User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
The elements encoded in Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 Is an acount of spintronics, not creation, nor intelligent design. This explains where light came from before stars. God's spirit that hovers over the watery surface of the deep are photons hovering over the surface of atoms.

Genesis 1:2-5 Adam (atom) and Eve (evening) is the element Hydrogen. This explains why there is space/time ("was hovering over the waters") before he created Heaven (sky does not end), and how God did not create water.

Genesis 1:6-8 Helium is Heaven since it is in the Sky.

Genesis 1:9-13 What the Bible calls Dry is Lithium, the first solid. First you must understand that the ancients were on to something when they came up with the four elements--they're states of matter. Earth is solid, water is liquid, air is gas and fire is plasma.

Genesis 1:14-19 Here God creates stars as if they were easier to do than the sun and moon. By looking up the fourth element on the fourth day of creation in the online dictionary.com (I use this with most of the story) we know that Beryllium is used in nuclear reactors.

Genesis 1:20-23 I don't know what Boron has to do with water dwelling creatures.

Genesis 1:24-31 Talks about living creatures that of course need Carbon. Carbon is the image of God. This is where evolution can be grasped because homo-sapien sapiens were not created. But the other fauna were in God's image and that has been carried down to our generation in Carbon.

Genesis 2:1-3 Nitrogen brings rest to soil. It is crucial to the existence of tissue. You can see Adam forming now and is no longer just the foundational Carbon.

Genesis 2:5-7 Verse 5 there is no water. Verse 6 there is. Oxygen has formed giving the possibility for water and qi. And what do we see? You can see in the Bible that Adam did not start breathing until after the literal seven days. Thus allowing an almost infinite time gap. A real gap, not the non-existent Gap theory that is between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Genesis 3 Fluorine is the curse God puts to the soil since it is poisenous. This explains why it is an allegory that Adam did not die that very day.

Genesis 3:24 The flaming sword that moves in every direction is the red Neon. The cherubim are the electrons in their outer orbits.

Genesis 4:2 Cain is Sodium, which "tills the ground" for flora. Able is Magnesium, which helps absorb Calcium for bones of fauna or sheep.

Genesis 4:8 Sodium explodes with water.

Genesis 4:16 Nod is east or to the right of the elements so far discussed on the Periodic Table of Elements. So Nod is Aluminum.

Genesis 5 Genesis' family tree is a record to show that many elements are forming.

Genesis 5:22-24 Enoch is Silicon. This explains why he was taken by "God." We take and are in a shortage of Silicon. Enoch's walk with God is a hint at its semiconductor ability because, remember, God is light. With a quarter of earth's crust being Silicon we can see earth starting to form. Silicon is essential for bricks, "When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch," (Genesis 4: 17).

Genesis 6:1,4 The giants are real people, not allegories. There is no explanation from where they came so evolution has comfort. Irad was the first man once the word changed from bore to beget.

So, the beginning of Genesis was an explanation of the first fourteen elements in story format.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:1 Is an acount of spintronics, not creation, nor intelligent design. This explains where light came from before stars. God's spirit that hovers over the watery surface of the deep are photons hovering over the surface of atoms."

(And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.) This verse has the formation of light occurring only after the waters and the earth already existed. This is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.

(And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.) The early universe was not dark. We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of decoupling, about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today. The verse refers to (the face of the waters.) If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accumulation had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.

(Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.) This verse implies that the (heavens and the earth) were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the heavens, or space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a third generation star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars.

(And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.) Those who wrote the Bible believed that darkness was an element separate and distinct from light. This is just wrong. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light.

On the first day, God created light Genesis 1:5 (And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.) To say that there was morning and evening is to indicate the location of the Sun. In the morning, the Sun is low and in the evening, the Sun is also low. To say morning or evening is to indicate the location of the Sun. However, the Sun was not existing at that time. The Sun was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16). There was no existing Sun - therefore - no morning or evening could have occurred on the first day. Also, the second day when God separated sky and Earth, it still claimed the morning and evening without the existence of the Sun (Genesis 1:8). The same problem holds true on the third day, as well (Genesis 1:13). A morning and evening cannot exist without a Sun.

Your speculation has nothing to do with the obvious errors in Genesis (especially concerning when the sun was created.) The first light that traveled throughout the Universe was (CMB) Cosmic Microwave Background. This light is much dimmer today. It is incontrovertible proof that the Universe experienced a Big Bang.

Spintronics (a neologism meaning "spin transport electronics") Spintronics Electron spin is a quantum property that has two possible states, either "up" or "down." Aligning spins in a material creates magnetism. Moreover, magnetic fields affect the passage of "up" and "down" electrons differently. Understanding and controlling this property is central to creating a whole new class of electronic properties.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:2-5 Adam (atom) and Eve (evening) is the element Hydrogen. This explains why there is space/time ("was hovering over the waters") before he created Heaven (sky does not end), and how God did not create water."

(And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.) The early universe was not dark. We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today. The verse refers to (the face of the waters.) If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accumulation had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.

The Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans. But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water (none at all) or any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong. We know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably increase. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:6-8 Helium is Heaven since it is in the Sky.

(And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.) The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says, (the windows of heaven were opened) and also in Genesis 8:2, which says (the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.) There is no "firmament"that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of gravity, simply assumed that this hard clear sphere must be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the firmament must have "windows" to let the rain through.

(And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas.) Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it increased that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.

(And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.) According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. Grasses weren't the first forms of life. Grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the last major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also wrong. We know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.

The Sun was formed early in the history of our Solar System, about four and a half billion years ago. Gases were pulled together by gravity from a cloud of gas and dust and eventually combined to form a hot, glowing mass. This mass continued to contract under its own weight until nuclear fusion occurred. Fusion is the fusing or combining of several atoms, in this case, Hydrogen atoms, to form Helium. Photons (light particles) are released in this process and they interact with matter in the dense core of the Sun, continually being absorbed and re-emitted in a (random walk) until they reach the surface of the Sun, where they stream outward at the speed of light. From the moment a photon is created in the core of the Sun until it makes it to the Photosphere (the outer visible layer of the Sun) it can take a million years of (random walking.) From the photosphere it only takes 8.3 minutes for that photon to reach the Earth. The Sun is currently about 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium (by mass). That ratio will change over millions of years as the fusion process continues to make Helium out of Hydrogen.

There is no proof of heaven in the sky (the Bible is not proof) since it won't hold up under any objective analysis. Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide - the lower layers are the troposphere and stratosphere. The upper layers are the mesosphere, the thermosphere, and the exosphere.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:9-13 What the Bible calls Dry is Lithium, the first solid. First you must understand that the ancients were on to something when they came up with the four elements--they're states of matter. Earth is solid, water is liquid, air is gas and fire is plasma."

You can say any word refers to some element in the creation story - it is not proof of anything, and the story would still have plenty of problems. The discovery of the Four Elements is generally credited to Empedocles, a fifth century BCE Greek from Sicily. However, Empedocles makes clear that the Elements are more than just material substances. He introduces them as Gods. Empedocles gave his students knowledge in riddles: "Now hear the fourfold Roots of everything: Enlivening Hera, Hades, shining Zeus, And Nestis, moistening mortal springs with tears." The solution to the riddle: Zeus is Air, Hera is Earth, Hades is Fire and Nestis (Persephone) is Water.

On the third day, God created vegetation (Genesis 1:12). Plants contain a chemical known as chlorophyll that turns sunlight into energy. However, the Sun was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16), after the creation of plants. Plants could not exist without the creation of the Sun. The creator didn't first provide the resource required by plants - the Sun - and then the plants that would have used the Sun.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:14-19 Here God creates stars as if they were easier to do than the sun and moon. By looking up the fourth element on the fourth day of creation in the online dictionary.com (I use this with most of the story) we know that Beryllium is used in nuclear reactors."

We know that, contrary to the Genesis account stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is just wrong. The sun already existed when the earth was developing. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth, and from this impact debris increase to form the moon.

In Genesis 1:16, God created two great lights within the sky. One rules at night and one rules at day. The moon simply reflects the light from the Sun giving the impression that it is a great light. However, the fact remains clear: the moon is not a light source, or a (great light.)

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:20-23 I don't know what Boron has to do with water dwelling creatures."

The Genesis account places the appearance of marine life after earthly grasses and fruit trees. Scientifically, we know this is wrong. This account also has whales as one of the first marine life. Whales very recently evolved, not developing until long after the dinosaurs had died out. The Genesis account mentions that birds were created at the same time. Birds date from at least the Jurassic period, millions of years before the first whale. The Genesis account is also wrong in stating that birds appeared before any of the other earthly animals (creeping things - the literal translation of the Latin root for "reptiles"). Not only did reptiles and dinosaurs appear on land before birds did, but we know from fossil evidence that, taxonomically, birds and dinosaurs belong in the same group.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:24-31 Talks about living creatures that of course need Carbon. Carbon is the image of God. This is where evolution can be grasped because homo-sapien sapiens were not created. But the other fauna were in God's image and that has been carried down to our generation in Carbon."

God made man from dust and breathed life into his nostrils. (Genesis 2:7). This is ridiculous (your carbon explanation is after the fact) Genesis says man was made from dust. It does not say man was made from an element, substance or Carbon, as life on earth is based on the element of Carbon. If God is omnipotent why couldn't he make everything by just waving his hands.

(And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.) The Genesis account here places the creation of "creeping things" (this phrase usually refers to insects, spiders, and reptiles at the same time as the creation of mammals (cattle.) According to Genesis, these things all appeared after grasses; fruit trees, whales and birds had already appeared. Genesis is wrong. All of these groups appeared several hundred millions of years before mammals did. All of them first appeared in the ocean, not on land. The reference to the creation of (cattle) is also wrong, since cattle are a domestic animal produced by ancient pastoral societies. They are not a species that ever lived in the wild.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 2:1-3 Nitrogen brings rest to soil. It is crucial to the existence of tissue. You can see Adam forming now and is no longer just the foundational Carbon."

You can say anything, but the account in Genesis doesn't vaguely resemble yours. (And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.) The second creation account's version of how man was created. As we know, it is scientifically untrue. Humans come from the same evolutionary process as every other living thing.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 2:5-7 Verse 5 there is no water. Verse 6 there is. Oxygen has formed giving the possibility for water and qi. And what do we see? You can see in the Bible that Adam did not start breathing until after the literal seven days. Thus allowing an almost infinite time gap. A real gap, not the non-existent Gap theory that is between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2."

Putting time gaps in (that are not indicated in Genesis) does not change the facts. No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Verse 6 - A mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. Genesis 2:5-7 Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms.

