Big Bang Theory Closer to Genesis than Isaac Newton’s Cosmos

[Dale]

Isaac Newton viewed the physical universe as extending to infinity in all directions. He also assumed that it had no beginning in time and saw no physical reason that it would ever come to an end. He believed that there were an infinite number of stars hanging in space. Newton’s views were normal for the scientific community at the time. He started from the belief that God is eternal, that God has always existed and lives forever and that God has no boundaries, no limits. It seemed reasonable that a God with no limits in space or time would create a universe with no limits in space or time.

Sometime around the beginning of the 20th century, most astronomers and physicists started believing that the physical universe is finite. The number of stars and the amount of matter was assumed to be finite, or the infinite universe was regarded as unproven and unprovable. With the advent of the Big Bang theory the notion that the universe had a beginning in time gained a strong following.

While Isaac Newton started from his belief that the Christian God would create an infinite universe, this doesn’t fit with the creation story, or stories, in Genesis. In Genesis, everything has a beginning. God creates the heavens and the earth. God said “Let there be light.” Some apparently thought that Genesis could be explained as applying only to God’s creation of our earth, our sun and our solar system.

Genesis does indicate that there is a beginning. At some point, God decided to create. In some ways this does fit with the Big Bang theory. All matter expanded from a point billions of years ago. Science is unable to say whether matter existed before the instant in time when the expansion started.

In Genesis, the statement that God created is followed by “Let there be light.” Interestingly enough, cosmologists also say that there was a specific time when the universe became transparent, allowing light to travel. There is the initial explosion, the moment of creation, and a few million years later, when neutral atoms formed, the universe became transparent to light.

Creationists have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to attacking modern cosmology, including the Big Bang theory. Maybe they should try to find common ground instead of attacking unfamiliar ideas.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

There is no "black and white" only when you compare scientific theories with the biblical truth. The Big Bang theory in its full glory contradicts the Bible and has to be rejected. But that does not mean that every detail of this theory is wrong.

When we look at scientific theories we have to determine very carefully which parts of the theory are based on
1) actual observable facts
2) assumptions that are necessary to develop a theory about the unobservable past (for example the assumption that every physical process has been exactly the same throughout all times or, like in this case, that the universe has always been expanding at the current rate)
3) assumptions that are made to fix flaws in the developed theory which are not based on any evidence (in this case for example: the Big Bang is literally impossible if there is not 5 times as much matter in our universe as we can observe. That's why scientists assume "dark matter". Without dark matter, which can't be seen, measured or observed in any way, the universe could not exist according to the Big Bang theory)

Scientific theories are mostly based on the things scientists can measure. Those observations get interpreted in a certain way while the interpretation depends on the scientist's world-view. When scientists try to figure out something about the past (the time when nobody watched, when there was no measuring instruments) they have to make assumptions - both atheistical scientists and creationists. These assumptions depend on their world-view and cannot be scientifically proven.

Millions of years for example are an assumption. The Bible tells us that God created the universe about 6200 years ago, and all observable scientific facts can be interpreted in a way that they fit the biblical account. Some scientific facts can also be interpreted in a different way that suggests millions and billions of years, and there is no way to figure out the absolute truth by pure science only.

It's our choice to either believe God Himself (who was actually there when the earth was created) or to believe other humans who think they're much smarter. Both interpretations are possible based on the facts, it's only a matter of belief which way you choose.

 

[Dale]

There is no "black and white" only when you compare scientific theories with the biblical truth. The Big Bang theory in its full glory contradicts the Bible and has to be rejected. But that does not mean that every detail of this theory is wrong.

When we look at scientific theories we have to determine very carefully which parts of the theory are based on
1) actual observable facts
2) assumptions that are necessary to develop a theory about the unobservable past (for example the assumption that every physical process has been exactly the same throughout all times or, like in this case, that the universe has always been expanding at the current rate)
3) assumptions that are made to fix flaws in the developed theory which are not based on any evidence (in this case for example: the Big Bang is literally impossible if there is not 5 times as much matter in our universe as we can observe. That's why scientists assume "dark matter". Without dark matter, which can't be seen, measured or observed in any way, the universe could not exist according to the Big Bang theory)

Scientific theories are mostly based on the things scientists can measure. Those observations get interpreted in a certain way while the interpretation depends on the scientist's world-view. When scientists try to figure out something about the past (the time when nobody watched, when there was no measuring instruments) they have to make assumptions - both atheistical scientists and creationists. These assumptions depend on their world-view and cannot be scientifically proven.

Millions of years for example are an assumption. The Bible tells us that God created the universe about 6200 years ago, and all observable scientific facts can be interpreted in a way that they fit the biblical account. Some scientific facts can also be interpreted in a different way that suggests millions and billions of years, and there is no way to figure out the absolute truth by pure science only.

It's our choice to either believe God Himself (who was actually there when the earth was created) or to believe other humans who think they're much smarter. Both interpretations are possible based on the facts, it's only a matter of belief which way you choose.

Rubenstein: "Millions of years for example are an assumption. The Bible tells us that God created the universe about 6200 years ago ..."


Hello, since I haven't talked to you before.

The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is or how old the universe is.

"Millions of years" aren't exactly an assumption. They are an extrapolation from known facts.

For instance, geologists tell us that the Appalachians were once higher than the Himalayas are today. It took hundreds of millions of years for wind and rain to wear them down.

Most of the universe is more than 6200 light years away, so we wouldn't be able to see it if the universe was created only 6200 years ago. People who live in the southern hemisphere can see the Magellanic Clouds, for instance, which are outside the Milky Way, but nearby. They are about 120,000 light years away. We wouldn't be able to see them if the earth was only 10,000 years old.

 

[Dale]

There is no "black and white" only when you compare scientific theories with the biblical truth. The Big Bang theory in its full glory contradicts the Bible and has to be rejected. But that does not mean that every detail of this theory is wrong.

When we look at scientific theories we have to determine very carefully which parts of the theory are based on
1) actual observable facts
2) assumptions that are necessary to develop a theory about the unobservable past (for example the assumption that every physical process has been exactly the same throughout all times or, like in this case, that the universe has always been expanding at the current rate)
3) assumptions that are made to fix flaws in the developed theory which are not based on any evidence (in this case for example: the Big Bang is literally impossible if there is not 5 times as much matter in our universe as we can observe. That's why scientists assume "dark matter". Without dark matter, which can't be seen, measured or observed in any way, the universe could not exist according to the Big Bang theory)

Scientific theories are mostly based on the things scientists can measure. Those observations get interpreted in a certain way while the interpretation depends on the scientist's world-view. When scientists try to figure out something about the past (the time when nobody watched, when there was no measuring instruments) they have to make assumptions - both atheistical scientists and creationists. These assumptions depend on their world-view and cannot be scientifically proven.

Millions of years for example are an assumption. The Bible tells us that God created the universe about 6200 years ago, and all observable scientific facts can be interpreted in a way that they fit the biblical account. Some scientific facts can also be interpreted in a different way that suggests millions and billions of years, and there is no way to figure out the absolute truth by pure science only.

It's our choice to either believe God Himself (who was actually there when the earth was created) or to believe other humans who think they're much smarter. Both interpretations are possible based on the facts, it's only a matter of belief which way you choose.

Rubenstein: "... all observable scientific facts can be interpreted in a way that they fit the biblical account."





Here is an example of why I think otherwise. What follows is an excerpt from my recent thread, No Stone Age in Genesis, post #27.



Take the stone tools at Kanjera, South Kenya.

"The site of this fossils find is a hillside in southern Kenya where, in less than an acre,
more than 3700 fossil bones and more than 2000 stone artifacts have been recovered in three distinct archaeological bearing layers spanning three vertical meters."

I'm quoting Joel Duff on a site called the Natural Historian. From another article:

"In just a small portion of the lowest sediment layers surveyed, over 6000 stone artifacts were retrieved including 972 complete stone blades."

There are no settlements here. The hominids who lived there were nomadic hunter gatherers. The site was occupied over several hundred thousand years.

On the age of these artifacts, Duff says: "people have practiced agriculture and herded domesticated animals for thousands of years in this region and thus have had no need for stone tools, especially such crude ones as are found in the deep sediments of these depressions."

Creationists are trying to explain away these stone artifacts.

"Recently, Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis responded ... He questioned the fact that so many artifacts could be produced even over long periods of time and whether many of these shards of stone were even artifacts at all. He went as far as to suggest a global flood 4500 years ago could lead to conditions that shaped many of the rocks that are called Stone Age artifacts."

These stone spear points, and stone knives could not be the result of natural processes or action by water. Experts in stone tools know how to recognize them. The stone tools were made from stone that was carried for several miles, and sometimes for longer distances. They located the best rock to use, then carried rock to where they were staying, possibly beside a pond, which is no longer there. It's not just a question of water knocking the rocks around.



