Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe Big Bang origin is false. God gave us our true history in Genesis. He didn't give the people an in depth explanation of what everything was. Most people today can't comprehend the distance of the sun from the earth, and the solar system for that matter. Yet we expect the ancients to understand these things in great detail from their perspective? At one time Pluto was considered a planet by scientists, but now its considered a dwarf planet. So whatever we call what we observe, God gave us the freedom to name those things. (No different from God bringing the animals to Adam for him to name them)
<<snip>>
Frankly, I doubt you know much about the Big Bang. Here's a little of what is KNOWN. These things were observed from the Hubble and Webb space telescopes. It was only possible to do these observations once the telescopes were outside of the earth's atmosphere.
They have observed light from stars so far away that the light had to travel for over 13 billion years to get to earth, thus showing objectively that the Universe has existed for that long. They have also observed (not speculated or theorized) that the universe is expanding at measurable rates. From the fact that expansion is taking place, and knowing the size and distance to the stars, one can calculate backwards to determine how long ago those objects were concentrated in one place. That was also determined to be over 13 billion years ago.
Now, those are things that are known for certain. From those facts, it makes sense to deduce that at some point, all the mass in the universe started to expand and separate. That event is called the Big Bang, although nobody knows if if it was a "band" or a "whimper."
For instance if there was no flood during Noah's day, then we can throw the scriptures away. The same concerning the Exodus and all other historical events written in the Bible. If there was no Adam and Eve, then in my estimation we can throw it all away.
Science has proven that a global flood was impossible...
Science had proven that there was no literal "Adam and Eve"
Science has demonstrated that the Exodus as described in the Bible is extremely unlikely.
I believe Big Bang origin is false. God gave us our true history in Genesis. He didn't give the people an in depth explanation of what everything was. Most people today can't comprehend the distance of the sun from the earth, and the solar system for that matter. Yet we expect the ancients to understand these things in great detail from their perspective?
Why shouldn't they be able to understand. In post #257 you told us that they were "smarter" than modern man....well.... except for maybe preppers.
At one time Pluto was considered a planet by scientists, but now its considered a dwarf planet. So whatever we call what we observe, God gave us the freedom to name those things. (No different from God bringing the animals to Adam for him to name them).
Not sure what this analogy has to do with anything...but in order to make it actually work... God would have needed to give Adam a pair of field glasses to name some of the animals.
Science goes but so far. Eventually our observation breaks down, and where it breaks down is where it doesn't work.
This is basically "God of the gaps" redefined. While it is possible that Scientific observation has limits... our "observation" now will not be as limited in the future.
Dogma always beats out science in the minds of those who believe in dogma when it comes to almost anything but medical science. And even then... dogma still wins in some cases.
Frankly, I doubt you know much about the Big Bang. Here's a little of what is KNOWN. These things were observed from the Hubble and Webb space telescopes. It was only possible to do these observations once the telescopes were outside of the earth's atmosphere.
They have observed light from stars so far away that the light had to travel for over 13 billion years to get to earth, thus showing objectively that the Universe has existed for that long. They have also observed (not speculated or theorized) that the universe is expanding at measurable rates. From the fact that expansion is taking place, and knowing the size and distance to the stars, one can calculate backwards to determine how long ago those objects were concentrated in one place. That was also determined to be over 13 billion years ago.
Now, those are things that are known for certain. From those facts, it makes sense to deduce that at some point, all the mass in the universe started to expand and separate. That event is called the Big Bang, although nobody knows if if it was a "band" or a "whimper."
How do YOU account for these indisputable facts?
Here on Earth, time is known by the rotations, evening and morning. Days, months and years reveal age of existence.
You can't determine the age of something by calculating the time of distance traveled from point A to point B. That would mean that when I drove 5 minutes to the grocery store that the grocery store is only 5 minutes old.
When you measure something with a ruler, say 1ft., the markers of point A and point B exist in that same moment. No matter how long it takes to get from point A to point B. And the calculated time it takes to get from point A to point B would mean that point B would no longer age according to your linear time. It would have to keep moving further and further away to age, like moving the goal post. So, the reality of it all is that it could only age according to the rotations of evening and morning another day, month and year in real time.
The Origin of Urantia (the plaint earth)
57:0.1 (651.1) IN PRESENTING excerpts from the archives of Jerusem for the records of Urantia respecting its antecedents and early history, we are directed to reckon time in terms of current usage—the present leap-year calendar of 365¼ days to the year. As a rule, no attempt will be made to give exact years, though they are of record. We will use the nearest whole numbers as the better method of presenting these historic facts.
57:0.2 (651.2) When referring to an event as of one or two millions of years ago, we intend to date such an occurrence back that number of years from the early decades of the twentieth century of the Christian era. We will thus depict these far-distant events as occurring in even periods of thousands, millions, and billions of years.
1. The Andronover Nebula
57:1.1 (651.3) Urantia is of origin in your sun, and your sun is one of the multifarious offspring of the Andronover nebula, which was onetime organized as a component part of the physical power and material matter of the local universe of Nebadon. And this great nebula itself took origin in the universal force-charge of space in the superuniverse of Orvonton, long, long ago.
57:1.2 (651.4) At the time of the beginning of this recital, the Primary Master Force Organizers of Paradise had long been in full control of the space-energies which were later organized as the Andronover nebula.
57:1.3 (651.5) 987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton. https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book...origin-urantia https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book...istory-urantia
Here on Earth, time is known by the rotations, evening and morning. Days, months and years reveal age of existence.
