"In the beginning" = Big Bang?

cupid dave · Oct 8, 2011

Can we all agree on Genesis1:1?

Scientists will argue that even their Big Bang seems different to them that what Gen 1:1 states, but even they admit that Time did "begin" ticking 13.5 billion years ago.

That is enough fo me to accept that mush of their Evolution Theory,... an in the beginning @ 13.5 billion years ago.

How about you tools?

Rob Boyd · Oct 8, 2011

cupid dave said:
Can we all agree on Genesis1:1?

Scientists will argue that even their Big Bang seems different to them that what Gen 1:1 states, but even they admit that Time did "begin" ticking 13.5 billion years ago.

That is enough fo me to accept that mush of their Evolution Theory,... an in the beginning @ 13.5 billion years ago.

How about you tools?

In the beginning was not the first day of creation, day and night were not established, as for the timeline I have know earthly, and niether does any man:^}

Astridhere · Oct 8, 2011

cupid dave said:
Can we all agree on Genesis1:1?

Scientists will argue that even their Big Bang seems different to them that what Gen 1:1 states, but even they admit that Time did "begin" ticking 13.5 billion years ago.
No actually, YECS have research and scientific verification that the earth is young. eg helium dating.
Evidence from Science
Evidence for Creation
Many Earth Clocks Indicate Recent Creation

That is enough fo me to accept that mush of their Evolution Theory,... an in the beginning @ 13.5 billion years ago.

How about you tools?

I am not a tool but happy to reply anyway.

It appears that both creationists alike agree the universe had a beginning. Having said that there are researchers that have come up with lots of different theories likely because they are dissatisfied with big bang theory.

You must have read my stuff on wave theory placing earth at the centre of the universe. So although there appears to be solidarity on the point of universal beginnings, I reckon, big bang theory has basically falsified itself. I do not accept it, regardless of it not being anti-creationist.

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

Regardless of any opposers to wave theory, naturalists are quite happy to accept big bang with all its inconsistencies. Hence opposers to any theory, creationist or otherwise, mean little really.

Why have faith in a theory that makes no sense (singularity does not add up, dark matter and energy is a mystery, resulting multiple dimensions) when there is a theory of universal beginnings that doesn't require all the convolutions and mystery? It is sad that intelligent people continue to side with such unresolved and inconsistent theories simply because a better and more robust alternative supports creation.

cupid dave · Oct 8, 2011

Rob Boyd said:
In the beginning was not the first day of creation, day and night were not established, as for the timeline I have know earthly, and niether does any man:^}

?
Who said anything about the first day?

Gen 1:1 merely says that the Universe had NOT always been there as scientist had thought before Hubble founf evidence to convince them otherwise.

Christians are very foolish to not proclaim this amazing statement made in the very first verse.It could gave been wrong and very embarrassing, or, as is the case, it was correct and amazingly so.

Who but god knew for sure?

cupid dave · Oct 8, 2011

Astridhere said:
It appears that both creationists alike agree the universe had a beginning.

That is all that is necessary for Bible readers, that they recognize the amazingly correct statement in the very first verse.

Had Gen said that the infinite ecerlasting eternal omnipotent ever present Cosmos was without beginning or end we would see immediately the error and suspect many more to follow.

Astridhere · Oct 8, 2011

As you say, Cupid dave the very first scripture is correct as are all the scriptures. The controversy is around if the universe would have come into being without a God to establish the physics the universe is held together by. I say no, as the universe could have just as easily not coalesced and we would not be having this conversation.

There are many scriptures that verify the credibility of the bible. The few that do not appear to align at present will be validated in time.

101 Scientifc Facts & Foreknowledge - New Life

No scientist ever thought the moon was created after the earth untill the moon rocks were tested. This is an example of the incredible claims within the bible that have been validated in time.

Wave theory agrees with the universe having a beginning. It puts earth at the centre of the universe. Other evidence using red shifts further supports the universe being laid out in shells surrounding the earth.

Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show

Yes, the earth did have a beginning and the bible writers were informed of it centuries ago and long before researchers came up with the idea the same for many scientific points validated within the bible. We show wisdom in being guided by the sciptures regardless of which creationist view one takes.

Aryeh is Here · Oct 8, 2011

Even a coin could get this one right half the time. I'd say since everything else observably has a beginning, it is only natural to extend that expectation to include even the universe. It's a well-informed guess with a large body of supporting evidence. It should be quite easy for man to intuitively choose the correct answer given only 2 choices.

I don't find it spectacular or some sort of miracle. Just a few lines later, there are some serious innacuracies.

Aryeh is Here · Oct 8, 2011

Astridhere said:
Wave theory agrees with the universe having a beginning. It puts earth at the centre of the universe. Other evidence using red shifts further supports the universe being laid out in shells surrounding the earth.

Just so you know, in an infinite universe, any point you choose will reveal itself to be at the center. Just as the number -3712 is equally distant from infinity and negative infinity, is it any more special than the number 22, which is also equally distant from infinity and negative infinity?

granpa · Oct 9, 2011

the creation of space and therefore the big bang occurred on the second day.

6And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.' 7And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.
8And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

Son of Zadok · Oct 9, 2011

Astridhere said:
I am not a tool but happy to reply anyway.

It appears that both creationists alike agree the universe had a beginning. Having said that there are researchers that have come up with lots of different theories likely because they are dissatisfied with big bang theory.

You must have read my stuff on wave theory placing earth at the centre of the universe. So although there appears to be solidarity on the point of universal beginnings, I reckon, big bang theory has basically falsified itself. I do not accept it, regardless of it not being anti-creationist.

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

Regardless of any opposers to wave theory, naturalists are quite happy to accept big bang with all its inconsistencies. Hence opposers to any theory, creationist or otherwise, mean little really.

Why have faith in a theory that makes no sense (singularity does not add up, dark matter and energy is a mystery, resulting multiple dimensions) when there is a theory of universal beginnings that doesn't require all the convolutions and mystery? It is sad that intelligent people continue to side with such unresolved and inconsistent theories simply because a better and more robust alternative supports creation.

As a mathematician, physicists, engineer and scientist I am looking at this post and thinking that many theories are being referenced and not understood at all. In other words this poster does not know or understand what they are talking about.

Part of the mathematic explanation of the Big Bang theory is that the resulting space time, dimensional universe is currently expanding as a 4 dimensional sphere. Before going forward I would point out that it has been established that the universe is expanding. The concept of a Big Bang and 4 dimensional sphere explains how dimensional space can be expanding.

The mathematical result of a 4 dimensional sphere is that all points within the universe of a 4 dimensional sphere are both center points and boundary points. Thus, not only is the earth the “center” of the universe but we are also at the very edge of the universe as well. A rather interesting characteristic of a 4 dimensional sphere in “curved” 3 dimensional space time - Einstein’s theory of curved (non linier) space time.

I have learned, by sad experience that creation theory is not just a theory that G-d created the universe but rather a theory that Genesis is a “scientific” worthy document on how old the universe is and how the process in which universe came into being. In other words “creation theory” requires a specific interpretation of Genesis that I am not willing to accept.

Now - I would like a detailed list of Inconsistencies - you personally believe relate to the Big Bang Theory. Though I am aware of some myself - I doubt that (you) this poster has any clue. Therefore please list your inconsistencies and details how your understanding of mathematics and physics shows greater consistencies with the specific theory you find so much more acceptable.

Son of Zadok

IndieVisible · Oct 9, 2011

cupid dave said:
Can we all agree on Genesis1:1?

Scientists will argue that even their Big Bang seems different to them that what Gen 1:1 states, but even they admit that Time did "begin" ticking 13.5 billion years ago.

That is enough fo me to accept that mush of their Evolution Theory,... an in the beginning @ 13.5 billion years ago.

How about you tools?

I am a devoit Christian Catholic/Orthodox leaning. I have absolutely no problem with the creation story of Adam and Eve and the Genesis account AND also accepting the Big Bang Theory along with evolution. In fact science only makes me marvel even more about God!

