ATTENTION YECs: Why do you think scripture is incompatible with mainstream science?

[Sinai]

On several threads in another CF forum, I have asked several young earth creationists to identify which portions of the original Hebrew text they believe are not compatible with the big bang theory and to state why they think it is contrary to scripture. Thus far, none of them have done anything other than to make general statements that they think modern mainstream science is hopelessly at odds with the Genesis account of creation.

Since I am not so sure that is really the case, I would like to explore why YECs seem to feel so threatened by scientific findings and evidence. In order to keep the topic more manageable, lets start with the initial creation (we can get to evolution later if you wish), and in order to keep you from feeling as threatened, I am choosing to use this forum, since it is designed for Christians only.

The challenge is quite simple: Please identify which portions of the original Hebrew text you believe are not compatible with the big bang theory and to state why you think it is contrary to scripture. If you have questions about the big bang theory, please address those questions here.

Thank you.

 

[Dayton]

Evolution is not compatible with Scripture, because God's account of Creation must be completely discarded to fit with evolution. The Bible teaches Creation and a young earth, and that's what I believe.

 

[platzapS]

Dayton, why couldn't God's account of Creation be poetry? It seems like poetry, as it would be hard to have a "day" without a sun.

Also, the repetitive patterns of, "He saw this, and it was good. He saw this, and it was good," are a good indication that the description of the Creation was figurative. It "sounds" good.

And if evolution is true, would God give a detailed account of natural selection and the biological factors resulting in the gradual evolution of man? The ancient Hebrews were Bronze-Age herders. The idea that God made everything and that He is in control would probably suffice for the Israelites.

 

[Serapha]

Please identify which portions of the original Hebrew text you believe are not compatible with the big bang theory and to state why you think each passage is contrary to scripture. If you have questions about the big bang theory, please address those questions here.

Thank you.

Your posted statement doesn't make sense, but causes one to make a statement of a passage in the Bible that doesn't concur with the big band theory, and then we are to "state why you think each passage is contrary to scripture"



Do you want to compare the big bang theory to the Bible or the Bible to the big band theory?


May I assume that you want the latter?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


<<See also Ps 121:2, 124:8, 134:3; the Hebrew word is "eres", and in this context means terrestrial planet, and is not to be taken as an accident or to be a creation by some other force. God created the earth.>>



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


<< If the big bang theory were true, then there would be light present already from the molecular activity of the expanding universe, instead God spoke light into existence>>


That should pretty much close the book on the concept that the big bang theory and the Bible go hand-in-hand.


~malaka~

 

[Sinai]

Your posted statement doesn't make sense, but causes one to make a statement of a passage in the Bible that doesn't concur with the big band theory, and then we are to "state why you think each passage is contrary to scripture"

Thank you for catching that typo.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
<<See also Ps 121:2, 124:8, 134:3; the Hebrew word is "eres", and in this context means terrestrial planet, and is not to be taken as an accident or to be a creation by some other force. God created the earth.>>

Although the big bang theory does not speculate as to what (or Who) caused the universe to come into being, it does agree with Genesis 1:1 that there was a definite beginning for our universe, for all matter in the universe, and for time itself.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
<< If the big bang theory were true, then there would be light present already from the molecular activity of the expanding universe, instead God spoke light into existence>>

This is another area of agreement between Genesis and the big bang theory.

According to the big bang theory’s Standard Model of the universe, after the initial big bang and inflation occurred, the universe expanded and temperatures and photon energies fell in proportion with the universe’s expansion. When the temperature fell below 3000 degrees Kelvin, electrons were able to be drawn into stable orbits around the hydrogen and helium nuclei by the electromagnetic charges of these nuclei—and light separated from matter and emerged from the darkness of the universe.

Although it may be argued that “light” existed prior to that point in the form of gamma rays, that is an energy form that is in excess of what would be visible to the eye. But as the thermal energy of the photons fell to 3000 degrees Kelvin (thus allowing electrons to bind in stable orbits around hydrogen and helium nuclei), not only did the photons break free from the matter of the universe, but they became visible as well. Now compare the process described in the BBT Standard Model with the wording of Genesis 1: 3-4.

That should pretty much close the book on the concept that the big bang theory and the Bible go hand-in-hand. ~malaka~

Thank you for pointing out those areas of agreement between modern mainstream science and the ancient scriptures...

