There Is No Conflict Between Science and Religion

And what is the scientific support for this sudden start of movement of the sun? And where does Gen 1:1 say anything about the sun?

 

But the solar clock was on era 4. If you're using the bible verses and it seems you are.
And in all the era's, there was morning and evening.

 

Note that the article continuously refers to God as He. Clueless is.

 

It appears the author is/was a catholic priest, so of course God is a he. As in God the father.

 

Yes.
Only the interpretation that I have explained to you has a science verification for every verse in Genesis.

That is the one I recommend, because it agrees with the facts, the scientific facts.

 

No, it isn't even remotely close to "scientific verification". But I know it won't stop you from imagining whatever you want it to actually mean.

I guess the tense of the writing is to be ignored as well in the interpretation.

 

But your recommendation serves no purpose other than to suggest that we should choose to interpret the Bible so that it will mean the same as reality to us. The task here should be to prove that the author(s) of scripture actually meant the interpretation that you recommend. If you were able to do that, then we'd have an extraordinary discovery worthy of a new kind of Nobel Prize.

 

The singularity is just an infinitesimal "point" on the presumed graph of the Universe at the point from which all matter has exploded in what is called The Big Bang:





As the science picture shows, if all matter back tracked, it would disappear.

 

That doesn't contradict anything that I wrote.

 

1) Genesis says nothing at all about a "start up" of the Sun.
Genesis just informs us that once life appeared, the circadian time between life and Earth time began.



2) "Heavens" in Genesis 1:1 means the stars, galaxies, and of course, our sun which is a star.

 

Right...

The word used was "yowm" in the Hebrew.
That word means day, or half a day, or generally, time, and could also mean Age, or "period" of time.

Since the Solar Clock had not yet existed until day 4, we KNOW the six "days" were some different unit of time.
Hence I assume the Bible refers to the six durations measured by the layers of Rocks:

 

...was...

Christ told us he was the ideal of Truth, personified for us in 32AD.
This means that the "God" of the bible MUST be Reality because Truth is the image of Reality.

We also see that as Reality unfolds, one frame at a time, it creates Truth in its wake, hence Truth is the son-of-God.

 

?
Maybe I misunderstood you then.

Read the printed material on the right bottom of the graph:

"Space/time is only defined when mass exists."

 

Right, but space/time is not the definition of the universe. The universe is the totality of existence. In other words, the universe encompasses all that exists. Before the Big Bang, then, all that existed may have been energy. By definition, it was still the universe, but matter did not exist. The universe didn't come into being when the Big Bang happened. It transitioned to a state that included matter/energy instead of just energy.

 

Space/time, Matter, and Energy is the triad of Reality and the place for existence.

Energy needs no Space and is not in the format of Mass.

 

I think that the discussion here is interesting, however, it seems to me to be missing the point a little

That may be my own fault, as I should have said there is no conflict between EVOLUTION and religion. There is, in fact, a view of religion in which evolution is central.

You might want to look here

http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/22/22.1/22.1.5.pdf

or you can find Teilhard's whole book here:

https://archive.org/details/ThePhenomenonOfMan

 

That word salad still doesn't contradict anything I've posted.