Big Bang

[Rob Osborn]

Explain this odd disconnect, if you can: how can "life have been dying a relatively short time", and the earth be millions of years old? What are fossils except the solidified remains of DEAD things?...

Science is almost entirely inaccurate in the dating of fossils. The geologic column age has been grossly overexagerated. You have two separate things- the earth itself and then the life made from the earth. The earth, matter to be exact, has probably existed forever in the universe. At some point the gods organized and formed that eternal matter into our spere and prepared it to bring forth and sustain life. How long that process took is irrelevent to the "temporal age" of the earth as up to that point there was no death on the earth. 

[The Nehor]

I am just stating that when it comes to the "eternal nature of matter and energy" that we are probably best served to look at it froma  theologic standpoint rather than from what science has to say. Religious texts explain more about the nature of elements and the universe in the concept of time than does science texts.

Okay, I have to ask. What religious texts explain the nature of the elements and how the Universe interacts with time? I see hints that God shared some of this with prophets but they did not tell.

[Rob Osborn]

Okay, I have to ask. What religious texts explain the nature of the elements and how the Universe interacts with time? I see hints that God shared some of this with prophets but they did not tell.

Have you read Genesis, the D&C and PoGP?

[The Nehor]

Have you read Genesis, the D&C and PoGP?

Yes.

The Genesis creation account only makes some sense if seen from the perspective of the earth. I says nothing about the basic elements.

The D&C says that the elements are eternal and cannot be created or destroyed and that there is no such thing as immaterial matter. Matter has too many definitions for me to be positive as to what that means. Matter can be converted into energy (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki) so it is clearly a variant on that definition.

In the Pearl of Great Price we learn that God showed Moses the particles that make up the earth but Moses did not share. In Abraham we learn that there are eternal intelligences but those are never defined except that we used to be one.

The only reference I can find to time in the Universe is God telling us that time is reckoned according by where you are but does not explain if that is a relativistic effect or not. We can already manipulate time. There are two ways: proximity to mass and speed. It is just not practical to do so.

God shared some tidbits to whet our appetites but saying these tidbits are a better way to study the Universe seems foolish to me. We have what we have and we cannot (and should not) try to compel God to give us more. We do not understand a lot of what He said in any case. You can argue that what He gave us is more reliable and I would even agree with you but it is not even remotely comprehensive nor is it a departure point for understanding without further revelation. If God wants to give more I will throw my science textbooks to the side and listen with glee. Until then any book on particle physics has a lot more data then the scriptures do (on this subject).

[Rob Osborn]

Yes.

The Genesis creation account only makes some sense if seen from the perspective of the earth. I says nothing about the basic elements.

The D&C says that the elements are eternal and cannot be created or destroyed and that there is no such thing as immaterial matter. Matter has too many definitions for me to be positive as to what that means. Matter can be converted into energy (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki) so it is clearly a variant on that definition.

In the Pearl of Great Price we learn that God showed Moses the particles that make up the earth but Moses did not share. In Abraham we learn that there are eternal intelligences but those are never defined except that we used to be one.

The only reference I can find to time in the Universe is God telling us that time is reckoned according by where you are but does not explain if that is a relativistic effect or not. We can already manipulate time. There are two ways: proximity to mass and speed. It is just not practical to do so.

God shared some tidbits to whet our appetites but saying these tidbits are a better way to study the Universe seems foolish to me. We have what we have and we cannot (and should not) try to compel God to give us more. We do not understand a lot of what He said in any case. You can argue that what He gave us is more reliable and I would even agree with you but it is not even remotely comprehensive nor is it a departure point for understanding without further revelation. If God wants to give more I will throw my science textbooks to the side and listen with glee. Until then any book on particle physics has a lot more data then the scriptures do (on this subject).

Again, in speaking about the eternal nature of matter, the relationship of that to time, and the universe in these contexts it is perhaps better to seek these answers from studying it more from the scriptures and prophets. Take matter and energy for example-

Matter is something that takes up space, has some tangible weight, etc. Energy is the result of that matter in motion. One cannot simply take matter and turn it into something that doesnt occupy space. When the gods built the solar system they didnt manufacture matter- that is impossible. They did however use energy to organize the existing matter into a system that could sustain energy necessary for. life. Knowing also that the gods themselves have tangible bodies made of matter speaks volumes about physics and science. Science itself trys to solve the dilema of how it may be possible for nature to create something from nothing then have us appear later on the scene as intelligences. But, the scriptures speak about the eternal nature of intelligence as being the energy source in the universe and it being impossible to create or destroy.

[The Nehor]

Again, in speaking about the eternal nature of matter, the relationship of that to time, and the universe in these contexts it is perhaps better to seek these answers from studying it more from the scriptures and prophets. Take matter and energy for example-

Matter is something that takes up space, has some tangible weight, etc. Energy is the result of that matter in motion. One cannot simply take matter and turn it into something that doesnt occupy space. When the gods built the solar system they didnt manufacture matter- that is impossible. They did however use energy to organize the existing matter into a system that could sustain energy necessary for. life. Knowing also that the gods themselves have tangible bodies made of matter speaks volumes about physics and science. Science itself trys to solve the dilema of how it may be possible for nature to create something from nothing then have us appear later on the scene as intelligences. But, the scriptures speak about the eternal nature of intelligence as being the energy source in the universe and it being impossible to create or destroy.

 

Energy is not the result of matter moving. Energy has mass and in that sense is matter.

 

Knowing that gods have bodies says almost nothing about physics or science. All it says is that there is some form of matter (of an unknown type) that is eternally formed in a certain configuration.

 

The idea that the Big Bang is formed from nothing is a guess and not one most scientists hold to or ever held to actually. We have no explanation for "why" the Big Bang happened or any explanation as to what it was before its expansion. The laws of physics as we understand them do not work on that level and we have no explanation for where matter came from or whether it was created or already existed. Some pop-culture writers have gone way beyond the theories in this area. In the same way physics give us only part of the picture of what a singularity is.

 

I have heard the LDS theory that all matter and energy is intelligence and while it appeals to me the scriptures do not state it is so. I am also confused by you saying it is the "energy source" of the Universe. If matter is anything that has mass then it cannot be created or destroyed (by scriptural definition) and there can be no ultimate source for it.

[Rob Osborn]

Energy is not the result of matter moving. Energy has mass and in that sense is matter.

 

Knowing that gods have bodies says almost nothing about physics or science. All it says is that there is some form of matter (of an unknown type) that is eternally formed in a certain configuration.

 

The idea that the Big Bang is formed from nothing is a guess and not one most scientists hold to or ever held to actually. We have no explanation for "why" the Big Bang happened or any explanation as to what it was before its expansion. The laws of physics as we understand them do not work on that level and we have no explanation for where matter came from or whether it was created or already existed. Some pop-culture writers have gone way beyond the theories in this area. In the same way physics give us only part of the picture of what a singularity is.

 

I have heard the LDS theory that all matter and energy is intelligence and while it appeals to me the scriptures do not state it is so. I am also confused by you saying it is the "energy source" of the Universe. If matter is anything that has mass then it cannot be created or destroyed (by scriptural definition) and there can be no ultimate source for it.

You are asking questions which in my opinion belong more in a philosophy or theologic setting rather than in a physics lab. Thats my entire point.

[The Nehor]

You are asking questions which in my opinion belong more in a philosophy or theologic setting rather than in a physics lab. Thats my entire point.

 

No, I was asking those questions because you were attributing beliefs to the current scientific consensus that are not there. I was also pointing out that some of the conclusions you have drawn from scripture contradict each other.

[Rob Osborn]

No, I was asking those questions because you were attributing beliefs to the current scientific consensus that are not there. I was also pointing out that some of the conclusions you have drawn from scripture contradict each other.

My own understanding of space, time, energy, the nature of matter are all matters that I find not in harmony with science of man. For example- I dont believe in a lot of Einsteins principles of relativity and its various theoretic applications.

What is sciences answer for where matter came from? Two simple facts about matter and energy-

1. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed

2. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred.

[The Nehor]

My own understanding of space, time, energy, the nature of matter are all matters that I find not in harmony with science of man. For example- I dont believe in a lot of Einsteins principles of relativity and its various theoretic applications.

What is sciences answer for where matter came from? Two simple facts about matter and energy-

1. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed

2. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred.

