Big Bang ushers in the heavens and the earth...?

LOL.
No.

The Geological Clock below depicts the six "durations" after the long Big Bang duration, before the earth took form and was no longer void of spherical shape:





1. Formative/Cosmologic Era-Hadean Era/ = First Day

2. Hadean Era-Archaean Era/ = Second Day

3. Archaean Era-Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day

4. Proterozoic Era-Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day

5. Paleozoic Era-Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day

6. Mesozoic Era-Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day

7. Cenozoic Era-Common Era/ = Seventh Day

 

..." a day is like millions of year long durations"....

 

The bible apparently states events which we have only recently discovered to be true.
That seems very important.

People have ridiculed the scriptures by claiming they are scientifically incorrect, and here we see only in Genesis One, that, verse by verse, scripture conforms with what has been discovered.

Why do you guys insist Genesis does conform with the facts of Science,... while clearly, I show you it does?

 

It seems pretty much right so far, from Gen 1;1 through Gen 1:10.

read those passages and see that the passage below fits right in:


In the beginning, 13.5 billion years ago, the forces of Nature created with a Big Bang the heaven and, ultimately, the seven layers of the Earth.

And the accretion disk that was to coalesce into the earth, it was without form, a mass of hot molten rocks that circled the Sun in a ring, and void of geometric shape; and darkness was upon the face of the deep thick disk.

And the spirit of the beautiful harmony of the Natural Laws which required a Cause for every Effect, moved upon the circular face of the thick deep waters of particles and rocks spinning around the Sun.

And, after 400 million years of a Cosmic Dark Age, the forces of Nature let there be light and there was light for the first time illuminating the Universe. And the forces of Nature saw that the visible electromagnetic light, that its energy frequency was good for seeing: and the forces of Nature divided the visible electromagnetic light waves from the darkness.

And the forces of Nature made the light for Day, wherever it illuminated, and the darkness was Night.

And the Cosmic Formative Duration of the Chaotian evening of the Bang expansion and the Cryptic morning of the Hadean eon on Geological Clock of six durations, were the first duration of Cosmic Time.

And the forces of Nature let there evolve a firmament of Atmosphere in the midst of the "waters" of atomic particles, and let it divide the waters of various gaseous atomic particles from the liquid the waters that had condensed.
And the forces of Nature made the firmament of gases, above, rise up to the heavens, and divided the seven bodies of liquid waters which were under the atmospheric firmament from the "waters" of various gaseous atomic particles which were above, in the Atmospheric firmament: and it was so.
And the forces of Nature formed the firmament of the seven layers of Atmosphere in Heaven.

And the Imbrian evening of the Hadean eon and the Eoarchean morning of the Archean eon were the second duration of Geological Time.

And the forces of Nature let the seven (7) bodies of liquid waters under the heaven be gathered, together, unto one place, the Panthalassic Ocean, which first formed during the Neoarchean/Paleo-proterozoic eras of the third Geological duration, and let the dry land of Rodinia/Pangea appear in its midst: and it was so.

And the forces of Nature gathered into one Pangea; i.e.; all the seven (7) continents of dry land, of all the Earth; and the gathering together of the waters are named the the Panthalassic Seas: and the forces of Nature saw to it, that it was a good on going process of the tectonic plate system.


(Colored words are explanatory links)

 

Sure to an extent, but no more (or less) than other similar texts and myths. It could just as easily be interpreted to fit a sequence of events that directly contradicts scientific understanding as it stood at any given point in time (and indeed has been).

I'm not objecting to the principle though I am objecting to how definitive and specific you claim the parallels are. I'm more interested in your point in emphasising this specific interpretation really.

So what? You can spin one interpretation of a particular version of an ancient text to kind of fit some elements of current scientific understanding. How is this anything other than an interesting literary game?

 

Ah. Well, I'm not familiar enough with various religious traditions around the world and throughout history and prehistory to comment on that. I'd agree that it seems to be a common motif, though, and I would agree if you wanted to say that this is possibly due to fundamental similarities in human thinking finding an ultimately similar expression in disparate religious traditions over time. However, it is impossible to rule out intercultural contact, whether direct or indirect. Homo sapiens have always wandered, explored, expanded and traded.

