The Big Bang Theory

[Jadis40]

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.

And yet, there is absolutely no physical proof that this solar system formed by supernatural means, apart from the Bible. The same elements that make up the most distant galaxies are the very same elements that make up everything on this planet, including ourselves. So, the building blocks, if you will, were already here.

So I'll go on the belief that yes, God made the universe, but he very well could have natural means such as that observed by the scientists I mentioned above.

Sorry, but based on that, I don't believe that the earth or any other planet in this solar system was just magically "poofed" into existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet, there is absolutely no physical proof that this solar system formed by supernatural means, apart from the Bible.

Should there be? Have you ever seen my Apple Challenge?

The same elements that make up the most distant galaxies are the very same elements that make up everything on this planet, including ourselves.

No argument here.

So I'll go on the belief that yes, God made the universe, but he very well could have natural means such as that observed by the scientists I mentioned above.

Then He didn't document what He did?

 

[Jadis40]

Should there be? Have you ever seen my Apple Challenge?
No argument here.Then He didn't document what He did?

Your apple challenge is actually a great arguement for the Big Bang, and the supernatural creation of the known universe. I am with you 100% with the fact that God is the Creator.

We know that material objects can't just spontaneously arise from something that doesn't even exist. The Big Bang just deals with the how of all matter in this universe got here. Chemistry and Physics deals with how that matter interacted with how those elements interacted to form galaxies and solar systems. Biology, and by extension, evolution, deals with the change that takes place among living species.

Now, as far as documentation, the only time that God scribed something with His own hand was when he gave Moses the 10 Commandments.

There's some debate, but if Moses truly wrote Genesis, he was just a scribe. The Bible itself, as we have it, is the collected work of several authors living over many centuries. If God showed Moses visions of the creation process, Moses only use the vocabulary he already had. The WHO, to me, is more important than the WHEN and HOW. I think Moses wanted to get across the point that God alone, as opposed to multiple deities, was ultimately responsible for the creation of the earth. The Israelites had just spent 400+ years in Egypt, where they were surrounded by a polytheistic culture.

Reading the Bible, it seems to me that God is not hesitant to use natural means to achieve His aims. Our Lord Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully divine when He was born after a normal 9 month gestation. The supernatural part of that was the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary and the Virgin Birth.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Big Bang just deals with the how of all matter in this universe got here.

No, it doesn't --- it deals with the distribution of matter in the universe --- and for that, I have to bring up this challenge.

However --- since you're willing to put God's Word through a Veg-o-Matic to make your points look valid, then I have nothing to stand on.

Side note: Four times God wrote something in the Scriptures Himself:

• The Ten Commandments (twice)
• The Handwriting on the wall in Belshazzar's palace
• Jesus writing in the sand

(Just something else for you to slice and dice.)

 

[Jadis40]

No, it doesn't --- it deals with the distribution of matter in the universe --- and for that, I have to bring up this challenge.

However --- since you're willing to put God's Word through a Veg-o-Matic to make your points look valid, then I have nothing to stand on.

Side note: Four times God wrote something in the Scriptures Himself:

• The Ten Commandments (twice)
• The Handwriting on the wall in Belshazzar's palace
• Jesus writing in the sand

Actually on the 3 other times, I stand corrected.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

How many suns in the universe? Why should it have to be ours?

 

[Chalnoth]

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

Because plants require sunlight for photosynthesis. They did not evolve until long long after the first organisms that could perform photosynthesis.

Comets/meteorites are besides the point. But organic molecules form on them due to reactions with solar UV radiation.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How many suns in the universe? Why should it have to be ours?

Because our sun is the only one close enough to Earth to provide adequate energy for photosynthesis?

Of course, the Bible doesn't say anything about other suns, it only acknowledges stars, and deals with them quite differently to "suns"... so theres yet another nail in the literalist Genesis interpretation for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because our sun is the only one close enough to Earth to provide adequate energy for photosynthesis?

Of course, the Bible doesn't say anything about other suns, it only acknowledges stars, and deals with them quite differently to "suns"... so theres yet another nail in the literalist Genesis interpretation for you.

Did someone mention "photosynthesis"?

And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon,

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Did someone mention "photosynthesis"?

Are you suggesting plants can photosynthesis with moonlight? Or, indeed, that the moon produces its own light anyway?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you suggesting plants can photosynthesis with moonlight? Or, indeed, that the moon produces its own light anyway?

Did you see the part I highlighted?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Did you see the part I highlighted?

Yes, which is why I asked what I asked. What you quoted seemed to suggest that plants photosynthesise moonlight. Which is why I'm asking for clarification. Seriously, getting a straight answer out of you is like pulling teeth! I thought I asked a fairly straight forward question.