I have no idea why atheists and young earth Christians are always at odds with each other as it has to be one or the other! Obviously at some point in creation consciousnesses and greater awareness occurred and I believe that is what genesis is talking about.

What do we expect those earlier writers to have understood and wrote? That millions of years ago before Adam and Eve God create the universe and it evolved in to what we see now? Of course not, time is restricted to understanding, hence the 6 days of creation. To assume the earth is only 6000 years old is rather child like and right up there with believing the earth is flat and the universe revolves around us

The universe is about 13 billion years old and earth is apprx 4.6 billion years old. There was life before and after Adam and Eve. The story begins at that point because it address self awareness and consciousness, we became like God, able to reason and think.

I see no reason why this should have any effect with our faith, or what Genesis is saying. I've even read debates and foolish arguments that profit no one such as "did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?"

We are indeed still evolving

cupid dave · Oct 10, 2011

IndieVisible said:
I am a devoit Christian Catholic/Orthodox leaning. I have absolutely no problem with the creation story of Adam and Eve and the Genesis account AND also accepting the Big Bang Theory along with evolution. In fact science only makes me marvel even more about God!

I have no idea why atheists and young earth Christians are always at odds with each other as it has to be one or the other! Obviously at some point in creation consciousnesses and greater awareness occurred and I believe that is what genesis is talking about.

What do we expect those earlier writers to have understood and wrote? That millions of years ago before Adam and Eve God create the universe and it evolved in to what we see now? Of course not, time is restricted to understanding, hence the 6 days of creation. To assume the earth is only 6000 years old is rather child like and right up there with believing the earth is flat and the universe revolves around us

The universe is about 13 billion years old and earth is apprx 4.6 billion years old. There was life before and after Adam and Eve. The story begins at that point because it address self awareness and consciousness, we became like God, able to reason and think.

I see no reason why this should have any effect with our faith, or what Genesis is saying. I've even read debates and foolish arguments that profit no one such as "did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?"

We are indeed still evolving

Yes, you are right.

It is even worse that religious people ignire the amsing thinhs that Genesis said 3062 years ago before anyone even knew.

Gen 1:9 tells us about the one giant ocean that surrounded Pangea/Rodinia for instance.

cupid dave · Oct 10, 2011

granpa said:
the creation of space and therefore the big bang occurred on the second day.

6And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.' 7And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.
8And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

And amazingly TRUE... there was no visible light rights away!!!

Visinle light did not appear until 400 million years AFTER the Bif Bang.

There was a Cosmic Dark Age before the stars formed. (see thimb below)

Freedom63 · Oct 10, 2011

Son of Zadok said:
As a mathematician, physicists, engineer and scientist I am looking at this post and thinking that many theories are being referenced and not understood at all. In other words this poster does not know or understand what they are talking about.

Part of the mathematic explanation of the Big Bang theory is that the resulting space time, dimensional universe is currently expanding as a 4 dimensional sphere. Before going forward I would point out that it has been established that the universe is expanding. The concept of a Big Bang and 4 dimensional sphere explains how dimensional space can be expanding.

The mathematical result of a 4 dimensional sphere is that all points within the universe of a 4 dimensional sphere are both center points and boundary points. Thus, not only is the earth the center of the universe but we are also at the very edge of the universe as well. A rather interesting characteristic of a 4 dimensional sphere in curved 3 dimensional space time - Einsteins theory of curved (non linier) space time.

I have learned, by sad experience that creation theory is not just a theory that G-d created the universe but rather a theory that Genesis is a scientific worthy document on how old the universe is and how the process in which universe came into being. In other words creation theory requires a specific interpretation of Genesis that I am not willing to accept.

Now - I would like a detailed list of Inconsistencies - you personally believe relate to the Big Bang Theory. Though I am aware of some myself - I doubt that (you) this poster has any clue. Therefore please list your inconsistencies and details how your understanding of mathematics and physics shows greater consistencies with the specific theory you find so much more acceptable.