In Genesis woman was created from the rib bone of man (Genesis 2:22). What was the reason God created woman from a rib bone? (God had no more dust left?) It is not reasonable that God could not create woman the same way he created Adam.

(And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.) This verse has the formation of light occurring only after the waters and the earth already existed. This is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being. -Linda

Ok, that's a discrepancy with the verse, not what I'm saying. -Devin

(And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.) The early universe was not dark. We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of decoupling, about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today. The verse refers to (the face of the waters.) If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accumulation had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth. -Linda

So quarks are light? Yes, I wasn't refering to the water on earth. -Devin

(Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.) This verse implies that the (heavens and the earth) were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the heavens, or space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a third generation star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars. -Linda

No, Genesis 1:1 is a summary for what is to be said. Matter was not created, it did not appear after space. Space came after the strings that make up matter just as the Big Bang says and the universe is getting more space. -Devin

On the first day, God created light Genesis 1:5 (And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.) To say that there was morning and evening is to indicate the location of the Sun. In the morning, the Sun is low and in the evening, the Sun is also low. To say morning or evening is to indicate the location of the Sun. However, the Sun was not existing at that time. The Sun was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16). There was no existing Sun - therefore - no morning or evening could have occurred on the first day. Also, the second day when God separated sky and Earth, it still claimed the morning and evening without the existence of the Sun (Genesis 1:8). The same problem holds true on the third day, as well (Genesis 1:13). A morning and evening cannot exist without a Sun. -Linda

The morning and evening are indicative of the location of the electron. I'll be more clear in my blog on this. -Devin

Your speculation has nothing to do with the obvious errors in Genesis (especially concerning when the sun was created.) The first light that traveled throughout the Universe was (CMB) Cosmic Microwave Background. This light is much dimmer today. It is incontrovertible proof that the Universe experienced a Big Bang. -Linda

Oh, I believe in a Big Bang. -Devin

Spintronics (a neologism meaning "spin transport electronics") Spintronics Electron spin is a quantum property that has two possible states, either "up" or "down." Aligning spins in a material creates magnetism. Moreover, magnetic fields affect the passage of "up" and "down" electrons differently. Understanding and controlling this property is central to creating a whole new class of electronic properties. -Linda

What does this have to do with? (Rhetorically.)

(And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.) The early universe was not dark. We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today. The verse refers to (the face of the waters.) If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accumulation had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth. -Linda

Redundant information. -Devin

The Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans. But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water (none at all) or any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong. We know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably increase. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong. -Linda

Actually, I did not say water was formed yet, neither did I think it to be so. Lithium did form according to the topic, which is nuclear. -Devin

(And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.) The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says, (the windows of heaven were opened) and also in Genesis 8:2, which says (the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.) There is no "firmament"that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of gravity, simply assumed that this hard clear sphere must be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the firmament must have "windows" to let the rain through. -Linda

That's your interpretation. -Devin

(And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas.) Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it increased that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets. -Linda

My interpretation of that verse has nothing to do with water and earth as you define it. Besides, to me that says God created gravity that day. Space was the previous day by the way. -Devin

(And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.) According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. Grasses weren't the first forms of life. Grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the last major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also wrong. We know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong. -Linda

Cool, I don't have a problem with the Bible being wrong. -Devin

The Sun was formed early in the history of our Solar System, about four and a half billion years ago. Gases were pulled together by gravity from a cloud of gas and dust and eventually combined to form a hot, glowing mass. This mass continued to contract under its own weight until nuclear fusion occurred. Fusion is the fusing or combining of several atoms, in this case, Hydrogen atoms, to form Helium. Photons (light particles) are released in this process and they interact with matter in the dense core of the Sun, continually being absorbed and re-emitted in a (random walk) until they reach the surface of the Sun, where they stream outward at the speed of light. From the moment a photon is created in the core of the Sun until it makes it to the Photosphere (the outer visible layer of the Sun) it can take a million years of (random walking.) From the photosphere it only takes 8.3 minutes for that photon to reach the Earth. The Sun is currently about 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium (by mass). That ratio will change over millions of years as the fusion process continues to make Helium out of Hydrogen. -Linda

Whatever, you should look up Ultra Dense Deuterium. It will help us with nuclear fusion without radioactivity. Fun facts right? I can see you like those.

There is no proof of heaven in the sky (the Bible is not proof) since it won't hold up under any objective analysis. Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide - the lower layers are the troposphere and stratosphere. The upper layers are the mesosphere, the thermosphere, and the exosphere. -Linda

Heaven is the sky. There is no defined end to the sky. Sky, space, and heaven are the same thing. You're so caught up on some sort of wikipedia that you forgot to think and take the 101 classes. -Devin

You can say any word refers to some element in the creation story - it is not proof of anything, and the story would still have plenty of problems. The discovery of the Four Elements is generally credited to Empedocles, a fifth century BCE Greek from Sicily. However, Empedocles makes clear that the Elements are more than just material substances. He introduces them as Gods. Empedocles gave his students knowledge in riddles: "Now hear the fourfold Roots of everything: Enlivening Hera, Hades, shining Zeus, And Nestis, moistening mortal springs with tears." The solution to the riddle: Zeus is Air, Hera is Earth, Hades is Fire and Nestis (Persephone) is Water. -Linda

I wasn't trying to prove them. -Devin

On the third day, God created vegetation (Genesis 1:12). Plants contain a chemical known as chlorophyll that turns sunlight into energy. However, the Sun was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16), after the creation of plants. Plants could not exist without the creation of the Sun. The creator didn't first provide the resource required by plants - the Sun - and then the plants that would have used the Sun. -Linda

The plants only need to survive for one day. -Devin

We know that, contrary to the Genesis account stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is just wrong. The sun already existed when the earth was developing. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth, and from this impact debris increase to form the moon. -Linda

Enough of this off topic crap. Go back and read my story. -Devin

In Genesis 1:16, God created two great lights within the sky. One rules at night and one rules at day. The moon simply reflects the light from the Sun giving the impression that it is a great light. However, the fact remains clear: the moon is not a light source, or a (great light.) -Linda

It doesn't say that the moon is a light source. -Devin

The Genesis account places the appearance of marine life after earthly grasses and fruit trees. Scientifically, we know this is wrong. This account also has whales as one of the first marine life. Whales very recently evolved, not developing until long after the dinosaurs had died out. The Genesis account mentions that birds were created at the same time. Birds date from at least the Jurassic period, millions of years before the first whale. The Genesis account is also wrong in stating that birds appeared before any of the other earthly animals (creeping things - the literal translation of the Latin root for "reptiles"). Not only did reptiles and dinosaurs appear on land before birds did, but we know from fossil evidence that, taxonomically, birds and dinosaurs belong in the same group. -Linda

Maybe the grasses meant underwater ones, it's still on the ground. -Devin

God made man from dust and breathed life into his nostrils. (Genesis 2:7). This is ridiculous (your carbon explanation is after the fact) Genesis says man was made from dust. It does not say man was made from an element, substance or Carbon, as life on earth is based on the element of Carbon. If God is omnipotent why couldn't he make everything by just waving his hands. -Linda

Man is the elements. Who said he didn't just wave his hands? I'm saying that everything is made of elements. -Devin (And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.) The Genesis account here places the creation of "creeping things" (this phrase usually refers to insects, spiders, and reptiles at the same time as the creation of mammals (cattle.) According to Genesis, these things all appeared after grasses; fruit trees, whales and birds had already appeared. Genesis is wrong. All of these groups appeared several hundred millions of years before mammals did. All of them first appeared in the ocean, not on land. The reference to the creation of (cattle) is also wrong, since cattle are a domestic animal produced by ancient pastoral societies. They are not a species that ever lived in the wild. -Linda If they didn't appear after the food, what did they eat? I wasn't talking about cattle as you define them. -Devin You can say anything, but the account in Genesis doesn't vaguely resemble yours. (And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.) The second creation account's version of how man was created. As we know, it is scientifically untrue. Humans come from the same evolutionary process as every other living thing. -Linda There is no second creation account to my interpretation as you could tell. I mentioned evolution a couple times. Please, deal only with things that you disagree with. -Devin Putting time gaps in (that are not indicated in Genesis) does not change the facts. No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Verse 6 - A mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. Genesis 2:5-7 Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. The only thing not indicated is the time. Besides, according to my story (and I'll clean it up) there is no time gap needed because Adam was created straight from the water and minerals. -Devin In Genesis woman was created from the rib bone of man (Genesis 2:22). What was the reason God created woman from a rib bone? (God had no more dust left?) It is not reasonable that God could not create woman the same way he created Adam. -Linda Go ahead, let your anger out that you are inferior to men. -LOLing Devin

Answers to subjects of controversy:

(Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.) This verse implies that the (heavens and the earth) were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the heavens, or space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a third generation star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars. -Linda

Devin Wesley Harper said, "No, Genesis 1:1 is a summary for what is to be said. Matter was not created, it did not appear after space. Space came after the strings that make up matter just as the Big Bang says and the universe is getting more space. -Devin"

Linda Answer: In the first two verses, Heaven and Earth are created. This is before the "let there be light" command which is supposed to be the Big Bang. According to theory, there was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in any shape or condition. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

On the first day, God created light Genesis 1:5 (And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.) To say that there was morning and evening is to indicate the location of the Sun. In the morning, the Sun is low and in the evening, the Sun is also low. To say morning or evening is to indicate the location of the Sun. However, the Sun was not existing at that time. The Sun was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16). There was no existing Sun - therefore - no morning or evening could have occurred on the first day. Also, the second day when God separated sky and Earth, it still claimed the morning and evening without the existence of the Sun (Genesis 1:8). The same problem holds true on the third day, as well (Genesis 1:13). A morning and evening cannot exist without a Sun. -Linda

Devin Wesley Harper said, "The morning and evening are indicative of the location of the electron. I'll be more clear in my blog on this. -Devin"

Linda Answer: So what is earth rotating around an (electron)? Genesis 1:5 says "and the evening and the morning were the first day." How could there be day and night without the sun for the first three days?

Your speculation has nothing to do with the obvious errors in Genesis (especially concerning when the sun was created.) The first light that traveled throughout the Universe was (CMB) Cosmic Microwave Background. This light is much dimmer today. It is incontrovertible proof that the Universe experienced a Big Bang. -Linda

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Oh, I believe in a Big Bang. -Devin"

Linda Answer: Heaven and Earth are created before the "let there be light" command which is supposed to be the Big Bang. According to theory, there was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

The Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans. But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water (none at all) or any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong. We know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably increase. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong. -Linda

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Actually, I did not say water was formed yet, neither did I think it to be so. Lithium did form according to the topic, which is nuclear. -Devin"

Linda Answer: All elements other than hydrogen and helium were created by the deaths of stars, yet the Bible has the Earth, land, water, etc… billions of years before the stars are even created.

