The Big Bang Theory

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Bible is not a scientific book, its written from the perspective of ancient tribal men. I do not derive the cosmology from their ideas.

But they were inspired regarding the spiritual message behind all of it - there is God creating the world and keeping it working. Everything has a spiritual beginning and will have also a spiritual ending.

Moses was not a tribal man. He was the adopted son of Pharoah's daughter. He was brought up and educated as an Egyptian, who were the most intelligent and knowledgeable people in the world at that time. Much of their knowledge was destroyed and so lost to the world for thousands of years. Therefore, he was one of the most highly educated men of his time. He also walked with God as a man walked with his friend, and conversed with God face to face. Of all men from then until Jesus, no man had such a close and intimate relationship with God, other than Adam before the Fall. During the 40 years in the wilderness before they got to Canaan, Moses spent much of his time in the presence of God, and God Himself gave him the revelation of the first five books of the Bible. Jesus made it quite clear that in order to be right with God, a person has to believe "Moses and the Prophets", well, that is the bulk of the Old Testament. He said if anyone did not believe that "Moses and the Prophets" were entirely true, they couldn't avoid hell. That's what He showed in the story of what Abraham said to the rich man in hell.

So, if anyone wants to discount the Bible and say it is just an ancient document written by some tribal guy in a loin cloth and sandals, so be it. Their choice. As for me, I believe that every word of the Bible is absolutely true and can totally be depended on for the way to salvation and eternal life. Any other way leads down the slippery path to a very uncertain eternal future,

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Earth is the only planet in the solar system that contains water.

Uh there is plenty of water out there. There are good indications there are even liquid water around.

Extraterrestrial liquid water - Wikipedia

As it orbits the earth, the same face of the moon is pointed at the earth to ensure that the reflected sunlight always shines somewhere on the earth's surface. That looks like deliberate design and placement to me.

You do realize that even if the moon was revolving we would still get the same amount of reflected sunlight because moon is a sphere and the surface area stays the same even if the sphere turns?

Perhaps it would be better to brush up that atheist science a bit more or just keep the topics on faith based issues that can not be immediately be shown to be totally inaccurate.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

As for me, I believe that every word of the Bible is absolutely true and can totally be depended on for the way to salvation and eternal life. Any other way leads down the slippery path to a very uncertain eternal future,

So how do you explain ?

Biblical scientific errors - RationalWiki

Really curious about it. Just not think about it ?

 

[trophy33]

Moses was not a tribal man. He was the adopted son of Pharoah's daughter. He was brought up and educated as an Egyptian, who were the most intelligent and knowledgeable people in the world at that time.

"At that time" is an important fact. Egyptians knew less than an average child in an elementary school today.

As for me, I believe that every word of the Bible is absolutely true

Which makes you to say that Egyptian and other ancient education was absolutely true, which is absurd.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Egyptians knew less than an average child in an elementary school today.

Well I have talked with plenty of people who would fit right in...

 

[Unnamed Guy]

Let's think this through:
"Big Bang" is implied by
"Receding Galaxies", which are implied by
"Doppler Effect", which is caused by
"Motion Away From Us", which is assumed from
"Red Shifted Light"

So we have this remarkable train of logic all based on a single phenomenon and an assumption. If that assumption is wrong then most of what we think we know about the universe ain't so. Well, Doppler effect is not the only cause of red shift.

A big part of science is conjecture, which means making up "What if" scenarios. Often those scenarios get discussed a lot for a long time, and people begin to assume they are true just because they keep hearing them. The big bang is one such scenario. The big bang exists only in somebody's imagination. It was needed to explain implications of the expanding universe conjecture, which was needed to explain the receding galaxy conjecture, which was based on the observed red shift in light from galaxies and the assumption that the red shift is caused by the Doppler effect. If that assumption is wrong then the entire collection of conjectures is without support. There are other possible causes of red shift. So there you are: guesses offered in lieu of actual science.

Science is supposed to be based on observations, tests, and proofs. There is a strong tendency to accept conjectures, math models, and consensus of opinions instead. You need to be careful about accepting things that have not actually been observed.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Its called a theory for a reason

I do not believe in the big bang, I believe what our Bible says 100 percent, God created our universe.

 

[SinoBen]

Job 26:7 says that God hung the earth in empty space and stretched out the heavens. So the earth didn't somehow detach itself from the sun as a fiery ball. God formed it and hung it where He wanted it, exactly the right distance from the sun, and in its proper place in the solar system.

