Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

big bang continued

113 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

I noticed there are a bunch of 'big bang' posts. So, why not throw my hat into the ring.

 

There are a few major reasons the big bang cosmology is accepted.

 

1. the redshift of clusters of galaxies in a very specific relationship, the ones farther away do so at a faster rate than the ones closer by. Look up the plots. They are beautiful.

 

2. the relative abundances of elements. Yes, the big bang model specifically predicts that the universe ought to be about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium (with fudge for 'rest', including a bit of lithium). These predictions get a lot more specific about this by the way, predicting also what percentages of isotopes we ought to see.

 

3. cosmic background radiation, the common afterglow of the fact that the observable universe used to be in very close quarters. The very small perturbations of this are also important.

 

In addition, there is recent evidence for the inflationary model by being able to detect specific kinds of gravitational waves from BICEP. Future looks at gravitational waves could provide additional looks at the very early universe.

 

Why I am posting this-- specifically because this section is taken over by believers with a very narrow viewpoint on what is an acceptable reading of Genesis and limited understanding of the relevant science. While I am hardly an ideal believer, I am still around for one reason or another, and I still think it is important that believers and non believers alike see this diversity in the body of Christ. You do not have to be scientifically illiterate or alternatively reject the scientific consensus to be a member. I don't think this has any direct relevance to God's existence or creative action and find the emphasis put on that distracting and unfortunate, and for some of us, straight up deflating.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm very happy that this is finally pointed out by a christian.

it's not science versus faith, but science with faith.

And being a christian does not have to imply that you believe in creationism.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I noticed there are a bunch of 'big bang' posts. So, why not throw my hat into the ring.

 

There are a few major reasons the big bang cosmology is accepted.

 

1. the redshift of clusters of galaxies in a very specific relationship, the ones farther away do so at a faster rate than the ones closer by. Look up the plots. They are beautiful.

 

2. the relative abundances of elements. Yes, the big bang model specifically predicts that the universe ought to be about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium (with fudge for 'rest', including a bit of lithium). These predictions get a lot more specific about this by the way, predicting also what percentages of isotopes we ought to see.

 

3. cosmic background radiation, the common afterglow of the fact that the observable universe used to be in very close quarters. The very small perturbations of this are also important.

 

In addition, there is recent evidence for the inflationary model by being able to detect specific kinds of gravitational waves from BICEP. Future looks at gravitational waves could provide additional looks at the very early universe.

 

Why I am posting this-- specifically because this section is taken over by believers with a very narrow viewpoint on what is an acceptable reading of Genesis and limited understanding of the relevant science. While I am hardly an ideal believer, I am still around for one reason or another, and I still think it is important that believers and non believers alike see this diversity in the body of Christ. You do not have to be scientifically illiterate or alternatively reject the scientific consensus to be a member. I don't think this has any direct relevance to God's existence or creative action and find the emphasis put on that distracting and unfortunate, and for some of us, straight up deflating.

What youi and others fail to do is take what the Big Bang notion proposes and place it against the biblical creation text and notice how they contradict.

 

The Bible is inspired by God and as such is an inerrant document.  The glaring contradictions preclude the Big Bang from being in any way compatible with the biblical account of creation.

 

What people also seem to be oblivious to is that things like the Big Bang and Evolution exist primarily as alternatives to the biblical text.    These "theories" exist to offer people a way to address origins without God.   It is rather amusing to see Christians trying validate as biblical, secular theories that are formulated and presented as a means of invalidating the biblical account of creation.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I find it amusing Christians would feel a need to respond with their assertions of amusements at the efforts of other Christians to make sense out of things. Or, maybe I don't find that amusing, but just unfortunate and immensely disappointing.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I find it amusing Christians would feel a need to respond with their assertions of amusements at the efforts of other Christians to make sense out of things. Or, maybe I don't find that amusing, but just unfortunate and immensely disappointing.

Christians need to decide if they put more faith in the inerrant word of an all-knowing God or the words of fallible men, when those two contradict.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's nice the world is so neatly divided and the truth of this matter so clear to you shiloh. I fail to see how these assertions help anyone else discern the truth of the matter. Certainly the blithe attitude of your initial response to me, your amusement, couldn't help.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's nice the world is so neatly divided and the truth of this matter so clear to you shiloh. I fail to see how these assertions help anyone else discern the truth of the matter. Certainly the blithe attitude of your initial response to me, your amusement, couldn't help.

