The Cosmos

[Bendito]

Bendito --- Yes, I did read that article about the mechanism. I'm always skeptical about Anything that would put the age of this earth at hundreds of thousands/ millions of years of age.

Mainly because 'way back when' -- there was supposedly a skelatin of a kind of dinausar in a museum --- turns out that is was a practical joke by some students who got some cadaver bones and put together a skeletin -- even when it was discovered to be a fake - - there were the experts who decided to let it stay as a Fact.

Look at all the 'fake' news we get today.

Internet gets all sorts of articles -- a person needs to be careful as to the source Of. And people Do explore and discover all sorts of interesting relics. The unusual findings get our curiosity going. We like to speculate on the hows and whys of various

Who the Nephilin were -- the great men of renown.

The last big paragraph in your article sums 'it' up pretty well. "Researchers are still not sure who exactly used it.........that flashes of genuis are possible in every human age. " In the evolutionary tree there are at least several 'human ages' that were existing 'way back when'. But God's Word tells us that He created the first man and woman.

We might Also think about the Tower of Babel when God took the people from one language and separated them into groups when He created all the various languages. God had told them to be fruitful and multiply and go forth geographically. However, they didn't want to spread out -- they liked being all together. That's when they got the idea to try to build a stairway 'up to heaven'. At least as far up in the sky as they could see. Part of the result was as the various groups kept to themselves Because of their common language -- inability to understand anyone else. Certain physical features emerged. The Chinese , Japanese, various Indian groups, etc. There were the Pygmies, and some really taller, huskier groups. And it might have seemed to be evolution taking place. But people were and always have been people -- simply in a great variety of shapes and sizes and colors.

And through the years -- various nationalities inter-marry with other groups of people and more and more diversity takes place.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical ...Ask God to show you what was what....Babel was far more than Nimrod just building a tower. Far more and far more evil than that. God confused the languages, but he also broke the connection between the people. They could no longer see the ideas other people saw. They scattered into groups where they could understand each other speaking then God also scattered the people and divided the Earth. It was no longer a single continent.

 

[Sue D.]

.
If the universe continues long enough (really long) it will become dark and frozen because the stars, including our Sun, will eventually use up all their nuclear fuel.

My initial reaction to that fact was to assume that the universe was designed that way; but I'm not so sure because it appears to me that Rom 8:19-21 is saying that the cosmos wasn't supposed to wear out; just as human life was not supposed to expire.
_

The original garden of Eden was without sin / decay. It Was meant to last forever. As was man.

@Bendito -- yes, the tower of Babel Did break up the people into large groups. They could form ideas within their own groups. There was no longer a single continent because of the up-heaval of the earth during the world-wide flood.

 

[Bendito]

The original garden of Eden was without sin / decay. It Was meant to last forever. As was man.

@Bendito -- yes, the tower of Babel Did break up the people into large groups. They could form ideas within their own groups. There was no longer a single continent because of the up-heaval of the earth during the world-wide flood.

Hense new continents...Kinda cool. Now I'm going for my old mans nap. See ya later

 

[Adziilii]

.

garden of Eden didn't have rain. Not until the flood waters.

Rain was delayed (Gen 2:4-5) only up till Adam's creation.

there were also 3 rivers mentioned later in that chapter -- the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris.

There was a total of four if we count the Eden river. (Gen 2:10)

By their very nature, rivers are flowing bodies of water rather than standing bodies of water. But in order for them to flow, the rivers need water coming in and water going out.

Now, when water only goes out of rivers; in time they dry up. So then, rivers need a source; typically rain and/or melting snow and ice.

River sources themselves need replenishment; which is normally obtained by precipitation, which in turn is sourced by evaporation; which, according to Gen 2:6, was fully functioning practically right from the get-go.
_

 

[Sue D.]

Adz -- the Genesis 2:4-5 passage -- continue to vs 6 "but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

2:10 "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates.

Apparently the source of the water in the rivers was from underground.

The earth at the time of the garden of Eden was very different than what it is now -- after the flood.

Back up to 2: 5 "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet spring up, for the Lord God had Not sent rain on the earth."

One of my footnotes said that the rivers ran to the Persian Gulf?! So -- water would have come up from the ground, formed the rivers which ran into the Persian Gulf.

