The Amazing Two Potato Clock

[Willy]

I just found this website ... :yowza:

http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3034357

Since I was a kid I have been fascinated with how things work. I would take anything apart that was given to me and it wasn't til later in life I learned how to put things back together ... well ... most things anyway..!! :scratch::D:nod::pray:

Science became "really" interesting when I discovered I was pocking around into how God put everything together to made it work. The laws that we think we discover and put our names to, are laws that were already in place. They are not ours. We only found them ... already working. :nod:

Even in a world that for a time, is scarred by sin and death, God has left enough of His signature for all to see ..!! From the simplest laws of mathematics, to the immense diversity of life, to seeing the genetic code of how our physical bodies operate, even to the similarities of that code to other forms of life living in the same carbon based closed system, we are observing the hand of a Creator in all ..!! :nod:
When we look at the genetic code and we see errors that cause certain diseases; the very fact that they are there testifies that something has gone wrong. We are able to see that and deduce that without even acknowledging a "Creator."

How much more rewarding it is, when we can ascribe "Creation" to a God of great diversity and wonder. And how much more we look to a day when sin and death are no more and all the genetic code, and all things, are made right again..!! :nod::nod::hug::pray:

Add to this the eye-witness accounts of God's answer to all our questions concerning His "Character" we see in Jesus the embodiment of reason in regards to our present need. He is and was always meant to be, a resounding answer to all that would challenge God's motive, integrity, justice and love.

On Calvary's Cross, taking the fruits of our rebellion upon Himself, He ever affirms that His work is "perfect" and "just" as He said at the beginning "He saw that it was good.":hug:

Nailed to that tree, suspended between heaven and earth for all to see, battered and beaten, forsaken in our (my) stead, He has made a way to restore that goodness ... bearing His own righteous wrath for our (my) sin. In Him, we see the author of the genetic code ... the "author of all things" ... we see Him suffering and dying for His fallen creation. :hug: "Away with this man who makes Himself God." "Crucify Him" "We will not have this man to rule over us." ... and the same goes on today, moment to moment ... "there is nothing new under the sun." ... and then a little light breaks through ... and a person is never the same ..!! :cross::teddy:


Now here is a neat clock. ;):hug::pray:

The Two Potato Clock allows you to generate enough electricity to run a digital clock – using potatoes! Just push the zinc and copper electrodes into the potatoes causing an oxidation/reduction reaction that is converted to low voltage.

You can also try other fruits, vegetables and beverages to see what works like:
Apples
Avocadoes
Bananas
Cucumbers
Lemons
Lines
Oranges
Salt Water
Soda
Tomatoes

Powers a ½" high LED clock. 5 ½" x 9" x 2 ½".:tiphat:

[a.baker]

The potato clock... very interesting!:nod:

I couldn't of said it better myself Willy:hug:

[xhacker]

I like that Willy!

I think this is the correct chemical equation:
Oxidation: Zn --> Zn++ + 2e-
(Zinc looses 2 electrons)

Reduction: 2H+ + 2e- --> H2
(Hydrogen ions gain electrons)

Net Reaction: Zn + 2H+ --> Zn++ + H2
(Hydrogen gas and 'power')

Sadly somewhat easier than Nuclear Fusion:scratch:.

[Willy]

I like that Willy!

I think this is the correct chemical equation:
Oxidation: Zn --> Zn++ + 2e-
(Zinc looses 2 electrons)

Reduction: 2H+ + 2e- --> H2
(Hydrogen ions gain electrons)

Net Reaction: Zn + 2H+ --> Zn++ + H2
(Hydrogen gas and 'power')

Sadly somewhat easier than Nuclear Fusion:scratch:.

Not really easier or harder than Nuclear Fusion if you are the designer creator. And actually, ionic flow or output is a consideration that links the two. Since we create absolutely nothing, let alone understand how the parts were originally made, and while we have no idea how to create even the nucleus of one atom, (we can measure the force it takes to hold that nucleus together and it is a staggering amount of energy), all we can do is stick a few hunks of metal in a potato (experimentation) and see what happens. In this sense science is very much fun and interesting and in repeating this experimentation over the years using other parts already made and using a brain and senses we did not create, yes we have discovered some good and helpful things ... but ... we also discovered bad and destructive things ... and remember we are using parts that were created by someone else and the laws that determine there interaction and output were written by someone else. :hug::nod:;)

I guess an analogy might be this ... you find a whole bunch of parts laying around ... there are some wheels ... a motor ... an old car body ... and you think to yourself ... hey ... maybe if I get four wheels and somehow use that motor to power the wheels and then maybe attach that old car body ... My God ... I've created a car ..!! NOT ... NOT ... NOT ... NOT ... NOT .....!!!! :hug: You have made a car out of parts already created and not by you or me. :nod:

Now that is the difference between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3

...and I like that site too ... Edmund Scientific's ... lots of neat things that show God's amazing creativity, His absolute laws that govern His creation and our ability ... we were created to be like Him ... to take those parts and make things out of them, ... we have that seed of curiosity and we really do want to create like He has, but God help us to see the difference between "create" and "made" ... O.K. ..?? :hug:

Willy:hug:;)

[xhacker]

Not really easier or harder than Nuclear Fusion if you are the designer creator. And actually, ionic flow or output is a consideration that links the two. Since we create absolutely nothing, let alone understand how the parts were originally made, and while we have no idea how to create even the nucleus of one atom, (we can measure the force it takes to hold that nucleus together and it is a staggering amount of energy), all we can do is stick a few hunks of metal in a potato (experimentation) and see what happens. In this sense science is very much fun and interesting and in repeating this experimentation over the years using other parts already made and using a brain and senses we did not create, yes we have discovered some good and helpful things ... but ... we also discovered bad and destructive things ... and remember we are using parts that were created by someone else and the laws that determine there interaction and output were written by someone else.

I guess an analogy might be this ... you find a whole bunch of parts laying around ... there are some wheels ... a motor ... an old car body ... and you think to yourself ... hey ... maybe if I get four wheels and somehow use that motor to power the wheels and then maybe attach that old car body ... My God ... I've created a car ..!! NOT ... NOT ... NOT ... NOT ... NOT .....!!!! You have made a car out of parts already created and not by you or me.

Ok accepted the designer creator could hypothetically do anything, this does not stop my stupid brain being unable to understand it!

Any battery is an electrochemical cell that converts chemical energy into electrical energy. The law of conservation of energy states energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so i guess it was always around in some form.

Now that is the difference between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3
Well i guess i just dont get that:
We know a fair bit about elementary particles (and anti-particles), we also know they make up the 92 naturally occurring elements, that everything (including us) is built out of. We know most of these elements are a result of nuclear fusion occurring naturally in stars. In fact we know that our sun is a third generation star.

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

You can run with this if:
A) It was not done in a day (The universe is 13.7 billion years old).
B) Heaven meant the universe.
C) Earth was created along time after 'heaven' (The Earth is 4.5 billion years old).

Genesis 3:
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Interestingly light currently takes 100,000 years to reach the Earth from the centre of the Sun due to the gravity of the Sun. Ideally Genesis 3 should be Genesis 1, this would make more sense, as in the early universe had LOTS of light.

...and I like that site too ... Edmund Scientific's ... lots of neat things that show God's amazing creativity, His absolute laws that govern His creation and our ability ... we were created to be like Him ... to take those parts and make things out of them, ... we have that seed of curiosity and we really do want to create like He has, but God help us to see the difference between "create" and "made" ... O.K. ..??

WillyWell agreed if to create something then you have to manufacture elementary particles then we do not exactly create much - but thats quite a tough definition:hug::hug:!

[a.baker]

Thats why its commonly heard that Gods time is not our time. He is not subject to the earth or the laws of the earth. So if something is stated a day that doesn't mean 24hrs.