The bottom line is that the Big Bang contradicts the Bible. That is not even disputable.  It is a practice in futility to trying sanctify the Big Bang as biblical when its claims and the Bible's claims are so clearly at odds to the point of being irreconcilable.  It is futile to attempt to reconcile what can't be reconciled.

 

In that event, it really does come down to a decision.the Bible and the claims of a theory that is usually presented by scientists as an alternative to the Bible.  It's really sad because I have found that the secular community is more honest about the huge divide that exists between the Bible and scientific claims about the BB or Evolution.   They see and understand the issue while Christians are frantically trying force the Bible to be reconciled with claims that simply contradict what the Bible says.

 

It isn't a matter of dividing the world up into neat little compartments.  It is a matter of looking at reality and seeing that the Bible's claims are specific and not general and those specific claims are at odds with specific claims being made by scientific theories on a fundamental level.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's a matter of fundamentally trying to see what is true about the world and believing what seems true about it. There are a number of well developed lines of evidence that leads to the big bang conclusion. These can't be wished away in the minds of individuals, even if they are inclined to try personally. It is a fact there are many believers in the world who do not have issues with reconciling their faith and their scientific positions such as big bang cosmology. Some see this as impossible, as you do shiloh, but that is hardly the only position possible to hold about these matters.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's a matter of fundamentally trying to see what is true about the world and believing what seems true about it. There are a number of well developed lines of evidence that leads to the big bang conclusion. These can't be wished away in the minds of individuals, even if they are inclined to try personally. It is a fact there are many believers in the world who do not have issues with reconciling their faith and their scientific positions such as big bang cosmology. Some see this as impossible, as you do shiloh, but that is hardly the only position possible to hold about these matters.

If you feel the evidence for the Big Bang is compelling and you want to believe it, that is your prerogative to do so.  Just be honest about the fact that it is not really reconcilable with Scripture and that one needs to abandon the Bible's account of creation in order to adopt the Big Bang model.

 

My contention is that theory clearly contradicts the biblical record.  Even Isaac Asimov observed that the scientific view of the universe is an attempt to explain its existence without God.  He wrote about he difference between the two worldviews and how utterly incompatible they are.   The Big Bang, Evolution et al., are an attempt to grapple with the problems of origins without having to appeal to God.  I think we all know that. 

 

I have read a number of secular articles about the Big Bang and what it all boils down to is a universe that was randomly created by an arbitrary explosion from a microscopic singularity, for which science cannot really account for unless one believer that the universe is expanding, crunching and re-expanding.

 

It is on the  level of expecting an explosion in a print shop  producing every book that exists in the Library of Congress.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I remain unconvinced there is an impossible contradiction between the scientific consensus here and the Bible. That is only the case on a very restricted reading of the Bible.

 

As far as the scientific evidence for the big bang goes, I freely admit, and have never hidden, I accept it for scientific reasons.  It's not like randomly expecting the world to suddenly appear from an explosion, at all, because this is hardly an explosion in any ordinary sense. In this case, spacetime itself has undergone a rapid expansion as the laws of physics themselves froze out as we know them now. The most extraordinary thing about the big bang is the very low entropy conditions out of which our universe began. The oscillatory model isn't necessary to explain anything and I should point out there are a lot of different multiverse models by which cosmologists, most admittedly atheists, have developed to try to explain the existence of the observable universe and its particular parameters. I think you can have interesting discussions about fine tuning and whatnot, but it becomes subtle pretty fast. However, none of this is a problem for the theist, insofar as someone who believes in God would expect that God has created everything, whether it be through the big bang or not.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

you two are talking WAY over my head. i don't even understand half of your comments to each other... particularly from alpha. but i'll say this, not for the first time on here either. i don't get why the bible actually has to contradict the big bang. why can't it just be accepted that IF there was a tiny spark that banged the universe into being, that God wasn't the spark that caused it according to His will and His design? 

 

i don't really see that this contradicts the biblical account of creation. after all, we don't have the same concept of time that God does, and a day to us might be a thousand (or million) years to Him. He isn't bound by our 24 hour increments. according to the Bible, the creation of man came after everything else. creatures of the air and water came before land animals and mankind.

 

we know that earth is a relative newcomer to the universe. and we know that the distance between planets/sun/moon/etc used to be much, much smaller than it is now... meaning that in early history, what we call a DAY was only a matter of a few hours. and it seems to me that the average lifespan and reproductive age of each of the earlier generations of mankind support the idea that with the passage of time, the orbital distance and the gravitational pull slowed. so a year in the life of adam was many, MANY years in our own lives. 

 

i'm no mathematician, and science was never my forte. but in spite of it all, i'm a pretty intelligent person, and i just don't see why so many believe that science and creationism are polar opposites. there's a whole lot we will never understand until we're standing before the throne of God, but i am convinced that once we have the opportunity to ask, He'll show us how today's scientists were at least getting closer to comprehending His design... even if they never get it entirely right.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I remain unconvinced there is an impossible contradiction between the scientific consensus here and the Bible.  That is only the case on a very restricted reading of the Bible.

 

That is what the issue boils down to.   Do I trust God, take Him at His word by faith as an all-knowing God who was the only present at creation and thus is the only one qualified to tell us what actually happened, OR do I discard what God said, and choose "re-interpret" the Bible in a way that suits what I am pre-disposed to accept.  In other words, are the words of men superior to the word of God?  Where does the object of my faith lie?  Is the object of faith, God or the testimony of fallible little men?

 

The Big Bang wasn't  a model that was meant to be understood as an explanation or expansion or amplification of the Genesis account.  The Big Bang was originally presented as a means of understanding the Bible without having to believe in an intelligent Creator (God), just as Evolution was seen as an alternative not an compliment to Genesis.

 

From a scientific perspective, the BB is really nothing but a hypothesis that relies on things that have never been observed like dark matter, dark energy.  It honestly requires more faith to believe in the BB than it does to believe the Biblical account.  As for contradictions, the Bible says that the stars in the universe were created AFTER the earth was created.  IN the Big Bang, the stars are created BEFORE the earth.  Furthermore, the Big Bang says that at some point all usable energy will be gone and there will be nothing left, no way to support life and all life will be gone.  But the Bible says that paradise will be restored.  The Bible says that God will not allow that to happen, but will renovate the entire universe. 

 

When it comes to restricted interpretations, let me ask you something.  Would you be accepting of unrestricted interpretation regarding what you post on WBs or what you text or post on sites like Facebook?   Are people free to take your remarks and spin them anyway they want?  Or do you expect people to take what you say and interpret your words through the lens of what you meant for them to understand?  Do you want to be understood in the light of the object you have in view, or do you feel it is okay for someone else to take your words and interpret them as they see fit?  Are there any restrictions to interpreting your words or is it a free-for-all?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

ladyc, yeah I think you have an important point.

 

shiloh I have heard this from you before, I have responded to it before, and it is the same thing now. Insofar as we aren't exchanging anything new whatsoever I don't really  have anything to add.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

ladyc, yeah I think you have an important point.

 

shiloh I have heard this from you before, I have responded to it before, and it is the same thing now. Insofar as we aren't exchanging anything new whatsoever I don't really  have anything to add.

I don't recall having said much of this before to you as we have never really discussed the BB in recent memory.  That's called a "cop out."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

we've had pretty much this exact discussion about faith and science topics before, and others! more than once. If you want to see it as a cop out, feel free.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

we've had pretty much this exact discussion about faith and science topics before, and others! more than once. If you want to see it as a cop out, feel free.

No we haven't, unless you were here before under another username.  But, whatever.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Alright man, maybe another time.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm not going to enter the fray directly, but wished to bring up a couple things on my mind.  I fail to see the endeavors of science as a way to counter the notion of God.  Scientists and other people see that the universe works according to laws, mechanisms and other processes as, I feel, were set off by God.  Not everyone believes this, obviously.  The exploration of early history is a way to see if there are explanations that do not require supernatural intervention, such as the case is with the universe today.  I do not think the motive is to disprove God, rather to determine what actually happened.  For the theistic scientist, the discovery of new truths and concepts do not work to exclude God, rather to elucidate the way He actually did it.  For the atheist who ridicules the idea of God the work of science takes on a darker connotation, but I do not think it is the mainstream motive.