(And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.) The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says, (the windows of heaven were opened) and also in Genesis 8:2, which says (the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.) There is no "firmament"that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of gravity, simply assumed that this hard clear sphere must be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the firmament must have "windows" to let the rain through. -Linda

Devin Wesley Harper said, "That's your interpretation. -Devin"

Linda Answer: Well, I don't know what you interpret a window to be other than a window?

(And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas.) Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it increased that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets. -Linda

My interpretation of that verse has nothing to do with water and earth as you define it. Besides, to me that says God created gravity that day. Space was the previous day by the way. -Devin

Linda Answer: Genesis 1:9 and God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it increased that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets. There was no space before the Big Bang and you can throw gravity or anything you want into the wash, but the writers of Genesis don't seem to know gravity even exists.

The Sun was formed early in the history of our Solar System, about four and a half billion years ago. Gases were pulled together by gravity from a cloud of gas and dust and eventually combined to form a hot, glowing mass. This mass continued to contract under its own weight until nuclear fusion occurred. Fusion is the fusing or combining of several atoms, in this case, Hydrogen atoms, to form Helium. Photons (light particles) are released in this process and they interact with matter in the dense core of the Sun, continually being absorbed and re-emitted in a (random walk) until they reach the surface of the Sun, where they stream outward at the speed of light. From the moment a photon is created in the core of the Sun until it makes it to the Photosphere (the outer visible layer of the Sun) it can take a million years of (random walking.) From the photosphere it only takes 8.3 minutes for that photon to reach the Earth. The Sun is currently about 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium (by mass). That ratio will change over millions of years as the fusion process continues to make Helium out of Hydrogen. -Linda

Whatever, you should look up Ultra Dense Deuterium. It will help us with nuclear fusion without radioactivity. Fun facts right? I can see you like those.

Linda Answer: My facts come from the sciences (science books) that explain the origins of the species, the Earth and the Universe. I looked up Genesis in the Bible (both versions) and concluded that it was bad science. I didn't try to make Genesis fit what science has discovered I started with an investigation that was done without forming an opinion first and then trying to make it fit Genesis. Genesis in the Bible is bad science, and it is always bad science to start an investigation after coming to a preconceived conclusion. It is even worse to base science on a pre-scientific faulty ancient manuscript in the first place.

On the third day, God created vegetation (Genesis 1:12). Plants contain a chemical known as chlorophyll that turns sunlight into energy. However, the Sun was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16), after the creation of plants. Plants could not exist without the creation of the Sun. The creator didn't first provide the resource required by plants - the Sun - and then the plants that would have used the Sun. -Linda

Devin Wesley Harper said, "The plants only need to survive for one day. -Devin"

Linda Answer: Plants come from seeds that need the sun to germinate. They could not become plants in a day.

We know that, contrary to the Genesis account stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is just wrong. The sun already existed when the earth was developing. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth, and from this impact debris increase to form the moon. -Linda

Devin Wesley Harper said, Enough of this off topic crap. Go back and read my story. -Devin

Linda Answer: It doesn't matter what your story is - it's the story in Genesis vs science - which is the topic.

In the first two verses, Heaven and Earth are created. This is before the "let there be light" command which is supposed to be the Big Bang. According to theory, there was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in any type of shape or condition. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

In verse 5 God is separating light from darkness, and God calls the light day and the darkness night and then there's an evening and a morning. This solar system formation is a contradiction. Astrologers do not believe that the earth formed before the sun.

In verse 11 God creates the plants before the creation of the Sun which seems like a huge problem since plants obviously evolved to perform photosynthesis from sunlight.

Also the Bible has trees being created before "swimming creatures." "Swimming creatures" or marine animals evolved in the oceans long before any life (including trees) began populating the land.

In verse 16 God finally makes the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. The sun already existed when the earth was developing. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is wrong. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed.

Also all elements other than hydrogen and helium were created by the deaths of stars, yet the Bible has the Earth, land, water, etc… billions of years before the stars are even created.

When I read creationist's pathetic attempts at reconciling the archaic creation story in Genesis with modern science I can't stop laughing.

Linda Answer: In the first two verses, Heaven and Earth are created. This is before the "let there be light" command which is supposed to be the Big Bang. According to theory, there was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in any shape or condition. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

Devin: So the super dense stuff wasn't in space? Or was there space just not expanding?

Linda Answer: So what is earth rotating around an (electron)? Genesis 1:5 says "and the evening and the morning were the first day." How could there be day and night without the sun for the first three days?

Devin: Rotating around an atomic nucleus to be more specific.

Linda Answer: Heaven and Earth are created before the "let there be light" command which is supposed to be the Big Bang. According to theory, there was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

Devin: Heaven is the expansion of the universe and that was created after it. Would making verse one an account of God creating instead of a summary of the account help explain it? I don't know how to edit my blog to overcome this, I'm lost.

Linda Answer: All elements other than hydrogen and helium were created by the deaths of stars, yet the Bible has the Earth, land, water, etc… billions of years before the stars are even created.

Devin: Calculating the rate of the expansion of the universe into days since the time of the Big Bang, we are on the sixth day. This explains why evolution (and evolution of the stars and planets) is still happening.

Linda Answer: Well, I don't know what you interpret a window to be other than a window?

Devin: How about the function, of rain coming down. It is primitive speak, not specific. After all, the elements aren't in Genesis, they're encoded in Genesis.

Linda Answer: Genesis 1:9 and God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it increased that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets. There was no space before the Big Bang and you can throw gravity or anything you want into the wash, but the writers of Genesis don't seem to know gravity even exists. I deleted gravity from the mix recently because there was gravity since matter and space - the Big Bang. The water isn't until Genesis 2:5-7.

Linda Answer: My facts come from the sciences (science books) that explain the origins of the species, the Earth and the Universe. I looked up Genesis in the Bible (both versions) and concluded that it was bad science. I didn't try to make Genesis fit what science has discovered I started with an investigation that was done without forming an opinion first and then trying to make it fit Genesis. Genesis in the Bible is bad science, and it is always bad science to start an investigation after coming to a preconceived conclusion. It is even worse to base science on a pre-scientific faulty ancient manuscript in the first place.

Devin: You are proving yourself wrong.

Linda Answer: Plants come from seeds that need the sun to germinate. They could not become plants in a day.

Devin: I didn't say that plants come up all the sudden. They don't 'till at least Genesis 4:2.

Linda Answer: It doesn't matter what your story is - it's the story in Genesis vs science - which is the topic.

Devin: You'll find I have the answer to it with the expanding universe and six days stuff. It does matter what topic we're on. I know most of what you say about science. The topic is, are elements encoded in Genesis. Not, let's put random facts that make the Bible seem wrong when they don't contradict the topic in the context of what has been told.

Linda: In the first two verses, Heaven and Earth are created. This is before the "let there be light" command which is supposed to be the Big Bang. According to theory, there was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in any type of shape or condition. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

Devin: Space itself expanded and came into being at the big bang is what you're saying.

Linda: In verse 5 God is separating light from darkness, and God calls the light day and the darkness night and then there's an evening and a morning. This solar system formation is a contradiction. Astrologers do not believe that the earth formed before the sun.

Devin: On topic, now, now show me where I was wrong.

Linda: In verse 11 God creates the plants before the creation of the Sun which seems like a huge problem since plants obviously evolved to perform photosynthesis from sunlight.

Devin: It's also a huge problem that evolution is still happening.

Linda: Also the Bible has trees being created before "swimming creatures." "Swimming creatures" or marine animals evolved in the oceans long before any life (including trees) began populating the land.

Devin: I think it means flora of any sort. As I've said before, land is under water too.

Linda: In verse 16 God finally makes the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. The sun already existed when the earth was developing. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is wrong. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed.

Devin: You did not address a contradiction. Earth didn't form till around Genesis 5: 22-24, after the stars at Genesis 1:14-19.

Linda: Also all elements other than hydrogen and helium were created by the deaths of stars, yet the Bible has the Earth, land, water, etc… billions of years before the stars are even created.

Devin: Not so, as I've just addressed.

Linda: When I read creationist's pathetic attempts at reconciling the archaic creation story in Genesis with modern science I can't stop laughing.

Devin: laughing can add eight years to your life. You haven't yet addressed one problem that would make me question the whole idea. I see that I have offended you, please forgive me. Also, no ad hominem attacks please, thank you.

Devin: So the super dense stuff wasn't in space? Or was there space just not expanding?

Linda Second Answer: Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. There is no proof of a creator or where the creator came from. This is of no use in the understanding of anything that is scientific - it is based on belief - not science. The expansion of the universe is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star, observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity. There is no space outside of the universe everything is inside the singularity. We are inside the singularity that has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside of itself.

Linda Answer: Space itself expanded after the Big Bang. Heaven and Earth are created before the "let there be light" command in Genesis, which is supposed to be the Big Bang. There was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

Linda Answer: So what is earth rotating around an (electron)? Genesis 1:5 says "and the evening and the morning were the first day." How could there be day and night without the sun for the first three days?

Devin: Rotating around an atomic nucleus to be more specific.

The Earth was rotating around the sun from the time Earth developed. But Genesis 1:14-19 the sun and stars were created after the earth. Genesis 1:16 Stars were all created at once. That of coarse is wrong. The only reason you need to create another scenario is the mistake in Genesis.

Devin: Heaven is the expansion of the universe and that was created after it. Would making verse one an account of God creating instead of a summary of the account help explain it? I don't know how to edit my blog to overcome this, I'm lost.

Linda Second Answer: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity.

Linda Answer: All elements other than hydrogen and helium were created by the deaths of stars, yet the Bible has the Earth, land, water, etc… billions of years before the stars are even created.

Devin: Calculating the rate of the expansion of the universe into days since the time of the Big Bang, we are on the sixth day. This explains why evolution (and evolution of the stars and planets) is still happening.

Linda Second Answer: Only if you make a day a really long time to account for evolution and for no other reason then Genesis would be totally wrong. Day Six Genesis 2:7 Man was made from the dust of the earth. Genesis 2:5 Man was created before rain. Genesis 2:21, 22 Man was created, then woman. Everything in our Universe has come into being through mechanistic processes without any kind of supernatural intervention. The origin and development of the Universe and all of its complex systems living and non-living organisms can be explained on the basis of continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy.

