Esteban X
Active Member
I assume you mean Stephen Hawking, if so, please provide a citation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
No, Stephen Hawking's ideas are based on empirical evidence. So, not even remotely similar.
Last edited:
Yes. The first carbon was formed in the nuclear cores of those stars.
No. There was no life in earth before the earth cooled enough to have liquid water.I think you did not understand. So I will rephrase the question.
Was living matter always on the earth? Let's see your hypothesis.
There was, however, other matter.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Other matter kind of like barren rocks you think?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Like I say, I'm not going to explore that thought. It's scary.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So what's not right about the universe or rather the powerful mass forming from...nothing? I surely don't know more about the emergence of the heavens and the earth.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? It is not as if you will ever be close to such a star. For example our Sun is only making helium out of hydrogen currently. At leas t that is what I find when Googling the problem. I could be wrong. At any rate it is projected to be quite a while before we turn enough hydrogen into helium before it starts to get to the next element. And our Sun is too small to go nova which means at the most it will make iron and then peter out into just a cold hunk of denser elements. Iron being the heaviest.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Please tell me you know what the word matter means.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
[citation missing]
Hardly any of the hypotheses could be characterised like that and even for the few that might be, it would be rather inaccurate.
Not just. The atmosphere was different. So the chemistry was different. The rocks were not oxidized (less oxygen) so were more chemically reactive.
Don’t forget the water, which is matter. And the stuff dissolved in that water. All very chemically reactive.
All matter. Not just barren rocks.
Last edited:
And that is a major issue. If you don’t investigate scary ideas, you will frequently miss the truth.
Well, we know that the earth was not formed “from water”, so the biblical story is wrong.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
@Polymath257 explained a few things and I have no quibble with it. It may be true and it may not be true, but I have no contention with it. What I believe is that the earth was first without life, then life came to be.on the earth. That is what the Bible says.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Oh boy and here I was agreeing with you... I'll look into your contention later.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So you know that the universe came to be from...0?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You do know the Earth and the Universe are two separate things, right?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So you know that the universe came to be from...0?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You do know the Earth and the Universe are two separate things, right?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I guess it depends on who is defining it. So let me ask you if you think everything outside the firmament of the earth is considered to be the universe, but the earth is no part of the universe. Do I have this correct about what you said?