Question.

[Bulldog]

And what if it was proven that the flood di not happen. It would just leave a theological messgage, right?

 

[Ark-Guy]

And what if it was proven that the flood di not happen. It would just leave a theological messgage, right?

But the same scriptures that claim Jesus saves also claims the flood was world wide and did happen.

These same scriptures claim Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from his side.

These same scriptures also claim Jesus walked on water.

Of course, I still find it rather odd how a "christian" can deny the flood and creation based upon supposed science then turn around and blindly accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ...despite science claims that this event was also SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

 

[ThePhoenix]

But the same scriptures that claim Jesus saves also claims the flood was world wide and did happen.

These same scriptures claim Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from his side.

These same scriptures also claim Jesus walked on water.

Of course, I still find it rather odd how a "christian" can deny the flood and creation based upon supposed science then turn around and blindly accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ...despite science claims that this event was also SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

How many times have we informed you of the difference between data and theory?

 

[Ark-Guy]

Data says resurrection is impossible. Yet you claim Jesus rose from the dead.

You have also said that data shows that Adam wasn't formed from the dirt and Eve from his side.....and you believe the "data" in this instance. Once again, I find it rather odd the way some people use the same science to pick and choose what to believe in the bible and what not to believe in.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Biological theories based on the data of billions of people dying state that people do not rise from the dead. However, the data of one man from Galilee rising from the dead causes us to modify our theory to state that people usually do not rise from the dead but do rise with the intervention of God.

 

[notto]

But the same scriptures that claim Jesus saves also claims the flood was world wide and did happen.

These same scriptures claim Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from his side.

These same scriptures also claim Jesus walked on water.

Of course, I still find it rather odd how a "christian" can deny the flood and creation based upon supposed science then turn around and blindly accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ...despite science claims that this event was also SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

This has been expained to you at least 5 times. Why do you continue to bring up this poor logic of yours and use it to attack the faith of fellow Christians. I find it rather odd why a "christian" would do this. We are as Christian as you are in our beliefs and understanding of Christ.

If a miraculous flood occured, it would have left evidence. The evidence is not there (unless God used another set of miracles to purposely cover it up).

The resurrection of Jesus is taken on faith and has not been falsified. A worldwide flood and a young earth have been falsified.

Nobody is saying that God could not have flooded the world through miraculous intervention or that the world could not have been formed 6000 years ago. The evidence just tells us that this is not the case. There is no evidence to prove or falsify the resurection and it is accepted on faith.

Science has not falsified the resurrection through a miracle. If you believe that it has, could you point us to the studies that specifically state that miraculous resurrection is impossible? Science has falsified a global flood and a young earth (even a miraculous one because the evidence does not fit) or the other alternative is that science has shown a deceiving God.

I refuse to believe that God would deceive us this way, so I use evidence found in the creation itself to guide my interpretation of the scriptures. What's wrong with that?

 

[megajune]

But I thought the big bang was invalidated by default? You can't create matter. You can transform it, but it never create it. A simpler example - nothing out of the periodic table has ever appeared in a void for any reason. However, we're to think that a universe appeared? Out of nothing?

Maybe the first post of mine in this form was more of a rant Sorry.

Two points

1: If I believe in something I can't see, touch, feel, or hear, then I'm Religious because I put my faith in what I've read and been told. So, can we assume that the big bang is part of a religion? Interesting Ideas about church and state pop up with this - like teaching the big bang in schools.

2: Is it easier to believe that everything that's was required to create everything was on accident? Or is it easier to believe in God? Which takes more faith?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

megajune, you plainly misunderstand why the Big Bang theory came about. It wasn't plucked out of someones backside for no reason. The Big Bang theory was born out of observations. That's right - observations. It is not a religious doctrine.

 

[megajune]

megajune, you plainly misunderstand why the Big Bang theory came about. It wasn't plucked out of someones backside for no reason. The Big Bang theory was born out of observations. That's right - observations. It is not a religious doctrine.

I understand the big bang, and that's the problem. What 'observations' could anyone make to imply that matter can appear out of nothing . That was it boils down to for me. Something happened, and a universe appeared from nowhere, out of nothing, and for no reason. You can redress that all you want, but that's the story.

I said it's a religious believe because no one will ever prove it, yet millions of rational people believe it happened without any real reason besides they want to. Sounds like religion to me.

 

[gluadys]

I understand the big bang, and that's the problem. What 'observations' could anyone make to imply that matter can appear out of nothing . That was it boils down to for me. Something happened, and a universe appeared from nowhere, out of nothing, and for no reason. You can redress that all you want, but that's the story.

I said it's a religious believe because no one will ever prove it, yet millions of rational people believe it happened without any real reason besides they want to. Sounds like religion to me.

