Genesis Correlates With Science

[newpolitics]

there is no proof god exsists.

There's no proof the Big Bang Theory happened either.

The cosmic microwave background radiation is direct evidence of a Big Bang as detected by the WMAP satellite.

 

[editec]

One can believe in science and a deity, however...

..believing in science and literal interpretation of Biblical creationism?

That's really not possible without suffering from a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One can believe in science and a deity, however...

..believing in science and literal interpretation of Biblical creationism?

That's really not possible without suffering from a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

Really?

Too bad you were unable to pass this insight to Rene Descartes....
Descartes continues to see the hand of God in the creation. In chapter six of ‘Le Monde,’ he states that at the first instant of creation, God provides the parts with different properties, and after that He does not intervene supernaturally to regulate same.
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/08972/sample/9780521808972ws.pdf

 

[Truthmatters]

there is NO proof god exsists

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

5. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!

6. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.





7. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?

I love how know-nothings think they know-it-all about science because of what they have heard from the pulpit!!!

Space/time began at the Big Bang, not energy. No energy was "generated" at the Big Bang. Energy already existed at the Big Bang. Energy is what went bang at the Big Bang. The proven First Law of Thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Poof goes your whole rationalization!
Try again.

#5 and #6 above speak to the current understanding....


Only a bonehead (insert your name here) would miss the obvious, and write this:
"No energy was "generated" at the Big Bang. Energy already existed at the Big Bang. Energy is what went bang at the Big Bang. The proven First Law of Thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

"energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
So.....the energy of the Big Bang....created? Where from?


Further: 'First Law of Thermodynamics'

Sez who?

Modern physicists posit a 'multiverse' where every permutation and combination of so-called laws govern.


That was easy enough.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I do not see where this is going, so cut to the chase. How is it Obama's fault.

I appreciate what passes for thoughtful analysis from you and Maxwell....but still yearn for....let's call it more 'competent' ...input.


Care to actually actually contribute....or is the subject just too eschatological for you?

If so, hang around....we'll eventually get to Silly Putty, and favorite cartoon network.

You were there long ago, do not fool yourself that you have surpassed it.

Still nothing to add to the conversation, noodles?

Well....good to see you working up to your ability.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As far as your OP, science falsifies the bible immediately. There was no light in the universe until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. In other words, matter and energy were formed before light. Nice try though. Another pathetic try at vindicating a fairy tale.

Here's a big bang.....see any light?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg5z1ZAETcA]Fallout 3 Megaton Explosion at night - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they? Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense: light needs the sun....doesn't it?

a. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life.
But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.

10. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...

But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

Of course you left the next verse out because it pointed out the one thing you need the Sun for, the evening and the morning!!! In fact, there were 3 days of evenings and mornings before the Sun was created.

Worse yet, you have the Earth created BEFORE the light, or in your rationalization before the Big Bang. How does that specific order of events match science???????

Genesis verse 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I leave nothing out....

....follow my series of OP's.


But, good to see you reading the Bible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

there is NO proof god exsists

It depends on belief and faith.....

....kinda like the theory of evolution.

 

[Truthmatters]

there is physical proof of evolution.

there is no physical proof of god.

you are a liar which makes you a bad christain

 

[newpolitics]

As far as your OP, science falsifies the bible immediately. There was no light in the universe until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. In other words, matter and energy were formed before light. Nice try though. Another pathetic try at vindicating a fairy tale.

Here's a big bang.....see any light?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg5z1ZAETcA]Fallout 3 Megaton Explosion at night - YouTube[/ame]

Invalid use of inductive reasoning, and a composition fallacy. The Big Bang and a bang that happens to be big by subjective standards are categorically separated by the nature of what banged, why, when, and how, making the two explosions fundamentally different, but namely and with specific regard to this conversation, there would have been no light at the Big Bang, given that there were no electrons within orbits around atoms to emit light, which didn't form until shortly after the bang, and which didn't start producing light until the first stars 300,000 years after the Big Bang. Until then, the universe was opaque. As for the composition fallacy: what goes for an explosion within an already settled universe with physical laws, forces, matter and energy, does not also go for an explosion of that actual universe itself. In fact, it wasn't an explosion,so much as an expansion, which actually created the forces and energy that would allow an explosion to even create light. Again, your reasoning is invalid and your conception of science has been maladapted.

