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.
Still no response. Something I said? Or didn't say?
I think that (some) plants CAN live in the dark is a sort of response to your concern. Is it right?
Also, it came to me that the universe was much much brighter than it is now. There could be all kind of plants everywhere in the universe at that time.
My response is contained in this previous response to juvenessun, post #67.Still no response. Something I said? Or didn't say?
They can survive, for a time. But not for very long. Rather like how we can survive without eating for a short while.I think that (some) plants CAN live in the dark is a sort of response to your concern. Is it right?
When the universe was noticeably brighter, there were no solid objects for any sort of life to form on. That is, there were no stars, no planets, no structure of any kind. There also weren't much of any elements heavier than helium, making life chemically impossible.Also, it came to me that the universe was much much brighter than it is now. There could be all kind of plants everywhere in the universe at that time.
Yes, I did forget about the atmosphereActually, it's more because of the fact that our atmosphere absorbs IR quite strongly (specifically the water in it). This is a continual source of frustration for astronomers, and it's one reason why we have so many telescopes on the tops of high mountains. The Sun emits less IR than visible light, of course, but it's not that much less. The same is true with UV (except it's scattered, not absorbed).
To be trendy, FAIL. That has nothing to do with what I posted.My response is contained in this previous response to juvenessun, post #67.
So, does that support or undermine the idea that the sun existed before plants? Does that support or undermine the idea that an observer on the face of the earth who saw light before plants appeared has some truth to it? Please respond to what I posted.They couldn't have survived without photosynthesis. Simple as that. Oh, yeah, and plants weren't the first photosynthetic organisms. Not by a long shot.
There's that word again that St. [what's-his-name-used].It's absurd!
When the universe was noticeably brighter, there were no solid objects for any sort of life to form on. That is, there were no stars, no planets, no structure of any kind. There also weren't much of any elements heavier than helium, making life chemically impossible.
Well, when what is now the CMB was in the visible range, the universe was around 3000-4000K in temperature. The normal matter was also 75% hydrogen, 25% helium, with trace amounts of everything else and no collapsed objects at all.I guess you know this better than I do. So, what was the time when the universe was lighted by visible light? And how long was that period of time?
Harry Potter is intentionally and obviously marketed as fiction by the person who wrote it. The Bible has always been represented as fact by those who advocate it. The comparison is not valid.Ugh, this is just getting absurd. Genesis 1 is a fairy tale. It has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. It is a creation myth written down by a member of a desert tribe some 2500-3000 years ago, a tribe completely ignorant as to where the Earth, Sun, Moon, and life actually came from.
One might as well be attempting to show how Harry Potter actually fits real-life events as try to show how Genesis 1 comports with reality. It's absurd!
Then how do you explain the blatantly obvious fact that the creation account in Genesis 1 is flatly contradicted by the creation account in Genesis 2? If this book was meant to be a true description of reality, surely the authors would have sought a non-contradictory description? Instead they appear to have been more concerned with the meaning of the passages than their factual content, which indicates that they didn't actually think there was any factual content to be had.Harry Potter is intentionally and obviously marketed as fiction by the person who wrote it. The Bible has always been represented as fact by those who advocate it. The comparison is not valid.
Has it occurred to you that Genesis 2 is not a "creation account"?Then how do you explain the blatantly obvious fact that the creation account in Genesis 1 is flatly contradicted by the creation account in Genesis 2?
Well, when what is now the CMB was in the visible range, the universe was around 3000-4000K in temperature.
WHEN was that?
Please give me your opinion even if you are not sure about the answer. I could not find a proper reference to this question (don't know what key words to search).
I can't explain the apparent contradiction. I don't think that your conclusion follows logically, however.Then how do you explain the blatantly obvious fact that the creation account in Genesis 1 is flatly contradicted by the creation account in Genesis 2? If this book was meant to be a true description of reality, surely the authors would have sought a non-contradictory description? Instead they appear to have been more concerned with the meaning of the passages than their factual content, which indicates that they didn't actually think there was any factual content to be had.
This would have been around the time the CMB was emitted, which was around 300,000 years or so after the end of cosmic inflation, as Birdan correctly points out.WHEN was that?
Please give me your opinion even if you are not sure about the answer. I could not find a proper reference to this question (don't know what key words to search).
Look, there is one thing that we can be absolutely certain about any claim that purports to be truth: if that claim disagrees with itself, it simply cannot be true. The idea of a self-contradicting statement being true is nonsense, because it is impossible to even say what a self-contradicting statement actually means!I can't explain the apparent contradiction. I don't think that your conclusion follows logically, however.
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?