 

[Sue D.]

Adz -- you're assuming that because there were rivers that the water came from rain. It apparently didn't. Because it didn't rain until Noah's time.

 

[Adziilii]

it didn't rain until Noah's time.

It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
(Mark Twain)
_

 

[Bendito]

It ain't what you know that gets you into that just ain't so.
(Mark Twain)
_

Mr Clements was a smart man, and one makes no mistake to learn some of his 'saying', but before quoting any wisdom, one needs to apply it to himself first...One does not want to listen to some guy in a lab coat just because he wears a lab coat...What God says in His Word is true..Always true. The scientist wannabe is speculating but God says "
Genesis 2:5-6 King James Version (KJV)

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.

6 But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Which one of the two, God or the scientist, do you suppost was there to see it?

 

[Sue D.]

Adziilii -- I'm simply going by what God's Word says.

I was asking my husband about water coming up from under ground -- like in Genesis. He reminded me that natural aquaducts produce above ground lakes and rivers and then there is the dew. -- then I Googled it -- you might be interested in "What are water veins" swissharmony.com

Underground water veins that come up to the surface and create lakes / rivers. That is how the land got watered. And people dig wells to get their drinking water.

So "It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so".

Bendito -- -- I'll share what the older NIV says "vs 5 "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.
vs 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.."

 

[Sue D.]

That small smiley face that I typed in sure came out Huge.

 

[Bendito]

Adziilii -- I'm simply going by what God's Word says.

I was asking my husband about water coming up from under ground -- like in Genesis. He reminded me that natural aquaducts produce above ground lakes and rivers and then there is the dew. -- then I Googled it -- you might be interested in "What are water veins" swissharmony.com

Underground water veins that come up to the surface and create lakes / rivers. That is how the land got watered. And people dig wells to get their drinking water.

So "It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so".

Bendito -- :smile: -- I'll share what the older NIV says "vs 5 "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.
vs 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.."

Yeah Now that brings up the question....What about after the shrubs and bushes sprung up. Between that time and the time of the flood, it could have rained?

 

[Adziilii]

.
According to Gen 2:5-6, mist didn't serve to irrigate vegetation; it only served to moisten the ground; and that's because God had not yet planted anything. The purpose of the mist then, was to prepare the ground for plantings; which were set out during creation's third day back in the first chapter of Genesis. The rain's delay then, was simply because there was nothing growing at the time for it to water.

Then, on the sixth day, God created the beasts of the field whose food was to be vegetation. (Gen 1:30)

God also created human life on the sixth day; and their food was to be vegetation too. (Gen 1:29)

So then, by the time that Adam and the beasts of the field arrived, the Earth was verdant and pluvial: all set for human life to take up farming. (Gen 2:16)

I take it from all those passages that it's perfectly safe to believe that rain didn't begin with Noah; nor did rain begin with Adam, rather; rain began with vegetation before either man existed.
_

 

[Bendito]

.
According to Gen 2:5-6, mist didn't serve to irrigate vegetation; it only served to moisten the ground; and that's because God had not yet planted anything. The purpose of the mist then, was to prepare the ground for plantings; which were set out during creation's third day back in the first chapter of Genesis. The rain's delay then, was simply because there was nothing growing at the time for it to water.

Then, on the sixth day, God created the beasts of the field whose food was to be vegetation. (Gen 1:30)

God also created human life on the sixth day; and their food was to be vegetation too. (Gen 1:29)

So then, by the time that Adam and the beasts of the field arrived, the Earth was verdant and pluvial: all set for human life to take up farming. (Gen 2:16)

I take it from all those passages that it's perfectly safe to believe that rain didn't begin with Noah; nor did rain begin with Adam, rather; rain began with vegetation before either man existed.
_

I will admit to that possibility

 

[Sue D.]

How about 'this' --- God's Word tell us -- vs 6 "but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
vs 10 "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden and divided into four headwaters."

So -- Then the question became -- Where did the water come from that formed the river. The speculation was that it Must have been from rain. And That is where the underground resourvors / aquaducts come into the picture.

And That takes us back to post 151.

And Now in post 153 you feel it's perfectly safe to believe ....... but God's Word does not appear To say that.