As Mark Twain observed: "Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

What youi and others fail to do is take what the Big Bang notion proposes and place it against the biblical creation text and notice how they contradict.

 

The Bible is inspired by God and as such is an inerrant document.  The glaring contradictions preclude the Big Bang from being in any way compatible with the biblical account of creation.

 

What people also seem to be oblivious to is that things like the Big Bang and Evolution exist primarily as alternatives to the biblical text.    These "theories" exist to offer people a way to address origins without God.   It is rather amusing to see Christians trying validate as biblical, secular theories that are formulated and presented as a means of invalidating the biblical account of creation.

There are a number of Christians who embrace evolution, William Lane Craig is one. The head of the Human genome project is a devout Christian. They obviously believe that God was involved with the process but they don't outright reject the theory. Evolution was not established to draw people away from Biblical creation, evolution could be proven false and it would do nothing to further the validity of the biblical creation story.

Even if we give you the assertion that the Bible is inerrant, how do you know your interpretation is as well?

Edited by Bonky
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I noticed there are a bunch of 'big bang' posts. So, why not throw my hat into the ring.

 

There are a few major reasons the big bang cosmology is accepted.

 

1. the redshift of clusters of galaxies in a very specific relationship, the ones farther away do so at a faster rate than the ones closer by. Look up the plots. They are beautiful.

 

2. the relative abundances of elements. Yes, the big bang model specifically predicts that the universe ought to be about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium (with fudge for 'rest', including a bit of lithium). These predictions get a lot more specific about this by the way, predicting also what percentages of isotopes we ought to see.

 

3. cosmic background radiation, the common afterglow of the fact that the observable universe used to be in very close quarters. The very small perturbations of this are also important.

 

In addition, there is recent evidence for the inflationary model by being able to detect specific kinds of gravitational waves from BICEP. Future looks at gravitational waves could provide additional looks at the very early universe.

 

Why I am posting this-- specifically because this section is taken over by believers with a very narrow viewpoint on what is an acceptable reading of Genesis and limited understanding of the relevant science. While I am hardly an ideal believer, I am still around for one reason or another, and I still think it is important that believers and non believers alike see this diversity in the body of Christ. You do not have to be scientifically illiterate or alternatively reject the scientific consensus to be a member. I don't think this has any direct relevance to God's existence or creative action and find the emphasis put on that distracting and unfortunate, and for some of us, straight up deflating.

Regarding this topic:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

--Kurt Wise creationist

If you regard the Bible as the written word of God AND your interpretation is more literal...scientific evidence doesn't mean much.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think many Christians as well as individuals of other faiths do believe in "micro evolution" (the adaptations of species to environment through natural selection), but draw the line at the change to new species. Of course many believers do believe in theory as well.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think many Christians as well as individuals of other faiths do believe in "micro evolution" (the adaptations of species to environment through natural selection), but draw the line at the change to new species. Of course many believers do believe in theory as well.

 

That's rather about the doubt that how far evolution can drive.

 

Assume that the following is the evidence,

 

A rat does evolved into a cat. You can thus scientifically, repeatedly turning a rat to a cat. 

 

Now what conclusions can be drawn from this,

 

1. because a rat evolved to a cat, such that a rat must be from a single cell

2. because a rat evolved to a cat, such that a cat must be from a single cell

3. because a rat evolved to a cat, such that all species must have been from a single cell

 

The above however are fallacies. A rat to cat change can never demonstrate how organs are formed, it thus can't lead to the above conclusions.

 

No evidence can be stronger than "a rat evolved to a cat". So if the strongest evidence ever won't lead to those conclusions, how about other weaker evidence, such whatever macro-evolution could be?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You'd need a predecessor which is extinct to the current species in this example, I think.

But I don't follow you here about the single cell statements.  Are you talking about gametes or what?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't follow you here about the single cell statements.  Are you talking about gametes or what?

 

Evolution implicitly or explicitly hinted that all species are ultimately from a single cell. My point is to illustrate that this view is unsupported. 

 

Even the assumed strongest evidence (rat to cat) won't support the conclusion that "species are from a single cell" as evolution trying to conclude.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

But you made a leap from one organism to another in your thought experiment.  That all are from a single cell seems outside the scope.

I'm a little nuanced in my view of evolution.  I think there is a lot of 'splaining to do for its adherents.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0