The Big Bang is nonsense, so why do I defend it?

[Halbhh]

I was once an agnostic and I subscribed to a similar train of thought. And to relieve your disappointment, I'm going to show you something.

To arrive at the YEC position, as I do, takes a literal interpretation of Genesis. It's as simple as that. The concept of YEC is as simple as ABC when you apply the concept of biblical inerrancy. When the Bible is held above all other claims, YEC becomes the model above all other models for the origins of the universe and therefore, life as well.

Biblical inerrancy, as a concept, is ridiculous to those who are liberal in their faith, even more so for those who are atheist/irreligious. I was talking to my mother months ago about Jesus and almost proposed the idea that He was frothing at the mouth and losing His mind in mental delusions as He preached the Word. I was an agnostic then and the idea didn't really bother me.

What spun me back 180 was when, in my belief and my mother's belief, that God prevented my fall into utter immorality and addiction.

I am not angered by those who are disappointed by those who are obstinate in their beliefs in YEC. Being irreligious, you appeal fully to logic and reason, and YEC is by no means logical/reasonable from a secular point of view. I merely hold to YEC because I believe in the perfection of the Biblical account and that's the end of my reasoning. There's nothing else to say.

I hope my response was satisfying in some way.

With a literal interpretation of Genesis and total faith, I'm reasonably guessing the Earth is about 4.55bn years old, and this fits perfectly to Genesis chapter 1, through time passage during verse 1, before verse 2, for example (one part), this wonderful and amazingly good scripture that helps transport us to a better state of mind. It's invaluably good for you to be aware that Christians brothers of sisters of yours with deep faith don't assume no time passed during Genesis other than the specific 6 days. I would not want you to mistakenly assume we don't have faith if we guess differently than a YEC does here. I know my God created all that is, and I think the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old. But the central key to saving faith is of course to believe in Christ and what He has done for us, and to do as He says in Matthew chapter 7, verses 24-27.

 

[pitabread]

Being irreligious, you appeal fully to logic and reason, and YEC is by no means logical/reasonable from a secular point of view. I merely hold to YEC because I believe in the perfection of the Biblical account and that's the end of my reasoning. There's nothing else to say.

This is probably the single most honest assessment of YECism I've seen from a creationist. Kudos for that.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

This is probably the single most honest assessment of YECism I've seen from a creationist. Kudos for that.

I believe that most non-Christians mock Christian YEC adherents because they try to rationalize everything they believe in which ends up on them unintentionally walking on eggshells because the rational support for Creationism is slim, I would say.

The evidence that does support Creationism fits well with the Scriptures, though, so by faith, we piece it together like a divine puzzle designed by God Himself. The evidence that we have for the flood, for example, is compared to the account of such in Genesis. The same goes for the discoveries on Mt. Ararat having to do with the Ark, for example.

The way that scientists support the Big Bang is that, logically, since the universe is continuously expanding at an exponential rate, they go way back in time and deduce that the Universe must've been a singularity at one time. It makes sense to the logical mind and I used to believe in that in the time that I shoved God to the depths of my subconscious mind.

I can testify to the fact, in my belief, that God was always on my tail, yet he finally caught me red-handed right as I was going to score potential popularity over Instagram. I was mounting popularity and my ego was being fed like a gluttonous eater and I would write just to make people swoon. I had nearly 100 followers at the time, all self-generated except for one. None of my real life acquaintances knew about the account. Then God basically stepped in and, more or less, stabbed my ego in the back and it wrecked me for at least 4 days, and it took another 4 days to restore the faith I had before 2016.

Sorry for going off-topic, but that restored my faith in the God of the Scriptures. Since my belief in God, and therefore in the accuracy and power of the Scriptures, returned, I have returned to the old YEC position I used to hold as a child and a teenager. I would definitely say God is good.

Yet instead of returning to a more militant position on the matter, I came to the realization that it's a damage to my witness as a Christian to try to defend an obviously faith-based concept with rational evidence. They're apples and oranges, frankly.

 

[klutedavid]

Which singularity is generally agreed to represent a breakdown in the accuracy of theory rather than a physical reality.

