The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Genesis is pritty specific in Chapter two that nothing was growing from the 6 day creation in Chapter 1.

So there were no plants. There were no life, no beasts, and no man. Only the Properties to create life were present.

Chapter 2.

4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis Chapter two.

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

wrong post.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dewts
@cr0naut
God is so inept he has to kill all life on the planet via magic rather kill a "cross species plague" by magic?

The collapse of the cloud canopy is a stage in the Earth's atmospheric development. It's a natural event. Hardly magic.

Citation?

Prior to photosynthesizing life, required to 'fix' Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide into the biosphere, it would have been a CO2 'greenhouse' world. We know this because certain human induced activities are leading to a re-establishment of the greenhouse effect in the same atmosphere (i.e: all the abundances of elements required are there).

A runaway greenhouse effect would raise atmospheric temperatures and cause a permanent cloud canopy which, due to its reflectivity, would prevent further heating and hold the atmosphere at a stable but higher temperature.

The Earth (as a system) would have gradually cooled with the change in atmospheric balance wrought by vegetation, and at some point could no longer support a permanent water cloud canopy. Its collapse could have been quite rapid.

There are numerous papers on the greenhouse effect, don't be lazy.

originally posted by: Dewts

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dewts
@cr0naut
God is so inept he has to kill all life on the planet via magic rather kill a "cross species plague" by magic?

The collapse of the cloud canopy is a stage in the Earth's atmospheric development. It's a natural event. Hardly magic.

Citation?

lol

How eloquent of you. Please read my previous post.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: spy66

a lot of anger in you reply

how a like they are

They are all Yours.

You are to one sighted

cant understand

Youare very well groomed through the School system.

Yes — thanks to the school system, I can understand what I read. And spell properly too.

Yes right....

This is what happeneds when People like you meet People like me. You can suddenly not use Your Scientific knowledge to argue this topic. That is why you dont belong here. You dont have the mind to argue this, so you start to pick on me.

I at least tried to argue this topic without attacking you.

It would appear that this is the modus operandi of certain people.

They run out of steam regarding their argument and then start trying to deconstruct the person that they oppose.

I would take it as a sign that you have won the argument.

a reply to: chr0naut

Prior to photosynthesizing life, required to 'fix' Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide into the biosphere...

You made a very specific claim: 'collapse of the cloud canopy'.

GetHyped asked for a very specific citation: evidence for collapse of this 'cloud canopy'.

Your response fails to provide it; you just waved your hands and tried to pass off what you were saying as 'greenhouse effect'.

GetHyped is not being lazy. You are being disingenuous.

Either provide the citation, or admit that you were making things up. Those are the only two honourable courses open to you.

originally posted by: chr0naut
There are numerous papers on the greenhouse effect, don't be lazy.

We're not talking about whether the greenhouse effect exists. You claimed that specifically during the formation of earth and subsequent life that a cloud canopy collapsed. Where is the evidence of this? Sounds like you are just guessing.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
There are numerous papers on the greenhouse effect, don't be lazy.

We're not talking about whether the greenhouse effect exists. You claimed that specifically during the formation of earth and subsequent life that a cloud canopy collapsed. Where is the evidence of this? Sounds like you are just guessing.

Please let me have some time to put together a reasonable explanation. It has been hard to cite because there is so much irrelevant and unsubstantiated internet commentary on the subject (from both sides). Finding the true science is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I will say, at this early stage, that Carl Sagan's doctoral thesis was a four part dissertation on planetary atmospheres where he clearly explained the link between the greenhouse effect and planetary vapor canopies by reference to planets of the solar system other than the Earth. Particularly, he cited Venus which had similar chemical abundances but its current atmospheric state is the result of a runaway greenhouse effect (and still has its cloud canopy).

Sagan later reinforced his greenhouse hypothesis in part four of the "Cosmos" TV series, the episode titled "Heaven and Hell", where he warned that runaway greenhouse could lead to significant climate change and again cited the atmosphere of Venus as an example.

