Objections to the big bang?

lenpettis74 · Jun 29, 2012

Why I reject the big bang and old earth creationism:

1 - It's not in the bible. If we can't trust Genesis 1 and 2, we can toss the whole thing
2 - I don't have enough faith to believe that nothing became something then blew up and became everything
3 - God is big enough to do it in 6 literal days
4 - Genesis 1 is a historical narrative, not poetry or hyperbole
5 - The majority of reliable carbon dating points to a young earth
6 - Gravitational Time Dilation
7 - God created everything in a finished state, he didn't place seedlings, saplings, hatchlings, and an infant Adam in the Garden.
8 - With all of the other scientific accuracies in the bible hundreds of years before contemporary science discovered them, as well as archeological evidences that prove the bible's accuracy, I can take Genesis 1 and 2 on faith, even in the absence of evidence that points to a young earth
9 - Darwinian evolution doesn't take care of man's greatest need: salvation from sin and God's wrath
10 - Fossil evidence not only lacks transitional data, but also missing links have almost all been proven to be hoaxes

freezerman2000 · Jun 29, 2012

I see a debate coming up (not with me though, I am going to try to respect the OP for no debate at all.)

NGC 6712 · Jun 29, 2012

lenpettis74 said:
1 - It's not in the bible. If we can't trust Genesis 1 and 2, we can toss the whole thing

Neither are the NFL, microwave ovens or Pterodactyls.

2 - I don't have enough faith to believe that nothing became something then blew up and became everything

Well that isn't what the Big Bang is technically about.

3 - God is big enough to do it in 6 literal days

And big enough not to.

4 - Genesis 1 is a historical narrative, not poetry or hyperbole

No it isn't.

5 - The majority of reliable carbon dating points to a young earth

Carbon dating is not used for greater than about 50,000 years so anything you use it for has to be young. But many things are accurately dated beyond 6,000 years by carbon dating.

6 - Gravitational Time Dilation

Huh? How so? Do you know what it is even?

7 - God created everything in a finished state, he didn't place seedlings, saplings, hatchlings, and an infant Adam in the Garden.

There was no Garden of Eden in the OT sense.

8 - With all of the other scientific accuracies in the bible hundreds of years before contemporary science discovered them, as well as archeological evidences that prove the bible's accuracy, I can take Genesis 1 and 2 on faith, even in the absence of evidence that points to a young earth

Well since the Bible is not a science text and is scientifically inaccurate and historically questionable in many respects your inferences are questionable.

9 - Darwinian evolution doesn't take care of man's greatest need: salvation from sin and God's wrath

Irrelevant.

10 - Fossil evidence not only lacks transitional data, but also missing links have almost all been proven to be hoaxes

False. You want that to be the case but you are in error because of personal wishes not the actual evidence.

This is off topic for the thread to be honest - and these things can be beaten to death in other threads.

gav1nzdad · Jun 29, 2012

Personally, I like what Paul has to say:

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

samaus12345 · Jun 29, 2012

No fossil qualifies as "scientific" evidence. If a dead thing is dug up we dont even know if it had a kid. The fact that there is millions of dead things buried everywhere signifies everything got buried in mud very quickly. Hmmmmm what does this sound like?

NGC 6712 · Jun 29, 2012

jinx25 said:
No fossil qualifies as "scientific" evidence. If a dead thing is dug up we dont even know if it had a kid. The fact that there is millions of dead things buried everywhere signifies everything got buried in mud very quickly. Hmmmmm what does this sound like?

It sounds like you are misinformed.

samaus12345 · Jun 29, 2012

Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

thefreedictionary com

OBSERVATIONAL EXPERIMENTAL EMPIRICAL

Did we observe an animal dying a few hundred years ago let alone the alleged "millions and millions" of years ago? If yes please explain your reasoning. Please do explain too how we know a bunch of bones had a child? If you want to believe by faith that in the unobserved past a animal died and got buried that was a "transition" between one "kind" and another "kind" contrary to every observed law of nature in documented history ok. Neodarwinian delusion/hypothesis reminds me of Carl Sagans dragon in his garage. Thank you for your time and reading this. Goodbye.

freezerman2000 · Jun 29, 2012

Jinx25 has left the building?

philadiddle · Jun 29, 2012

jinx25 said:
No fossil qualifies as "scientific" evidence. If a dead thing is dug up we dont even know if it had a kid. The fact that there is millions of dead things buried everywhere signifies everything got buried in mud very quickly. Hmmmmm what does this sound like?

