Big Bang, I pose this question......

[Guest JesusIs]

I have been reading the post on evolution and someone brought up the Big Bang theory. I have been born again for 20+ years. I believe that God can use whatever method He chooses to create the world. Why could He NOT have chosen the "Big Bang" to do so? I am interested in everyones reply. God bless and take care.

JesusIs

[VRSpock]

I have been reading the post on evolution and someone brought up the Big Bang theory.  I have been born again for 20+ years.  I believe that God can use whatever method He chooses to create the world.  Why could He NOT have chosen the "Big Bang" to do so?  I am interested in everyones reply.  God bless and take care.

JesusIs

My opinion is this:

The big bang theory is based on the fact that the light that we see from stars experience a "red shift" in the visual spectrum. When this was first discovered, it was immediately assumed that this shifting in the spectrum is caused by the sources of light, the stars, moving further away from us, hence the universe is in an expanding state. The entire big bang theory in a nutshell is based upon this one assumption because it was theorized that if the universe is expanding, against its own gravitational forces, then some event caused this expansion.

The only problem with this is that we are assuming that the red shift is caused by expansion. If the speed of light is a variable and is slowing down, I question if this also could not be causing the red shift in the visual spectrum.

IMHO, there is no way for us to know how the universe was formed or how old it truly is simply because we do not have enough data to form an intelligent hypothesis.

Even the age of the Earth is impossible to predict simply because there are too many things that we assume to be constants that we later find out to be variables such as with Carbon dating, etc.

[Guest arkon]

I have been reading the post on evolution and someone brought up the Big Bang theory. I have been born again for 20+ years. I believe that God can use whatever method He chooses to create the world. Why could He NOT have chosen the "Big Bang" to do so? I am interested in everyones reply. God bless and take care.

Hello JesusIS...

The answer is in Genesis.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth is the focus of the entire fist chapter of Genesis.

The sun, the stars, the moon..were not created at the same time as the heavens and the earth. So all you have is this big empty universe and a blob called earth.

Then God started working the earth into what it is.

Then He created the rest of the stars

The 'big bang' says that all of this happened in one giant explosion in chaos...with the earth being made long after the first stars.

Day 4

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

Gen 1:15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth,

Gen 1:18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

[Guest JesusIs]

I understand and agree with this, but, God likes to work miracles in the natural. He has done this throughout the Bible, hence, throughout time itself. Science is proving the existance of God everyday, but, attributing these things to chaos. I say nothing is done in chaos and that science and God work hand in hand. God created science. What some scientists are saying proves God does not exist, in fact, proves He DOES. The "Big Bang" theory could absolutely be correct. This could be the way in which God chose to create the heavens and the earth. Yes, the "Big Bang" happened all at once but the DEVELOPMENT of the stars, seasons, planets, sun, moon, etc. did not. I feel God chose the explosion to create His pallet and then developed them, step by step, just as the Bible says. I feel this is both Biblically and scientifically sound. I think scientists and we as Christians should realize that the Lord does like to work His miracles in the natural (not always, but alot of the time) and that it doesnt have to be that one is right and the other is wrong. they just happen to be the same thing except scientists are attributing it to the wrong thing. I hope I have done a better job at explaining my stance. God bless and take care.

[stevehut]

The Big Bang theory does not contradict creation, methinks. Isn't God capable of something like this?

[hippo's hope is HIM]

hehehe who said he didn't????

God spoke and

BANG

It happened!!!

:o

[VRSpock]

The Big Bang theory does not contradict creation, methinks. Isn't God capable of something like this?

Yes he is capable, God can do whatever He wants, but I don't see how anyone can conclude that. When I read Genesis 1 it clearly spells out in obsessive detail that God spoke creation into existence in a period of 6 literal days. It reiterates that "the evening and the morning was the second day", third day, and so forth. Therefore I do not see any way possible that the universe could have formed in the manner in which the big bang theory portrays it.

Like I said in another thread, by the theory of evolution's own admission, man has only had 1.3% of the total time of Earth's existence to observe scientifically and form a hypothesis. 260 million years of man/4.6 billions years of earth's existence = 1.3%. Not much time to come up with any intelligent wild guesses I think, much less a good theory.

Personally, I choose to accept the first chapter of the first book of God's Word over a 1.3% observation rate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion though and its always good to ask questions and theorize things.

