The big bang can only explain how light elements came into existence not the heavy ones. This means for the big bang stars had to supernova to create the heaver elements.
You are aware that the elements that you speak of are created by protons and neutrons which are in turn composed by quarks? Big bang theory does explain how we have quarks. Some more laws of science explain how we go from quarks to protons and neutrons and then from those particles (and electrons) to atoms and then to molecules.
Again this is accomplished through supernova of stars According to modern science. Unless they found out that doesnt work and came up with a new hypothesis. You are aware that energy is necessary for that to take place and that organized matter has never ever been observed to randomly organize. Thus, my quip about supernatural natural phenomenon. If we have never observed it to happen or have not done a proven experiment that shows how it can happen then it is beyond their understanding of nature and is supernatural nature. To use a quote from them it is science of the gaps. Some questions to consider:
If new stars form as the result of exploding stars compressing nebulae, then how did the first stars form if there were no stars to compress the gases?
If it is true that when we look at objects nearly 11 billion light years away we are seeing them as they appeared 11 billion years ago, why are the galaxies that we see at great distances fully formed (mature) when the big bang model predicts they should be less organized at that early stage?
The textbook avoids discussing things like dark matter and dark energy that are not observed but assumed to exist. How is the big bang a scientific theory if it is based on the existence of evidence that has not been observed?
If the universe was created by the energy from the big bang then there would have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter created as the universe cooled. Have scientists been able to find any antimatter? How much has been found?
What caused the inflationary period in the big bang?
What evidence is there to support the inflationary period of the big bang?
Is the big bang the only way to explain the expansion of the universe?
Why is the big bang, which cannot be observed, considered scientific while supernatural creation is rejected as unscientific?
How did the natural laws of the universe come from the random big bang?
If it were natural, it would not be miraculous. Genesis indicates that the Garden was planted after the formation of the Earth. Holding that the Earth was a molten ball of lava at some point is not a contradiction.
Again yes it does because it does not just hold that the earth was a ball of lava where did the atmosphere come from? Where did plants come from? Where did oxygen come from?? That is why the two hypothesis are not separate the big bang also deals with how our Planet developed. It is not correct to say it does not. It deals with all planets not just other ones. What does the big bang says happened on the earth for 4.6 billion years? How did other planets develop atmospheres? Why is it different then earth?
I have heard this calim many times. I finally looked it up; this is what I got. My google search was "Church fathers on Genesis" and it was the first hit.
I reject your link for being unscientific . I reject your link for starting off with calling people fundamentalist before even mentioning what they say the church fathers said. That shows a clear bias. I will also quote an article with and link to it by M.A. Ph.D. Robert Sungenis. Sungenis: No, we have found just the opposite. All of them, with very few exceptions, adhered to a literal interpretation. If I had the space and time I could list a whole array of other Fathers and Medievals who adhered to the literal interpretation of Genesis, with very few deviations. Although the Fathers and Medievals vary somewhat in their interpretation of the details of Genesis, they did not deviate from a literal interpretive methodology. That much is very clear. Here is the link www.kolbecenter.org
So, someone is mistaken or is misrepresenting the
evidence. Ill make a logical leap and commit a fallacy. By saying it is
probably the people who start the article off by calling people fundamentalist,
committing an ad Hominem attack even before beginning the topic. It is not what
they discussed by what they believed St. Augustine believed instantaneous creation
not long ages.
Science at the present time cannot do so. This does not mean that in the future it cannot. At one point, science had no explanation for why we had extremely complicated models for the planetary rotations. The exact same laws of physics exist now as then, we just don't understand them as well as we need to. Just as we do not understand God as well as we need to.
