If not for the billions-of-years aspect,would Creationists be OK with BigBang Theory?

MostlyLurking · #1 26th May 2012, 03:51 AM

Yes, I realize that a Young Earth Creationist MUST dislike the Big Bang Theory----because it includes the evidence for a very old universe measured in billions of years.

But if not for this age aspect, would creationists agree that the Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Bible in any way? (And if someone thinks it would still conflict with the Bible, what scriptures can be cited to demonstrate this? And if someone cites "Genesis 1:1", how does that conflict with the Big Bang Theory?)

And are most creationists aware that it was a Bible-believing Christian clergyman physicist who first proposed the Big Bang Theory? And do they realize that at the time many considered this a scientific argument for a BEGINNING and therefore a BEGINNER? (It just seems odd that any Christian would hate a Big Bang theory which actually helped defeat the previous theory of an eternal universe.)

AV1611VET · #2 26th May 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by MostlyLurking

Yes, I realize that a Young Earth Creationist MUST dislike the Big Bang Theory----because it includes the evidence for a very old universe measured in billions of years.

I would assume they do as well.

Originally Posted by MostlyLurking

But if not for this age aspect, would creationists agree that the Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Bible in any way?

No.

Originally Posted by MostlyLurking

(And if someone thinks it would still conflict with the Bible, what scriptures can be cited to demonstrate this? And if someone cites "Genesis 1:1", how does that conflict with the Big Bang Theory?)

Well ... where to start?

The earth before the sun.
Angiosperms before the sun.
Whales before man.
The earth before stars.
The earth before galaxies.
Male before female.

Originally Posted by MostlyLurking

And are most creationists aware that it was a Bible-believing Christian clergyman physicist who first proposed the Big Bang Theory?

Is that supposed to carry weight in your argument?

Bible-believing Christian clergymen physicists can be wrong, can't they?

Originally Posted by MostlyLurking

And do they realize that at the time many considered this a scientific argument for a BEGINNING and therefore a BEGINNER?

Why do you think we're called 'sheep' in the Bible?

Originally Posted by MostlyLurking

(It just seems odd that any Christian would hate a Big Bang theory which actually helped defeat the previous theory of an eternal universe.)

What other stuff seems 'odd' to you?

juvenissun · #3 26th May 2012, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by MostlyLurking

Yes, I realize that a Young Earth Creationist MUST dislike the Big Bang Theory----because it includes the evidence for a very old universe measured in billions of years.

But if not for this age aspect, would creationists agree that the Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Bible in any way? (And if someone thinks it would still conflict with the Bible, what scriptures can be cited to demonstrate this? And if someone cites "Genesis 1:1", how does that conflict with the Big Bang Theory?)

And are most creationists aware that it was a Bible-believing Christian clergyman physicist who first proposed the Big Bang Theory? And do they realize that at the time many considered this a scientific argument for a BEGINNING and therefore a BEGINNER? (It just seems odd that any Christian would hate a Big Bang theory which actually helped defeat the previous theory of an eternal universe.)

Evolutionists do not like the Big Bang either. I am a YEC, I kind of like some ideas of the Big Bang.

This would be enough to upset everything in your OP. It suggests that you have a long way to go.

NailsII · #4 2nd June 2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Evolutionists do not like the Big Bang either.

I'm intrigued.
What exactly do 'evolutionists' not like about the big bang?
Is there any specific 'evolutionists' you are thinking of or is this just a general comment?

juvenissun · #5 2nd June 2012, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by NailsII

I'm intrigued.
What exactly do 'evolutionists' not like about the big bang?
Is there any specific 'evolutionists' you are thinking of or is this just a general comment?

What I mean is: SOME knowledgeable evolutionists don't like the Big Bang. Most evolutionists don't care about it, but take it for granted (it is not evolution, but it is essential to evolution). But no evolutionist has any better idea other than what the Big Bang said.

Guy1 · #6 2nd June 2012, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

What I mean is: SOME knowledgeable evolutionists don't like the Big Bang.

Can you name one?

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Most evolutionists don't care about it, but take it for granted (it is not evolution, but it is essential to evolution).

Not really. The universe could have been created ex-nihilo and it would have no bearing on evolution

Originally Posted by juvenissun

But no evolutionist has any better idea other than what the Big Bang said.

It's the only player when it comes to explaining the current form of the universe.

Standing_Ultraviolet · #7 3rd June 2012, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by MostlyLurking

Yes, I realize that a Young Earth Creationist MUST dislike the Big Bang Theory----because it includes the evidence for a very old universe measured in billions of years.

But if not for this age aspect, would creationists agree that the Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Bible in any way? (And if someone thinks it would still conflict with the Bible, what scriptures can be cited to demonstrate this? And if someone cites "Genesis 1:1", how does that conflict with the Big Bang Theory?)

The answer is a little bit complicated. First, most young Earth institutes have set up their own cosmologies which utilize a very literal understanding of the Book of Genesis and which are in direct competition with the idea of the Big Bang. This is largely based on the fact that a literal reading of Genesis would appear to suggest that the sun is newer than the Earth, as are the stars.

At the same time, I have viewed one Bible commentary from the 19th century coming from a young Earth creationist which suggested that, at least at the time, there were some who believed in both a young Earth and the idea that the sun predated the Earth. From this commentary's view, the sun was simply allowed to shine onto its surface through a diffuse cloud which dissipated as the days of creation went on (a view now more commonly associated with the Old Earth variant of creationism).

As a result, I would say that general support of something similar to the Big Bang would not be found among young Earth creationists, but would be considered possible by some of them.

And are most creationists aware that it was a Bible-believing Christian clergyman physicist who first proposed the Big Bang Theory? And do they realize that at the time many considered this a scientific argument for a BEGINNING and therefore a BEGINNER? (It just seems odd that any Christian would hate a Big Bang theory which actually helped defeat the previous theory of an eternal universe.)

I'm always cautious about using the argument that the Big Bang proves the idea that the Universe was created for a very important reason. Namely, while the Big Bang was the beginning of our Universe, it's entirely possible that physical existence preceded it. I think that there are other, strong arguments for why physical existence was created rather than a self existent and eternal thing, but I don't generally use the Big Bang in arguments of this sort.

NailsII · #8 3rd June 2012, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

What I mean is: SOME knowledgeable evolutionists don't like the Big Bang. Most evolutionists don't care about it, but take it for granted (it is not evolution, but it is essential to evolution). But no evolutionist has any better idea other than what the Big Bang said.

Well, i have very little idea about other 'evolutionists' but I have no empathy towards the big bang, so I neither like it nor dislike it.
To be honest, liking it would have no bearing - it is accepted as the best explanation for the beginning of our universe. As I am not a physicist, I have only a basic knowledge of it.

And yes, the universe being here is a major point for evolution, as no univerese would suggest no evolution.

Just to clarify, are you thinking of biological evolution, stellar evolution (including the changes observed in other planetary systems and galaxies) or just lumping them all together in the term 'evolutionists' as if they are some kind of out-group that you do not wish to identify yourself with?

juvenissun · #9 3rd June 2012, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by NailsII

Well, i have very little idea about other 'evolutionists' but I have no empathy towards the big bang, so I neither like it nor dislike it.
To be honest, liking it would have no bearing - it is accepted as the best explanation for the beginning of our universe. As I am not a physicist, I have only a basic knowledge of it.

And yes, the universe being here is a major point for evolution, as no univerese would suggest no evolution.

Just to clarify, are you thinking of biological evolution, stellar evolution (including the changes observed in other planetary systems and galaxies) or just lumping them all together in the term 'evolutionists' as if they are some kind of out-group that you do not wish to identify yourself with?

See, even you are not sure about the meaning of evolution when other person mentioned it. Do you still deny that evolution does not have a good definition? If the one you know is good, then why would you still need people to clarify anything?

Yes, you do not need to like or dislike the Big Bang, as long as you have the consequence of the bang. Just like you do not have to worry about where did you come from and where would you go, as long as you are alive on the earth.