Earth vs. the ‘Let There Be Light!’ Big Bang.

[StevenMerten]

Perhaps you did not say exactly what you wanted to say but I would be stunned if what you say here is correct.

Let's all be honest with each other: no one here is qualified as an authority on quantum physics, general relativity, or other relevant disciplines.

But there are people who are. And it is wildly implausible to imagine that you - or anyone else here including me for that matter - has discovered some sort of "loophole" that makes a 6000 or 10000 year old plausible when the clear consensus of the experts is that the earth is billions of years old.

Hello expos4ever,

Cosmologists automatically demand that you accept that earth is just a part of the 'big bang' and not created first and separate from God's 'Let There Be Light' big bang. Time Dilation is real. We have to have computers on our GPS satellites to adjust for Time Dilation.

Yes, having two events, the creation of earth then the big bang, is way different than the brainy cosmologists demanding that earth was simply a part of the big bang. Especially when earth, as a separate event of creation, has the mass of one septillion stars, on the head of a needle, gravitational pull, the big bang, putting earth toward it. Earth can easily accelerate to near the speed of light, which would Time Dilate it out to only days going by as billions of years are elapsing in the big bang, star formation. The Bible says earth was created first and then God created the ‘Let There Be Light’, big bang.


Do you know any very knowledgeable cosmologists? Get them in here.

 

[StevenMerten]

The idea that the earth was here before the big bang is certainly at strong variance with the evidence. I believe there is substantial evidence that the earth - like other planets - condensed out of a swirling cloud of matter. There is no known process for the synthesis of the heavier elements that make up the earth other than the fusion process inside stars. So, based on the evidence, and without assuming anything "magical", the most reasonable conclusion is that the earth was formed after the big bang from elements created within dead stars.

I am not an expert about this but I believe I am representing things accurately. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

I also think it is untrue to imply that "atheist" scientists demand anything - they simply create theories to best explain observations. And I would be stunned if any credible expert would believe that the origin of the earth can be explained in a manner that coheres reasonably with the evidence through any means other than the earth forming long after the big bang (and "within" the universe).

Hello espos,
Did you understand my 'bugs on the windshield'? If earth is traveling near the speed of light, where only days are going by, through a debris field where, because of Time Dilation, billions of years have elapsed, earth is going to run into a lot of old star junk. Especially traveling through billions of light years of space. This is how you will be able to find old stuff on a young earth.
Steven

 

[StevenMerten]

This would assume that God needed light to cause the "big bang" or whatever you would describe it as, when He "created the heavens and the earth". Which was the very first thing we are told that He did.

Hello JacksBratt,
Well we Catholics see the heavens being created as to where the angels live. So no, God does not need light to create the spiritual world where angels and saints live in eternal life.

 

[StevenMerten]

I think it is important to realize that there are two types of time. We live in temporal time, time that moves in a measured pace and we are not able to escape it. However God lives in eternal time. Time without beginning or end, without measurement and he is everywhere on the time line at once. I believe he created all temporal time at once. He knew all history from the beginning of our time.
The big bang is when he created temporal time. We can only perceive temporal time. God is not limited by measured time. Time is what he says it is.
according to a book I am reading by a Christian, Hugh Ross, the Earth had to collide with matter from a decayed star to have some of the elements needed for life.
I am a firm believer in the big bang as it explains my idea on time since we know God existed before the beginning. And in the beginning there was no distance, no speed, and no time. Hence everything that was, was in in one small space.
The Mystery of time is not explained. How billions of years could elapse in a day or six days. That God could create the Earth in six days or an instant is beyond question. It is only a question of how he did it. That he could compress time much like an author of a book or a movie jumps around in time should not be hard to understand. That at the edge of the Universe it is still the first day should not be hard to understand. To us time is linear. Even that is not actually true entirely.
At this point, it is still a mystery and I am happy with that. But that there are possible explanations that fit both discoveries and the Bible should not be disregarded out of hand. It says that God doesn't regard days the same as we do. It is possible for him to make billions of days occur in one day our time. Time may not be linear at all. I don't think we should get all hot about it because no of us were there. And likely it will remain a mystery until we see face to face.

Hello D2wing,
I agree with you 100%. God exists outside of the physical time which He created. Physical time, especially understanding Time Dilation, is simply a part of the physical world, not the spiritual world.

God tells us that the 'sons of God' shouted for joy as God brought creation into existance. The 'sons of God' are the saints. How could the saints be shouting for joy as the heavens and earth came into existance? This is how. The saints live a holy life while free willed men on earth, then God judges them at the end of physical time. The saints are then eternally begotten of God where they live outside of physical time, in the spiritual realm, from before creation, as God does.

