Is it possible that the universe could be eternal??...

[Jehanne]

@snowtracks 

I'm glad you're here.  Note that you are engaging in a fallacy known as Begging the Question:

Wikipedia -- Begging the Question

[LinuxGal]

For millennia, the first two verses of Genesis were thought to be only poetic. However, they are shown to be scientific in recent years. Verse 1 - The Universe has been determined to have a beginning (Ref: the space-time theorems) as shown conclusively by authors George Ellis, Roger Penrose, and Steven Hawking in the early 70’s that the 4 dimensions can be traced back to point of singularity (one dimension).

Genesis 1: 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.*
The Earth started as a water world that subsequently lost most of the water by the collision of Theia Mars-size planet that also formed the Moon from the shattered Earth/Theia material**.

Water requires the exchange of virtual photons to hold the hydrogen and oxygen atoms together. Genesis says photons were first created after water already existed.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
So no, the first two verses of Genesis are not scientific.  Fifty points from House Hufflepuff.

[Ravenshire]

For millennia, the first two verses of Genesis were thought to be only poetic. However, they are shown to be scientific in recent years. Verse 1 - The Universe has been determined to have a beginning (Ref: the space-time theorems) as shown conclusively by authors George Ellis, Roger Penrose, and Steven Hawking in the early 70’s that the 4 dimensions can be traced back to point of singularity (one dimension).

Genesis 1: 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.*
The Earth started as a water world that subsequently lost most of the water by the collision of Theia Mars-size planet that also formed the Moon from the shattered Earth/Theia material**.

Water requires the exchange of virtual photons to hold the hydrogen and oxygen atoms together. Genesis says photons were first created after water already existed.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
So no, the first two verses of Genesis are not scientific.  Fifty points from House Hufflepuff.

Snowy is no Hufflepuff!

[Jehanne]

For millennia, the first two verses of Genesis were thought to be only poetic. However, they are shown to be scientific in recent years. Verse 1 - The Universe has been determined to have a beginning (Ref: the space-time theorems) as shown conclusively by authors George Ellis, Roger Penrose, and Steven Hawking in the early 70’s that the 4 dimensions can be traced back to point of singularity (one dimension).

Genesis 1: 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.*
The Earth started as a water world that subsequently lost most of the water by the collision of Theia Mars-size planet that also formed the Moon from the shattered Earth/Theia material**.

Water requires the exchange of virtual photons to hold the hydrogen and oxygen atoms together. Genesis says photons were first created after water already existed.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
So no, the first two verses of Genesis are not scientific.  Fifty points from House Hufflepuff.

In all fairness to Genesis, virtual photons cannot be seen.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Eternity is a long time, especially near the end." Woody Allen.

[Anomalocaris]

Water requires the exchange of virtual photons to hold the hydrogen and oxygen atoms together. Genesis says photons were first created after water already existed.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
So no, the first two verses of Genesis are not scientific.  Fifty points from House Hufflepuff.

In all fairness to Genesis, virtual photons cannot be seen.

close enough for religious work.

[snowtracks]

For millennia, the first two verses of Genesis were thought to be only poetic. However, they are shown to be scientific in recent years. Verse 1 - The Universe has been determined to have a beginning (Ref: the space-time theorems) as shown conclusively by authors George Ellis, Roger Penrose, and Steven Hawking in the early 70’s that the 4 dimensions can be traced back to point of singularity (one dimension).

Genesis 1: 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.*
The Earth started as a water world that subsequently lost most of the water by the collision of Theia Mars-size planet that also formed the Moon from the shattered Earth/Theia material**.

**Oct 4, 2022, NASA - Collision May Have Formed the Moon in Mere Hours, Simulations Reveal    Billions of years ago, a version of our Earth that looks very different than the one we live on today was hit by an object about the size of Mars, called Theia – and out of that collision the Moon was formed. How exactly that formation occurred is a scientific puzzle researchers have studied for decades, without a conclusive answer.
Most theories claim the Moon formed out of the debris of this collision, coalescing in orbit over months or years. A new simulation puts forth a different theory – the Moon may have formed immediately, in a matter of hours, when material from the Earth and Theia was launched directly into orbit after the impact.

You do realize a person so confused and muddle headed as to think faith is somehow qualified to play any role whatsoever in understanding reality is uniquely unqualified to interpret the implications of scientific discovery based on rigorous assessment of material evidence. Right?

Genesis 1 is a summary. In just one page, a flawless overview of 13.79 B. years of natural history written some 3 tya that miraculously describes the sequential steps (which perfectly align with the scientific record) by which Earth became ready for human habitation. Genesis 2 like all other references adds details to the summary. Gen 2, in particular, gives a spiritual perspective on creation; thus, it begins to elaborate on the ‘purpose’ of creation.

Gen 1:1 to 1:2 is 9 1/2  billion years; nothing explicitly biblical is stated. For correct interpretation, the point of reference changes from above to the Earth's surface looking up, with verse 2.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Genesis 1 is a summary. In just one page, a flawless overview of 13.79 B. years of natural history written some 3 tya that miraculously describes the sequential steps (which perfectly align with the scientific record) by which Earth became ready for human habitation. Genesis 2 like all other references adds details to the summary. Gen 2, in particular, gives a spiritual perspective on creation; thus, it begins to elaborate on the ‘purpose’ of creation.

Gen 1:1 to 1:2 is 9 1/2  billion years; nothing explicitly biblical is stated. For correct interpretation, the point of reference changes from above to the Earth's surface looking up, with verse 

[Anomalocaris]

You do realize a person so confused and muddle headed as to think faith is somehow qualified to play any role whatsoever in understanding reality is uniquely unqualified to interpret the implications of scientific discovery based on rigorous assessment of material evidence. Right?

Genesis 1 is a summary. In just one page, a flawless overview of 13.79 B. years of natural history written some 3 tya that miraculously describes the sequential steps (which perfectly align with the scientific record) by which Earth became ready for human habitation. Genesis 2 like all other references adds details to the summary. Gen 2, in particular, gives a spiritual perspective on creation; thus, it begins to elaborate on the ‘purpose’ of creation.

Gen 1:1 to 1:2 is 9 1/2  billion years; nothing explicitly biblical is stated. For correct interpretation, the point of reference changes from above to the Earth's surface looking up, with verse 2.

Clearly you are simultaneously too stupid and too abstinent to ever realize it.

[Angrboda]

Genesis 1 is a summary.

How do you know that it is a summary of a long period of time as opposed to a literal account of a short one? This is just shameless retconning.