Show me any valid source by a physicist trained in this area who says that there were liquids an hour after the Big Bang.
Upvote
0
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Genesis was right?!
- Thread starter Styx87
- Start date
- Status
Show me any valid source by a physicist trained in this area who says that there were liquids an hour after the Big Bang.
First of all, the forming planets need a sun to orbit, or the dust that goes into forming them would just dissipate in space.
Secondly, the dust cloud has everything forming at about the same time, but since the center of it has a great deal more mass, it collapses to form the sun before the planets have completed forming.
Thirdly, the presence of rocky planets in close to the sun and gas planets further out shows that solar wind played a part in planet formation.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Take it one at a time:
No. The gas cloud (Nebula) does not need a center mass in order to rotate. Just like a galaxy does not need a center mass for its rotation. For the solar system, it might be a disk-shape cloud. Aggregation could take place at any place in the disk.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Couldn't have said it better myself^^.
Look, I am not a physicist neither an astronomer. Unlike others, I don't want to debate on this issue with just a skin-deep understanding. All I am doing here is to provide an argument that there is no reason to assume that the sun NEEDS to be formed before the planets. If you can not overwhelmingly convince me on this issue, then my point stands. The creation account on the Day 4 is not obviously wrong, and it could be right.
Upvote
0
You want ME to find evidence to support your claims? HA! That's rich! You make a claim, it's up to you to support that claim. Don't expect me to do your homework for you. I'm not your mum.
If you can't provide it, we'll just take it that you are wrong.
Support this claim. If it is rotating, what point is it rotating around?
Upvote
0
dollarsbill
Well-Known Member
I think it is YOU who is "inaccurate". Not God.Lol, I'm sorry for the misleading title and anyone who's been following my posts knows I put absolutely no stock in the in historical accuracy of the bible. But... with a very liberal reinterpretation of Genesis and if I take into account some of the ignorance of the people who wrote it I think you'll find what follows very interesting
Okay, so there's genesis 1. Now taking into account for a moment that we can't take any of this literally and we even have to reword and and even reorder much of this, it isn't actually that far off. Allow me to demonstrate...
Okay, now remember to throw out the whole six day thing, reorder accordingly and you're good. Notice I didn't delete anything... it's just out of order, and some things needed to be interpreted different or explained deeper... but that doesn't mean it's necessarily "wrong".
People have been interpreting the bible for thousands of years and even taking votes on it's contents. Now, you may still interpret it literally, as long as you know it's in the wrong order slightly and that this whole process took billions and billions and billions of years... not days. Otherwise, it actually is fairly accurate.
Upvote
0
mzungu
INVICTUS
Wrong! Without a gravitational source at the centre any rotating gas or star cluster or Galaxy will be affected by centrifugal forces that will spread everything out. Galaxies rotate about a centre point simply because they have supermassive black holes at their centres.
Milky Way's black hole in action! - YouTube
Upvote
0
You know, you really have to learn to stop posting slogans and post something a little bit more substantial. Like reasoning or evidence.
Upvote
0
dollarsbill
Well-Known Member
The Bible is not "slogans". It is God's word. Reasoning has gotten you into this horrible, fatal mess.
Upvote
0
You said that you would be able to provide plenty of slogans if I wanted them.
Here's a tip, Dollarsbill. When posting, try to actually address a claim rather than simply spouting off a one-line, unsupported opinion. Try to add something to the discussion.
Here's a tip, Dollarsbill. When posting, try to actually address a claim rather than simply spouting off a one-line, unsupported opinion. Try to add something to the discussion.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