 

[Serapha]

The agreement is YOUR interpretation.... the Bible doesn't support what you just said. The Bible tells you that the "big bang" is yet to come.


2Pe 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.

Have a good day, you are looking for an argument..... I hope you find someone to take your bait.



~malaka~

 

[Sinai]

The agreement is YOUR interpretation.... the Bible doesn't support what you just said. The Bible tells you that the "big bang" is yet to come.

Yes, I do think they are in agreement, the Bible does support what I said, and I agree with you that there will be another "big bang" when our Lord returns...

 

[panterapat]

However the world was created- God did it!

If science finds the ultimate truth- science will have found God.

 

[bulldog86]

A few things....

The Big Bang does not explain a beginning. The Big Bang simply explains how the Universe expanded from an extremely compacted state to the state it is today. It does not explain how matter and/or life originated. At this point (to my knowledge), there is NO atheistic theory on the origin of matter. Just a note.

I happen to agree that there is nothing in Scripture that absolutely and unquestionably contradicts the theory of macro-evolution....

 

[Jet Black]

Although it may be argued that “light” existed prior to that point in the form of gamma rays, that is an energy form that is in excess of what would be visible to the eye. But as the thermal energy of the photons fell to 3000 degrees Kelvin (thus allowing electrons to bind in stable orbits around hydrogen and helium nuclei), not only did the photons break free from the matter of the universe, but they became visible as well. Now compare the process described in the BBT Standard Model with the wording of Genesis 1: 3-4.

I just want to address this point from a physics point of view since it is not technically correct (sorry). I feel that given the nature of this thread it might be wirth is, and having presented my point I will run back to the non christian forum.

Light did not exist prior to decoupling in the form of gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is high frequency EM radiation, and is also regarded as the radiation emitted from nuclear interaction, such as fusion and fission. this is only a subtle point, and it doesn't really detract from your argumet though, I just wanted to be more precise. Ignoring the nuclear origins of Gamma radiation though, prior to decoupling, the radiation did not exist mostly as Gamma, as one can see from the temperature at the time. At 3000K, if we have a black body spectrum, the peak of the energy is held in the red, and not gamma, for which the temperature would have been a heck of a lot higher. Furthermore, the black body spectrum is a very broad spectrum (mathematically it is infinitely broad, but there are only a finite number of photons, so it cannot really be) and so there will have been radiation of many many wavelengths, from gama to radio waves.

so all that really happened at decoupling, was that the thermal equilibrium between the matter and radiation fields was lost. It doesn't go against the creation story as such, but explains it in a different way. prior to decoupling, we have thermal equilibrium (everything is the same) and after, we do not (we have two things)

I hope that is a help, and I will head off now. if anyone wants to ask more, feel free to pm me. and apologies for breaking the rules, I am fully aware that I shouldn't post here, and I do so simply to correct physical inaccuracies, and not to present my own world-view.

 

[Sinai]

However the world was created- God did it!

If science finds the ultimate truth- science will have found God.

I tend to agree, but remind you of the old saying that religion tends to focus on the Who and the why, while science is especially concerned with the when and how. Although that is an oversimplification, there is at least some truth there.

Science and the scientific method seeks truth; the Bible says God is truth. In theory, at least, they both should be compatible and complimentary. However, both young earth creationists and athiests seem to think that biblical scriptures are incompatible with modern mainstream science. I would hope that before they totally paint themselves into a corner, at least some YECs will either have examined the scriptures enough to know why they believe as they do, or be willing to work their way through the scriptures now to see if the Bible really is as incompatible with science as they seem to think it is....

 

[Sinai]

When scriptures are open to multiple interpretations, one should probably examine the original language and conduct a thorough research into the area before claiming that the interpretation he or she prefers is the only correct one. Are you ready to do that? If so, we can discuss this in the thread that has been started for that purpose…If you are interested in searching those scriptures together, please identify those scriptures that require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old. Thank you.

for starters....

Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:5
Genesis 1:8
Genesis 1:13
Genesis 1:19
Genesis 1:23
Genesis 1:31
Genesis 2:2
Genesis 2:3

Thank you for responding and for listing “those scriptures that require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old.”

Just explain "In the beginnng, God... and tell me how "in the beginning" was billions of years ago.

Although you did not say in your post why you think Genesis 1:1 requires you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, I’ll mention some of the reasons why I think it is consistent with what scientific evidence tells us.

The first verse is an especially profound statement, since it begins by asserting:
A. There was a beginning (of time, of all matter and of the physical universe);
B. But even at that beginning point God [Hebrew elohim] already existed;
C. God created out of nothing [Hebrew bara]
D. "the heavens and the earth" (English translation). It should be noted that although this is a correct translation, it is equally correct to translate the phrase as "the universe", since "heavens and the earth" is the Hebrew equivalent of the English word "universe."

Current mainstream scientific thought agrees that there was a beginning (of time, of all matter and of the physical universe), and many (if not most) mainstream scientists think that whatever (or Whoever) caused the energy in the “big bang” to inflate and expand was not limited by the natural dimensions of our universe, but they also point out that science is unable to get back to such preexisting point since it would predate all matter and all dimensions (including time) of this universe.

MY God is a supernatural God that spoke this world into being and will speak it into destruction.

So is mine….

Then explain to me why I MUST not accept that God is a supernatural God capable of creating this universe, this world, and everything in it in 6 days.

I’ve never claimed that you MUST not accept that interpretation. Usually it is more likely to be the fundamentalists and YECs who are so dogmatic as to claim that everyone else must agree with their particular interpretation of scripture. I was merely asking you to identify those scriptures that require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, and to state why you think that each scripture requires you to take that position.

And I agree with you that “God is a supernatural God capable of creating this universe, this world, and everything in it in 6 days.” He could have done it in six nanoseconds—or less—if he had chosen to do so. The evidence, however, suggests that he chose to do it over a period of several billion Earth-years (measured looking back toward the creative moment). I want to know why you have chosen to deny the evidence?

 

[Serapha]

I want to know why you have chosen to deny the evidence? [/b]

I take the whole Bible literally unless there is a specific reason to believe that a particular passage can not be taken literally.

I see no "evidences" that sway my thinking and the principle reason is that there really are no "proofs" of man's existence from millions of years ago. Those things in science that you claim to defy the Genesis account... hey, if that's the way God left them... sobeit. But since man entered the picture, where's the proof that more than a few thousand years have passed?

There's none. Is there "proof" of a flood. Yes, there's proof, Sodom and Gomorrah? Yeah, they are searching the Dead Sea for the location. The crossing of the Exodus? Yeah, they think they have finally found the location. The pharoah who was killed in the Exodus? Yeah, they have found him too.

Funny thing, they (the archaeologists) have found nothing to disprove the Bible.


Then, there's the insurmountable amount of people with no faith.


~malaka~

 

[Serapha]

I just want to address this point from a physics point of view since it is not technically correct (sorry). I feel that given the nature of this thread it might be wirth is, and having presented my point I will run back to the non christian forum.

Light did not exist prior to decoupling in the form of gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is high frequency EM radiation, and is also regarded as the radiation emitted from nuclear interaction, such as fusion and fission. this is only a subtle point, and it doesn't really detract from your argumet though, I just wanted to be more precise. Ignoring the nuclear origins of Gamma radiation though, prior to decoupling, the radiation did not exist mostly as Gamma, as one can see from the temperature at the time. At 3000K, if we have a black body spectrum, the peak of the energy is held in the red, and not gamma, for which the temperature would have been a heck of a lot higher. Furthermore, the black body spectrum is a very broad spectrum (mathematically it is infinitely broad, but there are only a finite number of photons, so it cannot really be) and so there will have been radiation of many many wavelengths, from gama to radio waves.

so all that really happened at decoupling, was that the thermal equilibrium between the matter and radiation fields was lost. It doesn't go against the creation story as such, but explains it in a different way. prior to decoupling, we have thermal equilibrium (everything is the same) and after, we do not (we have two things)

I hope that is a help, and I will head off now. if anyone wants to ask more, feel free to pm me. and apologies for breaking the rules, I am fully aware that I shouldn't post here, and I do so simply to correct physical inaccuracies, and not to present my own world-view.

Jetblack... I am going to begin reporting you every time you post. You break the rules intentionally, and you are the primary reason I stopped posting on the "other" forum. This forum is listed under "theology" not "scientiology".


~malaka~

 

[Sinai]

I was merely asking you to identify those scriptures that require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, and to state why you think that each scripture requires you to take that position. If you have the time to respond to that issue and are interested in searching the scriptures you think pertain to that issue, I am still interested in working with you toward that end....

Perhaps you misunderstand my position. I also think the Bible is the true, inspired word of God. Where we differ is that I am not convinced that it conflicts with the scientific evidence, and am interested in knowing why you are so convinced that it does....

 

[bulldog86]

I BELIEVE that Sinai's point (and something in which I agree with also) is not that Scripture clearly says that the earth is older than a few thousand years. Rather, he is saying that there is no definitive answer in Scripture for how old the earth is or how it was created. I agree. I don't have to show you verses that say that the earth is billions of years old because they don't exist. I am saying it could be either. You are saying it MUST be the one. Therefore, YOU have the burden of proof because my proof is that there is no proof.

And Malaka, Jet Black was simply responding to anothe person. Someone made a claim regarding science, he simply responded. Don't report him for trying to set the record straight...

 

[Promises]

The problem I have with this whole train of thought is that first off it assumes that the Big Bang Theory is still supported uncontested within the scientific community -- which it is not. Many scientists, atheist and Christian alike, have abandoned Big Bang theory as scientifically unsupportable. Dating methods are of no help in this debate either as not one of them can take you back millions of years much less billions of years. Macroevolution is not supported by either the fossil record or by centuries of direct observation. Scientific theories based upon billions of years have been calculated backward -- not forward. In other words, estimates went from an earth age of millions to billions not from any direct evidence but from postulations that popular theories would require longer periods in order to be realized. Corrective thinking, not evidential thinking.

From a Christian point of view, the Bible states in unequivocal terms that death and decay entered this world as a direct result of the sin of man - a fully evolved man - Adam. Macroevolution posits billions of years of death and decay occured before even the coming of evolved man. God's Word credits His gift of Christ, the second Adam, as His grace toward sinful man, represented in Scripture as the first Adam. To accept death in the world before the fall of man is to deny both God's plan of salvation as detailed in Scripture as well as our need for it. This has led "progressive" creationists to theorize that there was a race of soul-less humanoids prior to the creation of Adam that God did not offer any means of salvation. They were simply a mistake He made and was forced to unceremoniously wipe out. There starts a very slippery slope.

 

[Sinai]

The problem I have with this whole train of thought is that first off it assumes that the Big Bang Theory is still supported uncontested within the scientific community -- which it is not. Many scientists, atheist and Christian alike, have abandoned Big Bang theory as scientifically unsupportable.

Thank you for posting your response. Although many scientists clung to the steady state theory until discovery of CMB, I am not aware of any group of reputable scientists today who deny that our universe had a beginning. I am aware of several who have proposed possible alternative theories to the big bang (such as the multiple universe theory), but even they have admitted that such theories are largely hypothetical in nature and probably incapable of even being tested. Scientifically unsupportable? Not likely. Please provide evidence. Thank you.

This thread was established so that young earth creationists (and I presume that includes you) can identify those scriptures that you think require you to deny the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, and to state why you think that each scripture requires you to take that position. I welcome your input. And again, thank you....

 

[Promises]

My post made no claim that an acceptable alternative had been agreed upon in the scientific community, only that the Big Bang THEORY was not supported uncontested within the scientific community. If Big Bang Theory was so totally satisfying there would be no efforts to search for alternatives, but the search continues to this day. No one denies that the Universe had a beginning, we merely debate the nature of its beginning.

As far as a Bible verse goes: Romans 5:12-17

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

There was no death prior to the fall of man. Evolution requires billions of years of death before the man evolved. Evolution castrates the need for Christ in God's plan of salvation and makes God's Word nothing more than naive mythology. It postulates the arrival of tooth and nail death and decay prior to the fall of man.

 

[Sinai]

My post made no claim that an acceptable alternative had been agreed upon in the scientific community, only that the Big Bang THEORY was not supported uncontested within the scientific community.

Thank you for revising your statement to make that clearification.

If Big Bang Theory was so totally satisfying there would be no efforts to search for alternatives, but the search continues to this day.

That's part of the scientific method: Continually test (and sometimes modify) existing theories, search for alternative theories that also explain existing data, and use such theories to predict what new discoveries will likely show....

No one denies that the Universe had a beginning, we merely debate the nature of its beginning.

Most of the scientists who are especially searching for alternatives to the big bang theory seem to be athiests who tend to be uncomfortable with the idea of there being a beginning of the universe, of all matter in that universe, and of time as we know it....

As far as a Bible verse goes: Romans 5:12-17

That passage says nothing about the age of the universe, but rather contrasts Adam's fall to sin and spiritual death with Christ's victory over sin and spiritual death.

Again, thank you for posting.