The Big Bang....

[rocky_923]

I'm not new to these boards i just don't post very often. I have recently started my own search for truth and was hoping this board could assist. This may have been addressed in another thread, but I was unable to find a match in my search...

While the big bang is just a theory, it is a widely accepted theory. It is a theory with convincing evidence to support it. The big bang implies a beginning of the universe and time-space it's self. If we go past this beginning we have nothingness.

So, in order to create the big bang does this not require some sort of intelligent mind outside of time-space to create something out of nothing?

[QED]

You are making a BIG assumption here, namely "If God created the universe, then Genesis is accurate."

It does, afterall, say in Genesis that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." if God created the universe (heavens and earth)
then that would validify the Genesis account, correct? Its not that hard to grasp, guys.

Think about it this way: The concept of god is not new. Many civilizations have come up with their own gods and creation myths. They all run along pretty much similar lines... so must they all be correct if it does turn out that a supreme being exists?

[axeplayer]

You are making a BIG assumption here, namely "If God created the universe, then Genesis is accurate."

It does, afterall, say in Genesis that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." if God created the universe (heavens and earth)
then that would validify the Genesis account, correct? Its not that hard to grasp, guys.

Think about it this way: The concept of god is not new. Many civilizations have come up with their own gods and creation myths. They all run along pretty much similar lines... so must they all be correct if it does turn out that a supreme being exists?

thats what's so cool about the Bible. it wasnt "thought up" or made up. it is God breathed and infallible.

[Curious]

thats what's so cool about the Bible. it wasnt "thought up" or made up. it is God breathed and infallible.

Nothing hinders the search for truth as much as the strict adherence to doctrine.

[juliod]

it is God breathed and infallible.

Hey axeplayer, ever read The Text of the New Testement by Metzger? You might find that you know less about the bible than you do about science.

What was that guy's name? The one who first compared the textus receptus to the best/oldest surviving manuscripts? Anyway, he identified over 30,000 variations among the texts.

And how about the Codex Vaticanus? It's one of the three oldest complete bibles. But it is so full of errors and corrections that it is understood to be a reject from an early manuscript factory.

And if the bible is "god breathed" (whatever that means) why don't all christians use the same one? Catholics, Protestants, Greek and Eastern Orthodox, and the Coptic church each use different versions. And none of them use the holy books of the Mormons.

This must be some strange use of the word "infallible" that I wasn't previously aware of.

DanZ

[israeltour]

its like peanut butter and jelly.

Evolution without the Big Bang is like a fish without a bicycle.

Or, to put it more formally: If god created the universe, humans and apes still evolved from a common ancestor.

DanZ

no. thats not it. if God created the universe then the Genesis account is accurate. (because Genesis says God created the universe). If the Genesis account is accurate, then so is the fact that God created man seperate from animals, plants seperate from animals, and plants seperate from man. So you see? God creating universe = evolution is wrong.

Or, it means your interpretation of Genesis is wrong. Think about this: we can see starts that are more than 10,000 lights years away from the earth. That would have to mean that God created the earth with light in transite. But, if He did that, then the light we are seeing really isn't from that star. Therefore, we aren't really seeing that star. So, if eveything is 10,000 years old, then God is lying to us.

Consider carbon dating. Carbon dating tells us that dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. One school of thought is that God created pre-aged cells. Another school of thought is that carbon dating works in the short term, but not for the long term because of unobserved changes in decay rates. Given these choices, I feel like I'm being told to pick which lie I'd prefer God to tell.

Honestly, I believe the Genesis story is a true account of things God did, and I think the church has misunderstood it, as a whole. Don't forget that in verses 1 and 2, God was hovering over the waters of an earth that was dark and void... and THEN He said let there be light... implying there was an earth in complete darkness and devoid of light at some point in the past, BEFORE God said, "Let there be light." I do believe there was a big bang, and that God triggered it... but it was long before the creation story begins.

That said, I can offer no evidence that God triggered the Big Bang, unless you believe in God already, in which case science is the evidence for the Big Bang, and you faith is the evidence that God did it. If you're an atheist, then I can't bring back beyond the Big Bang and no scientific evidence will ever do it for you... that requires faith.

[israeltour]

its like peanut butter and jelly.

Evolution without the Big Bang is like a fish without a bicycle.

Or, to put it more formally: If god created the universe, humans and apes still evolved from a common ancestor.

DanZ

no. thats not it. if God created the universe then the Genesis account is accurate. (because Genesis says God created the universe). If the Genesis account is accurate, then so is the fact that God created man seperate from animals, plants seperate from animals, and plants seperate from man. So you see? God creating universe = evolution is wrong.