But the observations which led to the big bang theory do not imply that matter appears out of nothing. All they imply is that we cannot get far enough into the past to observe how (or if) matter originated.

Clearly, some form of matter/energy had to exist in order for the big bang to occur. If matter originated from nothing it must have done so "before" the expansion of matter which we call the big bang began. (If one can rationally speak of an event happening "before" the generation of space/time.)

But the big bang event precludes our looking into that "before" to see what was happening then. Big bang theory is just as consistent with causeless, eternally existent matter as it is with matter coming from nothing.

So part of your conclusion is right. Creation from nothing continues to be a statement of faith, not a scientific hypothesis, as science has no basis from which to test that sort of hypothesis.

But that is not an argument against the big bang as the idea of creation out of nothing is not essential to the scientific theory of the expanding universe.

 

[lucaspa]

Wadda' you guys N gals think?

Before the 'Big Bang', there was a void. There was nothing - no matter, energy, gravity, or time as we know it. Out of this void, for no reason, comes a everything. The laws of physics and ignored and matter and energy are created out of nothing.

The laws of physics are NOT ignored. We've been over this before, Ark Guy. First Law of Thermodynamics only applies within the universe, not to getting a universe to begin with. But you are correct, before the BB there was NO THING. No matter, no energy, no space, and no time. It is that no space that is really hard to imagine. But that's the way it was.

UNLESS, ekpyrotic is correct and there were two 'branes present and another universe. When the 'branes collided, the old universe stopped existing and our universe began existing.

By pure luck, stars are made, planets are formed, and the first life-form crawls out of the mud. The first lifeform develope into everything alive today.

Not by "pure luck". Physics, chemistry, and natural selection are NOT "luck".

Just a thought - Has anyone EVER, seen, touch, heard, tasted what I've described here? Sounds to me that science has become every bit as religous as we are. I was talking to a guy who said 'people who believe in things they can't see are ignorant'. I suggested it takes as much faith to believe in the big bang as it does to believe in Jesus.

You are writing this on a computer and seeing the letters on the monitor. However, in order to see the letters on the monitor there are electrons impacting the back of the screen. You can't see those electrons, can you? Yet you "believe" in them. So the guy was wrong.

Bushido also told you about forensic medicine. Forensics, all the time, is able to "see" what happened in the past even tho no one was there. Watch a couple of episodes of CSI and you will see how the reasoning goes that makes this possible.

Can you justify the Big Bang, and everything afterwords, without devine will?

Ark Guy, this is neither a forum with atheists nor an apologetics forum. As a matter of fact, it can be done. It requires an act of faith, but then, "devine will" is also an act of faith that there is a divine to have a will.

Atheism is a faith. But Big Bang is not. What is faith is that God created thru the Big Bang. The faith is the belief in God.

 

[megajune]

First Law of Thermodynamics only applies within the universe, not to getting a universe to begin with

So, before what we now know as the the universe existed, the Law of Thermodynamics didn't apply? Why? Because nothing "physical" existed? That makes sense, but that takes us right back to my first point. Nothing existed. And, then, a universe from nothing for no explainable reason.

Not by "pure luck". Physics, chemistry, and natural selection are NOT "luck".

Ok, I do believe in natural selection. That's plain as day. However, you're going to have a hard time explaining the physics and chemistry behind everything else. For example, let's create a giant, closed, air tight box. It's one light year across, wide, and tall. I has nothing in it. What would it take to make something alive pop out of the box?

You are writing this on a computer and seeing the letters on the monitor. However, in order to see the letters on the monitor there are electrons impacting the back of the screen. You can't see those electrons, can you? Yet you "believe" in them. So the guy was wrong.

I see your point. Becuase we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Bushido also told you about forensic medicine. Forensics, all the time, is able to "see" what happened in the past even tho no one was there. Watch a couple of episodes of CSI and you will see how the reasoning goes that makes this possible.

Ok. In a murder case, a forensic investigator knows what to look for - blood, hair, saliva, etc etc. Does anybody have any clue what to expect from a big bang? Could a forenic investigator know how to solve a murder having never seen or studied dead people? Can we apply this to the big bang having no real proven idea of what it would look like? Really, are we capible of examining what it left behind without knowing how it was put there or it's cause?

I will say this much, anything is possible with God. But, I think it would take more faith to not believe he created everything.

 

[artybloke]

But, I think it would take more faith to not believe he created everything.

I'll leave it to scientists to answer scientific questions; but this is supposed to be a Christian board. Everybody on this part of the board believes that God created everything. We just disagree about how. Capiche?

Now please inform me in what way the big bang is not "God creating everything". And don't give me the old straw man about the big bang being a big explosion; it isn't.