That sounds very much like a Kent Hovind video.

philadiddle · Jun 29, 2012

lenpettis74 said:
1 - It's not in the bible. If we can't trust Genesis 1 and 2, we can toss the whole thing

Since this is your first reason let's have a look at it. The bible also says that God controls the weather, yet we still study meteorology. We (well, at least me) don't see that as a contradiction and it doesn't mean that the bible is false.

The bible says that God made everything but does evolution contradict the meaning of Genesis? If so, can you be specific about how it does that?

lenpettis74 · Jun 29, 2012

NGC 6712 said:
Neither are the NFL, microwave ovens or Pterodactyls.

To paraphrase an Adam Sandler movie: "We're all dumber for having read that sentence."

Well that isn't what the Big Bang is technically about.

Click to expand...

Isn't it interesting how the theory continues to evolve as giant gaping holes are poked in it.

And big enough not to.

Click to expand...

Dopey

No it isn't.

Click to expand...

Yes it is. Neener Neener Boo Boo (just using your debate tactics, hope you don't mind)

Carbon dating is not used for greater than about 50,000 years so anything you use it for has to be young. But many things are accurately dated beyond 6,000 years by carbon dating.

Click to expand...

That's what you have to say to excuse your fairy tale. Isn't that convenient Yet no one made such arguments before Christian scientists demonstrated the unreliable nature of the carbon dating methods used. Hmmm, I smell something...

Huh? How so? Do you know what it is even?

Click to expand...

Uh, what? What were we talking about again

There was no Garden of Eden in the OT sense.

Click to expand...

Except in Genesis. Fail

Well since the Bible is not a science text and is scientifically inaccurate and historically questionable in many respects your inferences are questionable.

Click to expand...

How many logical fallacies can one put into one sentence??? You may have a record!

Irrelevant.

Click to expand...

If you don't mind hell, it's totally irrelevant

False. You want that to be the case but you are in error because of personal wishes not the actual evidence.

Click to expand...

crushed lemur fossils, mononitis, peppered moths, nebraska man, lucy, Hagel's embryos, coelacanthe, etc, etc, etc...

This is off topic for the thread to be honest - and these things can be beaten to death in other threads.

Click to expand...

Feel free to not respond

lenpettis74 · Jun 29, 2012

Sorry about the last post, I apparently misused the 'quote' function. This intranet fad is confusing

samaus12345 · Jun 29, 2012

For people who dont believe genesis. Do you believe Adam and Eve were single celled organisms? Or monkeys? I havnt asked this before and am interested thank you.

"In 1872, an attempt was made to elect Charles Darwin to the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute, but this failed because he received only 15 out of 48 votes. A prominent member of the Academy gave the reason as follows: "What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame—the "Origin of Species," and still more the "Descent of Man," is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage.""

‘… warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield"

'What is a big deal — the biggest deal of all — is how you get something out of nothing. Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either — despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. "In the beginning,'' they will say, "there was nothing — no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fuctuation from which . . ." Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean ? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats"

For people unaware of the evolution religion fundamentals. Inorganic matter (rock) "evolved" (spontaneous generation) into a prokaryote ~3.5 billion years ago. (after nothing caused nothing to yield the entire observable universe). This prokaryote (that came from rock) "evolved" into a eukaryote. The eukaryote "evolved" into a fish. The fish had down syndrome babies (gene duplication). The down syndrome babies "evolved" into a human being/plants/and animals. (this ones mine).

Why do i post this? Because when i realised not only is there 0 evidence for fish-->human being transformation there is actually falsifying observations made against it (as a 5 month old still in the womb knows) i was like ZOMG GENESIS IS LITERAL HISTORY OF OUR WORLD and was amazing imo.

Thank you for reading etc lol.

mark kennedy · Jun 30, 2012

I believe in the big bang, God spoke and BANG! there it was.

DCJazz · Jun 30, 2012

philadiddle said:
If you have any objections to the big bang theory please post them here. Note, this is a christians only section so you should assume that the other people here who do accept the big bang believe that God made everything through it.

