My Atmosphere Challenge

[AV1611VET]

According to Smithsonian:

When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today’s atmosphere. After about half a billion years, Earth’s surface cooled and solidified enough for water to collect on it.

SOURCE

According to the Bible:

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Now ... notice that, according to the Smithsonian, Earth already had an atmosphere.

Here it is again:

When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere.

"Almost no atmosphere" means it had an atmosphere.

Only that atmosphere at the time wasn't anything like the air we breathe today.

Nor do we know how extensive that atmosphere was.

Did it stretch around the earth? was it thin? what did it look like? could you smell it? taste it? breathe it?

Anyway, according to the Smithsonian, we got our atmosphere by ... well ... um ... it existed, then it got bigger and bigger when volcanoes spewed gasses into it (kinda like blowing up a balloon, I guess), and so on and so forth.

And, of course, this took 500 million years from 4,600,000,000 BC to 4,100,000,000 BC.

As opposed to the Bible, which shows an earth without an atmosphere one day, and the very next day, there it is.

Pure, breathable air; void of contaminants of any kind.

So here's my challenge:

Which scenario would you rather go with?

Some institute that says we got it, but can't tell us how?

Or the Bible, which testifies of God's powerful ability to call it into existence, purer than the air in Lapland?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Almost no atmosphere" means it had an atmosphere.

Only that atmosphere at the time wasn't anything like the air we breathe today.

No it doesn't.

Almost no atmosphere means that what was there would just BARELY be called an atmosphere. It was almost non-existent.

And your entire 'challenge' is purely just "Either accept a literal Biblical narrative or accept what scientists say." Have you say, you've lost your touch with these 'challenges'. Not that you had any to begin with...

 

[AV1611VET]

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Almost no atmosphere means that what was there would just BARELY be called an atmosphere.

That's right.

It was almost non-existent.

That's right.

That's why I asked if it stretched around the earth?

Obviously it didn't then.

It must have just been some pocket of gas about the size of whatever, until the volcanoes blew them up with gas enough to stretch around the world.

Either way, there was an atmosphere.

Whether it was one molecule, or half a planet in size.

And your entire 'challenge' is purely just "Either accept a literal Biblical narrative or accept what scientists say.

My entire challenge is which, given the two scenarios, would you rather go with?

Please either answer it, or vacate the thread.

"Have you say, you've lost your touch with these 'challenges'. Not that you had any to begin with...

Thanks for the ad hom.

Now show me how mature you are and answer my challenge.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.

That's right.

That is correct.

That's right.

That's why I asked if it stretched around the earth?

Obviously it didn't then.

It must have just been some pocket of gas about the size of whatever, until the volcanoes blew them up with gas enough to stretch around the world.

Either way, there was an atmosphere.

Whether it was one molecule, or half a planet in size.

That's not something anyone can answer but going from the nature of the gases that would be present, they wouldn't be able to form in singular pockets like what you suggest because they're too light and would have been swept away by the solar winds that would still be battering the earth when it formed.

My entire challenge is which, given the two scenarios, would you rather go with?

Please either answer it, or vacate the thread.

Which is the question of "Either accept science or accept my literal interpretation of the Bible".

And it's really funny coming from the man who enters into any thread he can and derails them all at his leisure.

But since you're insistent on wanting an answer, I'd go for science since science is the study of God's creation and a literal reading of the Bible, especially your literal reading of the Bible, flies in the face of His creation.

Thanks for the ad hom.

Now show me how mature you are and answer my challenge.

AV, you wouldn't know what an ad hominem is if it came up and socked you on the jaw. Noting that your previous challenges were much more inventive, if not still asinine, than this one is not an ad hominem.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you wouldn't know what an ad hominem is if it came up and socked you on the jaw. Noting that your previous challenges were much more inventive, if not still asinine, than this one is not an ad hominem.

What's sad is that I could issue a challenge for someone to tell me which they prefer: water or milk, and get fifty answers.

But ask which they prefer: God or science, and this is what I get.

Even if I was an atheist -- which I'm not -- I'd take an immediate, pristine atmosphere over a 500 million year cesspool-filtered atmosphere any day.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What's sad is that I could issue a challenge for someone to tell me which they prefer: water or milk, and get fifty answers.

But ask which they prefer: God or science, and this is what I get.

