The Big Bang Theory

[juvenissun]

No, the beginning of the "heavens and the earth" took place much, much later.

Why? Why did the heavens appear much much later? about at what time?

 

[Chalnoth]

We had an opaque atmosphere at one point. It became translucent. It is now largely transparent. All of these things were in the theory I cited. And the only "shoehorn" activity I undertook was to say that the rest of the creation account after "the spirit hovered over the face of the waters" continues on from that viewpoint.

The thing is, I don't think that it's actually true that the atmosphere of the early Earth was opaque. And it's certainly not true that it was still opaque by the time plants came around.

 

[edrogati]

The thing is, I don't think that it's actually true that the atmosphere of the early Earth was opaque. And it's certainly not true that it was still opaque by the time plants came around.

I agree with your second sentence. As for your first, what evidence would there be one way or another? Not a challenge, genuinely wondering. If I'm wrong and therefore the theory I cited is wrong, how would we determine this one way or another? The account says that there was light before the plants came around, so the atmosphere would have been translucent at that point.

 

[juvenissun]

The thing is, I don't think that it's actually true that the atmosphere of the early Earth was opaque. And it's certainly not true that it was still opaque by the time plants came around.

How to make the atmosphere "opaque"?
And for how long?
Is Jupiter's atmosphere opaque?

 

[Paconious]

Why? Why did the heavens appear much much later? about at what time?

Nasa's WMAP has calculated the big bang to have happened around 13.7 billion years ago. The formation of the earth didnt occur until 5 billion years ago.

 

[Chalnoth]

I agree with your second sentence. As for your first, what evidence would there be one way or another? Not a challenge, genuinely wondering. If I'm wrong and therefore the theory I cited is wrong, how would we determine this one way or another? The account says that there was light before the plants came around, so the atmosphere would have been translucent at that point.

Well, you'd go by a comparison of solar system formation models along with the makeup of the oldest rocks. The chemistry at time of formation, which includes the makeup of the atmosphere, would have affected the opacity.

Regardless of the actual details of the early atmosphere, however, the Bible has plants showing up before the Sun and Moon. That is patently absurd. It also has birds showing up before land animals, which we know didn't happen. It also has organisms being specially created separately, instead of diversifying from a common ancestor.

 

[edrogati]

Well, you'd go by a comparison of solar system formation models along with the makeup of the oldest rocks. The chemistry at time of formation, which includes the makeup of the atmosphere, would have affected the opacity.

So, what do they show?

Regardless of the actual details of the early atmosphere, however, the Bible has plants showing up before the Sun and Moon. That is patently absurd. It also has birds showing up before land animals, which we know didn't happen. It also has organisms being specially created separately, instead of diversifying from a common ancestor.

Please address what I actually said. According to the viewpoint of someone on the surface of the Earth, light appeared before plants, which is not patently absurd. If the Sun and Moon became visible later, this shouldn't be a problem. Please notice that I said became visible, not, were created. As far as the order of the origin of organisms, I agree, that does create an issue with the account. However, that was not what I was talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

Bobby Fischer once wrote an article in which he claimed, "The King's Gambit is busted."

God wrote an article [Genesis 1] busting the Big Bang, before the Big Bang was ever conceived.

 

[edrogati]

Bobby Fischer once wrote an article in which he claimed, "The King's Gambit is busted."

God wrote an article [Genesis 1] busting the Big Bang, before the Big Bang was ever conceived.

I know that I'm asking the question of the wrong person to expect a lucid answer from, but how exactly does Genesis 1 "bust" the Big Bang? Some people would say that having an origin to the universe requires an originator.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know that I'm asking the question of the wrong person to expect a lucid answer from, but how exactly does Genesis 1 "bust" the Big Bang? Some people would say that having an origin to the universe requires an originator.

Haven't you ever seen a comparison of the events in Genesis 1 to the events in the Big Bang [ever changing] model (or models) that produce the same results?

For example: the Bible has the Earth in existence before the Sun, whereas the Big Bang model has the Sun in existence before the Earth.

 

[Danyc]

Haven't you ever seen a comparison of the events in Genesis 1 to the events in the Big Bang [ever becoming more accurate] model (or models) that produce the same results?

fix'd

 

[AV1611VET]

fix'd

You know --- if the Bible was open-ended (like the Periodic Table) is --- even I wouldn't believe It.

 

[Jadis40]

You know --- if the Bible was open-ended (like the Periodic Table) is --- even I wouldn't believe It.

Yet God has given us a glimpse of how our own solar system formed, meaning sun first, then the planets through the ability to observe these things through astronomical study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402153613.htm

Brings new meaning to the statement Jesus made about His father still working. It appears that creation is still taking place.

 

[juvenissun]

Regardless of the actual details of the early atmosphere, however, the Bible has plants showing up before the Sun and Moon. That is patently absurd.

Why is it absurd? What is the origin of organic material in comet/meteorite?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet God has given us a glimpse of how our own solar system formed...

Oh, He did, huh? And whose telescope are you using? Andromeda's?

Brings new meaning to the statement Jesus made about His father still working. It appears that creation is still taking place.

Either that, or He rested (ceased) after the 6th day.

For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

 

[Baggins]

Why is it absurd? What is the origin of organic material in comet/meteorite?

It is absurd to create plants before the sun because plants require sunlight in order to survive.

I would have thought that would've been obvious even to you.

 

[Danyc]

You know --- if the Bible was open-ended (like the Periodic Table) is --- even I wouldn't believe It.

The periodic table is not meant to be a complete work. The Bible is meant as a complete work. Thus the order not to take from or add to.

The periodic table is meant to be incomplete. We just needed a way to organize the elements, so the periodic table was made, in full knowledge that there were other elements out there. With this in mind, we adjusted the table so that it could hold new elements created or discovered.

It is not a fair comparison, for the two are completely different in completeness. The Bible is meant to be finished---it's done. The periodic table can still be added to when new elements are found. It doesn't mean anything is changing in science; those new elements were always out there. We simply found them. The only thing that changed was our knowledge of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

The periodic table is not meant to be a complete work. The Bible is meant as a complete work. Thus the order not to take from or add to.

The periodic table is meant to be incomplete. We just needed a way to organize the elements, so the periodic table was made, in full knowledge that there were other elements out there. With this in mind, we adjusted the table so that it could hold new elements created or discovered.

It is not a fair comparison, for the two are completely different in completeness. The Bible is meant to be finished---it's done. The periodic table can still be added to when new elements are found. It doesn't mean anything is changing in science; those new elements were always out there. We simply found them. The only thing that changed was our knowledge of them.

Please show me a Periodic Table of the Elements, and point out where on that table it says it is incomplete (or other such synonym).

 

[Jadis40]

Oh, He did, huh? And whose telescope are you using? Andromeda's?Either that, or He rested (ceased) after the 6th day.

Since I'll go with the belief that you didn't even bother to read the article, I'll give you some details.

The team of American and British scientists used the Very Large Array out in New Mexico along with another radio telescope 50km away. The star in question is 520 light years away, in the constellation Taurus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since I'll go with the belief that you didn't even bother to read the article, I'll give you some details.

The team of American and British scientists used the Very Large Array out in New Mexico along with another radio telescope 50km away. The star in question is 520 light years away, in the constellation Taurus.

Jadis, I don't care if every other solar system in this universe "formed" itself through natural (actually, I do, but I'm making a point here) --- I don't care if every other solar system in this universe "formed" itself through natural means --- according to the Bible, this solar system didn't.

Like I say, if you could even make a star NFL quarterback in a laboratory from the Periodic Table, I still wouldn't believe Adam and Eve were made from natural means.