Neil Degrasse Tyson, in his more recent version of Cosmos, episode 12, titled "Ancient Greenhouse Worlds", reiterated Sagan's idea, also indicating that no later science has refuted his claims.

As proof that a the Earth was stronger greenhouse effect world in the past, I could refer you to the studies of the ancient forests in the Chatham Islands (in the Antarctic region) indicating a more temperate climate in the polar region in the distant past. Led by palaeontologist Associate Professor Jeffrey Stilwell and palaeobotanist Dr Chris Mays of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

That the transition from an extreme greenhouse world of the past to the current one was not a gradual process is indicated by research on arctic ice cores by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, which showed three rapid "pulses" of climate change. While these changes were not coincident with the freezing of the antarctic forest, they do indicate that such atmospheric changes are not gradual processes, but occur when a 'tipping point' in the environment is reached, overcoming the normal regulatory forces, and that they have occurred several times in the past.

When I have adequately located the specific citations, I will respond with a post.

Until then, it would be fair enough to ask that others produce citations that disprove a global cloud canopy in the past.

Citation?

a reply to: chr0naut

I agree 100% with Sagan, but your issue is you are using the term cloud canopy. The canopy as we know it has existed since it was formed, although we see significantly less clouds than we would have in the past.

Here is the wiki breakdown of the atmosphere:

We are in the 3rd Atmosphere

Here is how fungi and plants changed the atmosphere:

Plants changed the atmosphere

For anyone who doesn't understand that our oceans were formed from a thinning of the atmosphere due to a cooling of an early earth are completely unaware of even high school level science. Prior to this phase there would have been no clouds or cloud cover, just one thick atmosphere complete with diffused sunlight.

Source

Again, the earth has had a significantly thicker atmosphere with more atmospheric pressure in the past:

Source

Ronov measured the equivalent of at least 55 bar of CO2 tied up as carbonates around the world (6), whereas Holland estimates that at least 70 bar of CO2 is bound as carbonate materials (7). These carbonates had to come from the atmosphere, by way of the oceans, so we propose that, after the original oxidation of CH4 and CO, Earth’s early atmosphere was at very high pressure, up to 90 bar, and that it consisted primarily of CO2.

A detailed analysis by Hay (6) of the extensive measurements taken from around the world by Ronov and Yareshevsky (10) is summarized in Figure 5. Hay’s analysis shows that today the continents contain at least 2.82 × 106 km3 of limestone, which are the remains of deposits over the past 570 million years that have not been washed to sea or subducted back into Earth’s interior. This is equivalent to a CO2 atmospheric pressure of 38 bar. If we add the carbonates found on the ocean floor, the equivalent CO2 atmospheric pressure rises to 55 bar. Integrating the values plotted in Figure 5 gives the progressive depletion of CO2 from the atmosphere (Figure 6). Thus, CO2 is recycled: 55–70 bar or more is accounted for on the surface of Earth (6, 7), and ~30 bar is in the process of being recycled in the planet’s interior.

t is pertinent to ask whether any experiments have been performed to suggest whether life could thrive at higher CO2 concentrations. Pine and aspen trees grown at the University of Michigan’s biological station at Pellston, were found to respond dramatically to elevated CO2 levels. They grew 30% faster than normal trees at about double the normal CO2 level (700 ppm) (20).

However, to test our speculation we need to see if plants can survive, not at double today’s CO2 concentration, but at thousands of times higher. We put this proposal to the test by growing plants in 32 sealed containers (1- and 2-L plastic soda bottles containing weighed amounts of CO2) at pressures from 2 to 10 bar. These conditions gave CO2 partial pressures 3000–27,000 times greater than normal, or 50–90% CO2.

Of the species tested, Taxodium, Metasequoia, Araucaria, Equisetum, and Sphagnum grew best at these higher pressures; one specimen of Taxodium grew 7 cm over 2 years at 2 bar (50% CO2). In general, however, plant growth was considerably slower than at 1 bar. Mosses, ferns, and flowering plants died within a month at these high CO2 levels.

The poor growth observed in these experiments is most likely due to the buildup of product gases in the sealed containers, rather than high CO2 pressure, and therefore these results could be flawed. We would expect that vigorous growth would be observed in a continually rejuvenated atmosphere. Although present-day plant life is probably not adapted to living at the very different atmospheres and pressures of the past, our preliminary experiments do suggest that a dense CO2 atmosphere could have existed on early Earth without violating any known constraints on the planet’s evolution.

If you think the way the sky looks now is the same it looked 500+M years ago you are extremely uninformed. What do I know though, I only have an advanced degree in Atmospheric Physics...

a reply to: raymundoko

So Earth had a thicker atmosphere that was "significantly" more cloudy in the past and Sagan pointed out the similarities between the starting point of both the Earth and Venus (which has a permanent opaque cloud covering).

But I shouldn't call it a cloud canopy?

I'd also like to point out that I was not referring to the current atmosphere, but I simply said that an early cloud atmosphere (which I called a cloud canopy) was part of Earth's planet formation.

To quote from the Wikipedia article you have just linked to:

"The first atmosphere would have consisted of gases in the solar nebula, primarily hydrogen. In addition, there would probably have been simple hydrides such as those now found in the gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn), notably water vapor, methane and ammonia" (note emphasis has been added by me).

Nothing in your previous post actually refuted anything that I said or cited in my previous post.

a reply to: chr0naut

No, you are correct, I'm saying you won't find sources of a scientific nature when searching using the term cloud canopy. Plant life most probably evolved with no direct sunlight. That doesn't mean darkness, it means diffused light in a significantly higher pressure atmosphere.

a reply to: raymundoko

The biggest problem with that is the timing of everything. The first life capable of photosynthesis emerged 3.4 billion years ago, which is during the SECOND atmosphere not the first and was 4 million years after the bombardment period. Yes, the first life emerged in the late first atmosphere, but the first photosynthesis dependent life emerged after the atmosphere became clear.

Plus it still doesn't rectify the bible's incorrect sequence of events.

Day 1 - big bang (let there be light, etc) this goes from roughly 5 billion to 14 billion years ago
Day 2 - separation of water from dry land. Continents began to form 3 billion years ago.
Day 3 - according to bible seed bearing plants grew on land, but this didn't actually occur until 475m years ago.
Day 4 - creation of sun, moon and stars. Sun is about 4.5 billion years old, moon is 4.1 billion years old. The first stars were 13.8 billion years ago
Day 5 - Birds, fish, and all of sea creatures. Birds emerged 150 million years ago, the first sea life goes back 3.8 billion years, whales go back 40 million years, and fish go back 500 million years.
Day 6 - creation of humans.

So lets try to rectify this timeline because it jumps all over the place.

Day 1 lasts 9 billion years.
Day 2 lasts 2 billion years.
Day 3 goes from 2 billion years ago to 475m, roughly 1.5 billion years
Day 4 jumps back to before Day 2 with the sun and moon being created, and then jumps back even further with the stars despite the events being near 8 billion years apart
Day 5 apparently goes from 475m years ago to 40 million years ago, and jumps back to before Day 2 with sea life... but according to the bible, fish and whales were created at the same time, despite the 430 million year difference between them
Day 6 goes from 2.5 million years ago to 200,000 years ago if you include human ancestors into the equation. So day 6 is 2.3 million years long
Day 7 has lasted just 200,000 years give or take..

And I guess god didn't feel it was necessary to mention dinosaurs.

Not only are the days of biblical creation out of order in comparison to what science tells us, but the time periods are not consistent in the least, nor do they reconcile to when things actually happened. I mean, how much time is a day? It says evening came and went in the bible, so it suggests that they are 6 literal days which we know is impossible. Even if you try to break them up into 6 even time periods, it doesn't work. No matter how you try and reconcile the creation myth with science, you will never be able to do it for these reasons. It's not scientific, nor was it intended to be, so I don't understand the purpose of trying to force cherry picked facts into the creation myth while ignoring such glaring conflicts like the timing of the stars being created and the discrepancy with land plants emerging when life started in the oceans first. That is only the very basics, there are plenty more things that conflict, so let's see if you have the gusto to address these first without additional assumptions, and then maybe we can go into further detail.

a reply to: Barcs

Again your view of when the Sun was actually created is wrong. Sorry you haven't bothered to read the scholars I've linked to.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: raymundoko

The biggest problem with that is the timing of everything. The first life capable of photosynthesis emerged 3.4 billion years ago, which is during the SECOND atmosphere not the first and was 4 million years after the bombardment period. Yes, the first life emerged in the late first atmosphere, but the first photosynthesis dependent life emerged after the atmosphere became clear.

Plus it still doesn't rectify the bible's incorrect sequence of events.

Day 1 - big bang (let there be light, etc) this goes from roughly 5 billion to 14 billion years ago
Day 2 - separation of water from dry land. Continents began to form 3 billion years ago.
Day 3 - according to bible seed bearing plants grew on land, but this didn't actually occur until 475m years ago.
Day 4 - creation of sun, moon and stars. Sun is about 4.5 billion years old, moon is 4.1 billion years old. The first stars were 13.8 billion years ago
Day 5 - Birds, fish, and all of sea creatures. Birds emerged 150 million years ago, the first sea life goes back 3.8 billion years, whales go back 40 million years, and fish go back 500 million years.
Day 6 - creation of humans.

So lets try to rectify this timeline because it jumps all over the place.

Day 1 lasts 9 billion years.
Day 2 lasts 2 billion years.
Day 3 goes from 2 billion years ago to 475m, roughly 1.5 billion years
Day 4 jumps back to before Day 2 with the sun and moon being created, and then jumps back even further with the stars despite the events being near 8 billion years apart
Day 5 apparently goes from 475m years ago to 40 million years ago, and jumps back to before Day 2 with sea life... but according to the bible, fish and whales were created at the same time, despite the 430 million year difference between them
Day 6 goes from 2.5 million years ago to 200,000 years ago if you include human ancestors into the equation. So day 6 is 2.3 million years long
Day 7 has lasted just 200,000 years give or take..

And I guess god didn't feel it was necessary to mention dinosaurs.

Not only are the days of biblical creation out of order in comparison to what science tells us, but the time periods are not consistent in the least, nor do they reconcile to when things actually happened. I mean, how much time is a day? It says evening came and went in the bible, so it suggests that they are 6 literal days which we know is impossible. Even if you try to break them up into 6 even time periods, it doesn't work. No matter how you try and reconcile the creation myth with science, you will never be able to do it for these reasons. It's not scientific, nor was it intended to be, so I don't understand the purpose of trying to force cherry picked facts into the creation myth while ignoring such glaring conflicts like the timing of the stars being created and the discrepancy with land plants emerging when life started in the oceans first. That is only the very basics, there are plenty more things that conflict, so let's see if you have the gusto to address these first without additional assumptions, and then maybe we can go into further detail.

There also aren't any discussions of covalent bonds or electron micrographs in the Bible.

Perhaps it isn't even a science textbook at all!

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

Again your view of when the Sun was actually created is wrong. Sorry you haven't bothered to read the scholars I've linked to.

My argument doesn't hinge on that one single point. Ok let's pretend you are right and biblical scholars know the absolute truth behind the passage despite it being subjective and unverifiable. What about the rest? Have you nothing to say about the contradictory concepts like fish and birds emerging at the same time along with whales, and the complete wrong timeline with land plants being the first created life?

You gotta do better than that, man. Don't be that typical creationist that ignores the bulk of somebody's argument to nitpick minor details. Biblical creation and science are conflicting polar opposites. If you wanna believe, then by all means, believe. I'm not gong to tell you not to, in fact I'm happy for you. I'm just going to say leave science out of it. There's a reason it's called faith, and there's a reason the bible is subjective, which leads me to my closing point that Chronaut so graciously made for me:

Perhaps it isn't even a science textbook at all!