Once again, the concept of a singularity cannot be defined by science.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. (wikipedia)

Did you see the phrase, 'testable explanations and predictions', in the definition of science given above?

If you did understand that definition, then you are strictly bound by the defined criteria, i.e., TESTABLE explanations.

The Big Bang is a non scientific explanation, the Big Bang has an undefined and unknowable origin. Without an initial state we cannot measure, the clock cannot start. Unknowable, not subject to any test, no prediction is valid.

Any extrapolation should be treated with contempt.

 

[Ophiolite]

Once again, the concept of a singularity cannot be defined by science..

I seem to be doing a singularily poor (pun intended) job of communicating with you. I tried an extended clarification and that didn't work, so here is the short one.
1. This thread is not about the Big Bang theory. Please stop posting off-topic remarks. If you wish to disucss BBT further start a thread and notify me by PM. Further posts on the matter in this thread will be ignored.
2. Science is not especially interested in the singularity since science, for the most part, doesn't think the singularity existed. Please stop attacking a strawman. It is embarrassing to watch.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. (wikipedia)

Did you see the phrase, 'testable explanations and predictions', in the definition of science given above?

If you did understand that definition, then you are strictly bound by the defined criteria, i.e., TESTABLE explanations.

No.
1. A definition cannot capture the subtlies, nuances and variability of a field as complex as science.
2. Consequently a post hoc definition cannot impose restrictions upon the actual practice of science.
3. But all of that is irrelevant since BBT has made testable explanations and predictions.

The Big Bang is a non scientific explanation,

Unsubstantiated declaration.

the Big Bang has an undefined and unknowable origin.

The location and timing of the BB are known. Your statement is wrong.

the Big Bang has an undefined and unknowable origin. Without an initial state we cannot measure, the clock cannot start. Unknowable, not subject to any test, no prediction is valid.

Semantic value zero.

 

[Ophiolite]

I believe that most non-Christians mock Christian YEC adherents because they try to rationalize everything they believe in which ends up on them unintentionally walking on eggshells because the rational support for Creationism is slim, I would say.

The evidence that does support Creationism fits well with the Scriptures, though, so by faith, we piece it together like a divine puzzle designed by God Himself. The evidence that we have for the flood, for example, is compared to the account of such in Genesis. The same goes for the discoveries on Mt. Ararat having to do with the Ark, for example.

The way that scientists support the Big Bang is that, logically, since the universe is continuously expanding at an exponential rate, they go way back in time and deduce that the Universe must've been a singularity at one time. It makes sense to the logical mind and I used to believe in that in the time that I shoved God to the depths of my subconscious mind.

I can testify to the fact, in my belief, that God was always on my tail, yet he finally caught me red-handed right as I was going to score potential popularity over Instagram. I was mounting popularity and my ego was being fed like a gluttonous eater and I would write just to make people swoon. I had nearly 100 followers at the time, all self-generated except for one. None of my real life acquaintances knew about the account. Then God basically stepped in and, more or less, stabbed my ego in the back and it wrecked me for at least 4 days, and it took another 4 days to restore the faith I had before 2016.

Sorry for going off-topic, but that restored my faith in the God of the Scriptures. Since my belief in God, and therefore in the accuracy and power of the Scriptures, returned, I have returned to the old YEC position I used to hold as a child and a teenager. I would definitely say God is good.

Yet instead of returning to a more militant position on the matter, I came to the realization that it's a damage to my witness as a Christian to try to defend an obviously faith-based concept with rational evidence. They're apples and oranges, frankly.

I hope you will recognise this very short post is not a way of disregarding or discounting your position. Quite the reverse. I think saying more than this would seriously weaken the explanation for my own position.

I have no faith in faith.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I hope you will recognise this very short post is not a way of disregarding or discounting your position. Quite the reverse. I think saying more than this would seriously weaken the explanation for my own position.

I have no faith in faith.

Interesting. May God be with you.

 

[klutedavid]

I hope you will recognise this very short post is not a way of disregarding or discounting your position. Quite the reverse. I think saying more than this would seriously weaken the explanation for my own position.

I have no faith in faith.

You said.

