Creation Account

[nebula]

Here's an interesting question for you nebula, as a scientist: Is the sun a "nuclear furnace?"

It would be more accurate to call it a nuclear fusion reactor than a "furnace." If you wish to debate science with me on this, please use the correct terminology, all right?

And yes, it is a big deal to me. Innacurately portraying the scientific stance is what makes Christians look like idiots.

[larryt]

Here's an interesting question for you nebula, as a scientist: Is the sun a "nuclear furnace?"

It would be more accurate to call it a nuclear fusion reactor than a "furnace." If you wish to debate science with me on this, please use the correct terminology, all right?

And yes, it is a big deal to me. Innacurately portraying the scientific stance is what makes Christians look like idiots. DOES SPELLING COUNT

Hi nebula,

I used that term on purpose. Because I don't believe that the sun is "fueled" fusion energy. Too many unanswered questions.

1. Hottest part of sun in the chronosphere.

2. Sun spots reveal cool temperatures from beneath sun's surface.

3. Coronal Mass Ejections(CME) that speed up on their journey into space.

4. And many more.

The model of an Arc Lamp/Electric arc IMHO answers these and all questions about the sun better than the nuclear model. The electric energy comes from plasma which is found throughout the universe. And can account for the space phenomena in a relatively short period of time. Thousands of years instead of billions. Most electric theory scientists don't want to acknowledge this either because they are not looking to prove the Bible correct either.

Scientists don't like this theory because their "billions of years" just went down the tube.

LT

[nebula]

Honestly - I don't care.

1) Scientists aren't afraid of mysteries. That just means more challenges to be solve. Experience tells me I can do some simple research and find that the reason the Arc Lamp theory was rejected was not centered around the time factor.

2) I recognize that you pulled that right off the AIG website (yup, I looked it up). Can you explain why these things are a problem in your own words, drawing on your own resources and knowledge of physics?

3) What is the theological message of Genesis 1? Why do you think God uses the odd phrase "there was evening and there was morning"?

4) I read the Bible to discover God, not the Earth.

[larryt]

Honestly - I don't care.

1) Scientists aren't afraid of mysteries. That just means more challenges to be solve. Experience tells me I can do some simple research and find that the reason the Arc Lamp theory was rejected was not centered around the time factor.

2) I recognize that you pulled that right off the AIG website (yup, I looked it up). Can you explain why these things are a problem in your own words, drawing on your own resources and knowledge of physics?

3) What is the theological message of Genesis 1? Why do you think God uses the odd phrase "there was evening and there was morning"?

4) I read the Bible to discover God, not the Earth.

You don't care? What if you are believing a lie about the sourse of the sun's energy?

1. Sometimes they are afraid of the truth. The Arc theory is not rejected because of the time factor. Most that find it more accurate still look at the universe as billions of yrs. It is rejected thus far because it is so new. Chandra, Hubble, Spitzer, and other deep space observatory means have just recently given credence to this theory by what they are finding.

2. Not AIG! Here.

3. Several reasons. God is the creator. He declares the end from the beginning. Seven literal 24 hr days will translate to 7 1000 yr days of mankind. We are fast approaching the end of the 6th "day" of history. evening & morning - sundown to sundown one day. First the darkness then the light. We are to walk in the light even Children of the light.

4. If God saw fit to put it in the Word it is important. The creation account is important. I too seek to know Him better and better every day. That I would be conformed to the image of His Son, The Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Word of God.

LT

[MrsSealedEternal]

Honestly - I don't care.

1) Scientists aren't afraid of mysteries. That just means more challenges to be solve. Experience tells me I can do some simple research and find that the reason the Arc Lamp theory was rejected was not centered around the time factor.

2) I recognize that you pulled that right off the AIG website (yup, I looked it up). Can you explain why these things are a problem in your own words, drawing on your own resources and knowledge of physics?

3) What is the theological message of Genesis 1? Why do you think God uses the odd phrase "there was evening and there was morning"?

4) I read the Bible to discover God, not the Earth.

You don't care? What if you are believing a lie about the sourse of the sun's energy?

1. Sometimes they are afraid of the truth. The Arc theory is not rejected because of the time factor. Most that find it more accurate still look at the universe as billions of yrs. It is rejected thus far because it is so new. Chandra, Hubble, Spitzer, and other deep space observatory means have just recently given credence to this theory by what they are finding.

2. Not AIG! Here.

3. Several reasons. God is the creator. He declares the end from the beginning. Seven literal 24 hr days will translate to 7 1000 yr days of mankind. We are fast approaching the end of the 6th "day" of history. evening & morning - sundown to sundown one day. First the darkness then the light. We are to walk in the light even Children of the light.