 

[lucaspa]

So, before what we now know as the the universe existed, the Law of Thermodynamics didn't apply? Why? Because nothing "physical" existed? That makes sense, but that takes us right back to my first point.

Because the Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to the universe. That's what "laws" are. They are descriptions of how the universe behaves under stated conditions. No universe, no laws.

Nothing existed. And, then, a universe from nothing for no explainable reason.

There are several possible reasons. Your question is called First Cause. You are looking for the uncaused cause that started the universe with its chain of cause and effect. There are currently 5 candidates for First Cause -- a reason a universe came from nothing. I've listed them here: http://christianforums.com/t43923 Notice that God is one of the list.

Now, you focus on "from nothing". It turns out that matter pops into existence in vacuum all the time in this universe. Where there is no matter, suddenly there is. It pops out of existence very quickly, but it is real while it exists. It's called "quantum fluctuation" or the Casimir effect or virtual particles. One of the cool things about String Theory is that it says that spacetime can also be a quantum fluctuation.

Ok, I do believe in natural selection. That's plain as day. However, you're going to have a hard time explaining the physics and chemistry behind everything else. For example, let's create a giant, closed, air tight box. It's one light year across, wide, and tall. I has nothing in it. What would it take to make something alive pop out of the box?

It's not a problem. It's been done. Your box would have to have the elements in it, from hydrogen to uranium. Hydrogen and helium comes from the initial condensation of energy after the Big Bang. The other elements come from nucleosynthesis inside the fusion reactors known as stars. Hydrogen fuses with hydrogen to form helium and lithium. Fusion of hydrogen with these and these with each other form all the elements up to iron. Elements above iron form from fusion in novae and supernovae, which then scatter the elements in the interstellar space and provide the raw materials for new solar systems. Our sun is a 3rd generation star. So, start off with a box that's 5 light years on a side and within that is a nebula of dust and gas (elements) left over from previous supernovae and the Big Bang. Gravity causes the dust and gas to condense and clump. One of the clumps becomes the sun and the rest the planets. When the density of matter in the forming sun gets high enough, fusion starts. So now we have sunlight. Meanwhile, the planets form from the elements in the remaining dust and gas.

Hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water, whichs is essential to life. You need a planet in the volume around the sun where you have liquid water. Not too close, not too far out, but that is a pretty big doughnut. Once you have the planet with liquid water, chemistry makes the chemicals that are the building blocks of life -- amino acids, sugars, nucleotides. The reactions can take place in the atmosphere by modified Miller-Urey reactions (and those work in a wide variety of atmospheres, including ones with oxygen), at hydrothermal vents in the oceans, or on comets and then delivered to the planet while it is forming. Once you have the amino acids, straighforward chemical reactions will make proteins. This can happen in a drying tidal pool, at hydrothermal vents, or even in the ocean. Proteins have been made in all of these; it's not speculation. Once the proteins are made, they spontaneously group together to form cells (called protocells) that are the size of bacteria. And surprise upon surprise, protocells are alive! They metabolize, they grow, they respond to stimuli, and they reproduce!
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
So there you have it. That's how you get life.

I see your point. Becuase we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Right. The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. As long as an event leaves evidence that is present today, we can know what happened even if we didn't see it. See a couple of episodes of CSI.

Ok. In a murder case, a forensic investigator knows what to look for - blood, hair, saliva, etc etc. Does anybody have any clue what to expect from a big bang?

Oh yes! Once you propose a Big Bang, then it's easy to make deductions of what you should see if it really happened. And we have found those:
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/acosmexp.html Questions about Big Bang
http://www.discover.com/science_news/newsflash/gthere.html?article=news_fish.html
Discover article on Big Bang, with compelling evidence
3. Barry Parker, The Vindication of the Big Bang, Breakthroughs and Barriers, Plenum Press, 1993.

For just one example: with a Big Bang, we would expect to see helium be 25% of the matter in the universe. And that is what we see. But the most famous example is what is caused the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or CMB. The original Big Bang put a lot of photons out in the universe. Wavelength shifts to longer wavelengths as the universe expands. The original photons of the Big Bang should have wavelengths in the microwave (radar) range now. In 1956 two physicists building a microwave telescope discovered the CMB, just like BB expected.

I will say this much, anything is possible with God. But, I think it would take more faith to not believe he created everything.

It does take faith to believe God did not create. Which is why atheism is a faith. But we aren't talking about whether God created, but how. It takes no faith to accept that God created by the Big Bang. We have the evidence in God's Creation to tell us that. The faith is that the universe really is "God's Creation". The faith is in the existence of God. Atheists have faith that God does not exist.