 

[AV1611VET]

What you quoted seemed to suggest that plants photosynthesise moonlight.

Have a good day ---

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Have a good day ---

*does that stunned, open mouthed scowling, hands raised palms upwards "what the heck are you talking about" thing*

 

[ReverendDG]

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.

no it doesn't, genesis 1 says nothing about other planets, it talks about stars, the moon and the sun that's it.
all the stuff it talks about is in the filament of the sky, the authors of genesis thought the sky was a hard dome.
can't you even read the bible how its written? why do you have to insert modernistic knowledge into a story written by people who had no clue about the universe, much less the planet?

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.

you can't even show they existed. but its irrelevant, since according to you, we can't go past genesis 1. which means when genesis 1 says adam, its saying people, since adam means mankind in hebrew.
genesis 1 never talks about adam and eve, read the bible without inserting beliefs it doesn't support.

or are you just some hypocrite that says genesis 2-3 are off bounds for anyone but you?
seems to me you are AV.
so from now on your nonsense about genesis 1 pwning anything, or whining about how atheists can't bring up anything past genesis 1 is nothing but a bunch of bunk
you can't even do it yourself

 

[AV1611VET]

no it doesn't, genesis 1 says nothing about other planets, it talks about stars, the moon and the sun that's it.

I'll concede the point on Genesis 1 not talking about other planets, but OTOH you don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to figure out the other planets would be included, do you?

all the stuff it talks about is in the filament of the sky,

Do you mean the firmament of the heaven?

the authors of genesis thought the sky was a hard dome.

That's baloney --- you have no clue as to what the authors of Genesis knew or didn't know at the time. You weren't there, you didn't interview them, and you don't even know what they look like; so please spare me the armchair psychoanalysis on specific authors of the Bible --- it doesn't wash.

can't you even read the bible how its written?

Ya, I can read how it's written: it's written literally.

why do you have to insert modernistic knowledge into a story written by people who had no clue about the universe, much less the planet?

For people who had no clue about the universe, much less the planet, they were quite advanced --- wouldn't you say? After all, they beat Hubble by a few thousand years in mentioning an expanding universe --- just to mention one example.

you can't even show they existed.

But apparently you can --- right? You can even say without reservation how they assessed the filament of the sky [sic].

but its irrelevant, since according to you, we can't go past genesis 1.

That's right --- if you can't get your thinking cap past Genesis 1, don't even "educate" me about how the Flood was local, or anything else in Scripture, because I'm not really interested --- Reverend.

which means when genesis 1 says adam, its saying people, since adam means mankind in hebrew.

Here we go --- you have no clue what it's saying in English, but by golly, you'll surely educate me in what it's saying in Hebrew, won't you? For your information, I'm a KJVO; so spare me your knowledge of Hebrew and/or Greek, will you please? Go impress TE's and Charismatics with your speaking in tongues skills --- they'll fall for it --- I won't.

genesis 1 never talks about adam and eve...

Okay, that's enough for now, Reverend; I've had enough.

 

[juvenissun]

Because plants require sunlight for photosynthesis. They did not evolve until long long after the first organisms that could perform photosynthesis.

Comets/meteorites are besides the point. But organic molecules form on them due to reactions with solar UV radiation.

Wrong. The first cell on the Earth (or in the solar system) was probably plant cell.

Organic material in comets is NOT besides the point. Organic material exists in cosmic dust. No light from any sun is needed for its formation. And organic material makes cell.

Before the creation day 3, there was no organic material in this universe.

 

[juvenissun]

Because our sun is the only one close enough to Earth to provide adequate energy for photosynthesis?

Of course, the Bible doesn't say anything about other suns, it only acknowledges stars, and deals with them quite differently to "suns"... so theres yet another nail in the literalist Genesis interpretation for you.

What is the chance to find another planet in the universe which has only plants but no animals?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

What is the chance to find another planet in the universe which has only plants but no animals?

They probably wont have plants or animals. they will have different categories altogether.

 

[Chalnoth]

Wrong. The first cell on the Earth (or in the solar system) was probably plant cell.

Nope. Photosynthesis didn't evolve for quite some time. The first organisms were anaerobic, and remained so for a very long time. And even then, plants are eukaryotes, so even by the loosest possible definition we're talking a relatively recent evolution.

Organic material in comets is NOT besides the point. Organic material exists in cosmic dust. No light from any sun is needed for its formation. And organic material makes cell.

Before the creation day 3, there was no organic material in this universe.

I have no clue what you think you're saying here. "Creation days" are merely myths. Why, pray tell, do you think that there was a time before which it the chemical reactions to produce organic molecules did not exist? And why are you equating organic materials to life?