4. If God saw fit to put it in the Word it is important. The creation account is important. I too seek to know Him better and better every day. That I would be conformed to the image of His Son, The Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Word of God.

LT

Thanks Larry,

That rings so true to me.

God Bless with much Agape,

Edited August 25, 2006 by MrsSealedEternal

[nebula]

You don't care? What if you are believing a lie about the sourse of the sun's energy?

I've taken undergraduate classes in astronomy and physics. You?

Truly, unless I take the advanced physics classes needed to interpret this stuff, the best I can do is decide who's case I prefer.

Seriously, if you take away the time factor, what else do you think is so much better about this theory?

1. Sometimes they are afraid of the truth. The Arc theory is not rejected because of the time factor. Most that find it more accurate still look at the universe as billions of yrs.

I thought you said it was rejected because of the time factor. Now I'm confused.

It is rejected thus far because it is so new. Chandra, Hubble, Spitzer, and other deep space observatory means have just recently given credence to this theory by what they are finding.

Forgive my outburst, but - Duh! It takes a lot for new discoveries to replace the pre-existing accepted theory. Look at the mess it's taking to decide what Pluto should be classified as!

Scientist don't fear change. They do however highly scrutinize new findings. They do not believe in quickly jumping bandwagons.

2. Not AIG! Here.

OK, my apologies. The objections did look like the ones I saw on AIG.

Err - where is the Arc theory found in there?

3. Several reasons. God is the creator. He declares the end from the beginning. Seven literal 24 hr days will translate to 7 1000 yr days of mankind. We are fast approaching the end of the 6th "day" of history. evening & morning - sundown to sundown one day. First the darkness then the light. We are to walk in the light even Children of the light.

That's it? What were the waters the Spirit of God hovered over? Why was the earth formless and void? Why did God create plants on the third day? Why did God create the Sun if He already created light He called "Day" on day 1?

Ugh! You're so obseesed with time and beating science that you are missing out on so much!

4. If God saw fit to put it in the Word it is important. The creation account is important. I too seek to know Him better and better every day. That I would be conformed to the image of His Son, The Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Word of God.

You missed what I was saying.

I believe the Creation account was important. But I don't believe God's intent was to teach us about the origins of the earth as much as He wanted to teach us something else. Why don't you try to read Gen. 1 as a prophecy? What do you see?

[RGR]

I believe the Creation account was important. But I don't believe God's intent was to teach us about the origins of the earth as much as He wanted to teach us something else.

I look at it and see that a loving God would care enough about me, before I even existed, to ensure that He had made a habitable place for me!

[nebula]

Oh my goodness!

I just did the best I could to discover what this Sun Arc model was all about.

I can see why it was rejeted . . . and age has nothing to do with it!

Electrons flowing into the sun?

Sorry, sir - I'm sticking with Gen. 1 being a theological account of Creation and spending my time gleaning theological insights out of it - and learning my science from science.

[RGR]

I reread Genesis 1 last night in the New Living Translation and found it interesting. Here's how it reads:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Crosswalk.com gives an alternate version of how that could be translated:

F1: Or In the beginning when God created, or When God began to create

Now if one were to accept the second part, the part I bolded, it would make sense that possibly these weren't literal 24 hour days.

Genesis 1:2 The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface.

Again, this just does not seem to be the state God would have His creation in if He had just made it. To back up my thought, I'll post the study notes that are on Crosswalk.com:

2. the earth was without form and void--or in "confusion and emptiness," as the words are rendered in Isaiah 34:11. This globe, at some undescribed period, having been convulsed and broken up, was a dark and watery waste for ages perhaps, till out of this chaotic state, the present fabric of the world was made to arise.

the Spirit of God moved--literally, continued brooding over it, as a fowl does, when hatching eggs. The immediate agency of the Spirit, by working on the dead and discordant elements, combined, arranged, and ripened them into a state adapted for being the scene of a new creation. The account of this new creation properly begins at the end of this second verse; and the details of the process are described in the natural way an onlooker would have done, who beheld the changes that successively took place.

Also, another point that I would make is that we never see where God said "let there be water." We see everything else called into being but not water! Water was already there when God started the creation process! I think this is sufficient enough in itself to lend credibility to the old Earth theory. Yes, I agree that we have only 6,000 years or so of human history, but in what way would God be rendered a liar if the Earth were millions of years old?

[Floatingaxe]

Yep, yep, Ronald!