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.

 

A summary of 6, 000 years (a Biblical Hypothesis)

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaknafein
Alright then, we'll start from the beginning. . .

Based on our current evidence, the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe is the big bang.

There are a couple of key evidences for this:

1. Cosmic Background Radiation: everywhere we have observed within the universe has an underlying temperature of about 3 degrees K. This is the reason why in even the deepest darkest corner of space, absolute zero does not exist. The big bang is certainly a plausible explanation for how the universe came to be filled with this omnipresent energy.
2. Hubble's Law: all known galactic bodies are moving through space away from a central point.
3. In the universe as a whole, the majority of atoms tend to be the lightest elements; for whatever reason, there's lots of Hydrogen and very little Uranium. It seems to me that based on E=MC^2, if the universe started out purely as energy -- not matter -- then it would be easier for that energy to become simpler matter (light elements) than for it to become the heavier elements.


So what problem do you have with the concept of the Big Bang?


It violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics for starters. That law states that matter does not spontaneously appear out of nothingness. Nothing can be created or deatroyed. You can change "existing" energy into matter and vice versa, but that is it.

Also, the known universes observable behavior violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that all things move from order to disorder; the universe and the theory of Evolution, for that matter, work in just the opposite way, from disorder or chaos to orderly.

From a strictly scientific POV you would have to break a lot of known laws of physics to account for the creation of the universe and life on this planet in that way.

Grace and Peace,

Lightseeker




posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   


1. Cosmic Background Radiation: everywhere we have observed within the universe has an underlying temperature of about 3 degrees K. This is the reason why in even the deepest darkest corner of space, absolute zero does not exist. The big bang is certainly a plausible explanation for how the universe came to be filled with this omnipresent energy.


the radiation is emitting in every direction, not just from one central point like matter you say is moving away from a central point. if there was a big bang, the background radiation would be emitted from the central point.

and like the previous postern said, it violates the laws of thermodynamics. who made energy and matter and what caused it to explode/expand? there are many problems with that theory that you do not see.

EC



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Its just a bok, and words and, But if it going to happen, Ragnaro. the Doomday, end og the world, if we move to another planet, in a another solar system, what happens then?,



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Somehow, this has turned into another creationism/evolution debate.

Returning to the original point of the thread, I'd like to ask a couple of questions.

If the earth had water above the atmosphere, how much? If it was enough to flood the entire earth, why was it not enough to block out the light of the sun, or to at least obscure the moon and stars such that they could not be focused?

Was the water orbiting the earth, or was it a thick frozen ice layer?

After the flood, where did the water go?

According to the Bible, the ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. Did these mountains exist prior to the flood, or did the flood cause them?

(clearly they couldn't have happened afterward or the ark could not have landed on them)

If the flood caused them, and the flood is the source of the layering of strata, then how is it that the newly laid strata did not slide down the mountain when the water receded?

If instead, the mountains already existed, then what caused the strata if not the flood?




 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join