Also notice how the #7 is found in the Bible often... that symbolizes completion, something to think about. Can't look at everything in the Bible as literal, there's a lot of symbolism and metaphoric while some is literal, so patience is needed to understand and we must all be careful of wrong interpretations and deception.

God said some would get it and some wouldn't.

[Willy]

Hypothesis :

The language used "allows" for an original creation in Genesis 1:1 ... without a time frame. :eek:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The language used in Genesis 1:2 "allows" the earth to "become" a desolate wasteland shrouded in darkness, no dry land, thus allowing room for a cataclysmic event to have occurred. Big "whatever" ... :D

"And the earth was (became) 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."

Genesis 1:7 introduces the word "made" a distinctly different word from the word "create".

Genesis 1:3 starts the re-forming of a now desolate wasteland, shrouded in darkness covered by water by re-introducing light to the surface of the planet.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."


There is much debate on this as is evident on any website on the internet. It is suggested that the word for "create" and the word for "made" are interchangeable. The fact they are different words and the fact that God says He has something to do with the words written in His Book leads the other way; to the thought that God who created all things can also make things out of what He originally created, which He did with man forming our body out of the dust of the earth.

Now, does the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 leave room for pre-Adamic life on the earth ..?? We certainly have an abundance of organic artifacts ... oil , fossils, etc. Can all of these be addressed by people that believe the earth to be 7 to 8 thousand years old..?? They think so. Some don't. Some think that understanding other parts of scripture are more important. :cross: :):


Bottom line is there are arguments for all, but here is "just what does the language of the text allow?" and maybe that should define our positions on an issue.

Why do I like a perfect creation followed by an event that shattered that perfection and then the restoration done by God? :hmm:

Because there is then a parallel to the perfection, fall, and restoration of man by God ... and I love to see that parallel truth and the development of that thought..!!

... let there be light ... :nod: ... just a little at first and mostly exposing desolation, corruption and death ... but the light of itself is good ... :nod::hug:

[a.baker]

Hypothesis :
Now, does the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 leave room for pre-Adamic life on the earth ..?? We certainly have an abundance of organic artifacts ... oil , fossils, etc. Can all of these be addressed by people that believe the earth to be 7 to 8 thousand years old..?? They think so. Some don't. Some think that understanding other parts of scripture are more important. :cross: :):


:nod::nod:

[xhacker]

Hypothesis :

The language used "allows" for an original creation in Genesis 1:1 ... without a time frame. :eek:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The language used in Genesis 1:2 "allows" the earth to "become" a desolate wasteland shrouded in darkness, no dry land, thus allowing room for a cataclysmic event to have occurred. Big "whatever" ... :D

"And the earth was (became) 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."

Genesis 1:7 introduces the word "made" a distinctly different word from the word "create".

Genesis 1:3 starts the re-forming of a now desolate wasteland, shrouded in darkness covered by water by re-introducing light to the surface of the planet.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."


There is much debate on this as is evident on any website on the internet. It is suggested that the word for "create" and the word for "made" are interchangeable. The fact they are different words and the fact that God says He has something to do with the words written in His Book leads the other way; to the thought that God who created all things can also make things out of what He originally created, which He did with man forming our body out of the dust of the earth.

Now, does the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 leave room for pre-Adamic life on the earth ..?? We certainly have an abundance of organic artifacts ... oil , fossils, etc. Can all of these be addressed by people that believe the earth to be 7 to 8 thousand years old..?? They think so. Some don't. Some think that understanding other parts of scripture are more important. :cross: :):


Bottom line is there are arguments for all, but here is "just what does the language of the text allow?" and maybe that should define our positions on an issue.

Why do I like a perfect creation followed by an event that shattered that perfection and then the restoration done by God? :hmm:

Because there is then a parallel to the perfection, fall, and restoration of man by God ... and I love to see that parallel truth and the development of that thought..!!

... let there be light ... :nod: ... just a little at first and mostly exposing desolation, corruption and death ... but the light of itself is good ... :nod::hug:
Ok - I have no particular problem with that, that is a fairly sophisticated view of Genesis, i would say thats quite a long way from being a literal interpretation of Genesis which i have a problem with (scientifically).