Genesis creation story has God creating all of the species during a short period of time, perhaps about 10,000 BCE. God created all of the species at the same time (within a few days of each other.) If you accept the scientific extremely long period of time required for evolution - there is still no evidence of anything being designed. They have found fossils of thousands of species of plants and animals which evolutionary scientists believe did not exist on the earth simultaneously. The older species died out before the first member of the more recent species evolved. They can pick any pair of species (dinosaurs and humans) they found that the fossils of the two species have never been found together. Also, archaeologists have never found remains of ancient villages and towns in and below the oldest layers of rock. Most scientists working in the field of biology and geology have concluded that Creationism or Intelligent Design is incompatible with the fossil record. When new species arise from existing species, you have speciation. Here's how it works: Two different populations of the same species evolve in different ways. They become progressively more different until they are so different that they are no longer able to interbreed. Through the existence of ring species, scientists can say with certainty that small differences can accumulate in nature to the point that two populations of the same species can become reproductively isolated. They can actually go out and see it.

Linda Answer: Well, I don't know what you interpret a window to be other than a window?

Devin: How about the function, of rain coming down. It is primitive speak, not specific. After all, the elements aren't in Genesis, they're encoded in Genesis.

Linda Second Answer: Why would God use primitive speak in his inspired holy book.

Linda Answer: Genesis 1:9 and God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it increased that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets. There was no space before the Big Bang and you can throw gravity or anything you want into the wash, but the writers of Genesis don't seem to know gravity even exists.

DEVIN YOU PUT THIS AT THE BOTTOM OF MY ANSWER WHEN THIS IS YOURS AND YOU DIDN'T PUT YOUR NAME ON IT: "I DELETED GRAVITY FROM THE MIX RECENTLY BECAUSE THERE WAS GRAVITY SINCE MATTER AND SPACE - THE BIG BANG. THE WATER ISN'T UNTIL GENESIS 2:5-7." IN THE FUTURE PUT YOUR NAME ON YOUR ANSWERS AND DON'T MIX THEM WITH MINE.

Linda Second Answer: Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. We know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules.

Linda Answer: My facts come from the sciences (science books) that explain the origins of the species, the Earth and the Universe. I looked up Genesis in the Bible (both versions) and concluded that it was bad science. I didn't try to make Genesis fit what science has discovered I started with an investigation that was done without forming an opinion first and then trying to make it fit Genesis. Genesis in the Bible is bad science, and it is always bad science to start an investigation after coming to a preconceived conclusion. It is even worse to base science on a pre-scientific faulty ancient manuscript in the first place.

Devin: You are proving yourself wrong.

Linda Second Answer: You wish! I know what I'm proving wrong.

Linda Answer: Plants come from seeds that need the sun to germinate. They could not become plants in a day.

Devin: I didn't say that plants come up all the sudden. They don't 'till at least Genesis 4:2.

Linda Second Answer: What does Genesis 4:2 (again, she gave birth to his brother Abel) have to do with plants. Genesis 1, the sun was not created until day 4 the plants created on day 3.

Linda Answer: It doesn't matter what your story is - it's the story in Genesis vs science - which is the topic.

Devin: You'll find I have the answer to it with the expanding universe and six days stuff. It does matter what topic we're on. I know most of what you say about science. The topic is, are elements encoded in Genesis. Not, let's put random facts that make the Bible seem wrong when they don't contradict the topic in the context of what has been told.

Linda Second Answer: The Creation Bible story in Genesis conflicts with what we know scientifically to be the facts. Your story is an obvious attempt to make Genesis fit science or prove Genesis was really saying something it is not.

Linda: In the first two verses, Heaven and Earth are created. This is before the "let there be light" command which is supposed to be the Big Bang. According to theory, there was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in any type of shape or condition. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

Devin: Space itself expanded and came into being at the big bang is what you're saying.

Linda Second Answer: Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

Linda: In verse 5 God is separating light from darkness, and God calls the light day and the darkness night and then there's an evening and a morning. This solar system formation is a contradiction. Astrologers do not believe that the earth formed before the sun.

Devin: On topic, now, now show me where I was wrong.

Who has been jacking you up! There is no other Biblical story besides the one in Genesis - except for one that is not what it says. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. The scientific fact is the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably increase. The Genesis account has the earth and the waters forming before the Sun, and is wrong.

Linda: In verse 11 God creates the plants before the creation of the Sun which seems like a huge problem since plants obviously evolved to perform photosynthesis from sunlight.

Devin: It's also a huge problem that evolution is still happening.

It is a huge problem for Creationists. Scripture teaches creation as a completed event. Evolution claims life forms are in a continual state of transition. It takes a million years to produce one species change. Scientists couldn't have used Evolution as a basis for the discovery of DNA if it didn't work. And DNA supports and confirms Evolution. Everything in our Universe has come into being through mechanistic processes without a creator. The origin and development of the Universe and all of its complex systems living and non-living organisms can be explained on the basis of continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy. It doesn't matter what was going on before the Big Bang -nothingness - or for how long - because the universe had a beginning (Big Bang). Nothingness could have existed forever, but the universe didn't need a creator.

Linda: Also the Bible has trees being created before "swimming creatures." "Swimming creatures" or marine animals evolved in the oceans long before any life (including trees) began populating the land.

Devin: I think it means flora of any sort. As I've said before, land is under water too.

Linda Second Answer water: Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. We know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water (none at all.) Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong. It wasn't until millions of years after it evolved that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.

Linda Second Answer flora: Genesis 1: 11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Genesis 1: 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1: 13 and the evening and the morning were the third day. According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is incorrect. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that has grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before, fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared.

Linda: In Genesis verse 16 God finally makes the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. Scientists know that the sun already existed when the earth was developing. The biblical account that has the stars forming after Earth is wrong. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed.

Devin: You did not address a contradiction. Earth didn't form till around Genesis 5: 22-24, after the stars at Genesis 1:14-19.

Linda Second Answer: No, you are wrong Genesis has the Earth created before the sun and stars and it is wrong. In Genesis the Earth is created 1:1 and 1:16 Sun and Stars. This is wrong because the Sun and Stars existed before the Earth.

Devin said, "Earth didn't form till around Genesis 5: 22-24, after the stars at Genesis 1:14-19."

Linda Second Answer: Genesis 5:22-24 is not about when the Earth was Created. Genesis 5:22 and Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. Genesis 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years. Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not for God took him.

Linda: Also all elements other than hydrogen and helium were created by the deaths of stars, yet the Bible has the Earth, land, water, etc… billions of years before the stars are even created.

Devin: Not so, as I've just addressed.

You can say it isn't so and say Genesis 5:22 -24 which is not about the creation of the Earth prove it but it doesn't change the scientific facts or what is in the Bible. The point is if the writer of Genesis encoded the elements in Genesis why didn't the writer know that it is the death of stars that created the elements. We know that stars existed before the Earth but who ever wrote Genesis didn't? In Genesis the Earth is created Genesis 1:1 before Genesis 1:16 Sun and Stars. This is wrong they existed before the Earth. God placed the Sun, Moon and stars in the firmament so that they can be used for signs. That's all that primitive man thought they were used for.

Linda: When I read creationist's pathetic attempts at reconciling the archaic creation story in Genesis with modern science I can't stop laughing.

Devin: laughing can add eight years to your life. You haven't yet addressed one problem that would make me question the whole idea. I see that I have offended you, please forgive me. Also, no ad hominem attacks please, thank you.

Linda Second Answer: Puh-lease - The only thing that bothers me is the disingenuousness. I have been addressing the incorrectness of Genesis and your and your attempt to support Creationism. And you are the one who has not addressed any of the obvious mistakes in Genesis. You were making snide remarks from the get go, so I am going to do the same. From what you have shown in the terms of scientific knowledge I can see why you think the elements are encoded in Genesis. The flat earth crowd is going to love your blog.

Linda Second Answer: Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. There is no proof of a creator or where the creator came from. This is of no use in the understanding of anything that is scientific - it is based on belief - not science. The expansion of the universe is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star, observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity. There is no space outside of the universe everything is inside the singularity. We are inside the singularity that has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside of itself. Devin: Create and made are interchangeable words in Genesis. God did not create anything; he is an anthropomorphized force that formed things out of things already there. Linda Answer: Space itself expanded after the Big Bang. Heaven and Earth are created before the "let there be light" command in Genesis, which is supposed to be the Big Bang. There was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang. Devin: As I've said already, Genesis one: one is a summary of creation-that he created, like the first section of a Wikipedia article. Linda: The Earth was rotating around the sun from the time Earth developed. But Genesis 1:14-19 the sun and stars were created after the earth. Genesis 1:16 Stars were all created at once. That of coarse is wrong. The only reason you need to create another scenario is the mistake in Genesis. Devin: In addition to my previous answer, Stars are still evolving. Linda Second Answer: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Devin: So there is something around our universe that the Bible calls water. Linda Second Answer: Only if you make a day a really long time to account for evolution and for no other reason then Genesis would be totally wrong. Day Six Genesis 2:7 Man was made from the dust of the earth. Genesis 2:5 Man was created before rain. Genesis 2:21, 22 Man was created, then woman. Everything in our Universe has come into being through mechanistic processes without any kind of supernatural intervention. The origin and development of the Universe and all of its complex systems living and non-living organisms can be explained on the basis of continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy. Devin: The day is not a really long time. It is only a day from said perspective. Genesis creation story has God creating all of the species during a short period of time, perhaps about 10,000 BCE. God created all of the species at the same time (within a few days of each other.) If you accept the scientific extremely long period of time required for evolution - there is still no evidence of anything being designed. They have found fossils of thousands of species of plants and animals which evolutionary scientists believe did not exist on the earth simultaneously. The older species died out before the first member of the more recent species evolved. They can pick any pair of species (dinosaurs and humans) they found that the fossils of the two species have never been found together. Also, archaeologists have never found remains of ancient villages and towns in and below the oldest layers of rock. Most scientists working in the field of biology and geology have concluded that Creationism or Intelligent Design is incompatible with the fossil record. When new species arise from existing species, you have speciation. Here's how it works: Two different populations of the same species evolve in different ways. They become progressively more different until they are so different that they are no longer able to interbreed. Through the existence of ring species, scientists can say with certainty that small differences can accumulate in nature to the point that two populations of the same species can become reproductively isolated. They can actually go out and see it. Devin: according to your perspective on day, it was 6,400 years ago. I'll get rid of, you can see Adam being formed now so that you can see fauna being formed now. Linda Second Answer: Why would God use primitive speak in his inspired holy book. Devin: Because it wasn't God. DEVIN YOU PUT THIS AT THE BOTTOM OF MY ANSWER WHEN THIS IS YOURS AND YOU DIDN'T PUT YOUR NAME ON IT: "I DELETED GRAVITY FROM THE MIX RECENTLY BECAUSE THERE WAS GRAVITY SINCE MATTER AND SPACE - THE BIG BANG. THE WATER ISN'T UNTIL GENESIS 2:5-7." IN THE FUTURE PUT YOUR NAME ON YOUR ANSWERS AND DON'T MIX THEM WITH MINE. Devin: I can't obey this because it was an accident, so, it may happen again and I have no control over it because I had no control over it. All I can say is sorry, please start forgiving people and not seek revenge. Please delete the previous arguments so that it will save me work, thank you. Linda Second Answer: What does Genesis 4:2 (again, she gave birth to his brother Abel) have to do with plants? Genesis 1, the sun was not created until day 4 the plants created on day 3. Devin: It's in the story. Linda Second Answer: The Creation Bible story in Genesis conflicts with what we know scientifically to be the facts. Your story is an obvious attempt to make Genesis fit science or prove Genesis was really saying something it is not. Devin: Actually, no, I made this up while I was an Atheist. Linda Second Answer: Space itself expanded after the Big Bang. Devin: I saw the science channel and they said it expanded at the Big Bang. Linda: Who has been jacking you up?! There is no other Biblical story besides the one in Genesis - except for one that is not what it says. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. The scientific fact is the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably increase. The Genesis account has the earth and the waters forming before the Sun, and is wrong. Devin: Back to my story. It is a huge problem for Creationists. Scripture teaches creation as a completed event. Evolution claims life forms are in a continual state of transition. It takes a million years to produce one species change. Scientists couldn't have used Evolution as a basis for the discovery of DNA if it didn't work. And DNA supports and confirms Evolution. Everything in our Universe has come into being through mechanistic processes without a creator. The origin and development of the Universe and all of its complex systems living and non-living organisms can be explained on the basis of continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy. It doesn't matter what was going on before the Big Bang -nothingness - or for how long - because the universe had a beginning (Big Bang). Nothingness could have existed forever, but the universe didn't need a creator. Devin: Yep. Linda Second Answer flora: Genesis 1: 11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Genesis 1: 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1: 13 and the evening and the morning were the third day. According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is incorrect. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that has grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before, fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. Devin: But grasses exist now. It is in line with the perspective of time since the Big Bang. You can say it isn't so and say Genesis 5:22 -24 which is not about the creation of the Earth prove it but it doesn't change the scientific facts or what is in the Bible. The point is if the writer of Genesis encoded the elements in Genesis why didn't the writer know that it is the death of stars that created the elements. We know that stars existed before the Earth but who ever wrote Genesis didn't? In Genesis the Earth is created Genesis 1:1 before Genesis 1:16 Sun and Stars. This is wrong they existed before the Earth. God placed the Sun, Moon and stars in the firmament so that they can be used for signs. That's all that primitive man thought they were used for. Devin: You say this a lot. Please refrain from repeating yourself, unless it is to say that you've repeated yourself. Linda: When I read creationist's pathetic attempts at reconciling the archaic creation story in Genesis with modern science I can't stop laughing. Linda Second Answer: Puh-lease - The only thing that bothers me is the disingenuousness. I have been addressing the incorrectness of Genesis and your and your attempt to support Creationism. And you are the one who has not addressed any of the obvious mistakes in Genesis. You were making snide remarks from the get go, so I am going to do the same. From what you have shown in the terms of scientific knowledge I can see why you think the elements are encoded in Genesis. The flat earth crowd is going to love your blog. Devin: the one thing I hate the most is when someone calls me disingenuous when I'm not. I was not disingenuous in my apology. This is where skeptical minds fail. They get skeptical of the whimpers I let out.

David, you have not provided any reasonable basis for your claim that "the beginning of Genesis was an explanation of the first fourteen elements" and you have not shown how such an explanation has resulted in a successful prediction.

Mark:

If Devin Wesley Harper claims that "the beginning of Genesis was an explanation of the first fourteen elements" It is considered anecdotal evidence that never proves anything.

All attempts to extract messages from Bible codes, or to make predictions based on them, are futile and are of no value. This is not only my own opinion, but also the opinion of every scientist who has been involved in serious Codes research.

If someone makes scientific claims, they present scientific evidence. The same thing applies to claim that the "the beginning of Genesis was an explanation of the first fourteen elements". It's is easy say that, but then you need to explain the method used to find this. How does your conclusions that the elements are encoded help (establish the soundness of your claims) and overcome all of the obvious mistakes in Genesis.

Genesis 1:14-19 - The Sun and Stars were created after the Earth. Genesis 1:16 - Stars were all created at once.

Science the Sun and stars existed before the earth. Science the Stars evolved at different times. The universe is 13.7 billion years old; it contains about 100 billion galaxies, each of which contains 100 billion stars of an immense variety.

Without supernova, the fiery death of massive stars, there would be no carbon, oxygen or other elements that make life possible.

As stars die they spew star matter out to the universe. The birth and death of stars is how life evolved on earth. In order to get the chemical elements to make the human body, we had to have three generations of stars. A succeeding generation of stars is born out of the material that is spewed out by a previous generation. The second generation of stars is born out of material that was made in a thermonuclear furnace. The star lived by converting hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon, and if it were massive enough, carbon to oxygen, to nitrogen, all the way up to iron. As a star lives, it converts the lighter elements into the heavier elements. That is the way we get the elements. To get the chemistry to make amoebas we had to have the stars regurgitating material to the universe. After the universe became rich in certain basic chemicals, those chemicals combined in successive steps to make ever more complex molecules. The human brain as a biological, chemical mechanism, evolving out of the universe.

Those of doubtful competency often introduce ad hominem into a discussion if their opponents scoff at their arguments. When they know that they haven't got a leg to stand on, and feel insulted; they call the "ad hominem" savior to their rescue to pummel their adversary, before ascending to argument heaven. Their arguments have no creditability, but who cares they've got ad hominem that will save them from the realm of (YOUR WRONG) hell.

Devin, Linda, and Mark-You're ALL wrong. In the beginning, Gawd turned on the lights. Then he created Heaven (a metaphor for Waller, Texas, the location of the real Heaven.)Then he made some fish and sea creatures, and then he said, "Oh, snap! I forgot the water!" So he made water. Then he wanted to have someone to talk to, so he made Adam ("A-dumb" meaning men are dumb). As for the rest of the bible, if you translate it into Mandarin Chinese and change all the N's to M's, it is actually a metaphor for a recipe for cheesecake. Now we can all get on with our lives.

That is why I don't believe in God in spite of my idea. Even so, the best you can come up with against my argument is that the Bible is wrong about the sun and earth, chronologically. If you were to get past the impossibility of my claim and go with it for a second, you would see that my story has overcame that discrepency. That's why I said you did ad hominem. I now know that you just didn't understand my idea, that's all, sorry for insulting you.

Devin said "If you were to get past the impossibility of my claim and go with it for a second, you would see that my story has overcame that discrepency."

Gross error in grammar aside (or maybe it was just a typo), did you read that before you posted it? Seriously, Devin. You want us to overlook the impossibility of your claim, one for which you've offered no evidence at all, and "go with it for a second" so you can assert that you've overcome its impossibility? Sorry, but my standards of evidence are much, much higher than that.

We evidently understand your idea better than you understand the science that refutes it. No need to apologize - you could not possibly insult us.

I understand the science even more than Linda. I didn't even think of the science before I made the concept. It just fit with science automatically and accidentally.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "I understand the science even more than Linda. I didn't even think of the science before I made the concept. It just fit with science automatically and accidentally."

Your conclusions were no accident, and if you knew anything about science period you would know that you don't make the evidence fit the theory first while ignoring staggering amounts of contradictory evidence that undermines the conclusions. Intelligent Design uses the same method of making things fit the ideas that they already have, and that is why it is not science. ID is pseudoscience. Scientists do not start out to prove something one way or another. The researcher should have no "idea" first before considering all of the available evidence to make a rational and logical decision that is independent of their hopes and beliefs.

Science has already provided testable theories that (explain the origin of the Universe and life in that Universe) that do not have huge mistakes. A theory based on Genesis is already undermined because Genesis is in conflict throughout with Science. Therefore, the scientific rival theories that are inconsistent with theories that are based on Genesis are better theories and are the accepted theories.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "That is why I don't believe in God in spite of my idea. Even so, the best you can come up with against my argument is that the Bible is wrong about the sun and earth, chronologically.

I pointed out far more mistakes than just one in Genesis, and just because you don't seem to understand or acknowledge them doesn't change the facts. The claim that you do not believe in God does not change the mistakes in Genesis. The ID'ers claim that there is evidence of a designer but they do not identify the designer as God but that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence of a designer. The reason ID'ers are not identifying the designer as God is to claim ID is science, and can be taught as science instead of religion. That method has already failed with science and in the courts.

There are mistakes in Genesis of biblical proportions. The Earth before the Sun is just the tip of the iceberg. I have listed them below so that you can present your idea that fixes the fact that the Creation Bible story in Genesis conflicts with what we know scientifically to be the facts.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. This verse implies that the (heavens and the earth) were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the heavens, or space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. There was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in any shape or condition. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

The Sun was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16). The Earth was created first in Genesis 1:1. But Genesis 1:14-19 the sun and stars were created after the Earth. Genesis 1:16 Stars were all created at once. That of coarse is all wrong. All elements other than hydrogen and helium were created by the deaths of stars, yet the Bible has the Earth, land, water, etc… billions of years before the stars are even created.

Genesis creation story has God creating all of the species during a short period of time, perhaps about 10,000 BCE. God created all of the species at the same time (within a few days of each other.) If you accept the scientific extremely long period of time required for by evolution there is no evidence for anything being designed.

Genesis 1:9 and God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it increased that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. We know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules.

The scientific fact is the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably increase. The Genesis account has the earth and the waters forming before the Sun, and is wrong. The Earth was rotating around the sun from the time Earth developed.

In verse 11 God creates the plants before the creation of the Sun which seems like a huge problem since plants obviously evolved to perform photosynthesis from sunlight.

Devin: "It's also a huge problem that evolution is still happening."

You never explained this - this is a problem for Intelligent Design since everything evolved over a long period of time and did not appear all at once. The theory of evolution is more than "just a theory." It is a factual explanation of the universe. Evolution is a theory and an accepted fact. The fact that evolution is still "happening" is a huge problem for Creationists (who don't understand the theory) because the Scripture teaches creation as a completed event. Evolution claims life forms are in a continual state of transition. It takes a million years to produce one species change. Scientists couldn't have used Evolution as a basis for the discovery of DNA if it didn't work. And DNA supports and confirms Evolution.