One of my greatest dreams is to become a saint to see Jesus Birth, and creation, in real time.

NAB JOB 38:7
Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who streched out the measuring line for it? Into what were its pedestals sunk, and who laid the cornerstone, While the morning stars sang in chorus and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

NAB DEU 32:8
When the Most High assigned the nations their heritage, when he parceled out the descendants of Adam, He set up the boundaries of the peoples after the number of the sons of God; While the LORD’S own portion was Jacob,His hereditary share was Israel

NAB WIS 5:5
See how he is accounted among the sons of God; how his lot is with the saints!​

 

[JacksBratt]

Hello JacksBratt,
Well we Catholics see the heavens being created as to where the angels live. So no, God does not need light to create the spiritual world where angels and saints live in eternal life.

I don't think you understood my point.

 

[JacksBratt]

God tells us that the 'sons of God' shouted for joy as God brought creation into existance. The 'sons of God' are the saints. How could the saints be shouting for joy as the heavens and earth came into existance? This is how. The saints live a holy life while free willed men on earth, then God judges them at the end of physical time. The saints are then eternally begotten of God where they live outside of physical time, in the spiritual realm, from before creation, as God does.

That is a very very interesting concept.

However, the sons of God are the angels. They were the only beings that were in existence at that time.

I'm going to need to see some scripture to back up your concept.

One of my greatest dreams is to become a saint to see Jesus Birth, and creation, in real time.

If your are saved, you are one of the saints. You are a child of God.

 

[-57]

Earth verses the big bang is the epic, David and Goliath battle, of God’s Creation story. God created Earth first, then the ‘Big Bang’, ‘Let There Be Light!’. Atheist scientists hate this part of God’s Creation story and disallow the thought of earth being created apart from their ‘Big Bang’. The thing is, for us, one week’s time, creationists, the way God explains it, we have two separate events. Two separate events allows for Time Dilation, big time!, in God’s Creation of everything that exists.

God created the earth. Earth existed for a while before light was created by God. God ‘s ‘Let There Be Light!’ is the ‘Big Bang’ going off. All of a sudden, next to earth, was the mass of one septillion stars on the head of a needle. Some say that God is not powerful enough to accelerate a planet the size of earth to light speed. I say, God popping into existence the mass of one septillion stars on the head of a needle is, light speed for earth accomplished! The gravitational pull of the mass of one septillion stars, on the head of a needle, is enough force to put earth into light speed, immediately. Or God can simply have created earth into existence already traveling at the speed of light. Science tells us that empty space probably flowed out into existence in front of the Big Bang. There is earth, traveling at the speed of light, through empty space, riding the wave of empty space coming into existence. Surfs up Dude!

With the explosion of the big bang, now earth has a light source to revolve next to, and thus day and night, equaling the passage of time; or in other words, days going by and the passage of time. God’s clock, as well as our clock on earth, even scientists with theoretical starships, is our revolving earth past a light source. God did not put the sun and stars into earth’s sky until the fourth day of creation. For four days, the 'Big Bang' was earth's, day vs night, light source. Using Time Dilation, the earth, traveling at the speed of light, and the big bang, traveling at a much slower velocity, then billions of years of star formation can occur in four days. This is Time Dilation. It only makes sense for God to do it this way. The explosion of the ‘Big Bang’ needs time to cool off before God inserts earth into the ‘big bang’ Cosmos. Besides that, even traveling at the speed of light, light is going to need some time to travel the billions of miles from the stars to earths target area of our sun’s orbit. So earth traveling at, or near, the speed of light, only makes sense for God to do it this way, while billions of years of star formation come into existence, for every day/night rotation on earth.

After a couple days on earth, which equates to many billions of years at the lower velocity of the big bang, earth enters into the the big bang debris field. Stars have already been born, lived, went super nova, and died in this debris area. Remember, earth, traveling near the speed of light is only seeing days go by while the big bang Cosmos has already experienced many billions of years of elapsing time, due to Time Dilation. Earth is absorbing some of this, billions of years old, debris like bugs on a windshield. The reason earth looks five billion years old is due to this, bugs on a windshield, effect on young earth that was born before the big bang, traveling through the billions of years of debris of the big bang. Earth herself is only days old while the debris she is runing into and absorbing is billions of years old. This is Time Dilation.

Finally, earth is captured by our sun’s gravitational pull and imprisoned in our sun’s orbit, on the fourth day of creation. A couple days go by on earth and God put man on earth. And God said, ‘It is good!’.