Links
Thousands of Stone Age Artifacts and Fossil Bones: A Story of an Ancient Butcher Shop

Trillions of Stone Artifacts Redux: A South African Test Case of YEC Chronology

 

[The Barbarian]

Creationists have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to attacking modern cosmology, including the Big Bang theory. Maybe they should try to find common ground instead of attacking unfamiliar ideas.

In fact, "big bang" was an atheist's mocking description of the theory (which was proposed by a Christian priest) in order to discredit it. He was offended that it suggested a beginning to the universe.

 

[Dale]

In fact, "big bang" was an atheist's mocking description of the theory (which was proposed by a Christian priest) in order to discredit it. He was offended that it suggested a beginning to the universe.

I hadn't heard that story. Nevertheless, the name "Big Bang" has stuck, for better or for worse.
I did know that the first person on record proposing an initial explosion was the Belgian Jesuit priest Georges Lemaitre. He was simply extrapolating backwards from the Hubble expansion, which had only recently been verified.

When I was young, the Big Bang was certainly not taught in a dogmatic way. I learned simply that the three leading theories for the overall shape, origin and destiny of the universe were:

The Big Bang After the initial explosion, expansion continues forever.
The Big Bounce After the initial explosion, gravity slows expansion and eventually reverses it.
The Steady State Similar to Newton's view.
Through some unknown process, matter is redistributed and the universe continues forever much as we see it.

 

[The Barbarian]

The big bang is not, so far as I know, taught as "dogma" anywhere. The Big Bounce is a modification of the big bang, and the steady state was most markedly advocated by Fred Hoyle, the atheist who found the theistic implications of the big bang unacceptable. It is, of course, possible to accept the big bang without a theistic outlook, but it is much more compatible with theism than is the steady state theory.

 

[Dale]

The big bang is not, so far as I know, taught as "dogma" anywhere. The Big Bounce is a modification of the big bang, and the steady state was most markedly advocated by Fred Hoyle, the atheist who found the theistic implications of the big bang unacceptable. It is, of course, possible to accept the big bang without a theistic outlook, but it is much more compatible with theism than is the steady state theory.

You seem to agree with the point made in the OP. Thanks.

 

[The Barbarian]

You seem to agree with the point made in the OP. Thanks.

Yes. Pretty much my own opinion. Creationist attacks on the big bang theory are more recent than the atheist attacks on it.

 

[Sheila Davis]

Isaac Newton viewed the physical universe as extending to infinity in all directions. He also assumed that it had no beginning in time and saw no physical reason that it would ever come to an end. He believed that there were an infinite number of stars hanging in space. Newton’s views were normal for the scientific community at the time. He started from the belief that God is eternal, that God has always existed and lives forever and that God has no boundaries, no limits. It seemed reasonable that a God with no limits in space or time would create a universe with no limits in space or time.

Sometime around the beginning of the 20th century, most astronomers and physicists started believing that the physical universe is finite. The number of stars and the amount of matter was assumed to be finite, or the infinite universe was regarded as unproven and unprovable. With the advent of the Big Bang theory the notion that the universe had a beginning in time gained a strong following.

While Isaac Newton started from his belief that the Christian God would create an infinite universe, this doesn’t fit with the creation story, or stories, in Genesis. In Genesis, everything has a beginning. God creates the heavens and the earth. God said “Let there be light.” Some apparently thought that Genesis could be explained as applying only to God’s creation of our earth, our sun and our solar system.

Genesis does indicate that there is a beginning. At some point, God decided to create. In some ways this does fit with the Big Bang theory. All matter expanded from a point billions of years ago. Science is unable to say whether matter existed before the instant in time when the expansion started.

In Genesis, the statement that God created is followed by “Let there be light.” Interestingly enough, cosmologists also say that there was a specific time when the universe became transparent, allowing light to travel. There is the initial explosion, the moment of creation, and a few million years later, when neutral atoms formed, the universe became transparent to light.

Creationists have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to attacking modern cosmology, including the Big Bang theory. Maybe they should try to find common ground instead of attacking unfamiliar ideas.

... Some Christians are beginning to see a connection between the big bang and creation. To understand that science can only tell what evidence says happened at the beginning of creation of this universe. As reports say before the singularity of the Big Bang (theory) occurred, nothing was in existence - from that Singularity neutrons, protons, hydrogen, helium, lithium electrons and matter and such was created. According to reports from NASA light was created 13.6 billion years ago

Isaac Newton viewed the physical universe as extending to infinity in all directions. He also assumed that it had no beginning in time and saw no physical reason that it would ever come to an end. He believed that there were an infinite number of stars hanging in space. Newton’s views were normal for the scientific community at the time. He started from the belief that God is eternal, that God has always existed and lives forever and that God has no boundaries, no limits. It seemed reasonable that a God with no limits in space or time would create a universe with no limits in space or time.

Sometime around the beginning of the 20th century, most astronomers and physicists started believing that the physical universe is finite. The number of stars and the amount of matter was assumed to be finite, or the infinite universe was regarded as unproven and unprovable. With the advent of the Big Bang theory the notion that the universe had a beginning in time gained a strong following.

While Isaac Newton started from his belief that the Christian God would create an infinite universe, this doesn’t fit with the creation story, or stories, in Genesis. In Genesis, everything has a beginning. God creates the heavens and the earth. God said “Let there be light.” Some apparently thought that Genesis could be explained as applying only to God’s creation of our earth, our sun and our solar system.

Genesis does indicate that there is a beginning. At some point, God decided to create. In some ways this does fit with the Big Bang theory. All matter expanded from a point billions of years ago. Science is unable to say whether matter existed before the instant in time when the expansion started.

In Genesis, the statement that God created is followed by “Let there be light.” Interestingly enough, cosmologists also say that there was a specific time when the universe became transparent, allowing light to travel. There is the initial explosion, the moment of creation, and a few million years later, when neutral atoms formed, the universe became transparent to light.

Creationists have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to attacking modern cosmology, including the Big Bang theory. Maybe they should try to find common ground instead of attacking unfamiliar ideas.

Some Christians are beginning to see common ground with creation and the Big Bang Theory. Some are beginning to understand science can only explain their evidence of what they feel what happened. Reports say before the big bang, there was nothing, when the singularity occurred, energy burst forth - Neutron, protons, electrons, helium, lithium, hydrogen, and such, plus matter. Nasa.gov says the Big Bang occurred an estimated 13.8 billion years ago - the first light came into existence and estimated 13.6 billion years ago - even though there is a 2 billion year difference between them it is still far too close and cannot be considered a absolute. There are even reports that the Big Bang occurred 13.7 - so there is no absolute timeline. You have made some good points.

 

[Sheila Davis]

11

...

Some Christians are beginning to see common ground with creation and the Big Bang Theory. Some are beginning to understand science can only explain their evidence of what they feel what happened. Reports say before the big bang, there was nothing, when the singularity occurred, energy burst forth - Neutron, protons, electrons, helium, lithium, hydrogen, and such, plus matter. Nasa.gov says the Big Bang occurred an estimated 13.8 billion years ago - the first light came into existence and estimated 13.6 billion years ago - even though there is 200 million year difference between them it is still far too close and cannot be considered a absolute. There are even reports that the Big Bang occurred 13.7 - so there is no absolute timeline. You have made some good points.

 

[Dale]

... Some Christians are beginning to see a connection between the big bang and creation. To understand that science can only tell what evidence says happened at the beginning of creation of this universe. As reports say before the singularity of the Big Bang (theory) occurred, nothing was in existence - from that Singularity neutrons, protons, hydrogen, helium, lithium electrons and matter and such was created. According to reports from NASA light was created 13.6 billion years ago

Some Christians are beginning to see common ground with creation and the Big Bang Theory. Some are beginning to understand science can only explain their evidence of what they feel what happened. Reports say before the big bang, there was nothing, when the singularity occurred, energy burst forth - Neutron, protons, electrons, helium, lithium, hydrogen, and such, plus matter. Nasa.gov says the Big Bang occurred an estimated 13.8 billion years ago - the first light came into existence and estimated 13.6 billion years ago - even though there is a 2 billion year difference between them it is still far too close and cannot be considered a absolute. There are even reports that the Big Bang occurred 13.7 - so there is no absolute timeline. You have made some good points.

Thanks!

 

[Sheila Davis]

[QUOTE="Sheila Davis, post:

Some Christians are beginning to see common ground with creation and the Big Bang Theory. Some are beginning to understand science can only explain their evidence of what they feel what happened. Reports say before the big bang, there was nothing, when the singularity occurred, energy burst forth - Neutron, protons, electrons, helium, lithium, hydrogen, and such, plus matter. Nasa.gov says the Big Bang occurred an estimated 13.8 billion years ago - the first light came into existence and estimated 13.6 billion years ago - even though there is a 2 hundred million year difference between them it is still far too close and cannot be considered a absolute. There are even reports that the Big Bang occurred 13.7 - so there is no absolute timeline. You have made some good points.[/QUOTE]