Gen 1:1 = Big Bang?

[Chalnoth]

Yes, God is capable of creating the Earth by saying 1 word, but why is God not capable of creating a universe that grows old and flexible creatures that adapt to their environment? Why is it that God must have created set and fixed living organisms?

The issue here is that evolution has no direction. It is an intentionless process. To argue that God created evolution is to argue that God didn't care what the outcome would be. But then that's rather contrary to nearly all of Christian theology, which seems to indicate that the universe revolves around humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

The "Big Bang" is the beginning of the entire universe, not the earth. The earth didn't come along until about 9 billion years later. According to genesis heaven and the earth came first, with the stars and sun not showing up until the third day. Big contradiction right there.

-- Nice!

One exception though: the sun, moon and stars came on the fourth day, not the third.

It's nice to see an atheist acknowledge this -- most refreshing.

And according to the Bible, the 'big bang' ends the universe, not starts it.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if God were trying to dumb things down for Moses, wouldn't he have at least told him the correct order of when stuff came about? Earth before light? We KNOW that's not true.

I believe God jumbled the order on purpose to show that Mother Nature had nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

 

[Davian]

I believe God jumbled the order on purpose to show that Mother Nature had nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

Since we're just throwing in opinions, it could be it was just men putting myth to paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since we're just throwing in opinions, it could be it was just men putting myth to paper.

Jesus would not have ratified a myth.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[Davian]

Since we're just throwing in opinions, it could be it was just men putting myth to paper.

Jesus would not have ratified a myth.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Using the bible to show the veracity of the bible. How... circular.

 

[Jazer]

[/COLOR]The issue here is that evolution has no direction.

Actually evolution has to have a direction because there are a limited number of elements or basic building blocks and there are only so many different ways you can fit them together. That is why a popular belief is if you started all over from the beginning you would end up with pretty much the same results. Others believe just the opposite that if you started all over again you would get totally different results. I would image you fall into that group. Does that make you more or less of a evolutionists compared to the person who believes in evolution but believes in the opposite theory from what you believe?

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually evolution has to have a direction because there are a limited number of elements or basic building blocks and there are only so many different ways you can fit them together. That is why a popular belief is if you started all over from the beginning you would end up with pretty much the same results. Others believe just the opposite that if you started all over again you would get totally different results. I would image you fall into that group. Does that make you more or less of a evolutionists compared to the person who believes in evolution but believes in the opposite theory from what you believe?

If you get into the details, yes, it is true that the constraint of requiring survival means that there are a finite (but typically large) number of possible changes to organisms. But the point in saying that evolution has no direction is that no particular one of those possible changes is always preferred.

In actual practice, as has been demonstrated in experiment, previous evolutionary history does place constraints on possible evolution in the future, but overwhelmingly the pattern is divergence instead of progression in any particular direction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Using the bible to show the veracity of the bible. How... circular.

You mean using Mark to show the veracity of Genesis?

Two writings, written over 4000 years apart, and that's 'circular logic'?

Let's see two science books do that.

 

[Chalnoth]

You mean using Mark to show the veracity of Genesis?

Two writings, written over 4000 years apart, and that's 'circular logic'?

Let's see two science books do that.

Um, they were written closer to 500-800 years apart. And there are a number of science texts from about 500BCE or so that have been shown to be correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

Um, they were written closer to 500-800 years apart. And there are a number of science texts from about 500BCE or so that have been shown to be correct.

Not if Adam wrote Genesis 1-2.

QV please: Tablet Theory

 

[Matariki]

@ the OP

You might be interested at looking into old earth creation and theistic evolution. The big bang doesn't conflict with scripture, if anything it shows that the universe had a beginning. I believe it was when God called the light into existence, that was the big bang.

Genesis 1:3 - And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

The bible doesn't state that the earth was made before light. Instead it says that it was formless and empty. Stating that its existence was planned but not yet created.

The planets came into existence within the same time period as the earth, though the bible puts more emphasis on the creation process of the earth because its our place of residence.

Lastly its important to note that the Genesis account should be read metaphorically and allegorically, and taken into consideration that it was Moses that received this information, who was not a scientist or a philosopher of any sort (not by today's definition).

 

[Davian]

Jesus would not have ratified a myth.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Using the bible to show the veracity of the bible. How... circular.

You mean using Mark to show the veracity of Genesis?

Two writings, written over 4000 years apart, and that's 'circular logic'?

Let's see two science books do that.

Can you demonstrate that the second author was not aware of the writings of the first?

If Jesus was a myth, then you are using myth to support myth. Perhaps 'circular' should be replaced with 'absurd'.

Can you demonstrate that Jesus - as described in the bible - was not myth?

 

[pgp_protector]

OP. Last Activity: 26th October 2009 10:34 PM
Last Post (Before AV Asked for the Zombie Picture) 28th January 2008, 10:20 AM

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you demonstrate that the second author was not aware of the writings of the first?

I hope not.

God required His people to be well-versed in the Scriptures.

Can you demonstrate that Jesus - as described in the bible - was not myth?

I doubt I could to someone with a mindset like I think you have; but for those who really want to know, I recommend the argument:

Jesus: Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Legend?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I'm assuming that this has been touched on before, so sorry for the repeat.

I'ma new Christian and have started from the beginning, Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

I was thinking that perhaps the 'Big Bang' theory isn't too far from the truth. This passage doesn't say how God created the earth, just that he did. Could the big bang simply be God creating the earth?

What do you think?

I think it's a pretty safe pace to setup your belief system. If "God created heavens and earth" is interpreted as an extraordinary terse summary of the cosmological processes that unfolded over 14 billion years or so to create our planet and the universe around it.

You have the same right to your particular interpretation as does any other religious person on the planet. People like me will be happy to just leave the gap in our knowledge empty for now.

Besides, following your line of interpretation will end up landing you on the side of theistic evolution. I'm perfectly happy to have one more of those around here

Welcome to the forums.

 

[Skaloop]

I hope not.

God required His people to be well-versed in the Scriptures.

I doubt I could to someone with a mindset like I think you have; but for those who really want to know, I recommend the argument:

Jesus: Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Legend?

Ah, an always applicable agrumentum ad alliteratum.

(Yes, I am aware of the irony of that itself being an alliteration.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, an always applicable agrumentum ad alliteratum.

(Yes, I am aware of the irony of that itself being an alliteration.)

If you made a point with this, I missed it.

Would you dumb it down please, so I can understand it?

Thank you.

 

[sandwiches]

I doubt I could to someone with a mindset like I think you have; but for those who really want to know, I recommend the argument:

Jesus: Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Legend?

What mindset would that be?

 

[AV1611VET]

What mindset would that be?

I knew that question was coming, and I made up my mind that I wasn't going to answer it.

You guys just want to vent and argue.

QV post 34.