 

If you do not believe in relativity I would recommend never trusting a GPS receiver again. It shouldn't work because they are all programmed to account for relativity. I also would never fly on a plane again. Those things should be deathtraps with their satellite guided navigation. If relativity is not real and we adjusted the satellites for it the odds of you reaching your destination are roughly nil. Oh, and nuclear power plants with relativity being key to energy-mass relations. Totally a fraud. They don't work either. Don't even get me started about particle accelerators. Without time dilation those things are gigantic examples of spending bloat that will never work right. Avoid hospitals. Things like PET imaging and...... I think you get the idea.

 

Unless you are prepared to abstain from using all these technologies (and warn your friends about how they are going to get lost or die if they use them) your position is inconsistent.

 

Science does not have an explanation for where matter came from. There is not enough data to do more then theorize and no way to prove the theories at this time. I would add that the LDS faith (by your own admission) also does not have an explanation for where matter came from and simply accepts that it is eternal so I am not sure why you are trying to use this as a stick.

Edited August 23, 2013 by The Nehor

[Rob Osborn]

If you do not believe in relativity I would recommend never trusting a GPS receiver again. It shouldn't work because they are all programmed to account for relativity. I also would never fly on a plane again. Those things should be deathtraps with their satellite guided navigation. If relativity is not real and we adjusted the satellites for it the odds of you reaching your destination are roughly nil. Oh, and nuclear power plants with relativity being key to energy-mass relations. Totally a fraud. They don't work either. Don't even get me started about particle accelerators. Without time dilation those things are gigantic examples of spending bloat that will never work right. Avoid hospitals. Things like PET imaging and...... I think you get the idea.

 

Unless you are prepared to abstain from using all these technologies (and warn your friends about how they are going to get lost or die if they use them) your position is inconsistent.

 

Science does not have an explanation for where matter came from. There is not enough data to do more then theorize and no way to prove the theories at this time. I would add that the LDS faith (by your own admission) also does not have an explanation for where matter came from and simply accepts that it is eternal so I am not sure why you are trying to use this as a stick.

I didnt say I didnt believe in relativity, I said I didnt wholly believe in som of the principles of his theory. For starters- he claims the speed of light to be a constant yet this is obviously false from a relativistic standpoint from a third party in space.

[The Nehor]

I didnt say I didnt believe in relativity, I said I didnt wholly believe in som of the principles of his theory. For starters- he claims the speed of light to be a constant yet this is obviously false from a relativistic standpoint from a third party in space.

 

No, it is true. It is just so counterintuitive people reject it out of hand as nonsensical but even Newtonian physicists realized something was off when they were experimenting with light in the 19th century. Substantial testing has shown it to be true.

 

Because humans are so slow Newtonian physics work for us and we see them in our everyday lives. We only deal with relativistic things in very specialized fields and few of us ever directly observe the effects in a measurable way (even though we are experiencing them at low levels every time we drive a car or even walk down the street).

[Calm]

. For starters- he claims the speed of light to be a constant yet this is obviously false from a relativistic standpoint from a third party in space.

I think you need to go and research the theory and data about this.

[thesometimesaint]

I am not a YEC, they have their own hurdles to get over. I believe in a relatively short history of the earth since life has been dying but as for how old the earth is, not sure. As for the universe, who can know, we have no optical device strong enough to detect the size of the universe. Nor can we be anywhere close to understanding the eternal nature of matter and energy- they dont just pop into existance from nothing. Theology gives us more clues on these matters than sciwnce is able to produce.

 

I didn't say you were.

 

The earth is about 4.5 Billions of years old. In terms of eternity that isn't even a blink of an eye.

 

We actually do have pretty good pictures of the size of the visable universe. Therefore the age of it.

http://www.oneminuteastronomer.com/6911/how-big-is-theuniverse/

 

This universe isn't eternal it had a beginning and it will have an end. It started ~13.775+/- Billion years ago and will end in ~10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years. Now that's a long time but it isn't eternity.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/16/us/at-other-end-of-big-bang-may-simply-be-a-big-sputter.html

 

I have nothing against religion. Particularly that of the Saints. The timing and methods that God used are interesting to me, as long as God did it.

Edited August 23, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

If you do not believe in relativity I would recommend never trusting a GPS receiver again. It shouldn't work because they are all programmed to account for relativity. I also would never fly on a plane again. Those things should be deathtraps with their satellite guided navigation. If relativity is not real and we adjusted the satellites for it the odds of you reaching your destination are roughly nil. Oh, and nuclear power plants with relativity being key to energy-mass relations. Totally a fraud. They don't work either. Don't even get me started about particle accelerators. Without time dilation those things are gigantic examples of spending bloat that will never work right. Avoid hospitals. Things like PET imaging and...... I think you get the idea.

