Big bang theory?

[DeistPrimate]

He walked away with the lions share of the flock.

If you believe the goofy story to be true which I certainly do not. It was obviously written by some ignoramus who believed showing animals environmental cues causes pheotypic changes.

<--I really love this icon, it says it all sometimes

I think my next post on this thread will get back to the Big Bang, there's another thread on the nature of scientific theory more appropriate for a discussion of the scientific method.

 

[Know it all.]

Einstein was a Deist, he most certainly didn't use the Bible as a source of scientific inspiration. Nor does the Bible say anything about accelerated time.

The thing is that I give references and quotes and I give source links while you give denials.

I understand that people like yourself do not want any thing to be true or real outside of your safety zone but it is only a denial that locks yourself in and shuts yourself out.

I think my next post on this thread will get back to the Big Bang,

I agree that it is best to stick with the thread subject, BUT, but the subject was effectively covered in my post #6 page 1 of this thread, link it = HERE.

What is done is done.

 

[Tristesse]

The big-bang is in-fact a direct scientific proof of a creation day and that is big evidence of a creator.

The universe did not begin with the big bang, it expanded with the big bang. So, there was no creation that is proposed by the big bang. Mater and energy cannot be created or destroyed. So, by what evidence do you propose that it can be created?

I say the religions have the "Creator" mixed up away from reality and science points to a more correct exposure of that real creator.

Awesome! Just provide evidence that a creator is in anyway necessary for this universe to exist.

Even the point before the big-bang is viewed as a "singularity" as in one-unit which is the idea behind one God.

The singularity is the universe. Are you suggesting that god is the universe? Because if you are, we already have a word for universe, and it's universe. What knowledge is gained by calling the universe god? It seems to me that you're trying to add extra baggage to what we know, by proposing something that is not known.

When Steven Hawkings declared in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," then Hawkings is using the "universe" as a direct synonym for "God" as God creates from nothing and the Universe creates from nothing so the two are just different names for the same thing.

:bow:

No, they're not two different words for the same thing. When physicists use the word "nothing." It's not the colloquial meaning of nothing. I suggest you watch a Laurence Kraus video on the subject. He explains it perfectly.

 

[PolyHedral]

The thing is that I give references and quotes and I give source links while you give denials.

I understand that people like yourself do not want any thing to be true or real outside of your safety zone but it is only a denial that locks yourself in and shuts yourself out.


I agree that it is best to stick with the thread subject, BUT, but the subject was effectively covered in my post #6 page 1 of this thread, link it = HERE.

What is done is done.

But I'm using Einstein's theory to show that you're wrong. Time never accelerates, only slows down by a greater or lesser degree. It is what is meant by the 4th dimension. It is impossible for Relativity to refer to anything that happens in the Bible.

Not to mention, he himself said, (and you will find this mirrored all over the internet)

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

 

[newhope101]

The question is in error as it presupposes that creationists have (1) understanding and (2) are in a position to comment on the Big Bang Theory. I would say the premise fails on both counts.

So are you saying that evolutionists that believe in some sort of God, reincarnation, mystic arts etc are less delusional than creationists and may therefore have understanding and are in a position to comment?

Big bang theory is no problem for this creationist. God provided causation. If this is the case, there is no need for multidimentions and further theories to explain its sudden expansion. Obviously my answer to where did all the matter come from is as good a guess as Hawkins and likely requires a science we have yet to consider let alone understand.

 

[outhouse]

God provided causation.

Prove it

less delusional than creationists

isnt everyone

 

[PolyHedral]

Big bang theory is no problem for this creationist. God provided causation. If this is the case, there is no need for multidimentions and further theories to explain its sudden expansion. Obviously my answer to where did all the matter come from is as good a guess as Hawkins and likely requires a science we have yet to consider let alone understand.

It is probably not the case.

In collaboration with Jim Hartle, Hawking developed a model in which the universe had no boundary in space-time, replacing the initial singularity of the classical Big Bang models with a region akin to the North Pole: one cannot travel north of the North Pole, as there is no boundary.

 

[Tristesse]

Big bang theory is no problem for this creationist. God provided causation. If this is the case, there is no need for multidimentions and further theories to explain its sudden expansion. Obviously my answer to where did all the matter come from is as good a guess as Hawkins and likely requires a science we have yet to consider let alone understand.

By what criteria do you accept the big bang theory and disregard evolution? Could it be that you only accept science when it confirms your fairy tale and disregard it when it conflicts with your preconceived notions?

 

[Meow Mix]

It is probably not the case.

Woah, when did Hawking do that?

I'm slackin. Then again, big bang cosmology, while an interest, isn't my specialty.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

Simple question:

What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?

The big bang theory can only explain up to any time after t = 0. If t</= 0, science can't really say anything :/

 

[Meow Mix]

The big bang theory can only explain up to any time after t = 0. If t</= 0, science can't really say anything :/

This is true, but neither can anyone else

 

[Know it all.]

The universe did not begin with the big bang, it expanded with the big bang. So, there was no creation that is proposed by the big bang. Mater and energy cannot be created or destroyed. So, by what evidence do you propose that it can be created?