[Guest JesusIs]

I absolutely agree with Genesis! 100%! im just saying that God COULD have used the big bang to get it all started. WE cant understand how He could have done it, but WE dont have to. We have finite minds, how can we understand the infinate mind in all its aspects? The Bible states that there are things that we will not understand until we go to be with God. Im just saying that God COULD have used the big bang to CREATE the heavens and the earth and its both scientifically and Biblically sound. That it could be that scientists are proving everyday that God exists and they just dont realize it.

[Bread_of_Life]

Actually, man has been around for a lot shorter a timeframe than that. The species homo-sapien has probably only been in existence in a recognisable form for the last few hundred thousand years. No idea where you got the 260 million years from, it's out by about a thousand times (3 orders of magnitude). What that means is that, if you take the history of the world on a 12 hour clock, humans arrive on the scene at 2.5 seconds to 12.

However, that's plenty of time to come up with good theories, and gather good evidence. In fact, a fraction of that time is enough, as we see with the development of the theory of gravity from newton to einstein to hawkings in only 350 years, or the theory of electromagnetics in 250 years, or the theory of evolution in 150 years. In fact, 300,000 years is about 15 - 20 thousand generations of people, that's a lot of thought and data gathering and testing time.

Now, another argument would be - if humans have been around for 2.5 seconds out of the 12 hours of the world, then how can we know what's happened for the other 11 hours 59 minutes and 57.5 seconds? Fortunately for us, the past leaves clues in the present - like rocks, and fossils, and strata, and isotopes, and chemicals, and even light from distant stars. That way we can see back in time and tell, in some detail, what's been happening for those 11 hours and 59 minutes we missed.

Edited May 28, 2004 by ScientificAtheist

[VRSpock]

Actually, man has been around for a lot shorter a timeframe than that. The species homo-sapien has probably only been in existence in a recognisable form for the last few hundred thousand years. No idea where you got the 260 million years from, it's out by about a thousand times (3 orders of magnitude). What that means is that, if you take the history of the world on a 12 hour clock, humans arrive on the scene at 2.5 seconds to 12.

However, that's plenty of time to come up with good theories, and gather good evidence. In fact, a fraction of that time is enough, as we see with the development of the theory of gravity from newton to einstein to hawkings in only 350 years, or the theory of electromagnetics in 250 years, or the theory of evolution in 150 years. In fact, 300,000 years is about 15 - 20 thousand generations of people, that's a lot of thought and data gathering and testing time.

Now, another argument would be - if humans have been around for 2.5 seconds out of the 12 hours of the world, then how can we know what's happened for the other 11 hours 59 minutes and 57.5 seconds? Fortunately for us, the past leaves clues in the present - like rocks, and fossils, and strata, and isotopes, and chemicals, and even light from distant stars. That way we can see back in time and tell, in some detail, what's been happening for those 11 hours and 59 minutes we missed.

Yes...we know that gravity exists since objects fall to the ground through direct observation, we know that a gravity well is caused by the warping of space around an object of significant mass (like a dimple in the water around an object floating on the water) and hence orbital paths through mathmatical formulas and observations...that gravity effects time as it does everything else in the universe....and magnetic fields are geneterated from polarized iron naturally and various other materials with the help of some outside influences, again through direct observation and mathmatical formulas.

What we do not understand about these things, is where they come from to begin with, just as with the strong force that binds quantum particles (quarks, leptons, etc) together that should be flying apart.

There is much we do not understand about the basic forces and particles that make up the universe. We thought we understood it all with protons, neutrons and electrons, but once we dug deeper than those particles, we found an entirely different can of worms to go through in understanding the nature of the universe.

The light from stars that are 13 billion light years away (the new galaxy recently discovered), how do we know that the light from those stars is 13 billion years old? Because of C? Yet it's possible that the speed of light is a variable, in fact we know it is because it can be slowed down by gravity and even reverse direction near an event horizon. At the time of creation, light may have travelled much faster as there would have been a higher energy to matter ratio and the grand mass of the universe would have been much less, assuming for a moment that the big bang happend...either trillions, billions or thousands of years ago. So the light from those stars may only be 10,000 years old theoretically given the above possible scenario. We are not even sure what kind of effect dark matter has on light, or a good explanation of what dark matter is for that matter. Only that the universe is greater the the sum of its parts.

Fossils can only take us back so far, and again, there are assumptions into what we can trust to be constants in determining the age of those fossils. The same is true of any chemical reaction that spans a significant length of time. The greater time involved in a reaction, the higher probability of additional variables effecting that reaction.

We, being man, have more questions than we have answers about the creation of the universe.