That which is assumed to be perfectly safe to believe isn't always True.

Look at parts of evolutionary thought, for instance. Some things that are thought to be perfectly safe to believe ,Another person will agree to That particular possibility. And after a while -- 'it' becomes Fact.

 

[Adziilii]

.

How about 'this'

Fine by me. Viewers are entitled to second opinions; just as we among ourselves are entitled to offer them.
_

 

[Bendito]

How about 'this' --- God's Word tell us -- vs 6 "but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
vs 10 "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden and divided into four headwaters."

So -- Then the question became -- Where did the water come from that formed the river. The speculation was that it Must have been from rain. And That is where the underground resourvors / aquaducts come into the picture.

And That takes us back to post 151.

And Now in post 153 you feel it's perfectly safe to believe ....... but God's Word does not appear To say that.

That which is assumed to be perfectly safe to believe isn't always True.

Look at parts of evolutionary thought, for instance. Some things that are thought to be perfectly safe to believe ,Another person will agree to That particular possibility. And after a while -- 'it' becomes Fact.

LOLOL Sue I love the way you're at war with the theory of evolution.

 

[Sue D.]

Bendito -- I don't think of myself as being at 'war' with that theory -- I'm simply very pro the 24 hr / 6 day week that God took to create this world. God's Word gives us an omnipotent God. That means all-powerful. :smile:

 

[Adziilii]

Some years ago I reasoned within myself how lucky we are to live on a magnetic planet because without Earth's polarized magnetism, compasses wouldn't work. Well; I love compasses, and in point of fact own several.

But then I found out that were our planet not magnetic, living organisms as we know them couldn't survive here due to bombardment by charged particles hurled our way by the solar wind. The Earth's magnetic field deflects a very large percentage of the solar wind's charged particles, thus protecting life on Earth from annihilation. So as it turns out, the Earth's magnetism is by design rather than by fortune.

But this is a very important consideration in science's search for exoplanets suitable for life. If a candidate planet lacks polarized magnetism then forget it; that planet would be no more suitable for life than Venus or Mars because its parent star's solar wind would be keeping it perpetually devastated.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
When people reach what is commonly called the age of reasoning; some of their very first questions are: Why am I here? Where did I come from? What is the meaning of life, and is there a purpose for mine? Is there a reason why I exist?

I think it's very normal (or at least very common) for people to seek a justification for their existence; and without it, they can only conclude that the human experience is futile; which can be roughly defined as serving no useful purpose; for example:

Nobel Prize winner, author of several best-selling books, and recipient of at least a dozen honorary degrees, physicist Steven Weinberg (who views religion as an enemy of science), in his book "The First Three Minutes" wrote: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself . . . the effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.

What a dismal appraisal. In Mr. Weinberg's opinion, the human experience scarce escapes the categories of farce and tragedy; its quest for knowledge seems the only thing that gives humanity any justification to exist at all. The universe? It's just a meaningless void decorated with fascinating objects --a carnival side show of cosmic curiosities, so to speak.

Wouldn't it be sad if we only lived and died like insects and fungi? I mean, what would be the point of it all? They say a mind is a terrible thing to waste. What real advantage is it to have something so useful as a human mind if it's only going to die and stop working after many years of learning and experience? And what real advantage is it for the mind of the present to make the world a better place for the next generation of minds if the mind of the present doesn't live to see it? That's really no more significant an existence than that of the individuals in a bee hive or a termite colony.

I think people find comfort in perceiving themselves part of a grand scheme instead of walking across the stage of their all-too-brief life as an insignificant speck in a pointless cosmos. Belief that there's someone somewhere above themselves gives people's existence meaning and purpose which, in my opinion, is at least one of the reasons why supreme beings are so popular.

Galileo felt that science and religion are allies rather than enemies-- two different languages telling the same story; a story of symmetry and balance: heaven and hell, positive and negative, weak and strong, right and left, up and down, night and day, hot and cold, God and Satan. Science and religion are not at odds; no, in reality, science is just simply too young to understand.

Dr. Robert Jastow, founder of the Goddard Institute for space studies at NASA, in his book "God And The Astronomers" says: Strange developments are going on in astronomy. One of these is the discovery that the universe had a beginning. And that means there has to be a Beginner. The scientist has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
_