Bingo.

a reply to: Barcs

So you have ignored my posts. No wonder you kept saying I wasn't answering your questions...you didn't read anything. I said it wasn't a scientific book about 30 times.

Birds weren't created with Ocean Life. Birds were created after land animals.

There are two distinct creations of "winged creatures", both using the exact same word, one which can be translated either "insect" or "bird" depending on what the author intended. The word whales should actually be translated great sea creatures. It is not the same word used for whale elsewhere in the bible. KJV got this wrong, and most modern translations have corrected it to remove the word whale.

The first creation of those is from the waters (Gen 1:20). This would be insects. The second is from land (Gen 2:8), this would be birds. I actually have an entire thread authored on that very subject. So insects were created/evolved with sea life. It is held that water borne insects were the first life to leave the oceans.

Again, you want your view to be right because it is the wrong view. This is typical atheistic propaganda. Promote idiocy as the platform for the idea of intelligent design and then tear it apart. It's the best fallacy. The problem is so many "creationists" fall into that idiocy because it was popularized heavily in the 1800's and stuck. I agree that idiocy should be discarded.

Concerning when land plants appeared, I already linked you that study, they predate ocean life:

Source

The researchers found that land plants had evolved on Earth by about 700 million years ago and land fungi by about 1,300 million years ago — much earlier than previous estimates of around 480 million years ago, which were based on the earliest fossils of those organisms.

If you still thought plants came after sea life, then you haven't updated your scientific knowledge in over a decade.

So plants showed up nearly 100m years before the first simple animals.

Edit: Further scientific data on plant life evolution is found in Ecology of a Changing Planet, Third Edition, Section 2.4 p18-19, compiled by this gentleman: Mark Bush Along with other PhD's from Hull, Duke and FIT. This data was published and peer reviewed in Science. [url=https://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5532/1129?related-urls=yes&legid=sci;293/5532/1129]Source[/ul]

Our protein sequence analyses indicate that green algae and major lineages of fungi were present 1000 Ma and that land plants appeared by 700 Ma, possibly affecting Earth's atmosphere, climate, and evolution of animals in the Precambrian.

a reply to: raymundoko

Bah, just noticed my final source was formatted incorrectly:

Edit: Further scientific data on plant life evolution is found in Ecology of a Changing Planet, Third Edition, Section 2.4 p18-19, compiled by this gentleman: Mark Bush Along with other PhD's from Hull, Duke and FIT. This data was published and peer reviewed in Science. Source

Our protein sequence analyses indicate that green algae and major lineages of fungi were present 1000 Ma and that land plants appeared by 700 Ma, possibly affecting Earth's atmosphere, climate, and evolution of animals in the Precambrian.

So let's revisit your list, but updated:

Day 1 - Let there be light most probably encapsulates the big bang right down to the formation of our sun, which the earth formed with in the planetary disc. This is an extremely vague passage.
Day 2 - separation of water from dry land.
Day 3 - Land plants appear in a diffused light high pressure atmosphere
Day 4 - The atmosphere has changed significantly enough so that the Sun, Moon and Stars are now regularly visible from the surface.
Day 5 - Insects, fish, and sea creatures.
Day 6 - creation of land animals, birds and humans.

That list lines up with the Timeline of Evolution, which you used for your numbers. The only issue is Wiki's page still has not updated the introduction of plants. The wiki talk involved with that section indicates the editors wish to continue to use the fossil record, which the experts in botany/biology argue doesn't apply to plants. They argue the climate record and protein sequencing should be used. Even the American Museum of Natural History has updated displays correcting the timeline for plant life.

originally posted by: raymundoko
So you have ignored my posts. No wonder you kept saying I wasn't answering your questions...you didn't read anything. I said it wasn't a scientific book about 30 times.

I DISAGREED with your post. Stop accusing me of not reading it simply because I don't agree with the subjective interpretations of you or biblical "scholars". They don't determine absolute truth.

