Question for Evolutionists

[BMac14]

I'm just wondering...if your saying that the Big Bang was done by God, wouldnt that go against what the bible says in genisis?

And how would this be done. As said above, the Bible isn't always literal. If I took the Bible totally literal, I couldn't believe in evolution either. Plus, what verse leads you to believe that things couldn't be initially caused through the Big Bang? It said God created, but not how.

 

[BMac14]

one option is that knowledge of how God made the universe isn't really important. we are capable of finding that out for ourlseves by studying the universe. The Bible is there possibly because we are incapable of finding God without help.

You know, I don't really consider it that important. But I personally love science and knowledge. I guess I enjoy thinking about things in the Bible through a science type view. Now, thats not the only way I look at the Bible. In fact, as I look at science and how so complex everything is, it gives me more awe and fascination of the Father. That is perhaps one reason I seek knowledge. So that God can be even bigger than I realize.

 

[gluadys]

And how would this be done. As said above, the Bible isn't always literal. If I took the Bible totally literal, I couldn't believe in evolution either. Plus, what verse leads you to believe that things couldn't be initially caused through the Big Bang? It said God created, but not how.

Actually, if you look in detail at the initial stages of the big bang, they are very reminiscent of the first few verses of Genesis as long as you allow for "waters" not to be literally water.

Consider that in the early stages of the universe it was very small. Yet it still contained all the matter and energy in the universe today. But the matter could not exist as matter. In the high level temperatures and densities that existed in the first 3 minutes of time, it was impossible for atoms to form, and without atoms you don't have the structure of a material universe.

The structure of the universe at the time was that of a sort of "fog" of energy. It was dark because even though photons were abundant, they were in constant interaction with other particles, constantly being made and unmade with no opportunity to shine.

Every particle that eventually formed the earth was present in that energy field, but it couldn't form the earth yet, because the universe had to expand and cool down enough to make atoms. Not until then could light shine, and it was even later that the first galaxies and stars could form.

See the chart and commentary here.

http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html

Now I am not saying the biblical writer thought of water as being anything else but water. He may have been inspired but he was not clairvoyant. Genesis does not refer literally to the big bang or any other modern scientific theory.

But the parallels are intriguing. In Genesis we have an endless mass of water in which the earth is without form and all is dark.

In big bang theory we have an immensely small, immensely dense cloud of super-hot energy in which matter cannot form and light cannot shine.

If I were looking for a scientific description of what Gen 1:1-2 is describing, the big bang is a very probable candidate.

 

[MarinoMan]

Seeing as how there are alot of thing I need to respond to, I will not be using the quote system, mainly because I'm to lazy. There are many reasons the Big Bang Theory (BBT) and Creationism can't be used for the same argument. The universe, according to the BBT is about 13.7 billion years old and Earth is about 6 billion years old. Creationism states that both the universe and Earth are in the realm of 6,000 years. Now moving to the theory previously mentioned that water refered to in early Genisis is actually hot energy. It says in Genisis 1:3 God creates Earth, and in Genisis 1:4 he creates the "water". That puts Earth before the "water" which if we are speaking of energy, is impossible.

 

[Lucretius]

Are we talking PHYSICS!? Oh, I'm in.

 

[MarinoMan]

Are we talking PHYSICS!? Oh, I'm in.

That good to know. Atleast somebody else here has an intrest in physics and hopefully chemistry.

 

[revolutio]

This goes for everyone, especially the OP: read Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds. Steep learning curve, but very worth it. You feel kind of tiny after reading it. And that is just compared to the physicists who work on this stuff. Even moreso when putting yourself in perspective beside the entire universe/multiverse.

 

[Lucretius]

This goes for everyone, especially the OP: read Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds. Steep learning curve, but very worth it. You feel kind of tiny after reading it. And that is just compared to the physicists who work on this stuff. Even moreso when putting yourself in perspective beside the entire universe/multiverse.

I too must recommend the book. I read it not too long ago, and he talks about aspects of physics that the general public might find a bit more interesting than say, a discussion of special relativity, which is currently what I have delved in to.

 

[gluadys]

Seeing as how there are alot of thing I need to respond to, I will not be using the quote system, mainly because I'm to lazy. There are many reasons the Big Bang Theory (BBT) and Creationism can't be used for the same argument. The universe, according to the BBT is about 13.7 billion years old and Earth is about 6 billion years old. Creationism states that both the universe and Earth are in the realm of 6,000 years. Now moving to the theory previously mentioned that water refered to in early Genisis is actually hot energy. It says in Genisis 1:3 God creates Earth, and in Genisis 1:4 he creates the "water". That puts Earth before the "water" which if we are speaking of energy, is impossible.

Just a quibble. It is Gen. 1:1 which says God created the earth. Gen. 1:2 mentions the existence of waters, but it does not say God created them. For all we know the writer assumed they were always there. Gen. 1:3-4 refer to the creation of light and the dividing of light from dark, day from night.

