big bang continued

[Guest LadyC]

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

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?

[alphaparticle]

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

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."

[alphaparticle]

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

[alphaparticle]

Alright man, maybe another time.

[gray wolf]

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."

[Bonky]

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 June 20, 2014 by Bonky

[Bonky]

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.