Sheniy Posted February 27, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 223 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 27 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2014 Hey Sheniy, Don't we as Christians believe this? ("In the beginning, God created..." BANG "the heavens and the earth") Makes sense to me! 1. Can you show me in Genesis or Scripture describing the beginning as an "explosion"? 2. Just a cursory look @ the Big Bang Theory reveals the Sun before the Earth (and then the completely Nonsensical Nebular Hypothesis which is laughable "scientifically" speaking but that's for another discussion) and without water Does this Line up with the WORD? How should we treat it if not? Hey Enoch! I guess I have no answer for that other than what I've already given: evolutionists twist it to fit their own theory. If you take the BBT at just the basic idea: the universe had a beginning, and everything came from basically nothing, it fits Creation more than Evolution, which works better with an eternal universe (more time for stuff to happen). But if you don't believe God made the universe with a bang, how do you think it appeared? With a poof? Either way, it's just speculation since the bible is not specific on this detail, and none of us were there to witness it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Hey Sheniy, Don't we as Christians believe this? ("In the beginning, God created..." BANG "the heavens and the earth") Makes sense to me! 1. Can you show me in Genesis or Scripture describing the beginning as an "explosion"? 2. Just a cursory look @ the Big Bang Theory reveals the Sun before the Earth (and then the completely Nonsensical Nebular Hypothesis which is laughable "scientifically" speaking but that's for another discussion) and without water Does this Line up with the WORD? How should we treat it if not? Hey Enoch! I guess I have no answer for that other than what I've already given: evolutionists twist it to fit their own theory. If you take the BBT at just the basic idea: the universe had a beginning, and everything came from basically nothing, it fits Creation more than Evolution, which works better with an eternal universe (more time for stuff to happen). But if you don't believe God made the universe with a bang, how do you think it appeared? With a poof? Either way, it's just speculation since the bible is not specific on this detail, and none of us were there to witness it. Sheniy, The Big Bang isn't something the evolutionists twisted to fit their narrative. That is not the history of the theory. There are not alternate BB narrartives to choose from. The BB is what it is. And it is true, that the BB operates from an assumption that the sun came before the earth, which doesn't match Genesis at all. Furthermore propoents of the BB don't believe the earth began as desribed in Genesis 1:2. It was originally a molten ball that cooled over millinons of years. If you were to look a little more carefully at the specific claims of the BB proponents, it would be easy to see that it simply isn't compatible with Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 27, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Isn't the Big Bang Theory by itself just the idea that the Universe had a rapid, explosive beginning? Don't we as Christians believe this? ("In the beginning, God created..." BANG "the heavens and the earth") Makes sense to me! Evolutionists twist this to fit their theory, but I am pretty sure they weren't happy with the BBT originally, because they believed the universe was infinite/eternal. Well thank you and I can see that we share some common interests...from your little column on the right there...whoops the other right one on the left there Theology....Sci-Fi....Art.....really like Japanese gardens and their approach to balance (not for any religious reasons tho)...Astronomy.....certain books...I used to read alot more....worship music but no slight addiction to computer games..and you agree with my post could be we might see things somewhat the same, what? I have not even stated I believe in the Big Bang theory, but I think the post you quoted here definately shows I believe God created everything and that I worship Him as Creator... I think that at certain times, what people ask us to line up with the word, actually translates to being asked to line up our thoughts with how they perceive what is often debated I am actually pretty conservative in my approach to scripture but there are a few things that I am not agreeing with and this is one of those things ================================================================================================= I think that at certain times, what people ask us to line up with the word, actually translates to being asked to line up our thoughts with how they perceive what is often debated Don't take this personally Sevenseas but this is what I Observe Generally on these forums: People make claims or assertions without Support (Scriptural, Scientific, et al). Then when those claims get challenged and asked to support said assertions...if there isn't anything to offer, it heads down this road: "Last Port In The Storm" Scenario that takes place each and every time on each and every board. 1. It's Harmful to the Body of Christ. 2. Muddies the Water or Quibbles Relentlessly. 3. Overt or Implied Insults. 4. Conjures various ill conceived Slights. Rinse Repeat Rinse Repeat Just my take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheniy Posted February 27, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 223 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 27 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2014 Well thank you and I can see that we share some common interests...from your little column on the right there...whoops the other right one on the left there Theology....Sci-Fi....Art.....really like Japanese gardens and their approach to balance (not for any religious reasons tho)...Astronomy.....certain books...I used to read alot more....worship music but no slight addiction to computer games..and you agree with my post could be we might see things somewhat the same, what? I have not even stated I believe in the Big Bang theory, but I think the post you quoted here definately shows I believe God created everything and that I worship Him as Creator... Sci-Fi fan! Woo! Love worship music! This song is on my playlist right now (and also in my sig). I think that at certain times, what people ask us to line up with the word, actually translates to being asked to line up our thoughts with how they perceive what is often debated I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheniy Posted February 27, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 223 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 27 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2014 Sheniy, The Big Bang isn't something the evolutionists twisted to fit their narrative. That is not the history of the theory. There are not alternate BB narrartives to choose from. The BB is what it is. And it is true, that the BB operates from an assumption that the sun came before the earth, which doesn't match Genesis at all. Furthermore propoents of the BB don't believe the earth began as desribed in Genesis 1:2. It was originally a molten ball that cooled over millinons of years. If you were to look a little more carefully at the specific claims of the BB proponents, it would be easy to see that it simply isn't compatible with Genesis. What, is there a Holy Writ of Evolutionary Theory that must be taken literally as well? Sorry, I didn't get the memo. My point (with smilies because I like smilies): Evolutionist: I believe everything evolved which takes a LOT of time, so the universe must be eternal. Creationist: I believe the universe and everything in it was created and designed by a Creator, and therefore had a beginning. initial evidence of the big bang: Hello! I'm evidence that the universe is expanding, and therefore likely had a beginning. Creationist: Told ya! Evolutionist: Do'h! This is how it should have been, but the Evolutionists jumped on the Big Bang Train first and somehow steered it into their camp. I say we take it back. Or at least take it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Sheniy, The Big Bang isn't something the evolutionists twisted to fit their narrative. That is not the history of the theory. There are not alternate BB narrartives to choose from. The BB is what it is. And it is true, that the BB operates from an assumption that the sun came before the earth, which doesn't match Genesis at all. Furthermore propoents of the BB don't believe the earth began as desribed in Genesis 1:2. It was originally a molten ball that cooled over millinons of years. If you were to look a little more carefully at the specific claims of the BB proponents, it would be easy to see that it simply isn't compatible with Genesis. What, is there a Holy Writ of Evolutionary Theory that must be taken literally as well? Sorry, I didn't get the memo. My point (with smilies because I like smilies): Evolutionist: I believe everything evolved which takes a LOT of time, so the universe must be eternal. Creationist: I believe the universe and everything in it was created and designed by a Creator, and therefore had a beginning. initial evidence of the big bang: Hello! I'm evidence that the universe is expanding, and therefore likely had a beginning. Creationist: Told ya! Evolutionist: Do'h! This is how it should have been, but the Evolutionists jumped on the Big Bang Train first and somehow steered it into their camp. I say we take it back. Or at least take it away. No, the evolutionists didn't hijack the Big Bang. The Big Bang is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe without God. The Big Bang really has nothing to do with evolution, per se. If one were to actually look at the order of events regarding the origins of the unvierse, stars and planets, it would become apparent that the BB is incompatible with Scripture. We cannot redeem what is not redeemable. It would be like trying to kosher a pig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 27, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Sheniy, The Big Bang isn't something the evolutionists twisted to fit their narrative. That is not the history of the theory. There are not alternate BB narrartives to choose from. The BB is what it is. And it is true, that the BB operates from an assumption that the sun came before the earth, which doesn't match Genesis at all. Furthermore propoents of the BB don't believe the earth began as desribed in Genesis 1:2. It was originally a molten ball that cooled over millinons of years. If you were to look a little more carefully at the specific claims of the BB proponents, it would be easy to see that it simply isn't compatible with Genesis. What, is there a Holy Writ of Evolutionary Theory that must be taken literally as well? Sorry, I didn't get the memo. My point (with smilies because I like smilies): Evolutionist: I believe everything evolved which takes a LOT of time, so the universe must be eternal. Creationist: I believe the universe and everything in it was created and designed by a Creator, and therefore had a beginning. initial evidence of the big bang: Hello! I'm evidence that the universe is expanding, and therefore likely had a beginning. Creationist: Told ya! Evolutionist: Do'h! This is how it should have been, but the Evolutionists jumped on the Big Bang Train first and somehow steered it into their camp. I say we take it back. Or at least take it away. ============================================================================================================ What, is there a Holy Writ of Evolutionary Theory that must be taken literally as well? Sorry, I didn't get the memo. Well it would be nice if they defined it....but where's the fun in that. That means that all the Ad HOC Observations that are seemlisly assimilated into the fairytale would Vapor Lock, and somebody would be left holding the Bag. Actually it..... the "theory", officially imploded in 1972 with the celebrated Ad HOC Savior Punctuated Equilibrium. Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience Now it's just a "chimera" chameleon type fairytale for grown-ups looking to justify their behavior and lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheniy Posted February 27, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 223 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 27 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2014 Sheniy, The Big Bang isn't something the evolutionists twisted to fit their narrative. That is not the history of the theory. There are not alternate BB narrartives to choose from. The BB is what it is. And it is true, that the BB operates from an assumption that the sun came before the earth, which doesn't match Genesis at all. Furthermore propoents of the BB don't believe the earth began as desribed in Genesis 1:2. It was originally a molten ball that cooled over millinons of years. If you were to look a little more carefully at the specific claims of the BB proponents, it would be easy to see that it simply isn't compatible with Genesis. What, is there a Holy Writ of Evolutionary Theory that must be taken literally as well? Sorry, I didn't get the memo. My point (with smilies because I like smilies): Evolutionist: I believe everything evolved which takes a LOT of time, so the universe must be eternal. Creationist: I believe the universe and everything in it was created and designed by a Creator, and therefore had a beginning. initial evidence of the big bang: Hello! I'm evidence that the universe is expanding, and therefore likely had a beginning. Creationist: Told ya! Evolutionist: Do'h! This is how it should have been, but the Evolutionists jumped on the Big Bang Train first and somehow steered it into their camp. I say we take it back. Or at least take it away. No, the evolutionists didn't hijack the Big Bang. The Big Bang is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe without God. The Big Bang really has nothing to do with evolution, per se. If one were to actually look at the order of events regarding the origins of the unvierse, stars and planets, it would become apparent that the BB is incompatible with Scripture. We cannot redeem what is not redeemable. It would be like trying to kosher a pig. From this site: A common question that people ask is "What happened before the Big Bang?" The phrase "in the beginning" is used here to refer to the birth of our universe with the Big Bang. In the creation of the universe, everything was compressed into an infinitesimally small point, in which all physical laws that we know of do not apply. No information from any "previous" stuff could have remained intact. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of everything, for we can never know if there was anything before it. History of the Big Bang Model The Big Bang model had its beginnings with Edwin Hubble's discovery in 1929 that, on large scales, everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. The only explanation for this was that the universe was expanding in every direction, and it was taking galaxies along with it. The next step towards the Big Bang model was to take this process in reverse - that is, to go back in time. If the universe is "blowing up" like a balloon as time progresses, then what would happen if you were to run the timeline backwards? What was the universe like in the past? If the universe is currently growing, then the universe was smaller in the past. There must have been some point in time when the universe was half its current size. Then there must have been a time when it was half that size. If you continue to run time backwards, there must have been a time when the universe was an infinitesimally small point*. This is the basic idea behind the Big Bang. All matter and energy existed in an infinitely small point of infinite density a long time ago, and has since been expanding as our universe. One important note here is that the Big Bang was not an explosion in the universe, but rather it is an explosion of the universe. The original discovery in 1929 is what I'm talking about. Not what Evolutionists have claimed since then. Like I said, the idea that the universe has a beginning originally went against evolution, because it needed an eternal universe for the theory to work. Now they just say everything is really, really old. The big bang doesn't necessarily have to be old. Notice the part where they say that all matter was "infinitesimally small point of infinite density" (aka ex nihilo), but they can't explain where that came from? "In the beginning, God created..." I'm just saying, the heavens truly declare the glory of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2014 We don't have to try to pound a square peg into a round hole here. Evolutionists know there was a 'big bang'; they just don't know that it was the moment God spoke everything into being. They try to explain the BB any way that doesn't include Creation. They're describing the same event as the Bible but they don't know it. Why is this hard? It seems simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMD2093 Posted February 28, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 18 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 I believe that the big bang theory tv show is funny, altho not always appropriate. i think you need to reread my *whole* post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts