The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: raymundoko
Thanks for clarifying that.. I thought I was seeing numbers, symbols and stuff.

a reply to: flyingfish

No problem. In college we created a mathematical model of the sun revolving around the earth. You couldn't argue with the math Obviously direct observation disagrees with that model, so we can't always use math as the end all of scientific theory. More often than not, modern mathematical models coupled with known sciences produce pretty solid astrophysical models.

@Chronaut, what exactly are you referring to when you say "cloud canopy collapsed"? The current cloud canopy is definitely thinner than epochs in the past, however there was never a "collapse" of the cloud canopy...Our early atmosphere would have been one thick atmosphere, from the bottom to the top, similar to Venus. The start of the water cycle actually would have greatly thinned the atmosphere and created the oceans and current cloud canopy.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I said it was immaterial because it doesn't change the point the poster was making. There was no light at first, then the afterglow, then the cooling for the dark ages, then the first stars. I think Astynax simply confused the first stars for the first light, which were indeed separated by nearly 400 million years.

a reply to: Dewts

No, it was postulated by a full time priest who also held a degree in physics, one he obtained from a Catholic college...

There are many biographies you can read on him, a number of which indicate he discussed his views with close friends and family concerning scripture and science. Specifically he believed that genesis said there was a beginning, so he also believed science would find a beginning. He felt the theory of relativity was the most probable route for proving it. He also discussed with friends and colleagues (other scientists of Christian and Jewish faith) about how since Genesis says the heavens are expanding, the universe must also be expanding. (Specifically Daniel O'Connell) He later discovered the expanding universe, unfortunately it was incorrectly attributed to Hubble.

I am also not sure if you intentionally misrepresented his comments to the pope, but he NEVER told the pope it did not prove Genesis. He said it was "neutral" and agreed with both science and Genesis. You can learn that as easily as reading his Wiki page...

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[19][20] When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[21] While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion,[22] though he also was of the opinion that these both fields of human experience were not in conflict.[23]

He claimed to close colleagues that if people (i.e. other prominent scientists) thought they were mixing science and religion, their views would be rejected outright, because the growing view of physicists was agnosticism or outright atheism. Daniel O'Connell also agreed with this view, and as the Pope's science adviser wanted him to STFU.

He professed constantly that religion and science, or at least physics, did not have to be incompatible.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Dewts

No, it was postulated by a full time priest who also held a degree in physics, one he obtained from a Catholic college...

There are many biographies you can read on him, a number of which indicate he discussed his views with close friends and family concerning scripture and science. Specifically he believed that genesis said there was a beginning, so he also believed science would find a beginning. He felt the theory of relativity was the most probable route for proving it. He also discussed with friends and colleagues (other scientists of Christian and Jewish faith) about how since Genesis says the heavens are expanding, the universe must also be expanding. (Specifically Daniel O'Connell) He later discovered the expanding universe, unfortunately it was incorrectly attributed to Hubble.

I am also not sure if you intentionally misrepresented his comments to the pope, but he NEVER told the pope it did not prove Genesis. He said it was "neutral" and agreed with both science and Genesis. You can learn that as easily as reading his Wiki page...

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[19][20] When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[21] While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion,[22] though he also was of the opinion that these both fields of human experience were not in conflict.[23]

He claimed to close colleagues that if people (i.e. other prominent scientists) thought they were mixing science and religion, their views would be rejected outright, because the growing view of physicists was agnosticism or outright atheism. Daniel O'Connell also agreed with this view, and as the Pope's science adviser wanted him to STFU.

He professed constantly that religion and science, or at least physics, did not have to be incompatible.

When he was doing physics, he was a physicist first.
And in your quote you highlighted the wrong section.
You could have highlighted this, "By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation"

And Lemaitre was wrong about religion and physics being compatible. Unless the particular religion makes no magical claims.

originally posted by: chr0naut
One could counter that if you could describe Philosophy in that way, you could apply the same description to Science.

Educated guessing.

Nope. Science STARTS as educated guessing based on existing facts, and then moves on to observations and experiments to see if they can confirm or rule something out. They don't just guess and then call it a day and make it a theory. Theories require substantial backing of facts to even be considered. Philosophy doesn't get past the guessing phase, therefor cannot be considered anywhere near as valid as science.

a reply to: Dewts

You are mistaken.

Reionization (pay particular attention to the graphic).

Chronology of the Universe

a reply to: raymundoko

Your science is wrong...but thats immaterial.

Edit: as dewts says, thousand, not million.

No, Dewts is wrong. Read the links above.

Georges Lemaitre was a physical cosmologist as well as a priest. And in science, it doesn't matter what a person's religious beliefs are so long as the science checks out.

There is absolutely no resemblance between the Big Bang and the Genesis account of creation, however hard you may wish there was.

a reply to: spy66

Yes.

The current model of cosmic evolution is based on physical evidence. Hypothesis regarding the very early development of the universe (the first few minutes) are quite speculative, but by the time we get to the reionization era, which is the technical term for what we're talking about, the evidence is pretty hard stuff.

a reply to: Dewts

The CMB does not exist as visible light. It never did. By the time decoupling occurred (and yes, 380k years is about right for that), this relic energy from the Big Bang had already fallen below the threshold of human visibility.

The earliest visible light in the universe came from stars, and was emitted about 400M years ago.

a reply to: Dewts

You are missing the point of why he resented it...

a reply to: Astyanax

How is there no resemblance? I'm not sure you understand what your argument us...

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: spy66

Yes.

The current model of cosmic evolution is based on physical evidence. Hypothesis regarding the very early development of the universe (the first few minutes) are quite speculative, but by the time we get to the reionization era, which is the technical term for what we're talking about, the evidence is pretty hard stuff.

Thank you.

a reply to: raymundoko

Really?

If everything we have all said is not good enough to demonstrate that then what is!?

Your entire argument for reconciliation between the two is based solely on an interpretation you seem to have invented yourself.

a reply to: raymundoko

I'm not sure you understand what your argument us...

I'm certainly not sure I understand what you are trying to convey in this bizarre sentence.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

No, I sourced where I got my interpretation from...dozens of theologians and scholars. I thought you tucked tail already?

a reply to: raymundoko

Post the verses to substantiate it. Easy request. If it's Biblical then surely you can do so...

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Already done, twice. I even linked you to the book it was taken from. Again, I know you want your view to be correct because your view is wrong. You like to attack religious types because you think they are easy targets. I am not an easy target. If you don't understand the source material I linked, then I am sure you can do some research on your own time to figure it out.

a reply to: raymundoko

Already done, twice.

3rd time the charm.

The verses. Post them.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Dewts

You are mistaken.

Reionization (pay particular attention to the graphic).

Chronology of the Universe

I wasn't wrong. We are talking about two different things. I was talking about photons, you are talking about light from stars/galaxies.

From your link:

Hydrogen and helium atoms begin to form as the density of the Universe falls. This is thought to have occurred about 377,000 years after the Big Bang.[20] Hydrogen and helium are at the beginning ionized, i.e., no electrons are bound to the nuclei, which (containing positively charged protons) are therefore electrically charged (+1 and +2 respectively). As the Universe cools down, the electrons get captured by the ions, forming electrically neutral atoms. This process is relatively fast (and faster for the helium than for the hydrogen), and is known as recombination.[21] At the end of recombination, most of the protons in the Universe are bound up in neutral atoms. Therefore, the photons' mean free path becomes effectively infinite and the photons can now travel freely (see Thomson scattering): the Universe has become transparent. This cosmic event is usually referred to as decoupling.