 

Unless you are prepared to abstain from using all these technologies (and warn your friends about how they are going to get lost or die if they use them) your position is inconsistent.

 

Science does not have an explanation for where matter came from. There is not enough data to do more then theorize and no way to prove the theories at this time. I would add that the LDS faith (by your own admission) also does not have an explanation for where matter came from and simply accepts that it is eternal so I am not sure why you are trying to use this as a stick.

 

Add in that WW2 didn't end with a bang. Everyone just went home.

[rameumptom]

The Big Bang is a theory. However, it is a theory with lots of evidence to support it.  It is a stronger theory than any others (including a universe that expands, then contracts on a frequent basis). I'm amazed at some of the "evidence" some are giving against this theory. Emotional silly statements such as "we haven't found the edge of the universe, so how do we really know?  Well, that is why it is a theory.  And yet, we are able to study many of the indirect evidences, such as the cosmic radiation background to prove that it does expand in all direction.  That there is no edge, as Rob noted, is ridiculous.  Where is the edge on an expanding balloon?  The same concept fits in here.  There is no edge, because it is expanding in all directions.  The theory is, if we could look far enough into space, we would eventually see our own planet, because space wraps around like a balloon.

 

Why would anyone want to limit the power of God by saying he couldn't make a 14.5 billion year old universe that expands with his power and dominions?

[rameumptom]

I am just stating that when it comes to the "eternal nature of matter and energy" that we are probably best served to look at it froma  theologic standpoint rather than from what science has to say. Religious texts explain more about the nature of elements and the universe in the concept of time than does science texts.

 

 

And so I should believe in a 6000 year old earth created in 6 24-hour periods, which is obviously flat because it has 4 corners, as the Bible tells us?  We should also believe that the Sun rotates around the earth, as that is what the Bible taught - or wait!  Maybe we should realize that late in Book of Mormon times, they discovered that is not true (Hel 12:15), and actually acknowledge that the science/astronomy of their day discovered something they did not learn via theology!

 

So, which of the Creation stories should I go with: Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Moses, or Abraham, as they all differ?  And who should be the one to tell us exactly what the texts mean?  James Talmage? Joseph F Smith?  Which of their theories do we follow, and how do we test them out?

 

Sometimes science is better than emotional opinion and misreadings of inspired books that were not designed to be science books.

[Questing Beast]

@ remeumptom, "edge" doesn't mean like a piece of paper, but rather the limit to which something has expanded. So the surface of the "balloon" is the edge, or limit of the expansion into the enclosing space. What lies "beyond" the universe's expansion isn't theory it is hypothesis/speculation/imagination....

Edited August 23, 2013 by Questing Beast

[SamIam]

Dwannism posted a comment on youtube:

 

The same evidence can lead to very different conclusions, if you didnt know. It is the bias of the researchers that makes it lead in a certain direction. They started on the big bang path because they observed the universe expanding. The hidden assumption immediately became that the universe has always been expanding, and thus needs to have a starting point where the universe began. They never for instance recognized the possibility that the universe also contracts and did not always expand.

+++++++++++++++

 

Is the Big Bang established as scientific fact, or is the universe eternal, with no beginning.

 

I have always thought it monstrous funny that the Big Bang theory is often perceived by scientists as a preferred creation model to that of religious origins which attributes the process to a managed by God process. The Big Bang theory supposedly devoid of religious implications was originally conceived by a man named Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaitre, a Catholic scientist who came up with a theory that precisely supported his religious perceptions of creation ex nihilo. Thus a theory constrained by the religious preferences of the Catholic Church became the preferred theory that many believe discredits creation by deity.  Pretty funny...

[TAO]

Nehor, relativity isn't the only way you can explain phenomena.  It's currently the most popular (and I'm personally fine with it), but it's not the only one.

[SamIam]

The Big Bang is a theory. However, it is a theory with lots of evidence to support it.  It is a stronger theory than any others (including a universe that expands, then contracts on a frequent basis). I'm amazed at some of the "evidence" some are giving against this theory. Emotional silly statements such as "we haven't found the edge of the universe, so how do we really know?  Well, that is why it is a theory.  And yet, we are able to study many of the indirect evidences, such as the cosmic radiation background to prove that it does expand in all direction.  That there is no edge, as Rob noted, is ridiculous.  Where is the edge on an expanding balloon?  The same concept fits in here.  There is no edge, because it is expanding in all directions.  The theory is, if we could look far enough into space, we would eventually see our own planet, because space wraps around like a balloon.

 

Why would anyone want to limit the power of God by saying he couldn't make a 14.5 billion year old universe that expands with his power and dominions?

 

One of the biggest condemnations for the big bang theory is simply it's most common anticipated conclusion. That being that ultimately there will be a big freeze once all of the energy generated from the bang fizzles out.  Thus if we pick and choose between pieces of the theory maybe we can find some satisfaction claiming gospel "undersight" for the lack of the gospel to be a text book of scientific worth. However, when we foresee this earth in the gospel sense as an earth changed to an eternal celestial orb of an eternal light and energy we must part ways with not only the end of the big bang theory but also the part upon which the end depends - that which forms its beginning. 

Edited August 25, 2013 by SamIam

[thesometimesaint]

At that far distant point the Gods will once again say let there be light and it will be.

 

While I accept the resurrection, even hope for it. There is no natural evidence for it.

[Rob Osborn]

One of the biggest condemnations for the big bang theory is simply it's most common anticipated conclusion. That being that ultimately there will be a big freeze once all of the energy generated from the bang fizzles out.  Thus if we pick and choose between pieces of the theory maybe we can find some satisfaction claiming gospel "undersight" for the lack of intent of the gospel to being a text book of scientific worth. However, when we conclude this earth in the gospel sense with an earth changed to an eternal celestial orb of an eternal light and energy we must part ways with not only the end of the big bang theory but also the part upon which the end depends - that which forms its beginning.

Amen and Amen!

[The Nehor]

Nehor, relativity isn't the only way you can explain phenomena.  It's currently the most popular (and I'm personally fine with it), but it's not the only one.

 

It is currently the only one accepted by sane people who understand it. There are all kinds of oddball explanations for what it shows but I have never seen one that did not fall apart on inspection.

 

 

One of the biggest condemnations for the big bang theory is simply it's most common anticipated conclusion. That being that ultimately there will be a big freeze once all of the energy generated from the bang fizzles out.  Thus if we pick and choose between pieces of the theory maybe we can find some satisfaction claiming gospel "undersight" for the lack of the gospel to be a text book of scientific worth. However, when we foresee this earth in the gospel sense as an earth changed to an eternal celestial orb of an eternal light and energy we must part ways with not only the end of the big bang theory but also the part upon which the end depends - that which forms its beginning. 

 

That is not a criticism of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is a theory about what happened right after the Universe came into being to the present focusing more towards the former. It does not explain the end of the Universe. It does not purport to either. This argument is either ignorant or dishonest or based on science documentaries that ignorantly tie the two together.

 

We do not have enough data at present to predict the end of the Universe. The most common conceptions are commonly called the "Big Rip", the "Big Crush", and the "Big Freeze". There are variations of all three but all are based on assumptions that have not been settled.

 

One of the puzzling things about the Universe is that by all appearances gravity should continually slow down the Universe's expansion (even if it never slows it enough to stop expansion due to increasing distances). Everyone was thrown for a loop when it was discovered that expansion is speeding up. Enter dark matter and dark energy. We know they are out there and can see their influence but we are still working on what they are. Some theoretical models suggest that the effects will eventually diminish and we will still face a "Big Crush" but again, they are theories about what these strange things do. We need to come up with new ways to examine them.

 

Trying to figure out what the scriptures mean when they talk of celestial glory is harder then identifying a Nephite city. They are described as burnings. Sounds kind of like a star. Then it talks about a sea of glass which (interestingly) is what the sun is predicted to become, a diamond. Then we read of how the surface is a Urim and Thummim in which to see all things of lesser kingdoms. This is something outside of our experience. A singularity (black hole) may be something like that if you could pass the event horizon without being ripped apart. As far as I have read the celestial bodies the exalted live on are not described as eternal. God talks about planets coming into being and then dying and then new ones coming forth. Perhaps the Universe does face some kind of ending in which we migrate away to new locations.