Even if I was an atheist -- which I'm not -- I'd take an immediate, pristine atmosphere over a 500 million year cesspool-filtered atmosphere any day.

And that is your personal opinion.

But just because you'd like something to be one thing doesn't mean it will be.

 

[AV1611VET]

But just because you'd like something to be one thing doesn't mean it will be.

Hey ... if you prefer black water coming out of your tap, then going through a filter into your glass -- over pristine drinkable water with not one trace of contaminants of any kind in it coming out -- knock yourself out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hey ... if you prefer black water coming out of your tap, then going through a filter into your glass -- over pristine drinkable water with not one trace of contaminants of any kind in it coming out -- knock yourself out.

Not even comparable to what you have in the OP in the slightest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not even comparable to what you have in the OP in the slightest.

I think it's a very good comparison.

But to humor you ... I'll use the atmosphere, since that's the subject of this challenge.

If you prefer to breathe contaminated air over breathing non-contaminated air, knock yourself out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think it's a very good comparison.

But to humor you ... I'll use the atmosphere, since that's the subject of this challenge.

If you prefer to breathe contaminated air over breathing non-contaminated air, knock yourself out.

But it's not a valid comparison at all. Mainly because, in both examples, no person or being was around to breath it. Adam doesn't appear in Genesis until verse 27, and also there are no animals to worry about, so there's problem still.

So it's not really the 'Gotcha!' question that you believe it is. Your challenge might as well be:
1) Do you accept a literal reading of the Bible?
or
2) Do you accept the scientific findings/knowledge?

Because that's all your challenge boils down to.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it's not a valid comparison at all. Mainly because, in both examples, no person or being was around to breath it. Adam doesn't appear in Genesis until verse 27, and also there are no animals to worry about, so there's problem still.

So it's not really the 'Gotcha!' question that you believe it is. Your challenge might as well be:
1) Do you accept a literal reading of the Bible?
or
2) Do you accept the scientific findings/knowledge?

Because that's all your challenge boils down to.

 

[Halbhh]

According to Smithsonian:

When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today’s atmosphere. After about half a billion years, Earth’s surface cooled and solidified enough for water to collect on it.

SOURCE

According to the Bible:

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Now ... notice that, according to the Smithsonian, Earth already had an atmosphere.

Here it is again:

When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere.

"Almost no atmosphere" means it had an atmosphere.

Only that atmosphere at the time wasn't anything like the air we breathe today.

Nor do we know how extensive that atmosphere was.

Did it stretch around the earth? was it thin? what did it look like? could you smell it? taste it? breathe it?

Anyway, according to the Smithsonian, we got our atmosphere by ... well ... um ... it existed, then it got bigger and bigger when volcanoes spewed gasses into it (kinda like blowing up a balloon, I guess), and so on and so forth.

And, of course, this took 500 million years from 4,600,000,000 BC to 4,100,000,000 BC.

As opposed to the Bible, which shows an earth without an atmosphere one day, and the very next day, there it is.

Pure, breathable air; void of contaminants of any kind.

So here's my challenge:

Which scenario would you rather go with?

Some institute that says we got it, but can't tell us how?

Or the Bible, which testifies of God's powerful ability to call it into existence, purer than the air in Lapland?

Both -- if you even believe in God at all, then you believe that Nature is what He made, so that what we find out about nature is finding out about what God made....
If you believe in God that is.

This is really a belief question -- it's theological more than anything else.

Is it that you believe in God then, or is it that instead you believe in your particular doctrinal ideology of your church, instead of God actually being God the Creator (as in creating all that existed) ? (really it seems like that to me, that is the key question here) What do you believe in? God as in the Bible, such as in John chapter 1 -- making everything that exists -- or instead of believing in what's in the Gospel of John is it that you believe in your doctrinal ideology instead that says what we see in nature is fake because it's not part of your doctrine in your church, disbelieving then in "all that exists" words near the beginning of the Gospel of John, which says Christ is One with God and was with God in the Beginning, and that anything and everything that exists is made from God?....
That is, that He made what we see in nature He made it even if you don't know the specific manner and time frame and how part.... (even if you don't know about evolution, etc.)

Which?

To me, it seems like disbelieving in what is in the Gospel of John is exactly like disbelieving in Christ as One with God, as part of the Trinity.

In the very same passage at the beginning of the Gospel of John we see that God created not only some lists of only certain types of creatures as are given in Genesis 1 (as examples then in a wonderful song/poem about creation and Earth....), but instead says that God created everything that exists, the entirety, 100% of the Universe then.