In the Bible it says that "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth," so call it a "beginning" or "the creation" of this universe but the "Big-Bang" means "the beginning" and "the creation of our universe" and calling it as an "expansion" changes nothing.

If we really want to nit-pick on words then there was no "Bang" since science has no one around to hear it, and it could be denied as being "Big" since it is said to have started out rather small.

 

[Tristesse]

In the Bible it says that "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth," so call it a "beginning" or "the creation" of this universe but the "Big-Bang" means "the beginning" and "the creation of our universe" and calling it as an "expansion" changes nothing.

I don't care what the bible says, until you demonstrate why I should. And no, the "big bang" does not mean the beginning, in the sense that the bible refers to it.

 

[PolyHedral]

In the Bible it says that "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth," so call it a "beginning" or "the creation" of this universe but the "Big-Bang" means "the beginning" and "the creation of our universe" and calling it as an "expansion" changes nothing.

If we really want to nit-pick on words then there was no "Bang" since science has no one around to hear it, and it could be denied as being "Big" since it is said to have started out rather small.

Well, 11 billion years is a pretty large amount of time for all of it to count as "the beginning." ...And more importantly, in order to twist the Bible to match cosmology, "the beginning" needs to be longer than "now." That's silly.

 

[Know it all.]

Well, 11 billion years is a pretty large amount of time for all of it to count as "the beginning." ...And more importantly, in order to twist the Bible to match cosmology, "the beginning" needs to be longer than "now." That's silly.

We do need science to dissect God in scientific terms which the Bible does not do.

The Bible truly is an interesting and fun book when it is scrutinized in depth which most people fail to do.

The opening verse of the Bible = Genesis 1 and verse 2 is very odd as it states that: 1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. This is saying that first came the creation (verse 1) and later (verse 2) the earth was void and dark, so there is a missing time.

Then later in the Bible "book of Psalms" 104:30 it tells the reason: Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. So in Genesis 2 it is "renewing" the earth because some destruction happened between verse 1 and verse 2, so it tells. Reference scroll down to: "Angels on Earth Sinned".

We do need science to fill in the missing pieces for those of us that do want to know what has happened in our long ago times.

 

[PolyHedral]

We do need science to dissect God in scientific terms which the Bible does not do.

You're right; The Bible is simply incorrect. For instance:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.2)And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

If we assume that God creating heaven is actually the big bang, hovering over the waters will be incredibly hard. This is because of the simple fact that water could not possibly exist until several hundred million years after the Big Bang.

We do need science to fill in the missing pieces for those of us that do want to know what has happened in our long ago times.

But why are we listening to the Bible at all, when the "missing" pieces compose 90%, if not 100% of the whole puzzle? The Bible contains no allusions to electromagnetic theory, let alone quantum mechanics. It contains no explanation for any sort of material science, or even something as "basic" as Newtonian physics.

 

[Know it all.]

You're right; The Bible is simply incorrect. For instance:

The Bible is not correct in places and that is a big deal to "Biblical Criticism" and humanity like the Bible is full of errors and confusions.

An example like "Jonah" being swallowed by a big fish is not really incorrect as it is just a childish fairy tale as like we can not call "Jack and the Beanstalk" as incorrect since it is just a child's story which is not meant to be viewed as correct or as true.

If we assume that God creating heaven is actually the big bang, hovering over the waters will be incredibly hard. This is because of the simple fact that water could not possibly exist until several hundred million years after the Big Bang.

I agree that people read those passages incorrectly but as my previous post says - the Bible does give the correct info under "Biblical Criticism".

But why are we listening to the Bible at all, when the "missing" pieces compose 90%, if not 100% of the whole puzzle? The Bible contains no allusions to electromagnetic theory, let alone quantum mechanics. It contains no explanation for any sort of material science, or even something as "basic" as Newtonian physics.

So science is 90% worthless info which serves nothing of value.

To know about such things as electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, Newtonian physics, does nothing in building better character or better persons or better society.

It is nice indeed to have space stations and star treks but they do not give us things like a path to justice or to fairness, decency or brotherly love.

 

[DeistPrimate]

To know about such things as electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, Newtonian physics, does nothing in building better character or better persons or better society.

It is nice indeed to have space stations and star treks but they do not give us things like a path to justice or to fairness, decency or brotherly love.

Neither does the Bible, especially the Old Testament / Torah.

Though I'd disagree with the contention hard science doesn't build better societies or a better world in general, it certainly can.

 

[Thief]

Neither does the Bible, especially the Old Testament / Torah.

Though I'd disagree with the contention hard science doesn't build better societies or a better world in general, it certainly can.

To this I would say nay.
But that's a different thread topic.

Would it be sufficient to say technology speeds things along....
including the pending demise of mankind?

 

[DeistPrimate]

To this I would say nay.
But that's a different thread topic.

Would it be sufficient to say technology speeds things along....
including the pending demise of mankind?

It's the only thing that can ultimately save us. Without it Earth's life has no hope after the Sun goes nova in 4 billion years or so (or with the advent of some other massive extinction event).