You can't determine the age of something by calculating the time of distance traveled from point A to point B. That would mean that when I drove 5 minutes to the grocery store that the grocery store is only 5 minutes old.
When you measure something with a ruler, say 1ft., the markers of point A and point B exist in that same moment. No matter how long it takes to get from point A to point B. And the calculated time it takes to get from point A to point B would mean that point B would no longer age according to your linear time. It would have to keep moving further and further away to age, like moving the goal post. So, the reality of it all is that it could only age according to the rotations of evening and morning another day, month and year in real time.
Excellent insights. The expansion only reveals that it is not static. It is "growing" which suggests "living." Our fixed point of view distorts any measurements made from our earth-centric solar system as your examples suggest. The rationale used is that the expansion is the same in all directions no matter where measured. It is an inference from "inside a growing system" that misleads, IMO.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 04-29-2024 at 09:56 AM..
12:2.3 (130.5) In the not-distant future, new telescopes will reveal to the wondering gaze of Urantian astronomers no less than 375 million new galaxies in the remote stretches of outer space. At the same time these more powerful telescopes will disclose that many island universes formerly believed to be in outer space are really a part of the galactic system of Orvonton. The seven superuniverses are still growing; the periphery of each is gradually expanding; new nebulae are constantly being stabilized and organized; and some of the nebulae which Urantian astronomers regard as extragalactic are actually on the fringe of Orvonton and are traveling along with us.
Here on Earth, time is known by the rotations, evening and morning. Days, months and years reveal age of existence.
You can't determine the age of something by calculating the time of distance traveled from point A to point B. That would mean that when I drove 5 minutes to the grocery store that the grocery store is only 5 minutes old.
When you measure something with a ruler, say 1ft., the markers of point A and point B exist in that same moment. No matter how long it takes to get from point A to point B. And the calculated time it takes to get from point A to point B would mean that point B would no longer age according to your linear time. It would have to keep moving further and further away to age, like moving the goal post. So, the reality of it all is that it could only age according to the rotations of evening and morning another day, month and year in real time.
This is completely off-base. First, time is measured here on earth by far more exact measurements than 'evening and morning' which is the biblical description. By international scientific agreement, a second is the period of time it takes for a cesium atom to oscillate 1,192,631,770 times. Sixty of those seconds is a minute, sixty minutes is an hour, 24 hours is one day, 365 days is one year.
Now, we know that in a vacuum light travels at the speed of 186,282 miles per second. From that, we know how far light travels in a year and in a billion years.
We have ways of measuring distance of objects in space. For relatively close stars we can use the parallax method. For stars beyond 400 light years we use brightness measurements. It is known that certain stars at a certain distance always have the same degree of brightness. They become measuring sticks. Since we know the speed of light in a vacuum and the distance to some star, we know how long it takes light to travel from that star to the earth.
As far as the big bang goes, there are several different lines of evidence for the big bang. Rather than spending the time to list them, I'll let the following link do that.
This is completely off-base. First, time is measured here on earth by far more exact measurements than 'evening and morning' which is the biblical description. By international scientific agreement, a second is the period of time it takes for a cesium atom to oscillate 1,192,631,770 times. Sixty of those seconds is a minute, sixty minutes is an hour, 24 hours is one day, 365 days is one year.
Now, we know that in a vacuum light travels at the speed of 186,282 miles per second. From that, we know how far light travels in a year and in a billion years. We have ways of measuring distance of objects in space. For relatively close stars we can use the parallax method. For stars beyond 400 light years we use brightness measurements. It is known that certain stars at a certain distance always have the same degree of brightness. They become measuring sticks. Since we know the speed of light in a vacuum and the distance to some star, we know how long it takes light to travel from that star to the earth. As far as the big bang goes, there are several different lines of evidence for the big bang. Rather than spending the time to list them, I'll let the following link do that. [url]big-bang-evidence
previously you stated view and belief that the Bible is a "fable" and just "stories" and that it is "wrong" and that it is "not literal."
how is it relevant to discuss the minutiae of science at such great length regarding that which you believe is a fable and just stories and not literal?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-29-2024 at 11:23 AM..
previously you stated view and belief that the Bible is a "fable" and just "stories" and that it is "wrong."
how is it relevant to discuss science at such great length regarding that which you believe is a fable and just stories.
I did not say that the Bible is a fable. I said that certain specific things in the Bible are just stories. And I was responding to chief scum's post that you can't determine the age of something by calculating the time of distance traveled from point A to point B.
I did not say that the Bible is a fable. I said that certain specific things in the Bible are just stories. And I was responding to chief scum's post that you can't determine the age of something by calculating the time of distance traveled from point A to point B.
right here you call the Bible wrong and a fable. stories. not historical. not literal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
The two Genesis creation storiesarenot historical nor literal. And they contradict each other on certain points. One extra-biblical Jewish book, the name of which I don't remember has one character advocating piercing the sky with an awl to see if the sky is made of clay or some other material. That story conveys a belief held by the ancient Hebrews that the sky was a solid dome.
The simple fact that I'm conveying is that the Bible's cosmology is wrong. And again, academic biblical scholarship recognizes this regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. You may choose to believe fables but I prefer reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent insights. The expansion only reveals that it is not static. It is "growing" which suggests "living." Our fixed point of view distorts any measurements made from our earth-centric solar system as your examples suggest. The rationale used is that the expansion is the same in all directions no matter where measured. It is an inference from "inside a growing system" that misleads, IMO.