Anything can happen when God and Time Dilation are involved.

Creationists are not asking atheist scientists to say that this is the way it happened. Creationists are only asking atheist scientists to confirm that seven days of creation by God is a plausable and acceptable theory.

Time dilation and space flight​

Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed slows down the rate of passage of on-board time. That is, the ship's clock (and according to relativity, any human traveling with it) shows less elapsed time than the clocks of observers on earth. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic. For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime. The space travelers could return to Earth billions of years in the future. A scenario based on this idea was presented in the novel Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle.

Quoted From: Wikipedia Time Dilation


​

For starters...there was no Big Bang.

When God said let there be light...I see the light as either the glory of God (Rev 21:23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.)...or the creation of angels.

Certainly not the Big bang.

 

[-57]

You are aware that the person who postulated the Big Bang theory was a devout Catholic monk, right?

Who says Catholics are right?

 

[Armoured]

Who says Catholics are right?

That's not my point. I was pointing out Lemaitres faith as a counter to the nonsense about the Big Bang being a creation of atheist scientists who hate God's creation story.

Earth verses the big bang is the epic, David and Goliath battle, of God’s Creation story. God created Earth first, then the ‘Big Bang’, ‘Let There Be Light!’. Atheist scientists hate this part of God’s Creation story and disallow the thought of earth being created apart from their ‘Big Bang’. The thing is, for us, one week’s time, creationists, the way God explains it, we have two separate events. Two separate events allows for Time Dilation, big time!, in God’s Creation of everything that exists.

 

[expos4ever]

Hello espos,
Did you understand my 'bugs on the windshield'? If earth is traveling near the speed of light, where only days are going by, through a debris field where, because of Time Dilation, billions of years have elapsed, earth is going to run into a lot of old star junk. Especially traveling through billions of light years of space. This is how you will be able to find old stuff on a young earth.
Steven

I fully concede I do not have the time to fully engage your argument. My point is that unless you are an expert - and I mean a real expert - it is exceedingly unlikely that you, an amateur like me, have actually discovered something fundamental that thousands of actual experts have missed.

Possible, of course, but really really unlikely.

 

[expos4ever]

For starters...there was no Big Bang.

Well, the evidence for a big bang is very strong indeed. You are free to choose to deny this, but it is important that we all understand that this disagreement is grounded in a "faith" commitment, not a rational reading of the evidence.

 

[expos4ever]

Hello espos,
Did you understand my 'bugs on the windshield'? .....This is how you will be able to find old stuff on a young earth.
Steven

Further to my last post: Can you not see how unlikely it is that your argument, expressed in a few short sentences, would have been "missed" by tens of thousands of highly trained experts?

Are they are all massively incompetent? Or engaged in a conspiracy to reject a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?

 

[-57]

Well, the evidence for a big bang is very strong indeed. You are free to choose to deny this, but it is important that we all understand that this disagreement is grounded in a "faith" commitment, not a rational reading of the evidence.

Yes, it is somewhat faith in Genesis...but if one studies the BB many problems present themselves. So, coupled with faith is science that allows me to reject the BB.

 

[-57]

Are they are all massively incompetent? Or engaged in a conspiracy to reject a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?

I believe there is quite a conspiracy to reject the literal historical account presented in Genesis. In fact the conspiracy originator is mentioned in Genesis. He talked to Eve.

 

[mark kennedy]

Maybe the Big Bang happened, then on the first day of creation week God parts the clouds enough for a little light to get in. Original creation and creation week are separate accounts. There is a possibility that day one the Shekinah glory was the earlier light:

And it came to pass, as Aaron spake unto the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud. (Exo. 16:10)

And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. (Exo. 24:16)

And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. (Exo. 40:35)​

 

[-57]

Maybe the Big Bang happened, then on the first day of creation week God parts the clouds enough for a little light to get in. Original creation and creation week are separate accounts. There is a possibility that day one the Shekinah glory was the earlier light:

And it came to pass, as Aaron spake unto the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud. (Exo. 16:10)

And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. (Exo. 24:16)

And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. (Exo. 40:35)​

I believe day one was the Shekinah glory of God illuminating the earth.
Rev 21:23 hints at what it may have looked like. "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb."

From a biblical advantage we can know the BB didn't happen as the events of the opening days contradict the BB. For a biblically based model you might want to check this out.
You can also check out this youtube video...you may need to watch a little of it to understand the slide presented at the 41:12 mark.