 

[Truthmatters]

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truthmatters]

Sequence alignment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truthmatters]

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truthmatters]

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow...very interesting, posts #52-53-54-55....

...but perhaps you intended them for a different thread?

The OP is pretty specific.
Those posts don't bear on this OP.



Here...let me remind you:

'10. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.




Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...'



See what I mean?



Follow your breadcrumbs back, and try again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As far as your OP, science falsifies the bible immediately. There was no light in the universe until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. In other words, matter and energy were formed before light. Nice try though. Another pathetic try at vindicating a fairy tale.

Here's a big bang.....see any light?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg5z1ZAETcA]Fallout 3 Megaton Explosion at night - YouTube[/ame]

Invalid use of inductive reasoning, and a composition fallacy. The Big Bang and a bang that happens to be big by subjective standards are categorically separated by the nature of what banged, why, when, and how, making the two explosions fundamentally different, but namely and with specific regard to this conversation, there would have been no light at the Big Bang, given that there were no electrons within orbits around atoms to emit light, which didn't form until shortly after the bang, and which didn't start producing light until the first stars 300,000 years after the Big Bang. Until then, the universe was opaque. As for the composition fallacy: what goes for an explosion within an already settled universe with physical laws, forces, matter and energy, does not also go for an explosion of that actual universe itself. In fact, it wasn't an explosion,so much as an expansion, which actually created the forces and energy that would allow an explosion to even create light. Again, your reasoning is invalid and your conception of science has been maladapted.

Explosion....light.
QED


Don't forget....there's a fine line between numerator and denominator!

 

[NoNukes]

I appreciate what passes for thoughtful analysis from you and Maxwell....but still yearn for....let's call it more 'competent' ...input.


Care to actually actually contribute....or is the subject just too eschatological for you?

If so, hang around....we'll eventually get to Silly Putty, and favorite cartoon network.

You were there long ago, do not fool yourself that you have surpassed it.

Still nothing to add to the conversation, noodles?

Well....good to see you working up to your ability.

Come up with an interesting thread and I am all yours.

 

[emptystep]

As far as your OP, science falsifies the bible immediately. There was no light in the universe until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. In other words, matter and energy were formed before light. Nice try though. Another pathetic try at vindicating a fairy tale.

Here's a big bang.....see any light?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg5z1ZAETcA]Fallout 3 Megaton Explosion at night - YouTube[/ame]

Invalid use of inductive reasoning, and a composition fallacy. The Big Bang and a bang that happens to be big by subjective standards are categorically separated by the nature of what banged, why, when, and how, making the two explosions fundamentally different, but namely and with specific regard to this conversation, there would have been no light at the Big Bang, given that there were no electrons within orbits around atoms to emit light, which didn't form until shortly after the bang, and which didn't start producing light until the first stars 300,000 years after the Big Bang. Until then, the universe was opaque. As for the composition fallacy: what goes for an explosion within an already settled universe with physical laws, forces, matter and energy, does not also go for an explosion of that actual universe itself. In fact, it wasn't an explosion,so much as an expansion, which actually created the forces and energy that would allow an explosion to even create light. Again, your reasoning is invalid and your conception of science has been maladapted.

The big bang is going to be PC's head after she reads your post, if she makes that far. Actually it might just be a little bang.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You were there long ago, do not fool yourself that you have surpassed it.

Still nothing to add to the conversation, noodles?

Well....good to see you working up to your ability.

Come up with an interesting thread and I am all yours.

I must avoid producing 'an interesting thread' at all costs!!!!



(Please....avoid the obvious response.)