It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

page: 19
9
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
@cr0naut
God is so inept he has to kill all life on the planet via magic rather kill a "cross species plague" by magic?
edit on 7-3-2015 by Dewts because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Dewts

These are the mental contortions one must put oneself through in order to square Bronze Age fantasy with modern science.

Sometimes, ATS threads do reach a conclusion, though all participants may not agree that it is so. This thread is one such: we have established, quite plainly, that the Big Bang and the creation story in Genesis bear no resemblance whatsoever to one another.


edit on 7/3/15 by Astyanax because: well, they don't, do they?



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

God said let there be light and bang, big bang!
In fact..



An explosion of light. There does seem to be a resemblance.
Even tho you demand there isn't one. Looks like two different
descriptions of the same event to me. One is Gods and the other
one conveniently excuses God. Which in fact just makes it seem
more completely immpossible than having God involved.
Which in turn defines ignorance perfectly.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs


An explosion of light.

Hi, Randy. Always more fun when you're around.

The Big Bang was lightless; light didn't begin to exist in the universe until some 400 million years later.

It wasn't an explosion, either, but that's irrelevant here.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Hi, Randy. Always more fun when you're around.




posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: randyvs


An explosion of light.

Hi, Randy. Always more fun when you're around.

The Big Bang was lightless; light didn't begin to exist in the universe until some 400 million years later.

It wasn't an explosion, either, but that's irrelevant here.

It was about 380 thousand years after the big bang that light could first propagate.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Your science is wrong...but thats immaterial.

Edit: as dewts says, thousand, not million

Again, the big bang was postulated by a priest based on gensis. So yeah. Considering we've established the days aren't literal and some indeterminate amount of time, there is no disconnect.
edit on 7-3-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Astyanax

Your science is wrong...but thats immaterial.

Edit: as dewts says, thousand, not million

Again, the big bang was postulated by a priest based on gensis. So yeah. Considering we've established the days aren't literal and some indeterminate amount of time, there is no disconnect.

No. The big bang was first postulated by a physicist based on general relativity. He was also a priest. When the pope told him this was evidence for genesis, Lemaitre (the physicist and priest) told him it was not.
edit on 7-3-2015 by Dewts because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Your science is wrong...but thats immaterial.

Immaterial is a peculiar word since it's your religion that posits the immaterial
I switched definitions for my own amusement.


as dewts says, thousand, not million

What difference would it make if it were hundreds of thousands of years instead of millions??

It's amazing how we can see what we want to with scripture. Here I will show how Genesis is compatible with those first thousand/million years of darkness:

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

See! Genesis is agreeing with science that in the beginning was darkness!

I am prophesying that we are going to start seeing that more as opposed to the familiar "God said let there be light and bang, big bang!".
edit on 7-3-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

No, I suspect that was to save us from a cross species plague.

But is there scripture to support your suspicion? I don't recall reading anything other than god regretting his creation.


It also amplified psychopathy in humans.

Okay I think I understand. You're suggesting Humankind was essentially infected with an illness that made them all immoral?


Consider the scope of a planet wide genocide and how inappropriate it would be as a solution to mankind whose every thought was evil, all the time. Something bigger was obviously going on.

So all the infants, babies, toddlers, and young teens were so far gone in their wicked thoughts as to be deserving of that terrible fate?

Those children must have been like:



Sorry. Children of The Corn is what came to mind.
edit on 7-3-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: chr0naut

No, I suspect that was to save us from a cross species plague.

But is there scripture to support your suspicion? I don't recall reading anything other than god regretting his creation.


It also amplified psychopathy in humans.

Okay I think I understand. You're suggesting Humankind was essentially infected with an illness that made them all immoral?


Consider the scope of a planet wide genocide and how inappropriate it would be as a solution to mankind whose every thought was evil, all the time. Something bigger was obviously going on.

So all the infants, babies, toddlers, and young teens were so far gone in their wicked thoughts as to be deserving of that terrible fate?

Those children must have been like:



Sorry. Children of The Corn is what came to mind.


There is nothing specific in the Bible that clearly says anything about a genetic plague but it is one scenario that makes sense.

Consider this:

From Adam to Noah was seven (rather long lived) generations. From the horse drawn world of the 1900's to now has only been four and a bit generations.

To significantly increase human intelligence would require either an enlargement of the brain (with the inherent increase in head size and resource requirement), or an increase in computational efficiency, or you could "re-purpose" part of the brain currently doing other stuff that you may decide is irrelevant in a competitive world.

If one took the third path, then areas used for emotion not relevant to survival would be likely to be re-purposed. This is highly likely to produce higher intelligence but would remove all empathy, ie; the recipient of such a therapy would become a genius psychopath.

If this 'enhancement' was a gene therapy then it may possibly be attached or otherwise attach to a live virus and could infect other cells or other species.

If you re-read the sections in Genesis about the Nephilim (which immediately precedes the Noah account) and the flood account, it seems a likely that something affecting all life was involved.

Ask yourself how a bronze age shepherd, a survivor from a world plunged back into a pre-historic level of technology, would have described it?


edit on 8/3/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dewts
@cr0naut
God is so inept he has to kill all life on the planet via magic rather kill a "cross species plague" by magic?


The collapse of the cloud canopy is a stage in the Earth's atmospheric development. It's a natural event. Hardly magic.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: randyvs


An explosion of light.

Hi, Randy. Always more fun when you're around.

The Big Bang was lightless; light didn't begin to exist in the universe until some 400 million years later.

It wasn't an explosion, either, but that's irrelevant here.





Do you have evidence that that the big bang was lightles? Is there anyway you can prove it?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Dewts

These are the mental contortions one must put oneself through in order to square Bronze Age fantasy with modern science.

Sometimes, ATS threads do reach a conclusion, though all participants may not agree that it is so. This thread is one such: we have established, quite plainly, that the Big Bang and the creation story in Genesis bear no resemblance whatsoever to one another.

would you know a one eyed surpent if it stabbed you or bit you?



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   
all that exists and will ever exist is vibration. I have a bachelors in science in sound, movies, and frquency shifts. big baddA VOOOM BOOM UFO ABUCTION. LOL and I still have my japenese speakers. sony


click here for free music www.soundcloud.com...

maybe I should start preaching cause I met Al Sharpton.

edit on 8-3-2015 by nrd101 because: links splayhing



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: randyvs


An explosion of light.

Hi, Randy. Always more fun when you're around.

The Big Bang was lightless; light didn't begin to exist in the universe until some 400 million years later.

It wasn't an explosion, either, but that's irrelevant here.





Do you have evidence that that the big bang was lightles? Is there anyway you can prove it?


Yes. Unbound particles are plasma. All matter coming out of the big bang was plasma. Photons can't propagate through plasma. The universe didn't cool enough for atoms to form until some 380 thousand years later.
map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 8-3-2015 by Dewts because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: randyvs


An explosion of light.

Hi, Randy. Always more fun when you're around.

The Big Bang was lightless; light didn't begin to exist in the universe until some 400 million years later.

It wasn't an explosion, either, but that's irrelevant here.





Do you have evidence that that the big bang was lightles? Is there anyway you can prove it?


Yes, by direct observation of maths, and stuff we have calculated the neutrino background vastly pre-dates the electromagnetic background, giving us an earlier picture of the Universe. Proving, light is most certainly not the first identifiable product.

In addition, Quarks preceded electromagnetic radiation by some distance as measured by energy scale, rather than the unimaginably small fraction of a second separating them, as the electroweak symmetry breaking occurs at much lower energy than the quantum chromodynamic scale. And gravity precedes both! So light is actually the last on the scene.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dewts
@cr0naut
God is so inept he has to kill all life on the planet via magic rather kill a "cross species plague" by magic?


The collapse of the cloud canopy is a stage in the Earth's atmospheric development. It's a natural event. Hardly magic.



Citation?



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dewts
@cr0naut
God is so inept he has to kill all life on the planet via magic rather kill a "cross species plague" by magic?


The collapse of the cloud canopy is a stage in the Earth's atmospheric development. It's a natural event. Hardly magic.



Citation?

lol



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

You are correct but there is no "direct observation of math"...

You can use mathematical models to help predict behavior which then allows us to directly observe said model in the universe because we now know what to look for.

As Dewts sourced we're pretty confident there was no light for a few hundred thousand years, and no stars for nearly 400 million.

There would have been a "dark age" between the initial after glow and the first stars.

Edit: Spelling was awful...
edit on 8-3-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join