follow him.

Gen 1:1 specifically can, and does in my opinion , indicate that God was in creation mode long before He decided He wanted life as we know it to exist.

We do not need to know how.

We do not know and cannot know.

Until science creates life that is not test tube or cloned, science is only guessing and the one that sounds the most intelligent, and or likely will be the accepted one.

Unfortunately I have a whole lot more to say on this but I need to go.

Perhaps later.

[4WD]

WOW! You don't really pay much attention to what I write.  But that is OK. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to what you write on this subject.

[Carey]

You weren't there either, nor was the author of Genesis. The undeniable fact lies in the evidence which most definitely makes your interpretation incorrect.

Carry on with your puffed up religious spirit, spouting off things that you can't possibly know for certain. 

I don't know that the author of Genesis wasn't there to observe these events, it certainly reads like a first person observation.  And if God chose to show the author creation over a six day period..... 

[AVZ]

WOW!

Such dogmatic hypocrisy.

To cherry pick specific scriptures and biblical verses where that seems appropriate.... for what purposes???  Is it if you cannot understand then it cannot be fact?

That of course is the way the entire Bible is to be understood

WOW!

This out of the mouth of one who will argue till the cows come home that every scripture mentioning baptism must, unequivocally,  be regarded as dogmatic fact, when there have been more debates over that topic , then any other, because a lot of people regard that as figurative speech if not just saying ti wass meant for others and not them.

WOW....

I am not a YE person.

I do believe the bible is God's inerrant word even with man messing things up even with God impressing in his mind something that needs recorded.
And that makes them post things that they may not understand, but also could be that God just glossed over it as it really is not needed for us to follow him.

Gen 1:1 specifically can, and does in my opinion , indicate that God was in creation mode long before He decided He wanted life as we know it to exist.

We do not need to know how.

We do not know and cannot know.

Until science creates life that is not test tube or cloned, science is only guessing and the one that sounds the most intelligent, and or likely will be the accepted one.

Unfortunately I have a whole lot more to say on this but I need to go.

Perhaps later.

Of course the big dilemma is that if Genesis 1:1-2 are to be taken figuratively, then God Himself should be taken figuratively.
Fill in any entity you desire, the term God is just a figure of speech.