The Big Bang Theory

[juvenissun]

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.

 

[edrogati]

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.

Thanks for venturing a response, but I was hoping to hear from Chalnoth.

 

[Chalnoth]

Still no response. Something I said? Or didn't say?

My response is contained in this previous response to juvenessun, post #67.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible makes it clear that there were angiosperms here before the sun; and It also makes it clear that the earth has been in existence three days longer than the sun --- (even though the sun is older - I think).

 

[Chalnoth]

I think that (some) plants CAN live in the dark is a sort of response to your concern. Is it right?

They can survive, for a time. But not for very long. Rather like how we can survive without eating for a short while.

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.

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.

Life couldn't form until the heavier elements were cooked in stars. We need metals to form rocky planets with a surface for life to survive upon, and we need lots of elements like carbon and oxygen for our own bodies, elements which just didn't exist in the early universe in any recognizable quantities.

 

[Naraoia]

Actually, 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).

Yes, I did forget about the atmosphere Well, I'll try to remember next time. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Naraoia]

I think that (some) plants CAN live in the dark is a sort of response to your concern. Is it right?

The plants I know of that can live in the dark are parasites... Of course I say "plants" in a technical sense.

 

[edrogati]

My response is contained in this previous response to juvenessun, post #67.

To be trendy, FAIL. That has nothing to do with 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.

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.

 

[Chalnoth]

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!

 

[AV1611VET]

It's absurd!

There's that word again that St. [what's-his-name-used].

We like to refer to it as a "miracle" --- specifically, we call it, the miracle of creation.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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?

I guess what you said above is wrong.

 

[Chalnoth]

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?

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.

It wasn't until the background radiation cooled to around the 100K range (-173°C) that stars started to form. And even then it wasn't until billions of years later, when stars had enough time to go through a few generations of exploding, reforming, and exploding again that the heavier elements got sprinkled around galaxies enough for life to start forming.

 

[edrogati]

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!

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.

 

[Chalnoth]

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.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

Has it occurred to you that Genesis 2 is not a "creation account"?

 

[juvenissun]

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).

 

[birdan]

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).

IIRC, it was about 300,000 years after the beginning that the universe lost its opacity and the CMB occurred.

 

[edrogati]

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.

I can't explain the apparent contradiction. I don't think that your conclusion follows logically, however.

 

[Chalnoth]

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).

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.

 

[Chalnoth]

I can't explain the apparent contradiction. I don't think that your conclusion follows logically, however.

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!

This is the problem with claiming that the Bible, as a whole, is 100% true. It contradicts itself all over the place! It is fundamentally impossible for this claim to be true, because you can't coherently state what it would even mean for it to be true due to these contradictions.