Posted by Amanda on January 06, 1997 at 07:48:20:
In Reply to: Re: Science Education crisis posted by Tyler Bradley on January 05, 1997 at 21:31:33:
:
: : I see your point - I suppose I should have said that from all that science has uncovered there has yet been NO sign of a creator and when using science - a creator isn't taken into consideration unless evidence is found to support one.
: You Big Bang Theory related to Genesis is probably a good example of an argument on their side - I haven't come across anything to defute it but there most likely is such out there. Can we really call all that resulted from the Big Bang as light? It was matter and energy in its simplest forms - and while the cosmic egg was a whole there is a bit of evidence to say it was creating 'light' already - turning hydrogen to helium may have been occuring before the big bang - it actually may have had something to do with causeing the eruption in the first place. Anyway, how can you take the first part of Genesis as possible truth when some of the other parts are obviously wrong? Interesting though! I also liked your physics info - thanks for the lesson.
:
: I do not take any of the "Big Black Book" as literal. I read it as literature; it is creative writing and poetry. There are a few examples in history where literary artists intuited the possible before science began tunneling into the matter. There are even more examples of visual artists doing the same. For an interesting read on this, look at "Art and Physics; Parallel Visions in Space, Time and Light" by Leonard Shlain. I only am stating that this particular passage bears remarkable coincidence to what we now feel is what happened.
: Actually, observatons in high energy physics has shown us that gravity was no present in the very earliest stages of development. Therefore matter was not either b/c matter is necessary to bend spacetime. The once the energy has cooled from adiabatic expansion several-fold, then electrostatic attraction of the fundamental particles forced the light elements of hydrogen and helium. So there is evidence to support the theory of pure energy at inception. As I had said, matter crystallized from it later on (still in the femtosecond order of magnitude).
Can you explain this a bit slower and perhaps in more simple language - you've lost me. I once battled through first year physics and all I remember is that it was one heck of a struggle for me to stay afloat. Can you try to explain to me what it is Genesis aludes to and then what it is that has evidence to back it up regarding the Big Bang. Thanks.