Again yes it does because science does not find anything out scientist do. There is no guarantee that science will continue in future, the world could end. There is also no guarantee the laws of the universe will apply tomorrow as today, unless you believe in God. Even then isn't time supposed to be no more at the second coming of Christ? Again youre equating science with infallibility even though science is built on wrongs that have been corrected. If science does continue, then most of what science teaches as fact today will not be fact tomorrow. Also, Newtons equation of motion had to be adjusted when accounting for infinity. Second Newtons gravitational laws might also have to be adjusted mathematically because if Im not mistaken they do have a minor error in calculating the correct orbits. Thus it will have to be adjusted to fix this problem, if they can figure out what is wrong. By the ways science is also founded on belief, since the laws of logic have to be believed to do science and they cannot be tested scientifically.
Also, God would appear a lot less powerful if he
actually told them the Earth was a few billion (not million) years old.
Again this is the problem if God is less powerful than all powerful he is not God violation of laws of logic. Thus the only way this could be true is if the big bang was not the fastest, best way to create the universe. This is one reason why I reject it, it is not the fastest or best way to create the universe it is an evolution random chance way.
I would disagree with you about the Trinity not
being mention in the Old Testament according to the Catholic Church creation
was the work of three persons. Also, Abraham was told that God must send
another to save Israel; this is why the Jewish people where waiting for a savior.
I was equating God dealing with humanity, as he was not worried that we would
have a problem with, he just told us the truth. I would also suggest not using infallible interpretations to interpret infallible ones.
Or the universe has cooled down. There is a theory
concerning the heat death of the universe.
Again this is a hypothesis not a
theory and this does not explain how the universe is the same temp. Why,
because the younger parts like our part of the universe would still be hotter
than the older parts. Again a scientist can say whatever he wants, it matters
not if the evidence comes along to contradict him. Have you ever heard of an
Oort Cloud it allows the universe to be old for without it the universe would
have to be young, because of comets and space debris. Interesting fact the Oort
cloud just happened to be proposed beyond scientist censor range because we
have never ever detected such a thing. This is an example of a scientist can
say what he wants especially if he offers no evidence to support his claim.
Most people know something about magnets, like the kind found in a compass. These magnets have two polesa north pole and a south pole. Poles that are alike repel each other, and opposites attract. A monopole is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but with only one pole. So a monopole would have either a north pole or a south pole, but not both. Particle physicists claim that the high temperature conditions of the big bang should have created magnetic monopoles. Since monopoles are predicted to be stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable searching, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles? Dr. Jason Lisle.
Umm, no. This is just wrong; the Big Bang Theory does not contradict the Flood story.
How do I apparently know more about the big bang than you? Again what happened on the earth for 4.6 billion years?? What about the atmosphere? How did we get plants if evolution and big bang are not together? Where did oxygen on earth come from if big bang and evolution are not connected? If the earth was a ball of lava it did not have its current atmosphere, no oxygen, no plants, and no life.
Lovely, we have no way to actually resolve this question.
No, because we are not bound by science. It would be up to scientists according to the Catholic Church to prove beyond reason that a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect. Because a literal interpretation of scripture is to be believed unless reason contradicts, a theory that keeps changing to accept the changes in science and in scientific understanding does not provided this. If science continues the big bang will change or a new hypothesis will be presented.
"Before you take the literalness of Genesis too far, you should be aware that prior to the development of the printing press, copying a book was an expensive process."
You cannot say this. God cannot lie. If God said anything in the Bible then it
must be truth or a true allegory. It cannot be myth or half-truths. If Gods
intent in Genesis was to give an account of the creation of the world than it
must have happened that way by the least in allegory. It was time consuming and
costly to write a book but that does not mean that the author or writer lied to
save time and money. Second of all, Moses only wrote the first five books of
the Bible, 224 pages if my index in my Bible is correct. The Oddessy by Homer
was over 224 pages was it not. That was also before the invention of the
printing press. The Egyptians had a library at Alexandria, I assume that some
of those works would also have been longer than the first five books of the
Bible. Thus, I reject most firmly your idea that it was that way because it
cost too much or took too long. The evidence says there were other books done
by humans of less importance without the printing press. This is not a logical
reason to say that Genesis was allegory.