If one believes in God as creating all that exists, then we don't feel like denying what we can see in telescopes -- such as stars that are billions of years old -- we don't feel inclined to deny those old stars and suggest they can't be from God. If we believe what the Gospel of John says, where Christ is One with God and part of the Trinity also....

To me it seems your real question here is a question that belongs in General Theology or similar forum, as it's not about the physical sciences in a real way of theory and evidence, etc. science stuff -- but is instead about what you believe. Belief questions are theology questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Both --

Obviously it can't be both.

The article says "the surface was molten at the time."

But the Bible says our atmosphere came from the ocean, at a time when there was no land surface at all.

Looking at the earth from space, light could pass right through it.

The earth on Day Two, just before God creates the atmosphere.

Do you see any volcanoes or small pockets of air gas anywhere?

 

[Halbhh]

Obviously it can't be both.

The article says "the surface was molten at the time."

But the Bible says our atmosphere came from the ocean, at a time when there was no land surface at all.

Looking at the earth from space, light could pass right through it.

View attachment 346642

The earth on Day Two, just before God creates the atmosphere.

Do you see any volcanoes or small pockets of air gas anywhere?

Please see the rest of my post now, as I rewrote it to make it clear finally what I'm trying to ask about, in a more clear way.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please see the rest of my post now, as I rewrote it to make it clear finally what I'm trying to ask about, in a more clear way.

I don't want to talk about John 1.

I want to talk about Genesis 1.

Specifically what happened on Day Two of the Creation Week.

Actually, I'd like an answer to my challenge:

What's your preference?

According to science, the air started out dirty, then got clean enough for life to exist in it, but still has contaminants in it.

According to the Bible though, the air started out "very good", then acquired contaminants later on.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't want to talk about John 1.

That is what I'm suggesting is the heart of the problem for your idea here. That you cannot understand Genesis 1 fully (or correctly) without knowing and believing John 1 and then realizing the full meaning implied in what John 1 is saying.

This is a key principle we all must use to read the Bible: that we rely on the Bible in general to help us understand passages, or as it is commonly said: "using the Bible to interpret the Bible". So, instead of a man made interpretation like Young Earth Creationism Theory -- instead of that, we should use the Bible as a whole to understand Genesis 1 through 3 more completely and well.

So, instead of being a separate unrelated topic, John 1 is the topic here, because its truth must teach us better how to understand Genesis 1. (unless one doesn't even believe the Gospel of John is true, perhaps, but then you'd best admit that up front)

 

[AV1611VET]

That is what I'm suggesting is the heart of the problem for your idea here.

???

I don't have a problem.

Other than asking what I thought was well-educated people a question so simple my cat could answer it.

 

[Lost4words]

According to Smithsonian:

When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today’s atmosphere. After about half a billion years, Earth’s surface cooled and solidified enough for water to collect on it.

SOURCE

According to the Bible:

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Now ... notice that, according to the Smithsonian, Earth already had an atmosphere.

Here it is again:

When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere.

"Almost no atmosphere" means it had an atmosphere.

Only that atmosphere at the time wasn't anything like the air we breathe today.

Nor do we know how extensive that atmosphere was.

Did it stretch around the earth? was it thin? what did it look like? could you smell it? taste it? breathe it?

Anyway, according to the Smithsonian, we got our atmosphere by ... well ... um ... it existed, then it got bigger and bigger when volcanoes spewed gasses into it (kinda like blowing up a balloon, I guess), and so on and so forth.

And, of course, this took 500 million years from 4,600,000,000 BC to 4,100,000,000 BC.

As opposed to the Bible, which shows an earth without an atmosphere one day, and the very next day, there it is.

Pure, breathable air; void of contaminants of any kind.

So here's my challenge:

Which scenario would you rather go with?

Some institute that says we got it, but can't tell us how?

Or the Bible, which testifies of God's powerful ability to call it into existence, purer than the air in Lapland?

God, every time!

 

[dlamberth]

Or the Bible, which testifies of God's powerful ability to call it into existence, purer than the air in Lapland?

I fully go with what Science points towards over the creation story of an ancient middle-eastern tribe of desert nomads.

 

[AV1611VET]

I fully go with what Science points towards ...

In this case, science is dead wrong.