Well, we need to be careful here. I know you already recognise that the Bible is not a science book, yet I disagree with some here that say that it isn't scientifically accurate. Because I believe it is, depending on how much you are prepared to accept some pre-conditions such as... what the original audience of the bible would have known (without screwing up how a 21st Century person might read it) and having limited vocabulary (let alone scientific terms).

So in the above passage... I think "hung the earth in empty space" for me is a very good description for pre-scientific folks without even having the ability to observe the earth from the moon or send satellites into space to look back on the earth. Very insightful in my opinion. Also that other verse where it says God "stretches out the heavens" is very good description because recent scientific findings have confirmed that the universe is expanding rapidly. I should add here that that was courtesy of the Big Bang.

Earth is the only planet in the solar system that contains water.

No, I don't know where you got that from but that is not what is observed. Even NASA just said that they are planning to make a base on the moon to stay long term there because they believe there is water they can use. But there are signatures for water elsewhere in our solar system. So far 23 places. The issue is the atmosphere and gravity, low or no gravity means atmosphere and water is lost to space, but if very cold then there is a chance that H2O is in solid form.

Oscarr, I recommend you watch this video to get an idea of how the elements are formed. It will also give you better idea why it would have taken all these 13.8 Billion years for this material universe and Earth to be ready for God's special creation... man.

By the way... forget about abiogenesis, and those experiments somebody mentioned here, those researchers are still scratching their heads. This webpage might be good for a quick read. Primordial soup - forget about that too, there is no evidence for such a thing in the fossil records.

 

[trophy33]

Its called a theory for a reason

"Theory" in science means that its proven, tested and predicts valid outcomes, it is accepted. Its more complex than simple laws (which are mostly one sentence or so).

Its not the same thing as "theory" in a common language. In science, "hypothesis" would be the equivalent of such use.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

I believe what our Bible says 100 percent,

Also that you think with your kidneys, that Earth is flat, that pí=3 and similar?

God created our universe.

Which is compatible with the Big Bang Theory. It only says how.

 

[Danielwright2311]

"Theory" in science means that its proven, tested and predicts valid outcomes, it is accepted. Its more complex than simple laws (which are mostly one sentence or so).

Its not the same thing as "theory" in a common language. In science, "hypothesis" would be the equivalent of such use.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia


Also that you think with your kidneys, that Earth is flat, that pí=3 and similar?

Which is compatible with the Big Bang Theory. It only says how.

Thats garbage, how old do you think I am?

Its a Theory because it is just so, nothing else, nothing tested or proven in any science.

 

[MartyF]

The Big Bang is educated scientific speculation. The Big Bang fails in most of its predictions, fails to explain much of the currently observed phenomena, and just plain sucks as a scientific theory.

This is the problem with most speculation theories like evolution. You can speculate about what happened in the past all you want. But doing so is not science, it's history. Science is something I can repeat and show or at the very least predict the end from the beginning.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

I had a few thoughts about the Big Bang theory. How did it happen. Did it happen spontaneously all of a sudden, or did someone or something light the fuse?

What was there before the Big Bang? The First Law to Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So it must have taken a humongous amount of energy to cause it. Where did it come from?


The most prominent and highly qualified scientists say that life has to come from life; that something that does not have life cannot produce life. This is a scientific law.

Therefore, if the Big Bang was a great fiery burst of energy creating mega temperatures that threw white hot material in all directions, wouldn't you think that everything would be sterile and totally devoid of life because of the great heat. We know that sterilizing medical implements kills all bacterial and makes them totally sterile. So, where did the life come from that produced life in the Primeval slime? A bolt of lightning couldn't have caused it because it is not life.

Also, science has proved that the universe is winding down like a clock. One day in the future the sun and stars would burn out. So, if the Big Bang happened a squillion billion years ago, or the universe has always been here, then would the sun and stars all be burned out by now?

It will be interesting if not done already, for scientists to calculate the rate at which the fuel of the sun is being burned up, and to calculate how long it will take for all the fuel in the sun to be used up and the sun will turn into a supernova. If, for instance, as the fuel in the sun burns up, it would get cooler, and just one degree cooler could causes many problems in the world. So, if it takes so many million years for the sun burns out, or that the sun cools down so that all life on earth becomes extinct, then it might be possible to calculate back to when the sun might have been one or two degrees hotter than it is now, causing life on earth not to survive. It would be interesting to find out whether it is millions or just thousands of years.


Your comments will be viewed with interest.

There was a Universal "ocean" and God's Spirit hovered over the entire waters and said "Let there be Light" and BANG..... All the Energy in the Universe EXPLODED as light upon the water. This split the water molecules into superheated Hydrogen Gas (H2) and Oxygen. This happened all over the Universe at the same time. When the gases cooled, they collected into stars. Both correct secular science and Biblical creation accounts describe the same event.

 

[Daniel C]

That is a big if, which is why current understanding is Abiogenesis - Wikipedia as mentioned above

Note that confirming Abiogenesis does not refute existence of God.

The theory of Abiogenesis has not been proven to be true and in practice is technically impossible.

In order to create life you need DNA, to get DNA you need the protein and the code or matter and the information. Without either one you have no DNA, so you have no life.

So this begs the question how did life on earth start to create the DNA if life needs DNA to begin?

Answer: it cannot and needs a creator from outside this system.

Abiogenesis is a false theory championed mainly by atheists and if I remember correctly they believe life came from rocks.

 

[gideon123]

I am a scientist. I agree with you that the Big Bang is surely a powerful sign of the majesty of God. I watched with fascination as Stephen Hawking tried to understand how it happened. But I do not believe that physics today is smart enough to understand the Big Bang.

There are good books about stars and cosmology. I encourage you to read them. They exist at all different levels, I . am sure you can find a book rhat will help you. The early generation of stars did burn out, just as you say. It happened. Our Sun was formed from the dust that was left from the early stars. How do we know this? Because our Earth contains natural elrments numbers 1-92, from hydrogen to uranium. Where did they all come from? Stars burn hydtogen mostly (fusion), but some work with heavier elements. The early stars produced all of the dust, with all of the elements you see now. So in fact the process of birth and death of stars is ongoing.

Yes, entropy in the Universe is increasing. It is spreading out. And that is very important.

We are only in the early process of understanding how life devrloped. But life must have originated from inert matter, things not living. We do not know how yet, or where it started. All these things are the handiwork of the Great Creator.

Blessings!

 

[FireDragon76]

The theory of Abiogenesis has not been proven to be true and in practice is technically impossible.

In order to create life you need DNA, to get DNA you need the protein and the code or matter and the information. Without either one you have no DNA, so you have no life.

So this begs the question how did life on earth start to create the DNA if life needs DNA to begin?

Answer: it cannot and needs a creator from outside this system.

Abiogenesis is a false theory championed mainly by atheists and if I remember correctly they believe life came from rocks.

All DNA is are chains of amino acids. We can even modify them in laboratories now. There's nothing magical about DNA.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

 

[Daniel C]

All DNA is are chains of amino acids. We can even modify them in laboratories now. There's nothing magical about DNA.

How did DNA come into existence?

That is the question and one scientists can't answer.

 

[FireDragon76]

How did DNA come into existence?

That is the question and one scientists can't answer.

Not true.

DNA could have existed long before life itself

 

[Daniel C]

Not true.

DNA could have existed long before life itself

Yes it is true and your science based article confirms my statement.

Here's the the opening paragraph from the article:

"THE latest twist in the origin-of-life tale is double helical. Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth. If they succeed, their work would suggest that DNA could have predated the birth of life."

The red highlight is my add and it shows where they're at this stage with their theory: unproven.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I had a few thoughts about the Big Bang theory. How did it happen. Did it happen spontaneously all of a sudden, or did someone or something light the fuse?

What was there before the Big Bang? The First Law to Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So it must have taken a humongous amount of energy to cause it. Where did it come from?


The most prominent and highly qualified scientists say that life has to come from life; that something that does not have life cannot produce life. This is a scientific law.

Therefore, if the Big Bang was a great fiery burst of energy creating mega temperatures that threw white hot material in all directions, wouldn't you think that everything would be sterile and totally devoid of life because of the great heat. We know that sterilizing medical implements kills all bacterial and makes them totally sterile. So, where did the life come from that produced life in the Primeval slime? A bolt of lightning couldn't have caused it because it is not life.

Also, science has proved that the universe is winding down like a clock. One day in the future the sun and stars would burn out. So, if the Big Bang happened a squillion billion years ago, or the universe has always been here, then would the sun and stars all be burned out by now?

It will be interesting if not done already, for scientists to calculate the rate at which the fuel of the sun is being burned up, and to calculate how long it will take for all the fuel in the sun to be used up and the sun will turn into a supernova. If, for instance, as the fuel in the sun burns up, it would get cooler, and just one degree cooler could causes many problems in the world. So, if it takes so many million years for the sun burns out, or that the sun cools down so that all life on earth becomes extinct, then it might be possible to calculate back to when the sun might have been one or two degrees hotter than it is now, causing life on earth not to survive. It would be interesting to find out whether it is millions or just thousands of years.


Your comments will be viewed with interest.

The Big Bang theory says there was Nothing and then there was Something.

That's what I see in Genesis 1.

And as if you have not noticed, God refuses to be quantified by the laboratory process.