Trillions of Atoms

Firstlightdawn · Jan 20, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
The Earth doesn't have a "foundation". It has a core. of iron and nickle.

The verse is speaking about God’s role as Creator, not describing the planet’s physical structure.

Hans Blaster · Jan 20, 2026

Firstlightdawn said:
The verse is speaking about God’s role as Creator, not describing the planet’s physical structure.

Then it has nothing to do with the Earth at all.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 20, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
Then it has nothing to do with the Earth at all.

It sort of does, but from an ANE point of view. One that doesn't interest many of today's astrophysicists.

It kind of goes without saying that "Job" wasn't floating along in earth's formative orbit billions of years ago to witness how it all likely came together.

Hans Blaster · Jan 20, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
It sort of does, but from an ANE point of view.

Where we do not live. It would be nice if some people could join the 19th century.

2PhiloVoid said:
One that doesn't interest many of today's astrophysicists.

Not the real ones.

2PhiloVoid said:
It kind of goes without saying that "Job" wasn't floating along in earth's formative orbit billions of years ago to witness how it all likely came together.

Of course not, there were no people then.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 20, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
Where we do not live. It would be nice if some people could join the 19th century.

I prefer the 21 century, myself.

Hans Blaster said:
Not the real ones.

Hans Blaster said:
Of course not, there were no people then.

............... ugh. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about Job not "being there." Of course there were no people then, but I think our scientifically informed models of what we think took place billions of years ago are plausible and useful.

Hans Blaster · Jan 20, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
I prefer the 21 century, myself.

I do as well, but I try not to ask for the impossible. For royalists and other such low people, I merely want them to get with the 18th century.

Aux armes, citoyens!

2PhiloVoid said:

One must exclude the fakes working at the DI or AiG.

2PhiloVoid said:
............... ugh. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about Job not "being there." Of course there were no people then, but I think our scientifically informed models of what we think took place billions of years ago are plausible and useful.

It is so easy with you sometimes.

Larniavc · Jan 20, 2026

Firstlightdawn said:
The verse is speaking about God’s role as Creator, not describing the planet’s physical structure.

Yeah but that’s what the thread is about. Christians already believe that and non-Christians don’t care so what is your point?

Firstlightdawn · Jan 24, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
Unlike Job I know how planets form.

Do you know that from your Bible or Science?

Firstlightdawn · Jan 24, 2026

AV1611VET said:
But YOU ... WEREN'T ... THERE.

We do not have to be there. Psalm 19 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. The study of Creation tells us about the Creator. Science shows us what God wants us to know about Him.

Firstlightdawn · Jan 24, 2026

The Barbarian said:
The sum of all energy and matter in the universe is constant. That doesn't mean it's eternal. The universe can neither create nor destroy energy, but it can convert it to different forms of energy. In some cases, energy and matter can be converted to each other.

Everything was there in the first Planck moment of time. Nothing has been added as we go from infinite small to infinite big. Things seem to jump around and yet time and expansion is very balanced and precise. God is the cause, we can only study the effect.

Firstlightdawn · Jan 24, 2026

AV1611VET said:
The energy we know of came into existence in 4004 BC.

What day of the week?

Firstlightdawn · Jan 24, 2026

NxNW said:
One wonders how the sun burned 5 billion years worth of hydrogen, then.

Five billion years is an illusion. As the universe expands, time stretches. If you put six marks on a rubber band and stretch it out, it is still the same rubber band. Nothing new is added. The marks only look farther apart because the band expanded. The same is true for cosmic time. What we call “billions of years” is simply the stretched‑out view from our current frame. The system is exact and precise. You cannot have the stretching of space without the stretching of time. They rise and fall together as one.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sunday at 2:43 AM

Firstlightdawn said:
Five billion years is an illusion. As the universe expands, time stretches. If you put six marks on a rubber band and stretch it out, it is still the same rubber band. Nothing new is added. The marks only look farther apart because the band expanded. The same is true for cosmic time. What we call “billions of years” is simply the stretched‑out view from our current frame. The system is exact and precise. You cannot have the stretching of space without the stretching of time. They rise and fall together as one.

No, I don't think that's true at all.

Firstlightdawn · Sunday at 2:51 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, I don't think that's true at all.

You do not think the Universe is expanding. Or you do not believe in time?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sunday at 3:12 AM

Firstlightdawn said:
You do not think the Universe is expanding. Or you do not believe in time?

I just don't accept that your description is accurate in any way whatsoever.

Firstlightdawn · Sunday at 4:15 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I just don't accept that your description is accurate in any way whatsoever.

People can disagree with Schroeder if they want, but it’s hard to treat a non‑expert’s opinion as equal to his. Only about five percent of applicants get into MIT, and Schroeder not only got in—he earned his PhD there and taught on the faculty. You don’t have to accept every detail of his view to recognize he’s operating at a level far beyond the average commenter. Disagreement is easy; disputing an expert without comparable training is something else entirely.

Go ahead — give it your best shot.
Make your strongest argument against him.
I would be interested in what you have to say about it.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sunday at 4:35 AM

Firstlightdawn said:
People can disagree with Schroeder if they want, but it’s hard to treat a non‑expert’s opinion as equal to his. Only about five percent of applicants get into MIT, and Schroeder not only got in—he earned his PhD there and taught on the faculty. You don’t have to accept every detail of his view to recognize he’s operating at a level far beyond the average commenter. Disagreement is easy; disputing an expert without comparable training is something else entirely.

Go ahead — give it your best shot.
Make your strongest argument against him.
I would be interested in what you have to say about it.

That's just flat out the fallacy of appeal to authority.

sjastro · Sunday at 10:19 AM

Firstlightdawn said:
People can disagree with Schroeder if they want, but it’s hard to treat a non‑expert’s opinion as equal to his. Only about five percent of applicants get into MIT, and Schroeder not only got in—he earned his PhD there and taught on the faculty. You don’t have to accept every detail of his view to recognize he’s operating at a level far beyond the average commenter. Disagreement is easy; disputing an expert without comparable training is something else entirely.

Go ahead — give it your best shot.
Make your strongest argument against him.
I would be interested in what you have to say about it.

Either you have misrepresented Schroeder or are both comprehensively wrong.

In gravitational bound systems like our solar system expansion does not occur so lets concentrate on cosmological scales where if your post is correct explain why the mathematics for the FLRW metric contradicts this.

If time stretches why is the temporal coefficient of the g₀₀ metric component the constant -c², whereas the g₁₁, g₂₂ and g₃₃ spatial metric components have the time dependent scale factor a²(t) where t is cosmological time which measures proper time and not coordinate time?

Hans Blaster · Sunday at 11:25 AM

Firstlightdawn said:
Do you know that from your Bible or Science?

Planets are a subject studied by science. They bible doesn't have anything useful to say on the topic.

Hans Blaster · Sunday at 12:31 PM

Firstlightdawn said:
People can disagree with Schroeder if they want, but it’s hard to treat a non‑expert’s opinion as equal to his. Only about five percent of applicants get into MIT, and Schroeder not only got in—he earned his PhD there and taught on the faculty. You don’t have to accept every detail of his view to recognize he’s operating at a level far beyond the average commenter. Disagreement is easy; disputing an expert without comparable training is something else entirely.

You pulled Gerald Schroeder out rather abruptly without context. I know what you are talking about because I have been on this train before. I don't know if Schroeder had any training in cosmology, but I did. His expertise in radiation monitoring does not frighten me.

Firstlightdawn said:
Go ahead — give it your best shot.
Make your strongest argument against him.
I would be interested in what you have to say about it.

I already have:

RECORD vs LAYERS

Schrödinger's equation is a fundamental equation in quantum mechanics that describes the time evolution of quantum systems. It does not require a steady state, it only describes the time evolution of quantum systems, and the behavior of the system can be affected by the initial conditions and by...

www.christianforums.com

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Trillions of Atoms

Active Member

Area Meathead

Revelation 13! Otherwise known as b.a.u.

Area Meathead

Revelation 13! Otherwise known as b.a.u.

Area Meathead

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Area Meathead

Area Meathead

Similar threads