 

Of course all of this is complicated by God's ability to directly intervene. We know there are few (if any) limits to His power so He can change things as He desires. I do not know the mind of God well enough to speculate on what He is willing to do to influence the future of the Universe.

[SamIam]

It is currently the only one accepted by sane people who understand it. There are all kinds of oddball explanations for what it shows but I have never seen one that did not fall apart on inspection.

 

 

 

That is not a criticism of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is a theory about what happened right after the Universe came into being to the present focusing more towards the former. It does not explain the end of the Universe. It does not purport to either. This argument is either ignorant or dishonest or based on science documentaries that ignorantly tie the two together.

 

We do not have enough data at present to predict the end of the Universe. The most common conceptions are commonly called the "Big Rip", the "Big Crush", and the "Big Freeze". There are variations of all three but all are based on assumptions that have not been settled.

 

One of the puzzling things about the Universe is that by all appearances gravity should continually slow down the Universe's expansion (even if it never slows it enough to stop expansion due to increasing distances). Everyone was thrown for a loop when it was discovered that expansion is speeding up. Enter dark matter and dark energy. We know they are out there and can see their influence but we are still working on what they are. Some theoretical models suggest that the effects will eventually diminish and we will still face a "Big Crush" but again, they are theories about what these strange things do. We need to come up with new ways to examine them.

 

Trying to figure out what the scriptures mean when they talk of celestial glory is harder then identifying a Nephite city. They are described as burnings. Sounds kind of like a star. Then it talks about a sea of glass which (interestingly) is what the sun is predicted to become, a diamond. Then we read of how the surface is a Urim and Thummim in which to see all things of lesser kingdoms. This is something outside of our experience. A singularity (black hole) may be something like that if you could pass the event horizon without being ripped apart. As far as I have read the celestial bodies the exalted live on are not described as eternal. God talks about planets coming into being and then dying and then new ones coming forth. Perhaps the Universe does face some kind of ending in which we migrate away to new locations.

 

Of course all of this is complicated by God's ability to directly intervene. We know there are few (if any) limits to His power so He can change things as He desires. I do not know the mind of God well enough to speculate on what He is willing to do to influence the future of the Universe.

 

Alas, I write too much and I'm called verbose, I try to be brief and I'm called ignorant.  Let's let it stand as you have stated that there are more theories than the Big freeze.  It was for the longest time the most popular of the end scenarios as is

referenced in this quote:

 

Perhaps the most likely possibility, however, based on current knowledge, is a long, slow decline known as the "Big Freeze" (or the “Big Chill” or “Heat Death”). In this scenario, the universe continues expanding and gradually “runs down” to a state of zero thermodynamic free energy in which it is unable to sustain motion or life. Eventually, over a time scale of 10¹⁴ (a hundred trillion) years or more, it would reach a state of maximum entropy at a temperature of very close to absolute zero, where the universe simply becomes too cold to sustain life, and all that would remain are burned-out stars, cold dead planets and black holes.    http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_bigcrunch.html  

 

This has long been the favored end of the Big Bang scenario and now you tell me those guys who peddled the theory as somehow connected to the Big bang are either ignorant or dishonest. Well, I can't say it more clearly than that you are preaching to the choir here as I agree one hundred percent and that is the point of my post to which you responded.

 

Yes we have a big crunch (no longer considered a possibility by most sentient beings) and a even a big rip and of course the classic big freeze, however, my point is simply that none of these theories of men take into consideration the things of God and a creators hand. None of them consider that while we may not know much, there is a world of difference between a loss of all energy, or a collapse of all matter into one big chunk only to rebirth again, or the big rip where chaos reigns and a state of being that portends to an eternal source of light and power to perpetuate life forces for an eternity of time. 

 

Still when it comes to theories all of these are on their last legs as far as a growing number of scientists and lay people such as myself are concerned. Plasma theory addresses so much more readily what we are now observing with the analysis of the data being sent back from recent satellite efforts and other research.  Nor do I find it near so contrary to gospel expectations. So if we are voting for a theory today, that the one I would like to put my hand up for.    

 

I  agree somewhat that it may not be an easy thing to extrapolate from theology a reasonable common ground with scientific expectations. However, I consider it a much more reasonable effort to at least consider the possibilities than to discount any hope of reconciliation. Besides clearly we can do no worse than those who have chosen to ignore the potentials of a creators hand in these things.