The point of this ramble? It disappoints me that Young Earth Creationists listen only to the emotive human voice and ignore the logical intellect. It saddens me. It puzzles me. It frustrates me. Expressing this disappointment, sadness and frustration helps me diminish them. And who knows, perhaps a YEC will be able to explain their thinking and relieve me of at least some of my puzzlement.

What Ophiolite, I am trying to relieve you of your puzzlement.

You extrapolate to an extraordinary degree, (BBT), and then expect me to just accept that.

You provide nothing in the way of the initial state for space time, behold, it magically exploded at some point into what we see today?

The energy of some two trillion galaxies was somehow, contained in some undefined entity, this mythical singularity?

Your claiming that your explanation is logical and intelligent?

How about we ask first, when did time begin?

So, when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end. (GABRIELE VENEZIANO, a theoretical physicist at CERN, was the father of string theory in the late 1960s--an accomplishment for which he received the 2004 Heineman Prize of the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics.)

Science admits that the initial state of the clock is unknown. Yet, you seem to know?

 

[Ophiolite]

What Ophiolite, I am trying to relieve you of your puzzlement.

You extrapolate to an extraordinary degree, (BBT), and then expect me to just accept that.

I believe my statement was clear. This is not a thread on BBT. If you wish to discuss BBT please start a thread for that purpose.

My puzzlement relates as to how YECs can ignore the solid evidence for evolution. ChristIsSovereign has made several useful, informative, positive posts explaining how he arrived at his own position. If I understand him correctly he has faith in scripture and consequently will reject any evidence that seemingly conflicts with scripture. I happen to think that is a mistake, but it is a mistake he has a right to make and I respect his openess and clarity in expressing his view.

I introduced BBT to illustrate an example of a generic issue - the dichotomy of emotion/faith versus evidence/rationality. It is not the topic of the thread. If you insist on further discussion of BBT in this thread I shall be forced to the discourtesy of ignoring your post. I don't like being discourteous. Please do not force me into that corner.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You may need to rewrite this post.

Nah, I'm good.

 

[klutedavid]

I believe my statement was clear. This is not a thread on BBT. If you wish to discuss BBT please start a thread for that purpose.

My puzzlement relates as to how YECs can ignore the solid evidence for evolution. ChristIsSovereign has made several useful, informative, positive posts explaining how he arrived at his own position. If I understand him correctly he has faith in scripture and consequently will reject any evidence that seemingly conflicts with scripture. I happen to think that is a mistake, but it is a mistake he has a right to make and I respect his openess and clarity in expressing his view.

I introduced BBT to illustrate an example of a generic issue - the dichotomy of emotion/faith versus evidence/rationality. It is not the topic of the thread. If you insist on further discussion of BBT in this thread I shall be forced to the discourtesy of ignoring your post. I don't like being discourteous. Please do not force me into that corner.

Your no fun.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your no fun.

That why I abandoned my career as a stand up comic. In the last iteration I planned to form a double act with a friend, until another friend pointed out a double act with two straight men wouldn't work.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1. This thread is not about the Big Bang theory. Please stop posting off-topic remarks. If you wish to disucss BBT further start a thread and notify me by PM. Further posts on the matter in this thread will be ignored.

It isn't? Perhaps I read the title of the thread wrong then, I could of swore it said:

The Big Bang is nonsense, so why do I defend it?

2. Science is not especially interested in the singularity since science, for the most part, doesn't think the singularity existed. Please stop attacking a strawman. It is embarrassing to watch.

It is embarrasing, but for you.

If The Big Bang Started The Universe, What, or Who, Started the Big Bang? What About The Multi-Verse?

"The Big Bang theory implies that everything in existence resulted from a single event that launched the creation of the entire universe and that everything in existence today was once part of what’s referred to as the “singularity,” a single, infinitely dense point."

The Beginning of TIme

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down."

Your best argument would have been undecided as to how it began.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

"Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time."

The location and timing of the BB are known. Your statement is wrong.

Then you wont mind pointing out its starting location would you?

Oh I know, it happened everywhere, all at once. At least religion admits their religion......