The Bible has trees being created before "swimming creatures." "Swimming creatures" or marine animals evolved in the oceans long before any life (including trees) began populating the land.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "If you were to get past the impossibility of my claim and go with it for a second, you would see that my story has overcame that discrepency. That's why I said you did ad hominem. I now know that you just didn't understand my idea, that's all, sorry for insulting you.

Spare me the trivialities! It was I that COULDN'T understand your preconceived theory THAT YOU NEVER PRESENTED is that right? That does not overcome your obvious inability to present any theory. It also does not overcome the fact that if your theory is based on a source material that is in error it is of no use and proves nothing.

Devin said, "The topic is, are elements encoded in Genesis. Not, let's put random facts that make the Bible seem wrong when they don't contradict the topic in the context of what has been told."

Genesis has been proven wrong by science, and you have not told us anything that proves your theory. Most people would find this a big problem.

You never answered this. "The point is if the writer of Genesis encoded the elements in Genesis why didn't the writer know that it is the death of stars that created the elements. We know that stars existed before the Earth but who ever wrote Genesis didn't?"

Mark said, "David, you have not provided any reasonable basis for your claim that "the beginning of Genesis was an explanation of the first fourteen elements" and you have not shown how such an explanation has resulted in a successful prediction." You never provided any information to Mark about how Genesis is an explanation of the first fourteen elements (the original topic was the elements were encoded in Genesis.) Nothing has stopped you from answering this question.

Any theory has to meet some basic requirements. The theory has to be based on material that is accurate. Prove that the methods used were not flawed. There has to be agreement between the theory and the known facts about the source material. Any theory can be challenged if anything is found not to be verifiable. A theory is expected to satisfy careful examination to account for faulty inferences or incorrect conclusions. A theory that can not be falsified is not acceptable. If there is no way to examine the theory (assertions) analytically then there is nothing to confirm. A theory is constructed of a set of sentences, which consists entirely of true statements about the subject matter under consideration. Theories are expected to follow rational thought or logic, and provide an explanation, or answer.

Truth does not fear investigation:

The claim that Moses wrote the first five books of the Scriptures (Old Testament) under the inspiration of God (God inspired Moses to write the truth and prevented him from making any errors). Biblical scholars know the OT was written by a group of authors from diverse locations in Palestine over a period of centuries. The text contains errors. If the text contains errors a (creator/designer) didn't inspire the many authors who wrote it. The only reason an encoded message is needed is to negate the errors. I think that what I have already written proves that Genesis is in conflict with science, but why would a creator need to encode any message. The story would have to be correct in order to understand how the Universe and Life came about. There would be no reason to encode anything in a message that is in error. You have never demonstrated that there is an encoded message in Genesis or how encoding the element fixes all of the mistakes.

I pointed out and proved all of the errors in the Creation story in Genesis. The only conclusion I can come to is you don't understand the errors.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "If you were to get past the impossibility of my claim and go with it for a second, you would see that my story has overcame that discrepency.

You haven't produced anything that could be examined that proves the elements are encoded in Genesis, and nobody is stopping you.

Linda, your reasoning is against the scientific process. One cannot experiment without first making an assumption.

Devin Wesley Harper said, Linda, your reasoning is against the scientific process. One cannot experiment without first making an assumption.

Answer: Nobody should base a theory on a text (Genesis) if they find even one mistake - it is one too many. But there were far more than that. The correctness of your findings depends on the accuracy of the source material. Once you knew that there were mistakes you had no reason to continue. A theory that is being used to fix the mistakes in the source material is of no value.

AN ANALYSIS OF YOUR (IDEA) THEORY:

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:1 Is an acount of spintronics, not creation, nor intelligent design. This explains where light came from before stars. God's spirit that hovers over the watery surface of the deep are photons hovering over the surface of atoms."

Answer: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe. Scientists considered their discovery as solid evidence for the 'Big Bang' theory.

Light is a kind of energy that radiates, or travels, in waves. Light is a wave of vibrating electric and magnetic fields. It is one small part of a larger range of vibrating electromagnetic fields. This range is called the electromagnetic spectrum. Electromagnetic waves travel through space at 299,792 km/sec (186,282 miles/sec). This is called the speed of light. The energy of the radiation depends on its wavelength and frequency. Wavelength is the distance between the tops (crests) of the waves. Frequency is the number of waves that pass by each second. The longer the wavelength of the light, the lower the frequency, and the less energy it contains.

You mention a term spintronics but you are lacking in clarity. You do not prove a connection in Genesis. Your speculation has nothing to do with the obvious errors in Genesis (especially concerning when the sun was created.) The first light was the (CMBG) Cosmic Microwave Background. It is incontrovertible proof that the Universe experienced a Big Bang.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:2-5 Adam (atom) and Eve (evening) is the element Hydrogen. This explains why there is space/time ("was hovering over the waters") before he created Heaven (sky does not end), and how God did not create water."

Answer: Hydrogen Atomic Number 1 - gee whiz it fits everything! As it turns out, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis strongly favors the very light elements like hydrogen and helium - not only standard hydrogen (one proton) and helium-4 (two neutrons and two protons), but also the isotopes deuterium (one proton, one neutron), tritium (one proton, two neutrons) and helium-3 (two protons, one neutron). By mass, about a quarter of the nuclei in the universe should be helium-4. Deuterium, tritium, helium-3 and lithium-7 nuclei should occur in much smaller, but still measurable quantities.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:6-8 Helium is Heaven since it is in the Sky." Answer: Helium is Atomic Number 2 and it is not the only element in space.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:9-13 What the Bible calls Dry is Lithium, the first solid. First you must understand that the ancients were on to something when they came up with the four elements--they're states of matter. Earth is solid, water is liquid, air is gas and fire is plasma."

Answer: Lithium chemical element atomic number 3 is represented by the symbol Li. It is a soft alkali metal with a silver-white color. This is meaningless.

Genesis 1:9-13 The third day's work is related in these verses, the forming the sea and the dry land, and making the earth fruitful.

Answer: The early earth had no water. So, that verse is definitely wrong.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:14-19 Here God creates stars as if they were easier to do than the sun and moon. By looking up the fourth element on the fourth day of creation in the online dictionary.com (I use this with most of the story) we know that Beryllium is used in nuclear reactors."

Answer: You just look up the fourth element and see that it is Beryllium used in nuclear reactors and decide that it has a relation an erroneous verse in Genesis. If the elements are encoded in Genesis why didn't the writer know that it is the death of stars that created the elements. We know that stars existed before the Earth but who ever wrote Genesis didn't?"

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 1:20-23 I don't know what Boron has to do with water dwelling creatures."

Answer: I don't doubt that if you look at all of the numbers you could find an element that would fit something, but this is method is not scientific in any since of the word.

Genesis 1:24-31 Talks about living creatures that of course need Carbon. Carbon is the image of God. This is where evolution can be grasped because homo-sapien sapiens were not created. But the other fauna were in God's image and that has been carried down to our generation in Carbon.

Answer: You also say that God is light- is it light or is it carbon? And where do you get the idea that Carbon is the image of God or that God is light?

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 2:1-3 Nitrogen brings rest to soil. It is crucial to the existence of tissue. You can see Adam forming now and is no longer just the foundational Carbon."

Answer: No I can't see that because if God breathed the breath of life into Adam he was alive at that time. Genesis is clear that the creation was a completed event and does not give the slightest indication that anything evolved.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 2:5-7 Verse 5 there is no water. Verse 6 there is. Oxygen has formed giving the possibility for water and qi. And what do we see? You can see in the Bible that Adam did not start breathing until after the literal seven days. Thus allowing an almost infinite time gap. A real gap, not the non-existent Gap theory that is between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2."

Answer: In the Book of Genesis it clearly states that God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 3 Fluorine is the curse God puts to the soil since it is poisenous. This explains why it is an allegory that Adam did not die that very day."

Answer: Fluorine is a chemical element, represented by the symbol F, and the atomic number 9. Fluorine is the 13th most abundant element in the Earth's crust.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 3:24 The flaming sword that moves in every direction is the red Neon. The cherubim are the electrons in their outer orbits."

Answer: This is of no use to finding out anything scientifically. There is no proof that the cherubim are electrons in their outer orbits. It is a contrivance.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 4:2 Cain is Sodium, which "tills the ground" for flora. Able is Magnesium, which helps absorb Calcium for bones of fauna or sheep."

Answer: There is no proof of this. The reason this fake story was in the Bible was to impress the gullible listeners to give their best animal for sacrifice. The Priests were eating well in those days.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 4:8 Sodium explodes with water."

Answer: Genesis 4:8 And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. This story has a big flaw Cain was banished (East of Eden) where he found a wife. Where did she come from?

Sodium Symbol Na Atomic Number 11 The alkali metals are a series of elements comprising Group 1 (IUPAC style) of the periodic table: lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), caesium (Cs), and francium (Fr). Alkali metals are famous for their vigorous reactions with water, and these reactions become increasingly violent as one moves down the group. Potassium reaction with water is enough energy to ignite the hydrogen, creating a lilac flame above the potassium. If rubidium or caesium react with water though, the subsequent explosion tends to be very violent nce the metal and water start reacting. See why this is works against your (idea) theory?

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 4:16 Nod is east or to the right of the elements so far discussed on the Periodic Table of Elements. So Nod is Aluminum."

Answer: "Aluminum is Atomic Number 13. Do you think that it is the only one that is to the right on the Periodic Table of Elements? Elements are arranged in the periodic table according to atomic number, from left to right, top to bottom."

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 5 Genesis' family tree is a record to show that many elements are forming."

Answer: Only to someone who has lost all sense of reasoning.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 5:22-24 Enoch is Silicon. This explains why he was taken by "God." We take and are in a shortage of Silicon. Enoch's walk with God is a hint at its semiconductor ability because, remember, God is light. With a quarter of earth's crust being Silicon we can see earth starting to form. Silicon is essential for bricks, "When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch," (Genesis 4: 17)."

Answer: Believing that God is light or anything at all is belief in God. There is no proof that God is light or that Enoch is Silicon. Silicon atomic number 14 On Earth, silicon is the second most abundant element (after oxygen) in the crust, making up 25.7% of the crust by mass. Elemental silicon is the principal component of most semiconductor devices. No one would accept this as science.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Genesis 6:1,4 The giants are real people, not allegories. There is no explanation from where they came so evolution has comfort. Irad was the first man once the word changed from bore to beget. So, the beginning of Genesis was an explanation of the first fourteen elements in story format."

