View attachment 67225
I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.
I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...
It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?
****CHUCKLE*****
I found this logical and informative...
"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"
by
Andrew Parker
Parker is a scientist.
Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully - but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.
"I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."
Exactly
Genesis Correlates With Modern Science
- God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar System.
From the view of science today "light" is the electromagnetical spectrum - the part of this spectrum we are able to see we call "light". If we (=spiritual people) say "light" we are in most cases also always thinking about an inner representation of light. The most importnat thing for us is the ability "to see". If god says "Let there be light" this could in terms of science also mean for example "Let there be information." The strange thing: only spiritual beings, living entities, are able to see.
The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
- The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
- In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
- 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.
One very nice "side effect" of this expansion is for example that the universe expands from everywhere in all directions. So: If someone travels through this universe this one will be always in the middle of the universe. Or with other words: All points of the universe are always only in the middle.
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.
- 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!
- 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.
- 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 fear it's not wrong that god made the universe out of nothing - although if god made it in another way then this okay for me too. He's the creator. But the idea to create everything out of nothing is so clear and confusing the same time so I think god made it indeed in this way. With other words: No existance was existing - but god created existance. This makes all discussions about the existance of god somehow funny. God seems to be everywhere - even the nothing - or every notexistance - seems not to be without him.
And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 darknesswasupon 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, thatit wasgood: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. 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.
As a Catholic I love it to see everything in contact with anything else. We are still in the beginning - and somehow it looks to me as if we would be always in the beginning - until it ends. The strange thing - I also don't live in fear of this end. If I am not - why to be worried if god is also in the nothing? Who believes in god indeed never is alone - even if he's not existing any longer.
Christmas is in you. English subtitles:
Letter:
Dear grandpa, just in case you forgot: I'm writing to remind you about the bicycle you said will be coming for Christmas this year. I hope that your trip to heaven is going well. Love, Tommy
Answer:
For Tommy. I'm sorry this took so long. Grandpa