So if im understanding yours (and i think Core's) view on Genesis, the first creation story is the pre-Adamic creation and the second story is the Adam creation?

Have you got time scales for this and does that mean God created man twice?

[Willy]

[QUOTE=Willy;39738]Hypothesis :

The language used "allows" for an original creation in Genesis 1:1 ... without a time frame. :eek:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The language used in Genesis 1:2 "allows" the earth to "become" a desolate wasteland shrouded in darkness, no dry land, thus allowing room for a cataclysmic event to have occurred. Big "whatever" ... :D

"And the earth was (became) 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."

Genesis 1:7 introduces the word "made" a distinctly different word from the word "create".

Genesis 1:3 starts the re-forming of a now desolate wasteland, shrouded in darkness covered by water by re-introducing light to the surface of the planet.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."


There is much debate on this as is evident on any website on the internet. It is suggested that the word for "create" and the word for "made" are interchangeable. The fact they are different words and the fact that God says He has something to do with the words written in His Book leads the other way; to the thought that God who created all things can also make things out of what He originally created, which He did with man forming our body out of the dust of the earth.

Now, does the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 leave room for pre-Adamic life on the earth ..?? We certainly have an abundance of organic artifacts ... oil , fossils, etc. Can all of these be addressed by people that believe the earth to be 7 to 8 thousand years old..?? They think so. Some don't. Some think that understanding other parts of scripture are more important. :cross: :):


Bottom line is there are arguments for all, but here is "just what does the language of the text allow?" and maybe that should define our positions on an issue.

Why do I like a perfect creation followed by an event that shattered that perfection and then the restoration done by God? :hmm:

Because there is then a parallel to the perfection, fall, and restoration of man by God ... and I love to see that parallel truth and the development of that thought..!!

... let there be light ... :nod: ... just a little at first and mostly exposing desolation, corruption and death ... but the light of itself is good ... :nod::hug:
Ok - I have no particular problem with that, that is a fairly sophisticated view of Genesis, i would say thats quite a long way from being a literal interpretation of Genesis which i have a problem with (scientifically).
Not sophisticated at all. It is what the text supports.

So if im understanding yours (and i think Core's) view on Genesis, the first creation story is the pre-Adamic creation and the second story is the Adam creation?It is what the text supports.

Have you got time scales for this and does that mean God created man twice?Man created in God's image placed on this earth (body formed from the dust of the ground) is part of the restoration. If there were other beings pre-Adamic that resembled mankind they are not defined as being created in God's image. As far as other creatures created, the door is wide open.

I would use your time scales but they are based on everything happening as a constant and therefore if an event happened a long time after original creation I would tend to not put that much "faith" in those numbers. Could be older. :nod:

[xhacker]

I mean that the first Genesis creation has humans were created after the other animals.


Genesis 1:25-27
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. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
And the first man and woman were created simultaneously.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The next creation story has man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib:scratch:.

Genesis 2:7
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.

Genesis 2:18-22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

[Willy]

I mean that the first Genesis creation has humans were created after the other animals.


Genesis 1:25-27
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. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
And the first man and woman were created simultaneously.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The next creation story has man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib:scratch:.

Genesis 2:7
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.

Genesis 2:18-22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


There is no account of man being created in the first creation. Man is created after the event of Genesis 1:2 ... :eek:

I don't see the word "simultaneously" anywhere in the text.:stop:

Again: from previous post # 10

Have you got time scales for this and does that mean God created man twice? Man created in God's image placed on this earth (body formed from the dust of the ground) is part of the restoration. If there were other beings pre-Adamic that resembled mankind they are not defined as being created in God's image. As far as other creatures created, the door is wide open.

I would use your time scales but they are based on everything happening as a constant and therefore if an event happened a long time after original creation I would tend to not put that much "faith" in those numbers. Could be older. :nod:Genesis 1:3 and on is not original creation, as supported by Genesis 1:2 when the original creation Genesis 1:1 was rendered desolate wasteland, shrouded in darkness covered by water.

But you are right about light being in abundance (post #5) before Genesis 1:2 ... to the point that stars had not yet formed ... there was no need. :):

[xhacker]

I mean that the first Genesis creation has humans were created after the other animals.


Genesis 1:25-27
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. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
And the first man and woman were created simultaneously.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The next creation story has man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

Genesis 2:7
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.

Genesis 2:18-22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


There is no account of man being created in the first creation. Man is created after the event of Genesis 1:2 ...

I don't see the word "simultaneously" anywhere in the text.

Oh i see - i was reading Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.
as he created man and women simultaneously, however you are right it doesnt actually say simultaneously.
So does Genesis 2:7 + 2:18-22 simply clarify Genesis 1:27?

[Willy]

I mean that the first Genesis creation has humans were created after the other animals.


Genesis 1:25-27
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. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
And the first man and woman were created simultaneously.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The next creation story has man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

Genesis 2:7
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.

Genesis 2:18-22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


There is no account of man being created in the first creation. Man is created after the event of Genesis 1:2 ...

I don't see the word "simultaneously" anywhere in the text.

Oh i see - i was reading Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.
as he created man and women simultaneously, however you are right it doesnt actually say simultaneously.
So does Genesis 2:7 + 2:18-22 simply clarify Genesis 1:27?

Genesis is written to be a part of the whole, satisfying scripture not yet given to man or put to pen. It is written to include the NT and is intricately interwoven so as to leave no doubt about both its Author and His message of redemption. :hug::nod:

In light of this outlandish (but true) statement, see if you can tell me why Eve received life taken from a wound in Adams side?

There are hints in the last 10 or so verses of Ephesians 5 but you will still have to think ... ;):hug::nod:

[xhacker]

Genesis is written to be a part of the whole, satisfying scripture not yet given to man or put to pen. It is written to include the NT and is intricately interwoven so as to leave no doubt about both its Author and His message of redemption. :hug::nod:

In light of this outlandish (but true) statement, see if you can tell me why Eve received life taken from a wound in Adams side?

There are hints in the last 10 or so verses of Ephesians 5 but you will still have to think ... ;):hug::nod:
I see .. so Adam loved Eve because he loved himself and the two were one flesh? - Is there also a link between the birth of the Christian church with JC's wounding by the spear on the cross and Adam's wound?

[Willy]

Genesis is written to be a part of the whole, satisfying scripture not yet given to man or put to pen. It is written to include the NT and is intricately interwoven so as to leave no doubt about both its Author and His message of redemption. :hug::nod:

In light of this outlandish (but true) statement, see if you can tell me why Eve received life taken from a wound in Adams side?

There are hints in the last 10 or so verses of Ephesians 5 but you will still have to think ... ;):hug::nod:
I see .. so Adam loved Eve because he loved himself and the two were one flesh? - Is there also a link between the birth of the Christian church with JC's wounding by the spear on the cross and Adam's wound?


I see .. so Adam loved Eve because he loved himself and the two were one flesh? Yes … in a way ...

Eves’ physical existence was taken from Adams body by God. She has equal value “bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh”, as well as sharing the equality of being “created in God’s image” in Genesis 1. :nod:

There is a parallel established here in Ephesians that marries the relationship of Christ to His Church with the relationship between Adam and Eve. The relationship of Christ to His church is where the demands on the husband (Christ) and on the wife (the bride) can be properly understood.


Is there also a link between the birth of the Christian church with JC's wounding by the spear on the cross and Adam's wound? Yes … and more … It is the purchasing of life for His Bride by the giving of Himself. It is the life blood spilled, that loved and gave so much that establishes His sincere love for, and the value to Him, of His Bride.

Shakespeare was right … “all the world is a stage” … right now, a broken play that contrasts and parallels spiritual truths. We live the play and “know” we do. The object is to see what we should be and the realities and rightness there are in Jesus.

Most of this is rejected by an apostate church that picks and chooses what it will or will not do from God's word therefore confusing those who would seek the truth. :(