Jeremy Christian's claim that Genesis Creation account is Scientifically Accurate

So? How does that result in a translucent atmosphere?

“Genesis says nothing about the atmosphere at all, whether opaque, transparent, or translucent.”

No, that made no sense. The fact that Genesis says nothing about that atmosphere isn’t from our modern understanding, it’s from a straight reading of the text. And the text says God created the sun, moon, and stars on day 4. If he had wanted us to know that they just became visible on that day, he would have said so. He would have said something like “the clouds cleared up on the 4th day, and you could see all those lights”.

1 Like

Hayashi C, Nakazawa K, Mizuno H 1979. Earth’s melting due to the blanketing effect of the primordial dense atmosphere. Earth Planet Sci Lett 43: 22–28 [Google Scholar] - Earth’s Earliest Atmospheres - PMC

You understand that carbon dioxide is not a component of a reducing atmosphere, right? You should also understand that the earth is currently thought to have begun not with a reducing atmosphere but with a neutral atmosphere. It’s good that you keep telling me you aren’t an expert; this I believe. But you should stop talking as if you know stuff.

@pevaquark

It’s all good clean fun… your instincts are excellent… nothing to really concentrate on … it’s all gobbily-gook.

The important thing to remember about the Framework Theory is that it allows a good person to say: Genesis 1 isn’t about anything historical… it’s just a Framework!

And then you can move to the easy stuff, like what exactly we are supposed to say when we are in line at the White Throne judgment at the End of Days…

Good try. But this is a hypothesized state long before there was plant life or even life at all. Note that Genesis refers solely to angiosperms, Late Jurassic at the earliest, and moreover the earliest plants, being as charitable as possible to you here, were not until the Silurian.

1 Like

I wonder what its like to be a heretic in the view of science and a heretic in the view of religion?

Finding context to put the words into comes from modern understanding.

For instance, we can determine that between the debut of land and the debut of plants what happened during that period. Plants evolved to “breathe” CO2 because there was an abundance of it when they evolved.

And right between those two things is where it speaks of the sun/moon/stars. It turns out that there is something there that makes these lines very relevant. Two things actually as the continents shifted considerably during this time as well, which actually would “position” the sun/moon/stars in the sky as described for an observer on the surface.

image

“If he had wanted us to know…” Right. But clearly that wasn’t what the intent was.

Because it’s speaking of things the audience would be familiar with.

If I didn’t tell you what I think, you wouldn’t have the opportunity to correct me, and I wouldn’t learn anything.

There’s a method to my madness.

1 Like

Again, not an expert, but there were multiple states of the earth’s atmosphere. The really dense “reducing” one was very early on. That’s the one that kept the Earth’s surface in darkness, and that’s the one the oxidation event changed. That “firmament” it talks about is also accurate as before oxygen the atmosphere came all the way down to the surface. There wasn’t a transparent oxygen layer a few miles thick like there is now.

This is you pretending to know stuff again. Oops. Thought you were Jeremy there for a second, talking about me. But this is George talking about Jeremy. Why is he a heretic in religion?

Nope. Plants evolved long after the atmosphere had reached roughly its present composition. I think you have confused plants with cyanobacteria.

I think I’ll just leave that nonsense about Pangaea alone. You’re welcome.

So you’re claiming that the audience would know nothing about ferns, moss, kelp, or pond scum?

You’re not learning anything. Every time I try to teach you something, you just reassert your original claim.

You should stop saying that. You clearly think you’re an expert. Why else would you lecture me incorrectly on things you know nothing about? What follows that announcement is just a confirmation of your ignorance.

Also, you should know that a firmament is a solid dome, not an opaque layer of atmosphere. Why, an opaque atmosphere wouldn’t even be able to separate the waters above from the waters below.

1 Like

You must not be a very good teacher.

Nonsense? Pangaea? This is long after Pangaea. During this period, as you can see, the majority of the Earth’s continental land mass was situated around the south pole. Moving back up to between the poles afterward. While still the Pangaea supercontinent, the land masses were still between the poles before they moved south.

That’s how the audience at the time understood it, yes. But separating water above from below makes a lot more sense to us now than it did them then as this is the same period when the Earth’s water cycle was established.

Can you translate this for me? I’m not quite sure exactly what you’re saying here. Are you saying that thanks to particular continental drift and observer on the surface of the earth could see the sun moon and stars now? But they couldn’t before the continents moved enough?

The rise and fall of concordism already happened.

I have no idea what you think you’re talking about, and you have none either.

No it doesn’t. You’re making up a meaning to suit your needs. It’s not actually there. This is growing increasingly absurd.

1 Like

During that period there were two things that happened in Earth’s history that are relevant to the ‘day 4’ portion of the text. First, the atmosphere changing from translucent to transparent, allowing sun/moon/stars to become visible.

The other, the movement of the continents, positioned the sun/moon/stars in the sky as described.

While land was situated around the pole, as I’m sure you know, the sun would just revolve around the horizon, if it ever came up at all. With the continents between the poles they were “positioned” to an observer on those continents.

Yeah, not a good teacher. Probably because I have to wade through all the insults first. They can be distracting… and hurtful.

What’s not there? The water cycle? This one’s actually pretty straight forward. The beginning says there’s a “deep” (ocean), then God says “Let there be light”. Oceans and sunlight, you then get water above/below. And it’s described in that order. See, insightful, isn’t it?