Water is older than the sun–agreeing with genesis chapter one – page 2 – straight dope message board 2015 electricity prices


Answers in Genesis Ministry generally, and Carl Wieland CEO-Australia specifically, are the principal sources of the creationists’ repeated falsehood that dinosaurs are modern because blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in fresh bone. There are in fact five gross errors in just those few words that originated with Wieland and Answers in Genesis. These falsehoods are found commonly repeated throughout the creationist literature. We have demonstrated above that Carl Wieland, writing for Answers in Genesis, falsely represented this research to his readers. Minimally any objective reader should be satisfied that within the scientific literature, a) "red blood cells" have not been found in dinosaur bone, b) Schweitzer did not say that there were "red blood cells" in her specimens, c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone, e) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than "willful ignorance", and has actively lied to a trusting public. Schweitzer did make some early remarks to news reporters that were easily exploited by creationists such as Wieland. Even the popularized version of Schweitzer’s work was distorted through selective quoting and direct misrepresentation. This is a common problem when trying to communicate science – anything that can be misinterpreted by creationists probably will be. But the test of science is in the scientific literature, and at no point did her speculative remarks enter the scientific dialog.

The irony is palpable. No scientist could continue his or her career guilty of such shoddy work, but we predict that there will be no negative consequence to Wieland or his organization. If you "own" the truth, you apparently needn’t stint at falsehood.

I am new here. But the big news I am bring can be discovered in the first chapter of the Old Testament or Discover Magazine Sep. 2014. For years it baffled humanity how there was possibly water before there was a sun and now it is a scientific fact. Bible grows more accuarte all the time (paths of the sea and Mathew Maury anyone?).

So, to address this, claiming that the Bible was accurate because water is older than the formation of the Sun is really a stretch. It’s pretty clear that the narrative int he Bible had God creating the heaven and earth, along with the waters and then bringing the light (presumably turning on the sun). This isn’t what happened, however, and saying that water existed before the sun somehow proves this narrative is simply wrong. It’s definitely true that H2O existed before the Sun, but then so did the gas and dust that comprised both the Sun and the rest of the solar system, having come from previously exploding stars.

The Bible would only be getting ‘more accurate all the time) if it’s narrative actually described what happened, not simply taking one factoid (water is older than the Sun) and using that to demonstrate what you are asserting. And it doesn’t. Here is the Bible’s narrative on this:

Except we know that the Sun is older than the Earth. The elements that comprise what would become the Earth, eventually, are older than the formation of the Sun, but then the elements that comprise the Sun are older than the formation of the Sun as well. The Sun, however, formed first, and the Earth formed later…actually quite a bit later, since the at least one theory holds that the Earth is a 2nd generation planet. Also, the early Earth didn’t have standing water…couldn’t have it in fact, since the planet was molten (nothing in the Bible about any of this). The current theory, as far as I know, has water being delivered to the Earth during the late heavy bombardment phase of the solar system. This would have been long after the first day and long after the planet formed (heck, if they are right about this being a second generation planet then the original super Earth that was in our approximate orbit got blown away by a massive collision, and even the Earth obtained it’s moon by having something the size of Mars glance off of us).

Literally. When Stephen Hawking had an audience with the Pope (I think it was John Paul II, but am not positive) he was explicitly told not to inquire about the origin of the universe. Ironically, he was just then postulating his "imaginary time" hypothesis (the Hartle-Hawking state).

The papists say that SHawking wrote something to that effect in Brief History but that the account is a distortion of JP2’s actual words, which they quote as Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe.

By itself science cannot resolve such a question: it requires human knowledge which rises above the physical, the astrophysical, what we call the metaphysical; what is required above all is the knowledge which comes from the revelation of God.

We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma. Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.I am not quite sure what this “purification” is all about, but the Catholic Church deprecating idolatry is akin to Roy Moore advocating tolerance and restraint.