Son of Zadok

I really hope a few literal creationists take you up on your challenge as I look forward to your response.

granpa · Oct 10, 2011

cupid dave said:
Gen 1:9 tells us about the one giant ocean that surrounded Pangea/Rodinia for instance.

thats a picture of pangea not rodinia.

cupid dave · Oct 11, 2011

granpa said:
thats a picture of pangea not rodinia.

Yes, I know.

I post it and refer to Pangea because te schools teach {angea.

But they rather ignore that Rodinia was actually the first time this happened, on the "3rd Era" of Geological time.

We now know that the event in Gen 1:9 happens again and again.

Huram Abi · Oct 11, 2011

cupid dave said:
Yes, I know.

I post it and refer to Pangea because te schools teach {angea.

But they rather ignore that Rodinia was actually the first time this happened, on the "3rd Era" of Geological time.

We now know that the event in Gen 1:9 happens again and again.

Aren't you leaving out a few other super-continents?
Vaalbara comes to mind. Which "era of geological time" does that take place in?

cupid dave · Oct 11, 2011

Huram Abi said:
Aren't you leaving out a few other super-continents?
Vaalbara comes to mind. Which "era of geological time" does that take place in?

The issue isn' that the Bible specifies any particular ome of these geological events so much as that scripture specifically tells us about the occurence.

It is uncanny and true that "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place" DID happen, just about the time first life appeared on Earth, in the evening of the Archen Era and the morning of the Proterozoic Era.

/////////

1) The Cosmological/Formative Era
(the Big Bang of 12 Billion years ago = The evening of the First Day,...

... to the morning of the Hadean Era

2) The Hadean Era
(4.5 to 3.8 BILLION years ago) to the Archaean Era (3.8 - 2.5 billion years ago) = Second Day

3) The Archaean Era
(3.8 - 2.5 billion years ago) to the Proterozoic Era (2.5 to .542 BILLION years ago)= Third Day

4) The Proterozoic Era
(2.5 to .542 BILLION years ago) to the Paleozoic Era (542.0 to 251.0 million years ago)= Fourth Day

5) The Paleozoic Era
(542.0 to 251.0 million years ago) to the Mesozoic Era (251 to 65.5 million years ago) = Fifth Day

6) The Mesozoic Era
(251 to 65.5 million years ago) to the Cenozoic Era (the last 65.5 million years)= Six Day

7) The Cenozoic Era
(the last 65.5 million years) to the Common Era (32AD-2011 AD) = Seventh Day of Rest

(see Eras of Geo time in thumb below)

Huram Abi · Oct 11, 2011

Since the subject here is geological eras, whatever "cosmic" eras you want to assume do not apply in this context and aren't appropriate to the discussion. We can't discuss cosmic evolution or how it should be divided in terms of earth's geology. Also, you've mixed and matched eras and eons. Hadrian is an eon. The Hadrian era refers to the time of a certain Roman emperor of the same name.

You've also left out:

1)Neo-Proterozoic Era
2)Meso-Proterozoic Era
3)Paleo-proterozoic Era
4)Neoarchean Era
5)Mesoarchean Era
6)Paleoarchean Era
7)Eoarchean Era
8) Early Imbrian Era
9)Nectarian Era
10) Basin Groups Era- first life forms evolved (about 1.5 Billion years before your claim)
11) Cryptic Era

Probably because you didn't know that Proterozoic and Archeean are also Eons. I suggest you stop trying to teach science.

cupid dave · Oct 13, 2011

granpa said:
thats a picture of pangea not rodinia.

I know...
I referred to pangea because most peple heard about,

I got this from this link which explains where I am coming from:

Gen 1:9-10
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id123.html

"In the beginning" = Big Bang?

cupid dave

Guest

Bible Thumper

Well-Known Member

cupid dave

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Noahide/Rationalist

Traveler

Well-Known Member

cupid dave

Guest

Attachments

cupid dave

Guest

Attachments

Universal Reconciliationist (Eventually)

Noahide/Rationalist

cupid dave

Guest

Huram Abi

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

Attachments

Huram Abi

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency