The Big Bang Theory

Status
Not open for further replies.

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
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.
If that happened, any life in the universe would have been immediately extinguished through the immense heat. Then the universe would have been totally sterile. No life, and Biogenesis states that life has to come from life. So, because there was no life in the universe and on this world, then life on earth had to come from something or someone already living.

So Job was wrong in his description of how he said God hung the stars, and the earth on nothing?
 
Upvote 0

usexpat97

kewlness
Aug 1, 2012
3,308
1,618
Ecuador
✟76,839.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Most of our contemporary scientists are atheists.

I don't know about that, from being around them all day. I would say most are agnostic. The reasons being that we generally leave God out of the workplace, and also that religion is about belief in things which experimentation can neither prove nor disprove.

But I will say, the more you know about the science, the more obvious it is it was engineered. Just take the Boltzman constant: change that just 2%, and life never occurs.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Does no one on this forum believe in a CREATOR??
God created the man Adam. Adam may have appeared to the human eye as being around thirty years old when in fact he was but only seconds old. Man is no where as smart as many believe he is.
Go contemplate the implications that the duality nature of quantum mechanics have, i.e., the double slit test....
In Him
Ps, I only read the first few post and got peeved, sorry.
I certainly do, and I believe that the Bible, although not a comprehensive scientific or historical text book, it is totally accurate in everything that is written in it. It is the way God communicates with man to show him where he came from and why he is here.

I started the way I did to promote discussion from several points of view, rather than lay my cards on the table and the thread devolving into a slanging match about whether God did or did not create the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel C

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2018
1,147
426
England
✟23,768.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Random unfolding yes, but this does not address the question of whether a Big Bang and a Creator are by necessity mutually exclusive. Certainly they are not. That leaves the remaining question of whether Big Bang can jibe with the Genesis account. I think yes. But just because it can jibe does not necessarily mean that is actually what happened.


The big bang is a theory atheists put together. As nonbelievers they need an alternative to intelligent design and ultimately a creator, so their hypothesis says everything created itself. The universe created itself (big bang) and life on earth created itself (abiogenesis), both proven false using their own methodology: empirical evidence.

I think the reason these false ideas have gained so much traction over the past few decades is NOT evidence but a decline in western culture and the weakening of the church. The church not strong enough to win the hearts and minds of people,so the door has been left wide open for the faith to be undermined by anti God ideas like this.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
My studies into this are limited. However, this is what I've come away with recently.

All the mass of the entire universe was once condensed into a pin point sized "singularity" that was smaller the tip of a needle. Then at some point... BOOM. That was approximately 14 Billion years ago.

The Big Bang launched an expansion of matter and energy that has essentially formed the universe as we know it. Scientists have been perplexed about this because for decades the amount of known matter throughout the Universe in relation to the wide open space created has not been equal to what would be necessary to facilitate the Big Bang. So, it has appeared that nearly 80% or more of the matter produced in the Big Bang was missing. However, with strides in the field of physics relating to dark matter and unified field theories leading to string theory and others has caused scientists to realize that open space is anything but empty. What appears to be empty space is actually vast expanses filled with dark matter and energy. Solid matter is in the minority in the Universe.

String theory is freaky. Due to what they believe is a unified field, what effects one particle in particular can effect another particle on the other side of the Universe instantaneously, as though there is no space between them at all.

Quantum physics, with the Double Slit Experiment, has demonstrated that particles are not "material" in nature, but rather, they are energy that is expressed in various densities relating to the vibration they produce. So, what they have always thought was "solid matter" is actually just energy at higher density than let's say less dense energy, like light. Think of the Matrix. When electrons are fired through double slits in a wall, they behave like waves, not particles. However, when observed, they behave like particles. This means that every single electron is an expression of energy that is reduced to potentialities that manifest in relation to being observed (hence, expectation). Freaky, is it not? LOL

As for life. Yes, it was assumed that life cannot come from non-living matter. However, our entire physical bodies are composed of complex combinations of natural elements found on our planet. Elements that are also scattered throughout the Solar System and the known Universe. We are made of the same stuff everything else is made of. The question has always been... but how did these molecules become connected in such a way to bring replicating complexity? They have created simple compounds of what could classify as living matter in laboratories. But it still doesn't answer questions relating to consciousness.

So, scientists began measuring consciousness as found in humans, animals, and plants. Some real interesting things were found in these studies. For example, when a large swarm of birds are flying together, they move in a unison that expresses a singularity of integrated consciousness, yet while not flying in such formations, they exhibit only individual measures of consciousness. In a very real sense, they share conscious awareness when in these formations. Same with various forms of fish in schools. Then they began to find that things previously thought of as not being conscious react on a subatomic scale to stimuli as a conscious thing would. Enter that Double Slit Experiment. If particles are somehow aware that they are being observed, and as a result express potentialities, does that mean that all matter is at some level... conscious???

Some scientists say, "Yes!" They embrace a minority theory at present called Panpsychism. This notion predicts that consciousness itself is an inherent property of the Universe. Not in that the Universe is consciously self-aware and thinking... but in that the basic property of consciousness resides in everything and is expressed in more complex forms... i.e... living things.

All this stuff is super freaky when one digs into it. Science, especially quantum physics, is bordering on the metaphysical.
It is interesting that most of these theories come from atheistic sciences who refuse to consider any divine influence in how the universe was created. If your minister got up and confessed that he is an atheist, would you take any sermon that he preached seriously?

Of course, atheists can preach great Christian sermons. Look at Billy Graham's preaching partner in the late 1940s. He later confessed that he was never a Christian believer!
 
Upvote 0

gideon123

Humble Servant of God
Dec 25, 2011
1,185
583
USA
✟59,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Day 1 of Creation WAS the Big Bang. God created light before he created the stars. All the Universe's energy was in the form of light"

YES exactly!
And this is also what God is telling us in Genesis 1:1. It is correct in Science and correct in Theology.

Therefore, the people who constantly launch diatribes, rage against Science, or promote their own 'Creation Science', are doing a disservice to both Theology and Science.

Its like watching someone go to the Louvre in Paris, cut up the Mona Lisa with a pair of scissors, then glue the pieces to their bathroom wall for decorations.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Mathews

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2015
785
449
39
Indianapolis
✟33,461.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If that happened, any life in the universe would have been immediately extinguished through the immense heat. Then the universe would have been totally sterile. No life, and Biogenesis states that life has to come from life. So, because there was no life in the universe and on this world, then life on earth had to come from something or someone already living.

So Job was wrong in his description of how he said God hung the stars, and the earth on nothing?

No. This happened on days 1 and 2 before the creatures and plants were created. And No. Job was right also. The "vaporized" water God collected into gaseous clouds and formed the stars, and God formed the earth in space after most of the Water was vaporized. The questions you should be asking are "Where did the water come from" and "How did God create dry land out of of nothing but water?" ... The answer is that God created all Energy, explicitly all light. Since He can do that, he can create all Matter as well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,303
76
✟363,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The best current evidence suggests that life came from non-life, that's called abiogenesis.

It's also what God says in Genesis.

Soviets did some experiments decades ago using electricity and chemicals that would have been present in the primordial Earth, and managed to make amino-acids, so the theory isn't without some evidence.

Since then, it's been established that amino acids form in the absence of life. The Murchison meteorite was found to contain a number of amino acids, including some not found in living things.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Mathews

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2015
785
449
39
Indianapolis
✟33,461.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Day 1 of Creation WAS the Big Bang. God created light before he created the stars. All the Universe's energy was in the form of light"

YES exactly!
And this is also what God is telling us in Genesis 1:1. It is correct in Science and correct in Theology.

Therefore, the people who constantly launch diatribes, rage against Science, or promote their own 'Creation Science', are doing a disservice to both Theology and Science.

Its like watching someone go to the Louvre in Paris, cut up the Mona Lisa with a pair of scissors, then glue the pieces to their bathroom wall for decorations.

The only disagreement between Scriptural Creation and the Big Bang Theory is the matter of space and time. But as we know, those are relative :) We don't know how long the first Day was because there was no rotating earth yet to time it. If there is no rotating Earth, what timepiece did God use to call it "the 1st day". It's simply as God named it, because there was simply Light and Darkness (Day and Night, Morning and Evening).

The Big Bang describes a singularity point whereas Scripture describes a Universal-wide ocean and Light going EVERYWHERE from God's Spirit all at once. God is bigger than the Universe. I see no reason why the Big Bang and Scriptural Creation cannot both be accurate simultaneously. Science provides more data, facts, and information ABOUT the creation than the Scriptures do, but it cannot answer WHO and WHY (the CAUSE of Creation). Only God can do that.... and He has.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Another question which I have not previously put clearly, is that, if there was a Big Bang, how could it have happened spontaneously? Do we mean that for eons of time there was nothing but the empty vacuum of space, then suddenly, without warning, there was a big bang and the universe suddenly appeared? Common sense tells me that there had to be a cause for there to be an effect. But scientists are saying, concerning the Big Bang that it was an effect without a cause! How could that be?

When I was young, there was this mighty firework, a loud banger called "The Mighty Cannon". When you lit the fuse, you had to stand well back because it went off with quite an explosion. But that firework stood on the shelf of the shop all year before it was bought, and yet it didn't go off by itself. Someone had to light the fuse. Lighting the fuse was the cause, the great bang was the effect!

And where did all the energy and the matter come from that was scattered because of the Big Bang?

Can these questions really be answered satisfactorily without acknowledging a divine input?
 
Upvote 0

Cement

Active Member
Mar 24, 2018
320
257
37
Austin
✟55,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The big bang is a theory atheists put together. As nonbelievers they need an alternative to intelligent design and ultimately a creator, so their hypothesis says everything created itself. The universe created itself (big bang) and life on earth created itself (abiogenesis), both proven false using their own methodology: empirical evidence.

I think the reason these false ideas have gained so much traction over the past few decades is NOT evidence but a decline in western culture and the weakening of the church. The church not strong enough to win the hearts and minds of people,so the door has been left wide open for the faith to be undermined by anti God ideas like this.

The Big Bang is actually a step forward for religion. Prior to the Big Bang atheistic scientists like Einstein have always figured that the universe had always existed more or less in its present like state. The first person to theorize the Big Bang was a Catholic priest Georges Lamaitre. Einstien tried to prove his theories were incorrect but later stated it was his greatest blunder. Lamaitre theories were proven more or less correct because of Redshift which confirmed that all galaxies are moving apart further from each other. The reason it is significant is that the Big Bang confirms that the universe began from a single action more or less and its only logical next conclusion is that there must have been a prime mover that caused that to occur. There even exists a passage in the Bible which states that God stretched out the heavenly firmament.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel C

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2018
1,147
426
England
✟23,768.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The Big Bang is actually a step forward for religion. Prior to the Big Bang atheistic scientists like Einstein have always figured that the universe had always existed more or less in its present like state. The first person to theorize the Big Bang was a Catholic priest Georges Lamaitre. Einstien tried to prove his theories were incorrect but later stated it was his greatest blunder. Lamaitre theories were proven more or less correct because of Redshift which confirmed that all galaxies are moving apart further from each other. The reason it is significant is that the Big Bang confirms that the universe began from a single action more or less and its only logical next conclusion is that there must have been a prime mover that caused that to occur. There even exists a passage in the Bible which states that God stretched out the heavenly firmament.


Ok, but none of this proves abiogenesis true, which was the original point I making.

I think I've made my point now that angiogenesis is false as no one has given a counter argument against my OP.

That was the goal, not be argumentative.
 
Upvote 0

Bruce Leiter

A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love
Jun 16, 2018
782
551
81
West Michigan
Visit site
✟56,865.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

On this Christian Forum, I take the liberty to answer you from a Christian viewpoint. I like John Calvin's idea taken from Psalm 19 that God reveals his creative power in two ways, through the universe and the Bible. He also says that the Bible is our contacts that enable us to interpret his creation.

As a result, since the Big Bang is a THEORY, not a fact, because no scientists were there to record their observations, I use the contact lenses to look at the universe's beginning according to Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." Therefore, it began with God already present, since he is eternal. Perhaps, he used a big bang to begin the universe. Perhaps not. However, he spoke so that all created reality came into being.

More than likely, God used natural processes to bring about the animal kingdom, according to Genesis 1, "Let the earth bring forth...." But humanity is clearly his special creation in both Genesis 1 and 2.

This is how I respond to your question as a person interested in science but also theologically-trained.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MartyF

Active Member
Apr 13, 2018
172
94
10001
✟17,702.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My studies into this are limited. However, this is what I've come away with recently.

All the mass of the entire universe was once condensed into a pin point sized "singularity" that was smaller the tip of a needle. Then at some point... BOOM. That was approximately 14 Billion years ago.

The Big Bang launched an expansion of matter and energy that has essentially formed the universe as we know it. Scientists have been perplexed about this because for decades the amount of known matter throughout the Universe in relation to the wide open space created has not been equal to what would be necessary to facilitate the Big Bang. So, it has appeared that nearly 80% or more of the matter produced in the Big Bang was missing. However, with strides in the field of physics relating to dark matter and unified field theories leading to string theory and others has caused scientists to realize that open space is anything but empty. What appears to be empty space is actually vast expanses filled with dark matter and energy. Solid matter is in the minority in the Universe.

String theory is freaky. Due to what they believe is a unified field, what effects one particle in particular can effect another particle on the other side of the Universe instantaneously, as though there is no space between them at all.

Quantum physics, with the Double Slit Experiment, has demonstrated that particles are not "material" in nature, but rather, they are energy that is expressed in various densities relating to the vibration they produce. So, what they have always thought was "solid matter" is actually just energy at higher density than let's say less dense energy, like light. Think of the Matrix. When electrons are fired through double slits in a wall, they behave like waves, not particles. However, when observed, they behave like particles. This means that every single electron is an expression of energy that is reduced to potentialities that manifest in relation to being observed (hence, expectation). Freaky, is it not? LOL

As for life. Yes, it was assumed that life cannot come from non-living matter. However, our entire physical bodies are composed of complex combinations of natural elements found on our planet. Elements that are also scattered throughout the Solar System and the known Universe. We are made of the same stuff everything else is made of. The question has always been... but how did these molecules become connected in such a way to bring replicating complexity? They have created simple compounds of what could classify as living matter in laboratories. But it still doesn't answer questions relating to consciousness.

So, scientists began measuring consciousness as found in humans, animals, and plants. Some real interesting things were found in these studies. For example, when a large swarm of birds are flying together, they move in a unison that expresses a singularity of integrated consciousness, yet while not flying in such formations, they exhibit only individual measures of consciousness. In a very real sense, they share conscious awareness when in these formations. Same with various forms of fish in schools. Then they began to find that things previously thought of as not being conscious react on a subatomic scale to stimuli as a conscious thing would. Enter that Double Slit Experiment. If particles are somehow aware that they are being observed, and as a result express potentialities, does that mean that all matter is at some level... conscious???

Some scientists say, "Yes!" They embrace a minority theory at present called Panpsychism. This notion predicts that consciousness itself is an inherent property of the Universe. Not in that the Universe is consciously self-aware and thinking... but in that the basic property of consciousness resides in everything and is expressed in more complex forms... i.e... living things.

All this stuff is super freaky when one digs into it. Science, especially quantum physics, is bordering on the metaphysical.

Quantum mechanics is established science. It works. It is used to design and build things. You’re using it right now.

Bang Bang and Evolution are not even in the same league.
 
Upvote 0

gideon123

Humble Servant of God
Dec 25, 2011
1,185
583
USA
✟59,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Bruce Leiter

Thank you for your Godly response. Now I will give you mine, and you will see that it is also a Godly response.

Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Now the Earth was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the Deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

I make the following substitutions, all of which are equivalent:

The Universe = the heavens and the Earth
The place where we live now = The Earth
The Deep = Existence
Waters = space and time

And the passage says ...

In the beginning God created the Universe. The place where we live now was formless and void, darkness was over Existence, and the Spirit of God was hovering over space and time.

You will see that I have preserved the majesty of God, and the statement of Genesis is fully compatible with what Science says.

Blessings!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SinoBen
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,303
76
✟363,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Do we mean that for eons of time there was nothing but the empty vacuum of space, then suddenly, without warning, there was a big bang and the universe suddenly appeared?

No. Before the Big Bang there was no space.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,303
76
✟363,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think I've made my point now that angiogenesis is false as no one has given a counter argument against my OP.

I've observed the development of new blood vessels in tissues. Did you perhaps mean "abiogenesis" (the emergence of life from non-living matter)?

Since God says that happened, we know that it's a fact.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SinoBen

Active Member
May 23, 2018
249
103
Brisbane
✟21,698.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem with science trying to explain the formation of the universe is that they can only guess at what might, or probably happened. They have no idea of what actually happened, yet they are peddling their theories as fact, and people who don't know any better are accepting it.

Most of our contemporary scientists are atheists. They are refusing to allow any sort of divinity to get a foot in the door. They are trying to peddle theories without considering the God of the Bible at all. It is interesting that when scientific research started with Newton, Galileo, Pasteur, and those of the same era, they were Christian believers who sought to find out more about God's creation.
My attitude to science is different: I embrace it because I'm convinced that what ever it can come up with, what ever new discoveries it finds, it will only increase my awe of God's creative work. The book of nature can only complement and reflect the word of God. It cannot do otherwise.

People who are opposed to God and fail to keep open minds will choose to interpret scientific data to their bias. But we Christians ought not be afraid of what science brings out. I think the problem is that we raise our defences because more often than not the researchers are biased and henceforth interprets data and reports in a biased way especially in the field of Biology (where my background is). However, I heard it said that in the field of Astronomy and Cosmology, there are significant numbers of scientists who believe in God. I think this is because this field is not pre-supposed with the ridiculous theory of Darwinian Evolution like in Biology. Astronomy looks at past events constantly, even looking at the Sun now... we are observing it 8 minutes after the fact.

If the BB is true, it can fit nicely, even accurately, to Scripture. I think another poster here has already introduced you to the idea of "Fine tuning", another good argument for God.

You also know Psalms 19.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.