The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. An infinite universe means infinite possibilites kind of thing?

a reply to: Astyanax

No, I'm implying I used reading comprehension, not mind reading.

a reply to: raymundoko

I'm implying I used reading comprehension, not mind reading.

But this is not reading comprehension, it is mindreading:

The creator is directly quoted with 'Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.'

Then, the author, or person viewing the creation vision, wrote that they were made because that is when they were finally visible. From the standpoint of the earth, they had just been made.

Are you implying that God had actually made the stars earlier (possibly on the first day), but they only became visible on Earth on the fourth day? And He only mentioned it when they did? Where in Genesis does it say that?

Or do you mean the light was there already, and God just 'collected it into stars' on the fourth day? Where would this light have been coming from, if not from stars? And where in Genesis does it say that?

If you got either of those of the first nineteen verses of Genesis 1, you're definitely reading the author's mind.

But never mind all that. I just wanted to tell you that the vision you evoke, that of plants emerging and flourishing on a fully formed Earth beneath a sky lit with the hellish, constant flaring of high-energy particle collisions, in a universe where the stars have not yet formed, is both impressive in its visual impact and hilarious in its implausibility.

Here is a chronological account of the Big Bang. Read it and tell us how closely it resembles the Genesis account of Creation.

a reply to: EternalSolace

1. Okay, no explosion. Yet the universe is expanding in all directions simultaneously. That's still just as unpredictable.

What is unpredictable? Where Earth got parked? It was utterly predictable, once all the pushing and shoving of force differentiation and matter formation was done with, and good old Newtonian mechanics took over. It was utterly predictable that, out of all the G-type stars in the universe, at least one — more likely billions of them — would form planets within their circumstellar habitable zones (or Goldilocks zones if you like bears and porridge).

2. If it wasn't random, it was by design.

Not at all. The universe evolves in accordance with the laws of nature — in particular the laws of motion, which dictate where stars and planets end up relative to each other.

3. I'd consider the habitable zone of a star a special place.

From your point of view or mine it is special. But that is only because we evolved in one. And they are common; there are countless F- and G-type stars in the universe.

4. The "cosmic bullseye" (what I was referring to as our suns habitable zone) is not 3AU in width.

How wide is it, then?

5. Originated from a comet, or on earth, doesn't much matter. The point remains. As for the rest... what?

What is the point? That the emergence of life is improbable? So what? It's a very big, very old universe, and the most improbable things are still going to happen in it, somewhere, some time. Besides, the emergence of life isn't improbable. There is good reason to regard it as inevitable. I believe the universe is lousy with life, and not just within the CHZs of stars like our Sun, either.

Also, Lucid Lunacy is right, when he says

you used the size of the Universe in defense of your argument but didn't realize its size actually undermines it.

You can't have your cosmic cake and eat it. The black holes will give you indigestion.

a reply to: Astyanax

So what about before all the pushing and the shoving ceased and before newtonian mechanics took over? Was that predictable too?

If it was, it would have to have been by design. I don't see how the expulsion of anything could be predictable in any way before it's expelled.

I also have a hard time fathoming that there is no center of the universe or the infinite universe theory. For the universe to expand, it has to have an edge to expand. If it has edges, there has to be a center. If it was infinite, there could be no possible expansion or have edges to even expand.

If the universe is finite, my argument about the odds holds some water.

Even is someone says that the universe will reach infinite volume in infinite time, that still means that the universe has to have an edge to expand. And an edge still means a center. Which means my argument about the odds still holds water.

However, there's scientific evidence that says the universe is expanding...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

I never inserted an unknown source of light, you simply lack reading comprehension. Also, if you think a thick atmosphere on a young planet contradicts science then you don't actually follow the science like you claim.

Oh, I simply lack reading comprehension. LOL.

The atmosphere was thick and cloudy when it was FIRST FORMED and during it's various extinction level events.

Land plants didn't arise for 3+ BILLION years after the earth formed. Organisms that utilized photosynthesis (sun required) were around 2+ billion years prior.

Sorry, it's not compatible with science. You are suggesting that life existed for 2+ billion years with a cloudy atmosphere and no sun, simply because the the bible said that god said there be light. Believe what you want to believe, but claiming that science supports the biblical creation story is silly and proof of this is the fact that you had to make stuff up to make it work.

The Sun is the source...do you not understand what a thick atmosphere and diffused light are?

How could the sun be the source, when god made it on day 4 according to the verses? You accuse me of reading comprehension issues, yet the verse clearly says "God made" ON DAY 4. It doesn't say "God made the light he created on day 1 reach the earth". This is you putting your own assumptions into what was written. There's no point in trying to rectify faith with science. They are polar opposites.

If you dissect it scientifically you are doing the stories and their purpose a disservice IMO, and you can't do it without cherry picking certain aspects of science while ignoring countless others. Either it can be justified by science or it can't. There is no in between where a few select scientific facts fit while the other 95% don't matter.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: EternalSolace

2. If it wasn't random, it was by design.

Not at all. The universe evolves in accordance with the laws of nature — in particular the laws of motion, which dictate where stars and planets end up relative to each other.