 

Christianity is based on too much authoritative-sounding nonsense for Christians to leave science alone. If Christianity simply taught that we were created somehow (we don't know the details) and that we can look forward to eternal life by following Yahweh-Jesus's 10 Step Program or whatever, maybe they wouldn't have a problem with science and its modern discoveries. But, see, they have this silly old storybook that kind of serves as the foundation of their entire belief system. They're kind of lost without it. Yet it also is chock full of silly claims about how the Earth and everything "above" and "below" it was created, and its subsequent claims are all predicated on those silly creation-related claims. We need Jesus because of Adam's fall, and so on. If you throw out the Bible, though, then you lose pretty much the entire religion with it. There is no reason to believe in Yahweh or his kid, nor in sin and salvation. That is, once you do away with the bible, you have to admit to yourself and others that you're simply making it all up to suit yourself. Christians do this anyway, but with the bible they can at least continue to pretend that they're not operating on pure fantasy and whim.

 

You clearly have no clue as to how scientific inquiry works. You have demonstrated nothing short of imaginative babble.

 

It seems right with hindsight and fudging in the same way that Nostradamus famous prophecies only work out when you jam them into the jigsaw of events and make them fit. Famously, "Hister" was an alternative name for the river Danube in Nostradamus time, but this was later interpreted after the fact as referring to Hitler, not quite the same thing.

 

Exactly right,...
The Bible has been stated to conform with the ancient ideas called "Science" before this modern age.

But we all agree that it doesn't ring true as interpreted that way.

Here, above, I am just demonstrating exactly what you said, that the Bible can be seen to support the Science of today.
It makes sense to use a way of interpreting that conforms with what we now know, doesn't it???

 

Like,... what do you find objectionable so far?

- - - Updated - - -

Like what "fudging?"

 

It is interesting that scripture is dead on target in Genesis,.

This defends the Bible against the people who say it is just crap and nonsense, because it does not correspond to Science.
But it is also amazing that line after line tells us stuff we only found to be true in this last century.

I am only up to Gen 1:10, and I see that after the Big Bang, the Earth did not immediately form a Sphere, but was an accretion disk of rocks, (Gen 1:2).

Then there was a span of a Dark Cosmic Age when light did not yet exist. (Gen 1:3-5).

In Gen 1:9-10, we discover that Pangea was anticipated as a discovery to come.

You are premature to expect much in just 10 verses, so be patient.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not doing scientific inquiry.

I am just using that set of facts to parallel the text of what Genesis says.

 

That isn't what I said at all. I fear you're too engrained in the mode of interpreting things to fit your preconceptions.

The Bible has been and still is interpreted to say loads of vastly different things. Sometimes they're in line with current scientific understanding. Sometimes they directly contradict current scientific understanding. Sometimes it's largely irrelevant to scientific understanding.

The fact you have one particular spin that you've twisted to fit what you believe is scientifically accurate doesn't mean a thing since the same text can be interpreted in countless other different ways (and your understanding of science isn't perfect either).

What we know is that the Old Testaments is a collection of religious texts, stories and principles written by various people thousands of years ago as structured religion developed in Middle Eastern societies. Why would it be interpreted in any context other than that?

 

This kind of thing;

That is simply untrue. You have interpreted, (re)translated, twisted and stretched the Biblical text and twisted, cut-down or simply misunderstood the scientific concepts and managed to create two things that kind of align, but they're not The Bible or science any more. Again, it is possible to do that with any religious text, heck, pretty much any text at all. You've proven nothing about the Bible beyond how open to interpretation it is.

You don't need to defend the Bible against people who say it's rubbish because it doesn't correspond with science. Those people are idiots and not worthy of attention. The Bible isn't meant to directly correspond with science so why waste your time with all this technical babble and focus on enjoying your(?) religious text for what they are?

 

I noticed no one was up to challenging my pro bible reply. That's a good thing for we theists. There are many scientific truths in the bible and other religious texts. Another real zinger to credit the bibles scientific knowledge has to do with origins. In the bible, which do use many literary devices to tell the various stories that the many authors wrote there is this; In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then the scripture goes on to tell in parable how various things were created etc. In the early 20th century a brilliant man by the name of Einstein declared the universe was static (unchanging) and it was eternal, meaning our universe was not created it has been around forever. That view lasted until bird sh*t finally forced the mind of science establishment change in the late1960s. Two research scientists thought bird droppings were skewering their measurement of the CMB. Well it wasn't bird droppings, their radio telescope and other equipment was working splendidly! They had accidentally found evidence of the big bang which confirmed that theory (and has since been locked in by other empirical evidences). The BB is facing a few weak challenges but none can be tested....so far!