Answer: The Book of Enoch - left out of the Bible - explains where the giants came from. After their descent to Earth, the Watchers indulged in earthly delights with their chosen wives. Through these unions were born Giant offspring named as Nephilim, a Hebrew word meaning 'those who have fallen', which rendered in Greek translations as Gigantes or Giants.

Books have been written in the Bible Code craze era claiming that the elements are encoded in the Torah text. The method was to use Atomic Numbers of the elements (counting the words using a strand sequence) and coming up with an element. But experts in decoding found that there is no supernatural phenomenon associated with the Masoretic Torah text.

The Enuma Elish is a Babylonian or Mesopotamian myth of creation written in the 12th century. Scholars have concluded that the recounting of the struggle between cosmic order and chaos has many parallels with the Genesis account. The Genesis account is a rewriting of the Babylonian story. It is obvious that the Sumerian versions of the story predate the biblical account by several hundred years. Meaning there is no reliable text.

I cannot hold a conversation with someone who cannot accept what I have to say or one who calls me a liar and then talks about things that don't have to do with the subject, so, I will not even read what you have to say because you don't deserve it.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "I cannot hold a conversation with someone who cannot accept what I have to say or one who calls me a liar and then talks about things that don't have to do with the subject, so, I will not even read what you have to say because you don't deserve it."

Answer: Everyone has conversations with people, who don't accept what they have to say (except for xians) all the time - that's life! But even if I don't deserve it - I posted my rebuttal of your (idea) or theory - if you don't read or answer it (if you don't make another move) I will just assume you can't make any move at all - and that's checkmate.

Yes, you had a checkmate by writing letters too much to read. But, now I have you. You are claiming victory like I did. But I will admit loss because I don't see where I dissagreed with you. Except when you said that stars create photons, but that is probably beside the point.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Yes, you had a checkmate by writing letters too much to read. But, now I have you. You are claiming victory like I did. But I will admit loss because I don't see where I dissagreed with you."

Answer: I write too much for you to read? (You used too many S's in disagreed) I said that if you didn't respond to my REBUTTAL then you would lose. You didn't respond to what I wrote about your idea that's why I won. I've read the whole thread and it's obvious you just don't get it; it's definitely an eye opener. You should take a few hours to read about science instead of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience encourages you to believe what you want to believe instead of an honest investigation. Science is not like religion; you can't wear it on your sleeve to impress people.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR DISAGREEING OR PSEUDOSCIENCE:

Devin: "You did not address a contradiction. Earth didn't form till around Genesis 5: 22-24, after the stars at Genesis 1:14-19."

Linda Second Answer: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16).

Your system is: when Genesis is wrong, you go looking for a another verse with a (number) that can be applied to an element that will fix something that is egregiously wrong with the verse in question.

LIKE THIS CONTRIVANCE.

Devin: "Genesis 5:22-24 Enoch is Silicon. This explains why he was taken by "God." We take and are in a shortage of Silicon. Enoch's walk with God is a hint at its semiconductor ability because, remember, God is light. With a quarter of earth's crust being Silicon we can see earth starting to form."

Answer: There is no proof that God is light or that Enoch is Silicon. Silicon atomic number 14 On Earth, silicon is the second most abundant element (after oxygen) in the crust, making up 25.7% of the crust by mass.

You found a number that could be applied to an element (silicon). Then you said that is when earth was created not (Genesis 1:1). The verse Genesis 5:22-24 is not about the creation of the Earth what so ever, but the number was used to fix the error.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Except when you said that stars create photons, but that is probably beside the point."

Answer: More to the point you're wrong! Like other stars, nuclear fusion in the Sun's core produces photons.

MY ANSWERS PERTAINING TO PHOTONS WERE:

My Answer pertained to this verse in Genesis: (And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.) This verse has the formation of light occurring only after the waters and the earth already existed. This is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.

Answer: We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and PHOTONS.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe.

Also: (The universe began with The Big Bang. A large number of photons were produced at this point).

My Answer pertaining to the creation of water and light in Genesis: There is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. From the moment a PHOTON is created in the core of the Sun (the sun is a star) until it makes it to the Photosphere (the outer visible layer of the Sun) it can take a million years of (random walking.) From the photosphere it only takes 8.3 minutes for that photon to reach the Earth.

I had the same reason for winning when you personally attacked me. I corrected numerous spelling and grammer mistakes from you. That's all I care to read.

Answer To Post No. 1

Devin Wesley Harper said, "I had the same reason for winning when you personally attacked me.

Linda Answer: Pointing out the mistakes, in a paper that has been submitted as proof of something, is not a personal attack.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "I corrected numerous spelling and grammer mistakes from you. That's all I care to read."

Answer: You didn't even spell GRAMMAR correctly when you told that one! Do you think that if you accuse others of what you are doing, no one will notice the hypocrisy? No amount of evidence matters to the clique that you belong to, and when someone gives you facts it terrifies you.

I decided it was short enough to read, thank you. I was going to repeat myself on an issue, but I think you're right. Maybe Genesis 1:1 is an acount of creation. Your addition of many facts doesn't bug me anymore. I was bothered because I thought it wasn't getting through to you that it did not contradict my positions, except where I admited I was wrong, and they have been found to fuel my fire. Burden of proof is on you argument is the same as reformed epistemology. I'll have to approach you in a different way to get one of my points across that I didn't know the science so I programmed it to concur with the Bible. I like the Periodic Table of Elements and I liked the Bible. I did do what you say of conclusions making the evidence. But the elements in Genesis idea occured to me. It's not like I need the Table to be mentioned in there at all. Thinking can make some strange shit up. It has been obvious, however, that I am interested in constructive criticism, criticism of my idea and I have found none. The burden of proof is on you to convey a flaw with the idea. I don't care if you believe it or not. I'm asking you to be empathetic here. To say, wow, you're right, that is some weird shit and it makes sense. Mind you that even though things make perfect sense, doesn't make it proven.

Devin, how about the flaw that you have not provided any reasonable basis for your claim that "the beginning of Genesis was an explanation of the first fourteen elements" and the flaw that you have not shown how such an explanation has resulted in a successful prediction?

You have not proven that you understand what I have said.

Devin, you have the opportunity to learn more science and, hopefully, to use science to make successful predictions for the benefit of yourself, your family, your friends, and mankind. I highly recommend that you purchase (at a cost of only about $20) a copy of Linus Pauling, General Chemisty, Dover Publications, New York 1988, ISBN-10: 0486656225.

Answer to Post No. 2

Devin Wesley Harper said, "I decided it was short enough to read, thank you. I was going to repeat myself on an issue, but I think you're right. Maybe Genesis 1:1 is an acount of creation. Your addition of many facts doesn't bug me anymore."

Linda Answer: You spell it ACCOUNT! Facts shouldn't bug anybody.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "I was bothered because I thought it wasn't getting through to you that it did not contradict my positions, except where I admited I was wrong, and they have been found to fuel my fire. Burden of proof is on you argument is the same as reformed epistemology.

Linda Answer: You misspelled ADMITTED! To be considered scientific, a theory must be falsifiable. This means that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory. There is no theory that has been submitted to falsify evolution or the big bang. Intelligent Design has offered no theory that would explain anything scientifically about the Universe or life in that Universe. Genesis is worthless as an explanation of anything scientific. If the bible were a good source of scientific information the scientists (who are mostly very honest) would say so.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "I'll have to approach you in a different way to get one of my points across that I didn't know the science so I programmed it to concur with the Bible."

Linda Answer: A theory is a well-substantiated explanation that can be incorporate into laws, hypotheses and facts. A theory leads to other theories -which is how science works. What you are doing does not remotely resemble anything scientific.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "I like the Periodic Table of Elements and I liked the Bible. I did do what you say of conclusions making the evidence. But the elements in Genesis idea occured to me. It's not like I need the Table to be mentioned in there at all. Thinking can make some strange shit up."

Linda Answer: It sure can - like God probably designed us.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "It has been obvious, however, that I am interested in constructive criticism, criticism of my idea and I have found none. The burden of proof is on you to convey a flaw with the idea. I don't care if you believe it or not. I'm asking you to be empathetic here. To say, wow, you're right, that is some weird shit and it makes sense. Mind you that even though things make perfect sense, doesn't make it proven.

Linda Answer: Wow! You really are interested in weird meaningless shit!

Your theory is based on wishful thinking. Scientists know that a hypothesis can be proven false. When that happens it is also useful and informative. Scientists want to find the truth. Scientists know that design is not true.

This is worth knowing if you are a scientist. Intelligent Design advocates have never accepted the fact that there is no evidence of design. The hypothesis of intelligent design has been refuted by evolution, which means the theory generating the hypothesis is wrong.

I know that you claim that you don't believe in God - you just believe in an encoded message in Genesis. Who put it there? You also said - God is light - God is carbon. That sounds like belief in God to me. The encoded message theory of design is wrong because the data (the bible) is flawed.

The only reason for spreading superstition and myths is to keep ignorant people in the fold, and they are encouraged to be dishonest. Science and scientists threaten the hierarchies of the churches, and that is why they have tried to attack their theories, and there is nothing that the clergy wouldn't do to hang on to their pompous positions of authority. I think this proves why our society should be based on ethics not myths.

You are a special needs troll, Linda. Some can bear witness that you made spelling... and grammer mistakes yourself. I don't bother reading what you have to say because there is not one place I have disagreed with you. Now, if someone has something to say about that, please do, just don't make it long and as long as it doesn't come from Linda. Even though you all have shown that your reading comprehension is minimal. I just took a AccuPlacer test for college and I got all the reading comprehension minus one at a 94 score.

To: Devin Wesley Harper,

"You are a special needs troll, Linda. Some can bear witness that you made spelling... and grammer mistakes yourself."

That'll be the day (other people have corrected your grammar and spelling) maybe you couldn't comprehend that since you still don't comprehend how to spell Grammar.

"I don't bother reading what you have to say because there is not one place I have disagreed with you."

No, a thousand places is more like it! If you didn't read it how did you know that you agreed with it?

"Now, if someone has something to say about that, please do, just don't make it long and as long as it doesn't come from Linda. Even though you all have shown that your reading comprehension is minimal. I just took a AccuPlacer test for college and I got all the reading comprehension minus one at a 94 score."

Were there any questions with big words like grammar?

You should have said know how to spell grammar.

I agreed with what I did read, obviously.

"No, a thousand places is more like it."

This is what I would reply to you based on the point you actually made, "Yes, she did write a lot didn't she?" But the point I can see you really made, since I can tell based on your other writing that you are my enemy, is that there is a lot that you think I contradicted with what she said.

"Science is not like religion; you can't wear it on your sleeve to impress people," Linda said.

Spelling is what you guys wear on your sleeve to impress people. I only defended myself against you with grammar to show you that it is mutual, no one is perfect. Let's get to the meat, not the foreplay.

You could take any symbolic writing and then make some connections between understood facts of today, and then say; 'Hey, this writing perfectly fits the stuff I'm making it fit.' That is why we have a million different interpretations of these religious books. They can be made to fit any possible rubbish and in many cases impossible crap. Please see the obvious flaw in your logic.

Finally someone actually gets what I'm trying to say. I said that like four times and it's obvious.

Devin, I think you may be suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder(an atheist who thinks the elements are encoded in Genesis?) See a doctor immediately-and don't call people trolls until you can spell grammar correctly.

You shouldn't have put a dash in there.

Creativity is nothing to be suffering from.

To: Devin,

'Little big man' this has been the method you have used throughout. It is a cowardly method of smearing someone and then wimping out because you can't admit your wrong, and you don't learn from your mistakes. You don't have the guts to face what anyone has to say. You couldn't correct the grammar of daffy duck or the spelling of special needs monkeys. Your mistakes were so bad it wasn't even funny. You have always been a troll and a jerk. You kept on writing posts when you were proven dead wrong.

This argument would have been over long ago but you couldn't understand why you were wrong because we couldn't draw a picture for you. You had to keep trolling because you had to keep on until you couldn't come up with any more "weird shit."

Nevertheless, when your theories replace Evolution and the Big Bang I will be sorry for being a special needs troll!

What about the time I said yep? I can see why you say I haven't changed. But not agree with you? I said I agreed, that is something that can be taken at face value.

When I said, that doesn't contradict what I'm saying, I agreed with you.

All those times I didn't reply to your paragraphs I agreed with you as well.

Outgassing isn't a word. Vs is spelt vs. For her grammar, just paste in Microsoft Word. I'm better than all of you at grammar, but you are better at spelling. Obviously mine is more important at getting the words across since you easily associated the mistake to the correct word, evidenced by your corrections.

Photons are not created by stars because of the first law of thermodynamics.

Do you not see why ad hominem is an inefficient game?

I've added the disclaimer as the first sentence in my blog, as you all should be happy about, that says I am not advocating that the elements were meant to be encoded in Genesis. My question now is, why are you bashing me for being on your side? You guys do a fine job at being ignorant of any line WE (I recently began caps locking anything that needs to be italicized when it is not available) hold true. In so doing, you thow away any decency like a group of barking dogs.

Linda, give me an example of where "little big man" is the wrong thing to do, please. I admit, I am good at dissing people, but I don't think you want me to apologize for it. Instead you want to punish me. I'm not asking you to forget the wrong I've done, or to trust me. I guess I am like you as well, punishing more severely than what the instigator did to you. I wish it would end by just not responding to me and letting this thread die.

You have made it apparent to me that you need counceling. Whoever said that I have borderline personality disorder, I will not hide my weaknesses, I will discuss it with my psychiatrist.

I just added, "The point of this blog is to show that interpretation, such as Biblical interpretations, can result in useless non-sense and nothing can be truly known about an author unless you can communicate with one." Are we still enemies?

Unlike you, I write every one of my repentances. Yet, it is like I am being accused of the opposite.

The Borderline Personality Disorder comment was just a joke-I'm sorry if it offended you.

My theory does not have to do with science to replace any theory of it.

I suppose I did looke for evidence for the conclusion, but I also followed what was proven already in the realms of science or its theories. So, it's a little different.

But to the end of my wierd shit there was no refutation besides Atheistical reformed epistemology arguments.

You found a number that could be applied to an element (silicon). Then you said that is when earth was created not (Genesis 1:1). The verse Genesis 5:22-24 is not about the creation of the Earth what so ever, but the number was used to fix the error.

Devin- What's the problem with that?

Also: (The universe began with The Big Bang. A large number of photons were produced at this point).

Devin- the period goes before the parentheses.

Devin-interesting, it wasn't as long as I thought.

Numerous comments made on the same day, one right after another, without a response - that's the definition of a troll.

Devin > I just added, "The point of this blog is to show that interpretation, such as Biblical interpretations, can result in useless non-sense and nothing can be truly known about an author unless you can communicate with one."

Answer > Whenever someone claims the elements are encoded in Genesis and posts it anyone has the right to disagree or prove them wrong. Yes, we truly do know plenty because of science not religion. You need to prove there is an author if you think that changes anything.

Devin > "Outgassing isn't a word."

Answer > Look at 'The Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology' A computer program for calculating, tabulating, and plotting outgassing rates of selected gases. Outgassing is a scientific term that any high school science student would know. There are articles in science journals about the long-term evolution of the outgassing of Comet Hale-Bopp from radio observations.

Devin > Vs is spelt vs. For her grammar, just paste in Microsoft Word. I'm better than all of you at grammar, but you are better at spelling.

Answer > That is punctuation not grammar it is not misspelled either it's an abbreviation not a word. Many scientific writings do not put periods when using common abbreviations (like after every element) that's also why many scientific words or terms can't be confirmed by a program that applies to the common usage of English.

Devin > Photons are not created by stars because of the first law of thermodynamics.

Answer > Like other stars, nuclear fusion in the Sun's core produces photons. It has nothing to do with the first law of thermodynamics. You can get this information from any high school science book.

Devin > Do you not see why ad hominem is an inefficient game?

Answer > Ad homonym not (ad hominem). Yes, the period does go after the parenthesis. I will be answering all of your comments. Linda's computer is being cleaned.

Answer > You don't know the difference in punctuation and grammar. But you're better at it than anyone!

Numerous comments made on the same day, one right after another, without a response - that's the definition of a troll.

-Devin, I think a troll is someone that posts comments one right after another and don't respond to other people's comments.

Answer > Like other stars, nuclear fusion in the Sun's core produces photons. It has nothing to do with the first law of thermodynamics. You can get this information from any high school science book.

They may be formed but I thought of the strong meaning for, "creation."

Answer > Ad homonym not (ad hominem). Yes, the period does go after the parenthesis. I will be answering all of your comments. Linda's computer is being cleaned.

-Devin, sorry if I'm wrong, but ad hominem is in the dictionary. A period does not go after the parenthesis if it is its own sentence.

I am not seeking science to fit with the Bible because the Naked Archeologist asked the person that told him the universe is six days old, how the authors of the Bible knew that and he said, their lifestyles were so menial that they were tuned into the universe.

Dylan said, "I will be answering all of your comments. Linda's computer is being cleaned."

Answer: What's that a subtle way of telling me to shut-up! I'm getting my computer cleaned - why not - I'm getting my ears cleaned. I wasn't going to answer it anyway.

Devin Wesley Harper: "Outgassing isn't a word. Vs is spelt vs. For her grammar, just paste in Microsoft Word."

RE: Outgassing - is a scientific term.

Devin Wesley Harper: "Vs is spelt vs. For her grammar, just paste in Microsoft Word.

RE: Your just getting in deeper. An abbreviation is not spelling. But you used spelt incorrectly. It is incorrect grammar and the improper use of a word. "Spelled" is the past tense for spell.

RE: Versus - I looked this up for Proper Abbreviations for versus - the proper abbreviation for versus is vs. or vs - it is correct with or without a period. Legal documents use the abbreviation v. - The U.S.A. can also be written USA - without a period. Vs was not a misspelled or grammatically incorrect.

Devin Wesley Harper: "Photons are not created by stars because of the first law of thermodynamics."

RE: The First law of Thermodynamics - Law of conservation of energy - does not counter the fact that the Sun's nuclear reactions create photons. The sun is a star and other sun/like stars create photons.

RE: Emily's dash - Using a dash within a sentence to change subjects is not incorrect.

Periods, dashes and where they go has nothing to do with the fact that you didn't concede defeat until she spelled it out for you with grueling examples. And you are still denying the science - outgassing and photons. I think you just want someone beside yourself to be wrong about something instead of admitting that your argument is/was wrong.

Devin Wesley Harper: "I understand the science even more than Linda. I didn't even think of the science before I made the concept. It just fit with science automatically and accidentally."

RE: No you don't - and it doesn't fit science!

RE: Outgassing - is a scientific term.

Devin - I wouldn't know. I was homeschooled and private schooled.

RE: Your just getting in deeper. An abbreviation is not spelling. But you used spelt incorrectly. It is incorrect grammar and the improper use of a word. "Spelled" is the past tense for spell.

Devin - I knew that spelled and spelt are both in the dictionary and are interchangeable. I bet Linda is using firefox that has spell checker.

RE: Versus - I looked this up for Proper Abbreviations for versus - the proper abbreviation for versus is vs. or vs - it is correct with or without a period. Legal documents use the abbreviation v. - The U.S.A. can also be written USA - without a period. Vs was not a misspelled or grammatically incorrect.

Devin - Sometimes I have to use MS Word so that the time won't run out on posting a comment. "Vs" is underlined red and it suggests "vs."

RE: The First law of Thermodynamics - Law of conservation of energy - does not counter the fact that the Sun's nuclear reactions create photons. The sun is a star and other sun/like stars create photons.

Devin - I misunderstand something here, what are photons if not energy since electrons are energy and they are the same thing?

RE: Emily's dash - Using a dash within a sentence to change subjects is not incorrect.

Devin - No, a period is used to change subjects. And is quite acceptable to change subjects on its own while maintaining the same point.

RE: Periods, dashes and where they go has nothing to do with the fact that you didn't concede defeat until she spelled it out for you with grueling examples. And you are still denying the science - outgassing and photons. I think you just want someone beside yourself to be wrong about something instead of admitting that your argument is/was wrong.

Devin - You can't possible think that, of me! Concede my defeat? I have nothing wrong with that. As I've made clear before, I don't reply unless I have something to counter it, and I have conceded defeat at least half the time, so that I don't take up to much space for everyone to read. There, I admitted defeat. In fact, I am the only one who has admitted defeat when they were clearly wrong. Yes, they have to spell it out for me, how else will I know their voice is sound?

RE: No you don't - and it doesn't fit science!

Devin - Granted. Hey look, I admitted it again! I bet your eyes won't see this though since they didn't see the millions of time before.

It fits science, it doesn't fit the Bible.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

From the officers:

The next ACA Board meeting will be at 1pm Sunday, August 3rd at the ACA Library. Members are encouraged to attend.