Your objections can be either theological or scientific, but please just name your #1 objection to it.

To be honest, I find no biblical basis for it.

samaus12345 · Jun 30, 2012

If someone lived isolated from the media like in a tribe somewhere away from civilization no one would look at a monkey or another animal and say "that animal transformed into a human being" nor would they think "the universe came into existence by itself ~13.75 billion years ago". Genesis would read plainly. No one would be looking to fit x million years into each day.

wiki says the big bang produced helium, hydrogen and lithium...which then turned into our periodic table=alchemy. The media doesnt give us too much credit...

Anecdotal-I heard a story of a some missionaries going to a isolated community somewhere (that i think they said had never been in contact with western civilization) and upon greeting them the people said " you must be here to tell us about a saviour and a golden book".

philadiddle · Jun 30, 2012

jinx25 said:
For people who dont believe genesis.

Who here doesn't believe in Genesis? It's fair to say we all believe it, but in different ways.

philadiddle · Jun 30, 2012

DCJazz said:
To be honest, I find no biblical basis for it.

Are there other areas of science that you disregard based on your understanding of the bible? Or is it just origins?

freezerman2000 · Jun 30, 2012

jinx25 said:
For people who dont believe genesis. Do you believe Adam and Eve were single celled organisms? Or monkeys? I havnt asked this before and am interested thank you.

"In 1872, an attempt was made to elect Charles Darwin to the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute, but this failed because he received only 15 out of 48 votes. A prominent member of the Academy gave the reason as follows: "What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame—the "Origin of Species," and still more the "Descent of Man," is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage.""

‘… warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield"

'What is a big deal — the biggest deal of all — is how you get something out of nothing. Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either — despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. "In the beginning,'' they will say, "there was nothing — no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fuctuation from which . . ." Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean ? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats"

For people unaware of the evolution religion fundamentals. Inorganic matter (rock) "evolved" (spontaneous generation) into a prokaryote ~3.5 billion years ago. (after nothing caused nothing to yield the entire observable universe). This prokaryote (that came from rock) "evolved" into a eukaryote. The eukaryote "evolved" into a fish. The fish had down syndrome babies (gene duplication). The down syndrome babies "evolved" into a human being/plants/and animals. (this ones mine).

Why do i post this? Because when i realised not only is there 0 evidence for fish-->human being transformation there is actually falsifying observations made against it (as a 5 month old still in the womb knows) i was like ZOMG GENESIS IS LITERAL HISTORY OF OUR WORLD and was amazing imo.

Thank you for reading etc lol.

Adam and Eve were the first people to become aware of God...He gave to them the knowledge of His being.
He instilled in them His Spiritual being, therefore "creating them in His own image".

If the same vote were to come up today, Darwin would be a shoe in.
We now have the ways to study his theory more effectively than in 1872, and is more widely accepted.

This is the first time I have ever heard of the periodic table being called "alchemy"...it's a chart of the different elements(the building blocks of everything there is in the physical world).Nothing more,nothing less.

First time I have EVER heard of fish having down syndrome!

I wish some folks would put forth the effort to use their education to good use, rather than use tired cliches and statements that can not hold water.

lenpettis74 · Jun 30, 2012

freezerman2000 said:
Adam and Eve were the first people to become aware of God...He gave to them the knowledge of His being.
He instilled in them His Spiritual being, therefore "creating them in His own image".

You apparently insist that Genesis 1 is unreliable, but your theory is somehow reliable. As usual logical fallacies abound...

If the same vote were to come up today, Darwin would be a shoe in.
We now have the ways to study his theory more effectively than in 1872, and is more widely accepted.

Click to expand...

How do you know???

I wish some folks would put forth the effort to use their education to good use, rather than use tired cliches and statements that can not hold water.

Click to expand...

I wish you would apply the same standard to yourself.

Click to expand...

Objections to the big bang?

Junior Member

Living and dying in 3/4 time

Newbie

Somewhere in the middle

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Living and dying in 3/4 time

Drumming circles around you

Drumming circles around you

Junior Member

Junior Member

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

Doctor Coffee

Newbie

Drumming circles around you

Drumming circles around you

Living and dying in 3/4 time

Junior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency