Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, I am curious. I thought that the inflation period was extremely rapid expansion. How is it different since my assumption appears to be wrong.
-
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!
Wy could not the big bang also be consistent with a 6 day creation?
- Thread starter AdamjEdgar
- Start date
Evolution of life on Earth took about 500 million years. You are saying it was actually 6 days because dark matter can travel faster than light?
Inflation is a very specific period of exponential expansion. The usual course is NOT exponential expansion, but much slower than that. Even with the accelerating expansion of the last few billion years, the rate is NOT exponential.
This is not correct. Life appeared about 3.8 billion years ago and has been evolving since. The 500 million year mark is around the beginning of the Cambrian, when animals started developing hard structures.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am assuming that would be exponential in a mathematical sense and not in the colloquial one.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How did you do that? I did not respond to that post of @Polymath257 's.
Stupid mistakes come easy to me.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Me too at times. Me too.Stupid mistakes come easy to me.
I’m enough of a math geek that I don’t know what the colloquial meaning is.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe the six day creation is only about our earth not the universe so it does not apply. I believe the problem is with the big bang theory itself.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe God providing an eyewitness account in the Bible should be evidence enough.
If only that account was consistent with the physical evidence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You should study the history of the Bible. Very very little of it is an eyewitness account.
Yokefellow
Active Member
*Edit*
The current consensus is that Quantum Entangled Particles cannot communicate faster than Light.
The current consensus is that Quantum Entangled Particles cannot communicate faster than Light.
Last edited:
Yokefellow
Active Member
What verse would the so called 'Big Bang' occur in?
You may be surprised to know that the creation of our Universe, as in its current 'fallen' state, is tied to the Forbidden Fruit.
It is known as the World Egg in other cultures...
en.wikipedia.org
Combine that with Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle and you have Creation tied to a computer like consciousness...
The Simulation Software can create a Universe in the blink of an eye. It can create it with age. Most of the 'NPC' players would be clueless as to where it all came from and claim 'Evolution did it!'...
You may be surprised to know that the creation of our Universe, as in its current 'fallen' state, is tied to the Forbidden Fruit.
It is known as the World Egg in other cultures...
Cosmic egg - Wikipedia
Combine that with Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle and you have Creation tied to a computer like consciousness...
The Simulation Software can create a Universe in the blink of an eye. It can create it with age. Most of the 'NPC' players would be clueless as to where it all came from and claim 'Evolution did it!'...
The Bible wasn't written by God in my opinion, it was written by scribes
Then you've changed it. It also describes the beginning of light.
Only a problem for one trying to reconcile it with scripture. The skeptic has no need to do that, and hence no such problem.
Even if you squeeze the 14 billions years of "creation" into six days, you've still got problems with the order of events in the biblical narrative.
Then what use is it to an Abrahamist? He's still far from reconciling scripture with the science. Science tells us there were no first pair of humans, so, assuming that your purpose is to bring the two into alignment, if you're forced to call any of the science wrong to preserve a particular religion's creationist narrative, what you end up with is no more valuable than a literalist interpretation of Genesis.
That's most Christians in the West if not the world.
Incidentally, no creation myth is an allegory. That's a specific literary from in which a writer substitutes fictional characters and events for nonfictional people and events from history knowing what the fictions stand in for. Gulliver's Travels is a political allegory in which fantastical fictional characters substitute for prominent historical figures like Walpole in the British politics of Swift's era, symbolized by the rope dancer Flimnap. We know what these things stand for as did their author, and they are specific, not place-holders for what is not known as is the case with myths. Like the writers of Genesis, the mythologist has no conception of the actual history of events leading to the existence of the world he finds himself in. He's speculating, and, of course, the guesses are wrong in every creation myth.
But what Abrahamist will call these guesses error? None in my experience. They prefer inaccurate euphemisms like allegory and metaphor. Myths aren't metaphor, either, which also requires the presence of specific literary features to be correctly called that.
They'll tell you that the Viking creation myth, for example, is wrong, not an allegory, but they are loathe to use words like wrong guess and error with their own myths. Nor will they try to find ways to reconcile those myths with natural history. Here's that story if you're interested:
"Odin, Vili, and Vé killed the giant Ymir. The sons of Bor then ... made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken. Maggots appeared in Ymir's flesh and came to life. By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men, although they lived in the earth and in rocks. From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky ... The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds. Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths."
This is not an allegory, either - just another incorrect guess from people who didn't know where lightning and thunder came from. They guessed incorrectly about that as well. I'll be that you have no problem with anything I wrote about the Vikings.
Now, if one DOES know where these weather phenomena come from and STILL call it the hammer of Thor, NOW they're using metaphor. What's the difference? He's using a fiction to stand in for a fact known to him, and there is no error. Take away that knowledge, and it becomes a wrong guess again.
Dark matter was created to fix the errors between computer modeling and what is observed by telescopes.
There is no special dark stuff-matter (extra new). Same with the scope of dark energy. Neither of the special created stuff have ever been found or directly detected.
The best example of dark matter would be mass that is not emitting light. Asteroids, planets etc.
Dark energy could be light that is not visible, which the majority of light on the spectrum is dark (unseen)
One is described to have occurred by magic. By a god speaking and the creation of the earth just popped into being.
Great. Good to see that you rationalized the stages as nonsense.
Not really. Big bang is based on reversing the physics of an expanding universe. The model was created well before the newly created idea of dark matter/dark energy. The telescopes proved that the gravitational model describing how galaxies rotate is incorrect. So they had to add about 78% more stuff (dark matter/energy) to fix the problem in computer models.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, from my understanding quantum entanglement is a one time observation. One can only observe direction of spin and that is a one time event. There is no known way to seen a particle with known spin. When one observes the spin one "collapses the envelope" and the tie is broken. No information can be sent using this process.