So what you say? Well the BB blew away the prevailing theory of the scientific community, remember science said; 'The universe did not begin rather its been here forever and its unchanging' ! So alas the big bang did to mortification of the scientific community, at least the atheist scientific community, pointed to a CREATION of the universe! Bible correct science wrong. Oh yeah, it is forever changing too, sorry Einstein and science you were WRONG again as you have been so many times before.

Don't get me wrong I love science for what it is. I am a serious amateur astronomer and get my jollies observing the stars planets and other objects in our universe. However science is only a tool and at times its a plodding clumsy tool. It's often wrong and has ruined careers and lives due to its stubborn arrogance and exclusive 'my way or the highway' bigoted mentality. Science was created at the expense of rejecting the metaphysics at the turn of the century which has hobbled it for over a hundred years. Still its the best we have.

reva

 

Using a big hammer to make a square peg fit in a round hole fudging.

 

The bible is a shotgun blast of factoids, and a few of the pellets hit scientific targets. Pi is a fundamental target the bible gets completely wrong.

 

Oh, so the first graphic you posted where the Big Bang was #1 and the Cenozoic was #2 was wrong. Yes, I knew that.


But thanks for once again demonstrating the ridiculousness of the genesis is scientifically accurate argument.

Next time, perhaps you can try something a little more "scientific" or at least mathematically correct.

if 1 hour equals 375,000,000 years, then one "day" is 9 billion years long.


A rather clownish attempt. Might want to look for more informed sources.

 

First, science is indeed nothing more than a process or a tool. Science doesn't say anything and science can't be wrong.

It can be used incorrectly (though that isn't the case here) and it can only be applied to the extent of the evidence available and our abilities to understand it. Einstein wasn't "wrong" as such, his conclusion was valid on the basis of the evidence he had available. When further evidence was discovered, the same scientific process was applied and an improved conclusion reached. This doesn't reflect badly on science or even on the earlier scientists like Einstein. If anything it demonstrates the benefits of the process.

None of this has anything at all to do with the Bible. The Bible could be (and I'm sure was) interpreted to match a static universe and it can be interpreted to match a post "Big Bang" expanding universe. It could also be interpreted to match countless other hypothetical universes which have never equated with any scientific conclusions.

The "Big Bang" theory does nothing to support the Biblical concept of creation at all. That's like me saying it's a red apple and you saying it's a green apple and me claiming to be proven right because it's a red fire engine.

Which is obvious. After all, how could people writing religious texts thousands of years ago know anything about how the universe came to be?

 

Where does the bible claim to know math, lol, you know what I mean, where is it said the bible is a math textbook? As I said its not a science text book but it does have science in it. Science gets many things right (at least for now), and for that I am grateful. Maybe one day science and metaphysics will merge, and then real discovery will begin.

reva

 

LOL

Pi is absolutely correct, to one digit significance, when defined as 3.

Our numbers today include thousands of digits, but still do not give a Real Number value for Pi.

 

Yes, the Bible is dead right on all these things.

People who start by saying, "errors show the scriptures are myths," have nothing to support them afterwards. They can only come back by repeating that evidence is just "Placing square pegs into round holes."

That is only repeating their same first claim, that they see the bible as scientifically and factually incorrect.

 

... except for things like the Law of Conservation of Matter?

That "Law" which Science passed down, until Einstein proved it wrong, was what "they" all said.
Right?

The "Law" which claimed matter can not be created nor destroyed,... right?

 

Fine.
When people stop saying that the bible is dead wrong, Scientifically, there is no need to answer them back.

All we are doing here is explaining how Science CORRESPONDS with the Bible statements,... if one wants to debate that point.

And,... such amazing knowledge seems to confirm a Divine source from which it came, too.

- - - Updated - - -

?
Where was that ever done????

 

Genesis 1:1 was PROVEN correct in 1940, after people had believed it was dead wrong.

This one singular event has never been acknoweledged by people here, even now.
They call this set of Facts, a square peg...

HAhaaaaa.