Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Or pronounced 'very good' --
Genesis 1:31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
I.e. not perfect.
I don't think so. The bg bang produced high energy radiation. Presumably X-ray or gamma ray. In the next years the radiation cooled down to the microwave radiation we now know. But the period that the back ground radiation was in the visible part of the spectrum was rather early in the history of the Universe.Actually... Light would not have existed prior to the formation of stars. So I think the order would be:
Hydrogen
Stars
Light
Death of stars to release other elements etc. etc.
Edit to clarify: I should say "visible light" cause I'm sure the EMS was in existence with the inflation of the universe.
I don't think so. The bg bang produced high energy radiation. Presumably X-ray or gamma ray. In the next years the radiation cooled down to the microwave radiation we now know. But the period that the back ground radiation was in the visible part of the spectrum was rather early in the history of the Universe.
How do you determine "years" by mere radiation?I don't think so. The bg bang produced high energy radiation. Presumably X-ray or gamma ray. In the next years the radiation cooled down to the microwave radiation we now know.
Genesis 1 confirmed.Ah yes you are correct, the CMB would have been the product of visible light. Forgive me I am still quite the layperson on this topic. I always get hung up by the comments scientists make about the universe being dark until the stars formed.
You do not accept the big bang as true?The fact that the biblical account of creation fails to align with reality doesn't mean much to those of us who don't take the myth as literal truth anyway.
That is up to you if you want to join the living or be a part of the walking dead.Dead Thread Walking!
That is up to you if you want to join the living or be a part of the walking dead.
Would someone do me a favor please, and put these in chronological order according to the Big Bang paradigm:
- earth
- water
- light
- firmament [atmosphere on earth]
- land
- grass
- [angiosperms]
- stars
- moon
- [first] aquatic life
- birds
- whales
- cattle
- insects
- man
- woman
Says it better than I ever could.Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
I believe Mr. Augustine's [unspoken] point is that only the Catholic Church is qualified to interpret the Scriptures.Says it better than I ever could.
Since he did not mention this it was hardly his point but if it makes you feel better to take it that way then do so.I believe Mr. Augustine's [unspoken] point is that only the Catholic Church is qualified to interpret the Scriptures.
And seeing as how they treated Galileo, and why they treated Galileo that way (interpreting Scripture as today's scientists do: i.e., geocentrism), I don't think Mr. Augustine has a leg to stand on.
The Catholic Church was know for their stance on being the true interpreter of the Sciptures.Since he did not mention this it was hardly his point but if it makes you feel better to take it that way then do so.
Ya ... a geocentrist making a doosey of a statement like he did.It might be better to listen to what he had to say about Christians looking foolish to non Christians by saying things about which they haven't a clue but you make your own choices.
Interesting, you don't like Catholics so Augustine wrong and you can ignore him.The Catholic Church was know for their stance on being the true interpreter of the Sciptures.
I believe that's one of the Pope's jobs, is it not?
Ya ... a geocentrist making a doosey of a statement like he did.
That was really cool.
Infant Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, Sacramental Salvation, etc. and so on.
And he has the gall to tell me how to watch how I interpret the Scriptures, lest I look foolish?
I don't think so.
Since he did not mention this it was hardly his point but if it makes you feel better to take it that way then do so.
It might be better to listen to what he had to say about Christians looking foolish to non Christians by saying things about which they haven't a clue but you make your own choices.
Dizredux
For those who think Genesis 1 is compatible with biological evolution, I resubmit this thread as evidence that one would have to do some pretty imaginative interpretation to make Genesis 1 fit their theory.
So Earth isn't a product of the Big Bang paradigm?Your question was answered in post nr 48.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7207269-5/#post55222255
It looks like you're stuck with your dreams after all.So Earth isn't a product of the Big Bang paradigm?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?