I have not been using KJV as my source, I've been using the New International Version.

Birds weren't created with Ocean Life. Birds were created after land animals.

There are two distinct creations of "winged creatures", both using the exact same word, one which can be translated either "insect" or "bird" depending on what the author intended.

It doesn't matter because land plants were not the first life on earth. It came from the ocean first. End of story. According to NIV, seed bearing plants are the very first created life, even though seeds weren't even around until 400 million years ago when insects also showed up. Your view conflicts with the scientific picture, regardless of whether the word means bird or insect because life started in the ocean and remained there for 3 billion years.

The word whales should actually be translated great sea creatures. It is not the same word used for whale elsewhere in the bible. KJV got this wrong, and most modern translations have corrected it to remove the word whale.

Gen 1:20 (NIV)

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

It makes no distinction with whales, it says that god created the great creatures of the sea and "EVERY LIVING THING WITH WHICH THE WATER TEEMS" during the same time period. Whales, sea otters, fish, sea vegetation, sharks, mollusks, etc all created together despite being more than 400 million years apart with some of them. Even if you switch birds to insects, you still have that same discrepancy.

The first creation of those is from the waters (Gen 1:20). This would be insects.

The only problem with that is that life in the ocean still predates land plants and insects by about 3 billion years.

Again, you want your view to be right because it is the wrong view. This is typical atheistic propaganda. Promote idiocy as the platform for the idea of intelligent design and then tear it apart. It's the best fallacy. The problem is so many "creationists" fall into that idiocy because it was popularized heavily in the 1800's and stuck. I agree that idiocy should be discarded.

I argue to push people to think critically, but it seems you can't think of it outside your own defined box. It's not about right vs wrong, because there is quite a bit of gray area with this topic. The creation story is only compatible with science if you take it as a very loose metaphor. There's nothing wrong with that view at all, just call it what it is.

Concerning when land plants appeared, I already linked you that study, they predate ocean life:

Source

If you still thought plants came after sea life, then you haven't updated your scientific knowledge in over a decade.

Did you even read your own link? It doesn't say that they predate ocean life. It says they evolved earlier than previously thought. 700 million years. What about the 3 billion years of life that came prior that lived exclusively in the ocean?

Yes, land plants came after sea life. This is a long known and well established fact.

a reply to: Barcs

No, the first simple animals were only 600 million years ago. Plants were before then. The first simple animals were indeed in the ocean. Did you even read the source you asked if I read? Fish and proto amphibians 500 Million years ago. Plants? SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION YEARS AGO.

Again, the quote:

Our protein sequence analyses indicate that green algae and major lineages of fungi were present 1000 Ma and that land plants appeared by 700 Ma, possibly affecting Earth's atmosphere, climate, and evolution of animals in the Precambrian.

So when you say:

Yes, land plants came after sea life. This is a long known and well established fact.

So true, until 2001. So you haven't read about the evolution of plant life since 2001.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

No, the first simple animals were only 600 million years ago. Plants were before then. The first simple animals were indeed in the ocean. Did you even read the source you asked if I read? Fish and proto amphibians 500 Million years ago. Plants? SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION YEARS AGO.

LMAO! I didn't say sea animals. I said sea life. You specifically said in your last post, "Concerning when land plants appeared, I already linked you that study, they predate ocean life"

Do you not consider single celled organisms and bacteria, life? Sorry but the notion that land plants came before all other life is flat out wrong. And yet you accuse me of having reading comprehension issues, when I clearly stated that the first life was in the ocean, and explained it a second time using your own source that doesn't say what you believe it says.

So true, until 2001. So you haven't read about the evolution of plant life since 2001.

Perhaps you should learn how to understand what you read before taking condescending cheap shots at others. Unfortunately you are still wrong and your accusations are baseless. What do you think lived on earth from 3.8 billion to 1 billion years ago? Life on earth didn't arise 700 million years ago, and it didn't arise on land. End of debate.