Other than the misnumbering of verses, I agree with you. A literal reading of Genesis is not compatible with the scientific sequence, especially as one moves on to the creation of the firmament and the creation of vegetation before the creation of the sun.

 

[MarinoMan]

Other than the misnumbering of verses, I agree with you. A literal reading of Genesis is not compatible with the scientific sequence, especially as one moves on to the creation of the firmament and the creation of vegetation before the creation of the sun.

I must have a different bible. The one I posses, I have just been told is not the KJV. So it might have misnumbered verses compaired to the standard one.

 

[Mistermystery]

Actually, if you look in detail at the initial stages of the big bang, they are very reminiscent of the first few verses of Genesis as long as you allow for "waters" not to be literally water.

Consider that in the early stages of the universe it was very small. Yet it still contained all the matter and energy in the universe today. But the matter could not exist as matter. In the high level temperatures and densities that existed in the first 3 minutes of time, it was impossible for atoms to form, and without atoms you don't have the structure of a material universe.

The structure of the universe at the time was that of a sort of "fog" of energy. It was dark because even though photons were abundant, they were in constant interaction with other particles, constantly being made and unmade with no opportunity to shine.

Every particle that eventually formed the earth was present in that energy field, but it couldn't form the earth yet, because the universe had to expand and cool down enough to make atoms. Not until then could light shine, and it was even later that the first galaxies and stars could form.

See the chart and commentary here.

http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html

Now I am not saying the biblical writer thought of water as being anything else but water. He may have been inspired but he was not clairvoyant. Genesis does not refer literally to the big bang or any other modern scientific theory.

But the parallels are intriguing. In Genesis we have an endless mass of water in which the earth is without form and all is dark.

In big bang theory we have an immensely small, immensely dense cloud of super-hot energy in which matter cannot form and light cannot shine.

If I were looking for a scientific description of what Gen 1:1-2 is describing, the big bang is a very probable candidate.

quoted for awesomeness.

 

[gluadys]

I must have a different bible. The one I posses, I have just been told is not the KJV. So it might have misnumbered verses compaired to the standard one.

I have many different versions of the bible, but the verse numbering is the same in all of them. What version were you using as a reference? Perhaps it is a paraphrase more than a translation.

 

[MarinoMan]

Inside cover says "Holy Scriptures of the Restoration". Don't know if that means anything to you but this is a RLDS bible.

 

[gluadys]

Inside cover says "Holy Scriptures of the Restoration". Don't know if that means anything to you but this is a RLDS bible.

Yes, that could very well be different from a Christian bible. The LDS stands for "Latter-Day Saints" a phrase that refers to the Mormons.

 

[JoshDanger]

Chiming in on some of the various topics that have been covered in this thread:

It is irrelevant whether or not you believe in God or not when speaking of him alongside science. The presence, or lack there of, can not be directly observed, recorded, or tested and therefore science has no place for God. Science deals in nature, leave the supernatural to the philosophers.

As far as the Big Bang goes, I think the most compelling explanation I have heard is that this universe was started when a previous one collapses, and as such a new universe will come out of the inevitable crunch of this one.
However, seeing as though any event before the Big Bang and after the Big Cruch is and will be unobservable, untestable, and unrecordable, science needs not concern itself with finding answers to what came before or will come afterwards.

As far as the notion that God used the Big Bang, which a lot of people argue must have happened since something must have caused this cosmic event, is an irrational assumption. Well, I suppose its just as rational as any other, but the Big Bang doesn't need a cause. Time is a characteristic of this universe, and as far as we know, this universe alone. It is an aspect of space. Since at the moment of singularity, the instant of the Big Bang, there was no space or time, the rules of cause and effect do not apply. Logically, there is no need for a cause.

 

[Mistermystery]

As far as the Big Bang goes, I think the most compelling explanation I have heard is that this universe was started when a previous one collapses, and as such a new universe will come out of the inevitable crunch of this one.

However current evidence points that the big chill as some may call it, is the fate of the universe. I always will be open to either of the theories, but so far the big chill shows us that the universe is expanding.

Well, I suppose its just as rational as any other, but the Big Bang doesn't need a cause.

What if it had? doesn't hurt either side of the debate if suddenly you want to believe that God put it into motion.

 

[Jet Black]

As far as the Big Bang goes, I think the most compelling explanation I have heard is that this universe was started when a previous one collapses, and as such a new universe will come out of the inevitable crunch of this one.
However, seeing as though any event before the Big Bang and after the Big Cruch is and will be unobservable, untestable, and unrecordable, science needs not concern itself with finding answers to what came before or will come afterwards.

it sounds simple and elegant I suppose, but without evidence and a good mathematical model behind them, none of the hypotheses are particularly compelling. The problem with the crunch-bang scenario is thermodynamic in nature, and would lasst for only a finite number of repetitions.

It is an aspect of space. Since at the moment of singularity, the instant of the Big Bang, there was no space or time, the rules of cause and effect do not apply. Logically, there is no need for a cause.

Jmping the gun a bit and assuming that there actually was a singularity. (see earlier)