 

[D2wing]

I fully concede I do not have the time to fully engage your argument. My point is that unless you are an expert - and I mean a real expert - it is exceedingly unlikely that you, an amateur like me, have actually discovered something fundamental that thousands of actual experts have missed.

Possible, of course, but really really unlikely.

The experts do agree that the earth has traveled in relation to the solar system and collided with material from depleted stars. I am reading a good book on it by Hugh Ross. The book is called "Improbable Planet."
In my opinion the big band is proof of God. I am not sure how some things worked out but I do know that science and the Bible agree. How it is possible while a mystery, has been discussed and understood that the possibilities do exist.
Some of you may insist that there was no moment of creation, or big bang. That is ok. You may believe that science is false. That the creation happened in 6 normal Earth days like we have today and there was no other time or explanation. That certainly valid as well. Is it possible, yes. Some of us think there is a way that both are true and I am one of those but above all else the Bible is true.

 

[D2wing]

This discussion has helped me see things I did not see regardless of the opinion of the poster. Thanks all.
But I think that pitting the Big Bang against the 6 days of creation, 7 in the OP is wrong. To me they are one in the same.

 

[expos4ever]

I believe there is quite a conspiracy to reject the literal historical account presented in Genesis. In fact the conspiracy originator is mentioned in Genesis. He talked to Eve.

I politely suggest this is up there with denying the moon-landings.

A little reason, please. Just a little.

While I am not an academic, I at least know something about the way science "is done". And the scenario you describe is simply implausible beyond imagination - it is simply absurd (and I really think you have to know this somewhere deep down) to believe that tens of thousands of scientists have engaged in a massive co-ordinated conspiracy to distort and misrepresent the facts with respect to issue like evolution and the age of the earth.

The problem with the "conspiracy" line is at least four-fold:

1. It is quite absurd, given the number of people who would need to be involved and the number of years that have passed during which all these scientists have remained committed to this putative conspiracy;

2. You have no evidence given that, if you are right, there should be scads of emails and other items of proof that point to a conspiracy. And, at best, you will find nothing more than the very occasional piece of evidence that scientists are not engaged in the kind of wild misrepresentation that such a conspiracy would need.

3. Unlike "religious thinking" which often suppresses free-thinking and challenging the status quo, one of the highest guiding principles of science is to actively challenge the current mainstream thinking. Yes, scientists are human beings and are as vulnerable as any of us to reject ideas that challenges their views. But the system - the set of principles and practices to which scientists commit - acts as a powerful corrective to such biases.

4. There is no plausible motive for scientists to misrepresent the age of the earth. If there were moneyed corporations who had a vested interest in the idea of a young earth, and if they were the ones funding the scientists, then perhaps you would have a case. But to suggest that they are all dedicating their lives to disproving the specifically fundamentalist take on the book of Genesis is, again, wildly improbable.

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe day one was the Shekinah glory of God illuminating the earth.
Rev 21:23 hints at what it may have looked like. "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb."

Then why is there evening and morning the first day?

And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.(Rev. 21:25)

But it shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. (Zech. 14:7)
​

I think it was the Shekinah because God doesn't work on the firmament, 'atmosphere' till day two. I think it's more likely that he was just clearing the clouds enough for day and night to be discernible. Occam's razor, the simpler answer is better, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is' (Wikipedia, Occam's Razor).

From a biblical advantage we can know the BB didn't happen as the events of the opening days contradict the BB.

Genesis 1:1 is a stand alone account, if it wasn't so short it would be it's own chapter, it is written in absolute terms for 'created', 'beginning' and 'God'. 'Created', is in the Qal perfect absolute, the only time in Scripture that word means a purely absolute creation. 'God' is the plural form of Elohim which has nothing to do with the Trinity, it's a plurality of majesty, it means, 'God almighty' in the strongest possible grammatical construction.

I find it confusing that creationists can see something that is actually easy to see. The creation of the universe and the first day of creation week are separate events. This could end so many pointless dead end arguments and ultimately focus on the one thing at the heart of the emphasis in Genesis and the Gospels, God created life, God created man, God can make you a new creature in Christ. For me there are two primary doctrinal considerations, creation as essential doctrine and the promise of new birth. It's like Creationists have forgotten, creation is a New Testament doctrine.

For a biblically based model you might want to check this out.
You can also check out this youtube video...you may need to watch a little of it to understand the slide presented at the 41:12 mark.

I'll check it out but astronomy, cosmology and geology are irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. As far as light traveling at a certain speed not reaching us for billions of years. When the universe starts out the size of a walnut and expands into the universe, don't you think light expanded with it?

Grace and peace,
Mark