The laws of nature are mathematically consistent, you don't think that all this order involved some sort of design? Thermodynamic laws claim that a closed system, i.e. our universe, is always increasing in randomness, or entropy. How could order come from a system that is becoming more and more chaotic with every passing moment? The intelligence of the universe is within all of the major scientific equations. Mathematics define Divine Craftsmanship.

originally posted by: cooperton
The laws of nature are mathematically consistent, you don't think that all this order involved some sort of design? Thermodynamic laws claim that a closed system, i.e. our universe, is always increasing in randomness, or entropy. How could order come from a system that is becoming more and more chaotic with every passing moment?

Gravity gives the appearance of order. Order is your personal opinion. Everything goes through it's cycles, one day the universe will likely run out of energy and freeze. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it never will.

a reply to: Barcs

Gravity doesn't account for the sheer randomness of it all if there is no intelligent design.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Barcs

Gravity doesn't account for the sheer randomness of it all if there is no intelligent design.

What's your point? I said gravity accounts for the "order" of things.

a reply to: Barcs

Not before you edited it. Apply my comment to your post pre-edit.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Sorry about that. I probably had the same exact thought as you, which is what made me edit it for clarity.

I was trying to say that gravity is the reason for the appearance of order. I wanted to show that entropy may apply to the universe as a whole, but it doesn't apply equally everywhere. There are open and closed systems. The earth receives energy from the sun, so it is not completely closed. However, the earth's inner core is slowly cooling and the sun has a limited supply of energy. Entropy is still applying to the whole, but it doesn't directly affect evolution at this time. The reason for this is because energy from the sun is added to our system on a daily basis. Without it, everything we perceive as "order" goes out the door.

a reply to: Astyanax

Who said anything about a hellish sky? I have clearly said that in my opinion, and the opinion of most Jewish scholars, that the Sun and Stars were formed on the 1st day.

Any what does the chronology of the big bang have do do with Genesis? By all accounts of theologians the only record of the big bang in the bible is "In the beginning God created the heaves and the earth" which is so vague it doesn't agree or disagree with anything.

After that everything is specifically related to the earth, from the point of view of the earth.

a reply to: raymundoko

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The universe is about 13.8 billion years old.

If the big bang and all events prior to the creation of Earth are day 1 of Genesis, that means that day 1 lasted 9.3 billion years while days 2-6 accounted for the last 4.5 billion years. How can day 1 be 67% of the age of the universe while the other days account for 33%? How long is a day to god and why does it get to be variable? Why even keep track of such a thing if its length is so arbitrary?

Also such reasoning suggests that God sacrificed detail in the rest of the Universe to develop the detail on the Earth. This gives credence to the idea that the Earth and humans are special in the universe, but all science says that is wrong.

a reply to: Barcs

So you don't even know the definition of reading comprehension.

You can't just read one line or one chapter of the bible and determine how it should be read. You have to read huge chunks of it to determine how other parts should be read. Then, if you are educated in sciences, you can further extrapolate how it should be read. So if theologian A thinks it should be read X and Theologian B thinks it should be read Y, but Y disagrees with observed science, then A's X should be the more correct reading.

Again, God never said he made the Sun on day 4, the person seeing the creation vision did. Got simply said they became fully visible to the surface on day 4. You can tell when someone is talking based on the quotation marks. You learn that in grade school...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's been beaten to death on these forums throughout the years. I already linked that most Jews have always thought the day's are simply periods of time or ages of creation, and that they were some indeterminate amount of time.

I would agree with you that it focuses on the creation of the earth to make humans feel special.

a reply to: raymundoko

If the length of time is indeterminate, then why use the same descriptor "day" throughout the account? The account clearly says that 6 days transpired from creation up to 6000 years ago(?) then god supposedly rested for a day. Or not really since the OT is filled with god meddling in human affairs.

If you continually use the word "day", you imply that a set period of time has elapsed between each day. If it is variable then you cannot use the same word throughout because then the word has no definition. I'm fine with saying that a day is much longer to god, but I cannot swallow the claim that a day is just an arbitrary length of time from one day to the next. That sounds too much like a cop out to make a false claim sound truthful.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then you disagree with most learned scholars, and you do so to support the obviously wrong view as it's easier to attack. Again, a young earth viewpoint only started to arise around 700AD. (Linked previously)

The word day is used throughout the bible to describe many different periods of time. To say that same mind set doesn't also apply to Genesis is disingenuous.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then you disagree with most learned scholars, and you do so to support the obviously wrong view as it's easier to attack. Again, a young earth viewpoint only started to arise around 700AD. (Linked previously)

Why would I agree with bad reasoning that is popular opinion? That is bandwagon fallacy. I wasn't suggesting that the earth was young. I was suggesting that 6 days in the Genesis account are the length of time from the beginning of the universe to the start of the bible. Since the bible is believed to have started 6000 years ago, that is why I said that.

The word day is used throughout the bible to describe many different periods of time. To say that same mind set doesn't also apply to Genesis is disingenuous.

Does it? How so? Also, how often, other than the Genesis account, does the length of time of a day vary from usage to usage within the same story/passage?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The fact you even ask those questions notifies me you've never actually researched this.