Can we find the place where the Big Bang happened? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

"The Big Bang happened everywhere. It happened right where you are sitting, where the Andreomeda galaxy is now, and in the most distant reaches of the universe."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I believe my statement was clear. This is not a thread on BBT. If you wish to discuss BBT please start a thread for that purpose.

My puzzlement relates as to how YECs can ignore the solid evidence for evolution. ChristIsSovereign has made several useful, informative, positive posts explaining how he arrived at his own position. If I understand him correctly he has faith in scripture and consequently will reject any evidence that seemingly conflicts with scripture. I happen to think that is a mistake, but it is a mistake he has a right to make and I respect his openess and clarity in expressing his view.

I introduced BBT to illustrate an example of a generic issue - the dichotomy of emotion/faith versus evidence/rationality. It is not the topic of the thread. If you insist on further discussion of BBT in this thread I shall be forced to the discourtesy of ignoring your post. I don't like being discourteous. Please do not force me into that corner.

If you wanted to discuss evolution, you should have titled the thread:

The Theory of Evolution is nonsense, so why do I defend it?

But the BBT is an issue that deals with the dichotomy of emotion/faith versus evidence/rationality, since 96% of cosmology relies on faith in unseen, untestable and undetectable beliefs..........

 

[Steve Petersen]

This is why science is superior to religion: science can say 'I could be wrong.' Religion can't.

That is to say, scientific theories leave open the possibility of being falsified. Religious assertions do not.

 

[klutedavid]

This is why science is superior to religion: science can say 'I could be wrong.' Religion can't.

That is to say, scientific theories leave open the possibility of being falsified. Religious assertions do not.

So the existence of Dark Energy can be falsified, even though it has not even been detected by science?

String Theory can be falsified, even though multiple universes have not been detected?

It appears that science is becoming a belief system, a belief system just like religion.

 

[Aman777]

The way that scientists support the Big Bang is that, logically, since the universe is continuously expanding at an exponential rate, they go way back in time and deduce that the Universe must've been a singularity at one time. It makes sense to the logical mind and I used to believe in that in the time that I shoved God to the depths of my subconscious mind.

Why? God tells us the beginning of our Universe/Heaven was on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 The beginning of Adam's world was on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8 In fact, the Big Bang happened at the end of the 3rd Day/Age since it was only 180 million years until the first Stars lit up https://news.nationalgeographic.com/.../first-stars-universe-big-bang-edges-space-scie...on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 Each of God's Days/Ages is billions of years in length so Genesis shows the current scientific Truth. God hid the Scientific Truth in Genesis and it's really fun to find it. Amen?

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Why? God tells us the beginning of our Universe/Heaven was on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 The beginning of Adam's world was on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8 In fact, the Big Bang happened at the end of the 3rd Day/Age since it was only 180 million years until the first Stars lit up https://news.nationalgeographic.com/.../first-stars-universe-big-bang-edges-space-scie...on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 Each of God's Days/Ages is billions of years in length so Genesis shows the current scientific Truth. God hid the Scientific Truth in Genesis and it's really fun to find it. Amen?

Exodus 20:11

"Yom," the Hebrew word for day, is normally defined as '24 hour day' which is the case in both the Genesis account and the verse previously mentioned.

Hebrews 11:3

"The literal day theory accepts the clear meaning of the text: the universe was created in six literal days. The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable even by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light). The phrase "evening and ,orning" indicates literal days (cf. Daniel 8:14 where the same phrase in the Hebrew is translated "day")." ~ 6th paragraph of the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible notes, pertaining to verses 1:1 - 2:4 in Genesis.

 

[mmksparbud]

The word yom

In Hebrew Scriptures, and all models derived thereof, entities are reckoned solely after their behavior and not after their appearance. An entity is a behavior, not that which executes the behavior.
To define something, the Hebrew language does not look at outer parameters but always at the action that needs to be named. The time-length of a yom is an outer parameter and not regarded in Hebrew. Since time and space are the four dimensions of space-time, and we measure sizes in the spatial dimensions with a ruler, a clock is a ruler for time. An hour is a 'distance' just like a mile.
The Hebrew word for day is yom and this word appears in Scriptures over 1400 times. And without exception this word, when written in the singular sense, means day. And that's it. Never anything else. Eons are indicated with the plural form: days, as in the days of such and such. The most popular counter argument is that the meaning of our word is fiercely restricted to 'day' for about a thousand times in the sequential Scriptures, but in the secluded chapter of Genesis 1 means something completely different! But honestly, if in Genesis 1 our word should have meant 'long time' it would have said 'long time'. There are words available in Hebrew that mean just that. None of which occur in Genesis 1.
The word as used in Genesis 1 means day and day alone. There's no way around it, and every serious theory to make (systematic, not theological) sense out of Genesis 1 should first and foremost address the yom-problem.



בַּיֹּום (ba-yom)
This is the word יום (yom) meaning “day” with the prefix ב (ba) meaning “in.” Combined these mean “in the day.”
Daytime (יומם yomam, Strong's #3119): This word is derived from the word yom [str:3117] meaning "day" which can refer to a twenty-four hour period or daytime. The word yomam always refers to the daylight hours, the time between sunup and sundown.
Gen.2:17
"but from the tree of discernment of function and dysfunction you will not eat from him, given that in the day you eat from him you will surely die,"
There it is : {בְּיוֹם / bê'yom

Which is different from the {יוֹם / yom} used in the Genesis 1 account.
The yom problem in addressing Genesis 1


Many say that since Adam and Eve did not die in the day they ate of the tree that means the word yom doesn't mean 24 hours therefore evolution could be used in the Genesis 1 account, or that it means they died spiritually----no it can not.

When God said--"the evening and the morning"--that is what He meant. The Genesis 1 account is a 24 hour day. The day is Gen 2--in the day that you eat of it, you will die--these are 2 different words, 2 different concepts used in 2 different ways--"and the evening and the morning were day 1-6" as opposed to "in the day you eat of it"--The phrase "in the day" "beyom" means in the age, that is not a 24 hour day---both accounts are accurate.
There is also the how can there be a 24 hour day, morning and evening, when the sun has not been created till day 4. God said He created light on day one---He did not say He created sunlight. There are many aspects to the word light. Look it up. There is also invisible light. Light that can not be seen by the human eye--but certainly by the eye if God. Also Jesus is the light of the world. But I am referring to only created light. What God says is. If God says the sun does not shi9ne, it would immediately die. His word is power, it is His voice that creates---look up wave lengths. The power of sound. When He said t"Let there be light"--that is what happened. How??---Not my problem to figure out!! He said it, it happened. Was it what we now call invisible light or what, I do not know, maybe science will one day catch up to what the bible says. It has taken several 1000 years to discover that there is light that is not discerned by the human eye.
It may take a lot longer to figure out other things that end up making the bible accurate. The bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It also says the earth was void and without form. There were no periods in the Hebrew. The time between God created the earth and the time that creation week was started, could have been eons and eons. It say the earth was void, without form, there was water on it. So you are basically describing some water filled asteroid that was put in place long before creation started on it. Creation itself, took 6 24 hour days. That there are rocks that are millions of years old doesn't matter. That was that original formation that was set in place until God's appointed time to begin the creation week.

That is why I believe in the word of God and a YEC.

 

[Aman777]

"Yom," the Hebrew word for day, is normally defined as '24 hour day' which is the case in both the Genesis account and the verse previously mentioned.

Here is Strong's view of "Yowm".

yowm
Pronunciation
yōm day (2,008x), time (64x), chronicles (with H1697) (37x), daily (44x),ever (18x), year (14x), continually (10x), when (10x), as (10x), while (8x), full (8x), always (4x), whole (4x), alway (4x), miscellaneous (44x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. day, time, year

The word Day (Heb-Yowm) means a time 64 times and ever 18 times. It is used to mean a year, continually or always.

Actually, NO one knows the exact length of man's time is each of God's Days/Ages since we live today in the present 6th Day UNLESS you can tell us of a time in the past when Humans had dominion over mosquitoes and Angels (Gen 1:28) and when ALL creatures were vegetarians. Gen 1:30 IOW, Today is at the end of the last Day of Creation according to God's Holy Word. Gen 1:27 Amen?