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.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Okay I cant keep this up anymore, sorry guys, Yes, this is a prank message. I got board with debating Creationist after awhile and I just wanted to see what it be like on other side for a change.
Did I fool any one?
Sorry to get off subject.
im sorry, did i smell it too soon?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Okay I cant keep this up anymore, sorry guys, Yes, this is a prank message. I got board with debating Creationist after awhile and I just wanted to see what it be like on other side for a change.
Did I fool any one?
Sorry to get off subject.
The earliest epoch of the universe which we can observe, inflation, was completely empty except for the field that drove inflation. There was no light, no other matter of any kind. Just this one, very high-energy field. When that field decayed, then came an extremely hot soup, so hot that today we don't yet understand physics well enough to say precisely what it was. But what we can say is that it was full of all sorts of particles, including photons (light).We weren't there to see it; but I'll bet "there was light!"
Note the first statement: God created the heaven and the earth.
This makes no sense! Even though you might call the post-inflation hot soup "light" in some sense, there was nothing at all that might be called the earth at that time! It simply makes no sense! All that existed within our region of the universe was this obscenely smooth, uniform field that drove inflation.
Because it's describing nothing that resembles the state of the early universe.Why no sense? Can physics define "heaven" or "heavens"? If not, why do you say it makes no sense?
What you can say is: you do not understand. Just like you said that physics is not understood at many places in the universe. The physics at interior of the sun is probably enough to humble all physicists.
This is not a science problem, it is an attitude problem. Why don't you say the black hole "makes no sense"? Or our sun "makes no sense"?
Why no sense? Can physics define "heaven" or "heavens"? If not, why do you say it makes no sense?
What you can say is: you do not understand. Just like you said that physics is not understood at many places in the universe. The physics at interior of the sun is probably enough to humble all physicists.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Okay I cant keep this up anymore, sorry guys, Yes, this is a prank message. I got board with debating Creationist after awhile and I just wanted to see what it be like on other side for a change.
Did I fool any one?
Sorry to get off subject.
Because it's describing nothing that resembles the state of the early universe.
Look, what it's describing is plain and clear. First, God made the heavens (the sky) and the earth (which was, at that time, nothing but sea). God, moving over the face of this great sea, decided some light would be a good thing, and made it so.
That is what Genesis 1 is saying, and that description is nothing whatsoever like a description of the early universe.
Not in the early universe. In the very early universe, the entire region which now makes up everything that we can see was a smooth, uniform stretch. There was no division between one sort of place and another: it was all the same.I use your word: sky. If there were sky, then there was place where it was not sky.
Want to try again?
Because it's describing nothing that resembles the state of the early universe.
Look, what it's describing is plain and clear. First, God made the heavens (the sky) and the earth (which was, at that time, nothing but sea). God, moving over the face of this great sea, decided some light would be a good thing, and made it so.
That is what Genesis 1 is saying, and that description is nothing whatsoever like a description of the early universe.
Well, if you've read any of my posts on this subject, you can tell I am a strong believer in the Big Bang Theory.
I think that it's very similar to evolution in the sense that it's very misunderstood scientific theory (he name itslef and give people wrong ideas of what it is). I'll admit there are a few unknowns about it here and there, but for the most part it's pretty solid.
So what do you guys think about this?
Not in the early universe. In the very early universe, the entire region which now makes up everything that we can see was a smooth, uniform stretch. There was no division between one sort of place and another: it was all the same.
It still doesn't make any sense, though, because there was no earth in the early universe. The Earth formed after the Sun, and was at first incredibly hot, too hot for liquid water to exist on its surface. So it doesn't make sense there either.I've heard one theory that puts a different spin on it. It says basically that the first verse of Genesis is all of the description there is about the origin of the earth, moon and stars, including the sun and from there on, the account describes what things would look like to an observer moving over the surface of the great sea, as you put it. The atmosphere of the earth was at first opaque, so nothing was visible, it was formless and void. Gradually, the atmosphere became translucent as in "let there be light". Skipping a bit, the idea is then that the moon, sun and the other stars were not created later than the light was, but that they became visible through an increasingly transparent atmosphere. There's more to the theory, I guess, but that's the basics of a different view that someone has (not I) come up with.
No, the beginning of the "heavens and the earth" took place much, much later.The "heavens and earth" and the "early universe" are two different things. The beginning of this universe may not be the beginning of time, thus, is not the beginning of the "heavens and the earth"
Heh. You wish. Here, dark matter:It seems that in order to have a Big Bang, we also have to have dark matter, which is a fact-deprived religious dogma of its own. I think that humans tend to overestimate their ability to understand the universe.
Heh. You wish. Here, dark matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
In this observation, the collision of two galaxy clusters separated the normal matter from the dark matter. And when we look at the distortion of background galaxies, lo and behold, we find that that distortion is centered around where the dark matter would be, not around the normal matter.
So you're wrong.
Oh, it's pretty much confirmed today. There are still some people that claim that MOND can explain current observations, but those are getting more and more ridiculous all the time. However, nobody who has any reasonable knowledge of modern astrophysics doubts the big bang. It's far, far too strongly evidenced for that.Wikipedia refers to dark matter as hypothesis, meaning it's not a fact.
Halton Arp is a nut that has no clue what he's talking about. In this case, the article doesn't even offer a semblance of an argument as to why the Bullet Cluster "contradicts the Big Bang". Arp is just making the same tired old specious claims about redshift being unreliable (a patently absurd claim) and statistical closeness of "near" and "far" objects (which is due to selection effects: astronomical pictures are often reused, and so far away objects are often found near closer objects that were the original target of the study). His argument is entirely "Your assumptions are invalid!" instead of any positive evidence for his own theories.But interestingly enough, I have also read that the Bullet Cluster contradicts the Big Bang.
It still doesn't make any sense, though, because there was no earth in the early universe. The Earth formed after the Sun, and was at first incredibly hot, too hot for liquid water to exist on its surface. So it doesn't make sense there either.
Look, the fact of the matter is that if you're willing to completely overlook the facts, you can shoehorn any creation myth into reality. But if you pay attention to the facts, then no creation myth actually fits to any reasonable degree of accuracy.
If God actually wrote your book, for example, why are there no pearls of wisdom that nobody could have known about at that time, such as "the Sun is a star"?
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?