Let me ask you this... when did God separate the light from the darkness? Was it during Day 1? Consider that on Day 1, given the Creationist perspective on Genesis, there was no Sun, Moon, or stars... but there was light. So think: where was the dark that God separated from the light? Remember, evening had not not occurred yet. That wasn't for another verse or two. Yet, we know that there was darkness before the evening, because it was there to be separated. Where was it? On the other side of the earth? Couldn't be, because that would mean it was night time on the other side of the earth, and it was clearly daytime there, because evening had not fallen.

These are the kinds of naggin questions that I've always had about the Genesis account... if you take the 24-hour day literally, then you cannot take the "night during day" literally. You have to pick and choose what is literal and what is not. Now, I believe this is wholly appropriate and necessary toward understanding scripture, and we do it all the time... so here is my literal interpretation of Day 1: The world already existed, during time of complete darkness over all the earth, probably after a meteor impact 65 million years ago. Hovering over now void earth, God said, "Let there be light", and enough mist and dust dissipated for light to finally hit the earth again. Since only half the earth is in the sun's view at a time, there was indeed a separation of the light from the darkness. God called "light" half day, and the "dark" half He called night. He saw it, and it was good. It was the end of a new beginning, one day.

If I'm right, then God have done anything He wanted during the time before Day 1. He could have created the dinosaurs through evolution or not. Since scripture is silent on all events before 65 million years ago, given my interpretation, scripture certainly cannot discount the possibility. After all, God is God, and do things any way He wants.

As we ponder these questions, let's not put God in a box! It's possible that without any religion to cloud their judgement, the atheists have perceived truths about God that we have blinded ourselves to. If so, what a tragedy. I'd like to see that reconciled.

[Nyril]

Consider carbon dating. Carbon dating tells us that dinosaurs died 65 million years ago.

Incorrect. Practically speaking, carbon dating dies at 50,000 years. I'm not saying you throw a switch at the 50,000 year mark and it becomes worthless, because in theory we can potentially get up to 100,000 years out of it, but I am saying that the dinosaurs are so far beyond this limit that it's absurd to even consider C14 as an option.

[Curious]

... so here is my literal interpretation of Day 1: The world already existed, during time of complete darkness over all the earth, probably after a meteor impact 65 million years ago. Hovering over now void earth, God said, "Let there be light", and enough mist and dust dissipated for light to finally hit the earth again. Since only half the earth is in the sun's view at a time, there was indeed a separation of the light from the darkness. God called "light" half day, and the "dark" half He called night. He saw it, and it was good. It was the end of a new beginning, one day.

But according to Genesis the Sun and Moon were not created until day 3.
It's nice to have a bit of creative thinking going on though.

[Curious]

Consider carbon dating. Carbon dating tells us that dinosaurs died 65 million years ago.

Incorrect. Practically speaking, carbon dating dies at 50,000 years. I'm not saying you throw a switch at the 50,000 year mark and it becomes worthless, because in theory we can potentially get up to 100,000 years out of it, but I am saying that the dinosaurs are so far beyond this limit that it's absurd to even consider C14 as an option.

This is true but the use of other radiometric tests using elements with a far longer half-life than C14 shows that the bones are certainly within this age range.

[israeltour]

... so here is my literal interpretation of Day 1: The world already existed, during time of complete darkness over all the earth, probably after a meteor impact 65 million years ago. Hovering over now void earth, God said, "Let there be light", and enough mist and dust dissipated for light to finally hit the earth again. Since only half the earth is in the sun's view at a time, there was indeed a separation of the light from the darkness. God called "light" half day, and the "dark" half He called night. He saw it, and it was good. It was the end of a new beginning, one day.

But according to Genesis the Sun and Moon were not created until day 3.
It's nice to have a bit of creative thinking going on though.

Actually, it was day 4, but I'm glad you brought that up:

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to dieivde the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth" and it was so.

During days 1 through 3, there was only enough dust and mist dissipated in the atmosphere for light to show through the firmament. On day 4 though, God cleared enough away so that the sun, moon, and stars could finally be seen through the firmament. Notice that these verses don't say God placed them in space, but in the firmament... from the perspective of a person, it would certainly appear like that's what God did. This shows that the writer thought he was talking about something God did in the firmament, and there sets up the context for verses 16 through 19:

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkenss. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

If we infer from verses 14 and 15 that Moses thought he was writing of an event that took place in the firmament, it is therefore no surprise that he would think the actual creation took place there, and therefore wrote of it as such. Had he realized that everything was already there, and that God was simply making them visible to us on Day 4, then Moses would have written something else. However, God uses us where we are at, and Moses wrote of the events to the best of his ability.

I have no doubt that Moses meant "create" literally in this case. But, he also meant "firmament" literally, and we know the sun, moon, and stars do not actually exist in the firmament. So, if one can concde that the sun, moon, and stars were are only seen through firmament, not in it, then we should for the same reason be able to concede that they only "appeared" created at that time.