Scientific Dating Methods

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I realize it was a theory....but the hearer in Moses time might have understood this application where the first word "day" included the 7 days (as in remember the time, or when we say "back in the in the day")....I just think the "in the day the Lord Made" means in or time that the Lord made, but I could be totally in error..but God did not start creation with a metaphor, He started it with "Let there be Light and there was light..."

 

What light? What light before the sun or other stars?

 

 

We have discovered the lasting reflection of a pre-Star light pervading the entire universe everywhere we look (which is visible at 3 Kelvins) believed by many to be the afterglow of the Big Bang...this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter" (believed by many to be like anti-matter and by others possibly the source of matter)...and He said (sound), let there be light and there was light (this strange form of electro-magnetic radiation)...they were simultaneous and instantaneous and are the "STUFF" the universe and all its inter-dependent forms, functions, forces, etc., were made out of when He spoke the worlds into being.

 

Also called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation....see http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

 

Cosmic background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang. It's highly isotropic and homogeneous, suggesting that the visible universe at some point in its early past was all spatially close enough to be in an equilibrium. This is blackbody radiation that has been redshifted due to the subsequent expansion of the universe (it's also 2.7 K). It's not strange. It's easily explainable in this way.

 

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? : ".this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter""

 

Dark radiation? contradiction in terms. Are you confusing that with dark energy? Dark matter we know exists because of the gravitational affects it has on galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark energy is inferred to exist from the expansion rate of the universe.

 

 

No! I am not confusing anything...try...

 

“Dark radiation is a postulated species of radiation that mediates interactions in the dark sector. That is, just the way photons mediate electromagnetic interactions between particles in the Standard Model (baryonic matter in Cosmology), dark radiation is supposed to mediate interactions between dark matter particles.”

1. Ackerman, Lotty; (2008). Dark Matter and Dark Radiation. arXiv:0810.5126. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..79b3519A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.023519.
2.  "The Case for Dark Radiation". Maria Archidiacono. Retrieved 18 June 2012.
3. "The Generalized Dark Radiation in Brane Cosmology". Nikolaos Tetradis.
4. "The search for Dark Radiation". Maria Archidiacono, Erminia Calabrese, Alessandro Melchiorri. Retrieved 18 June 2012.
5.  "Dark radiation from particle decays during big bang nucleosynthesis". American Physical Society. Retrieved 18 June 2012

The "theory" that this is a reflection left by the Big Bang (like what we see in our vision after a Flashbulb goes off) speaks to the question I was addressing...that there was a light before there were stars...point made and I hope taken...

 

In His love

 

Brother Paul

 

ahhh okay. Fair enough. I admit it wasn't a term I am familiar with, obviously. I still don't see what dark matter (and possible interactions between dark matter particles) has to do with anything.

 

The rest of what I said stands though. Yes, in the Big Bang model it is obvious how there was light because there was much energy in the early universe. I don't see how it makes sense in the context of God having created everything as expansive as it is. My point is that it is directly evidence that the universe was much hotter... and ... closely enough packed together to be in an equilibrium state... before expanding.

 

What you are missing here is that the radiation in question is *redshifted* due to the expansion of spacetime, and it is highly isotropic and homogeneous. Those all speak strongly to a Big Bang scenario.

 

 

As you said...fair enough...the expansion is just noted as indicating a beginning (extrapolated in reverse to a place of non-thingness)...other wise you end up with the "cosmic egg" scenario where all the Universe always existed (thus is eternal) and was just a super-compacted and infinitely dense dense point or even a huge black hole ever imploding until it reached a condition of instability and then exploded...creationism simply says "in the beginning...God, because language would limit us to say "before" the beginning when we know time begins with the beginning...perhaps God said and Light was is the bang they are dimly discerning... 

 

Okay. So let me see if I understand you correctly. You'd be find positing a Big Bang like scenario? How about ages here. May I ask if you are young earth?

[alphaparticle]

I got you Paul, that helps me make sense of your statements. Cool. I'm an theistic evolutionist type, or maybe a bit stronger into the ID territory than that, but I could be wrong too.

[Guest DRS81]

 

 

Yes. I am a Christian and I also think the Big Bang likely  happened given the evidence. Why should this be surprising? There are many of us.

 

It surprised me because many people think the Big Bang occurred without God. There are many of them.

 

I don't see how that is relevant.

 

What, why not?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

Yes. I am a Christian and I also think the Big Bang likely  happened given the evidence. Why should this be surprising? There are many of us.

 

It surprised me because many people think the Big Bang occurred without God. There are many of them.

 

I don't see how that is relevant.

 

What, why not?

 

There are atheists who think the Big Bang happened. There are CHristians who think the same. I don't see why you should be surprised to run into Christians who think it happened.

[Guest DRS81]

There are atheists who think the Big Bang happened. There are CHristians who think the same. I don't see why you should be surprised to run into Christians who think it happened.

 

Well, there's a first for everything. Now I won't be surprised.

[thomas t]

[...]

 

Can you see that? That logical conflict has to be seen. There cannot be seven 24 hour periods (Genesis 1 – Genesis 2:3) in one 24 hour period (Genesis 2:4). Think on this a moment and then tell me “Did God make the heavens and the earth in one “day” or is this being used figuratively?

 

God is not the author of confusion. Whether you agree or disagree with my “theory” of Yom having more than one possibility in general is irrelevant. “Day” in Genesis 2:4 cannot be a 24 hour day for it would have to consist of 168 actual hours and this is absurd! Can you see that conflict?

 

[...]

So for purely exegetical purposes, the word “day” as used in Genesis 2:4 cannot mean a 24 hour day...it is being used figuratively...

 

[...]

 

Hello Paul,

 

I've explained my position concerning your question already in an Paul.

The OC, as I understand it, is not designed to have drawn out discussions among believers, so would you agree that it might be helpful to stop the Gen2:4-day debate between the two of us here? Actually, I like the policy of the OC on this site. Let's wait till nonbelieving or seeking fellow people come in and ask questions.

 

Have a good debate,

Thomas

[thomas t]

lets support Worthy first

Jesus first

[other one]

 

lets support Worthy first

Jesus first

 

two birds with one stone?