Evolution and the Big Bang Theory ..

[Stucky]

I watch The Big Bang Theory on CBS every Monday evening.  Hilarious.  Best comedy I've seen in many years.   

[Jimmy]

http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-redshift


The above is for those who wish to read an overview of Einstein's redshift.

Jimmy, you have not stated which version of the big bang you believe in.  I suppose this is because you know that there is no proven version.  By the way, that is my position; there is no proven theory of big bang.  If there were a proven theory there would only be one version of big bang.  

Those who believe in big bang the most cannot even agree between themselves.

You know perfectly well that if you post your version of big bang, anyone could easily reply with endless examples of researchers that would disagree with your opinion.  Because that is all it is, an opinion.  A belief.  There is no single, standard big bang theory, much less a proven theory.

There are not different "versions" of a big bang "theory".   It is not a theory to be proven or disproven.  It is a description of the cosmological events of the universe since its beginning, the many, many details of which are discussed and debated.  Some are well established, some are not, some are even yet to be uncovered. It may happen that sometime in the future what we now refer to as the big bang will be found to be not true.  But as it now stands , the big bang is pretty much the accepted description of the history of this universe by most scholars in the fields of cosmology, astronomy and physics.

[Stucky]

Well said. Couldn't add to that. I just got a new giant Cosmos book which details a lot with Hubble shots. Amazing stuff.

Big Bang show is  , two and a half men too.

How bout that, we have the same taste in comedy.  2 1/2 men was my fav till Big Bang came on.

[fcadcock]

Back on topic for a moment, science has never proven human evolution beyond small changes from one generation of humans to the next.  We've never found fossil evidence of any humanoid linking us with other primates.  Judging by the fact that we have direct evidence of nearly all modern species evolution since the precambrian era, it's not likely that we ever will find such evidence. 

Second, the big bang theory is both a very funny sitcom, and a very valid belief.  Other than the biblical time scale, there isn't a whole lot of evidence which opposes it.  Sure, we don't know exactly what happened, but we have a pretty good idea.


As far as physics and science go, they can not disprove God.  People who say otherwise are simply looking for a way to disprove Him to begin with.

Religion tells us why God does what he does.
History tells us when God did what he did.
Science tells us how God does these things.

God created everything.  Do we agree on that?  When we find a new planet, or a new tree, we know God created that item.  Same holds with science.  When we find a new rule in math or physics, we know that God created that rule.  Why would He create a universe and not put rules in place to govern that universe?  When he created us, did he not give us rules to govern us?

[stevehut]

I don't have a problem with the big bang theory.  To me it sounds perfectly consistent with the Genesis account of creation.

Without God the BBT has at least two problems:

1) Some pre-existing materials were already there.  How did they get there?

2) Something made them go "bang."  What was it?

From what I've seen, science offers no clear answers to these two questions.

[fcadcock]

This is my second post in a row where I've agreed with you Steve. 

Before the big bang happened, there had to be a mass of, well, mass...  Where did it come from? and how did it go Bang?  There could have been no external forces acting upon it, all matter was inside the mass.  The only thing outside of this mass was nothing, and God...

The universe is too complex to be random.  Life is too well designed to have happened randomly.  We would see too many of what evolutionists call "false branches" in the fossil records.  A false branch is when an organism evolves into something that is not helpful for it's success and dies off.  So far, I don't know of any false branches ever found in the geological record. 

If evolution is random, that means that all species of plants and animals that EVER existed randomly evolved successful mutations during their evolutionary process.  Millions of generations of mutations, all of which were positive and created lasting genes.  Imagine flipping a coin as the mutation process.  random evolution would have us believe that every time the coin has been flipped, it has always landed on heads...  I bet you can't get a coin to land on heads 10 times in a row...  Much less if the coin had as many sides as the evolutionary process has options...  We're talking about a million sided coin here. 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Before the big bang happened, there had to be a mass of, well, mass...  Where did it come from? and how did it go Bang?

The whole point of the theory is that mass springs from, well... not-mass. 

If you study fundamental particles (particle physics) rather than the whole system (astrophysics), it appears (to me, anyway), that mass is not a something.  It's more of an attribute.  Sort of like electrical resistance.

It's like there's a competition - a tug of war - between forces arising from the Strong Nuclear force and the Electromagnetic/Weak Nuclear force.  On different scales, one or the other might prevail, but the tension between them seems to be what gives rise to what we perceive as mass.

Jarrod

[ilFantoccioYoshimine]

The evolution vs. creation debate is one of those strange and inexplicable points of human interest, where otherwise intelligent human beings, who may have exhibited a very good use of reason in many other cases, or even as a rule, get to said point and... boom... something just goes crazy in their heads, and suddenly they feel they can throw reason and logic and hard, factual evidence all out the window in lieu of their preferred worldview. And strangely enough, I'm talking about the ATHEISTS, NOT the Christians. (lol You thought I was an atheist troll for a minute, there, didn't you?)

The theory of evolution is possibly one of the greatest and longest-lasting hoaxes ever perpetrated by man. And that's what the FACTS say, as opposed to people who have merely had one too many adult beverages. It has been long-lasting because many men prefer anything... up to and including virtual insanity... to the idea that there might possibly be a God to Whom they will one day have to answer for doing all of the bad things they wanted to do rather than to obey Him. Unfortunately for all of them, "the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

The Bible is true, and because it IS true (really and literally), the reality around us reflects, even scientifically... that is, even those things which are observable and tangible to us... that this is so. All you have to do to confirm it, is turn off the discovery channel and close the atheistic text books, and walk out of the atheistic college classroom, and go out and hear the men and women who have seen the evidence that the atheistic majority (in the field of science) refuse to let the public ever hear, and that they hope (to whatever idol they hold dear) will never BE heard.

The atheists are absolutely right when they are outraged that a person... "any sane, intelligent person," as they say... should ever let their personal beliefs interfere with the acceptance of the truth as the physical and observable evidence declares it to be. What they have got wrong, is that it is they themselves who are doing this, NOT the Christians. And breakthroughs in practically every field of science, done by men not afraid to stare the truth in the face and simply report it, are confirming ever more and more that 1) the theory of evolution, and all of the countless little theories meant to plug the holes in that sinking ship, are being proven wrong by the evidence itself one after another, and that 2) there is no possible explanation for what we see around us, apart from an eternal, all powerful, and infinitely intelligent Designer. (Yes, that is really the only sane, rational way to take what the evidence really does suggest... again, outside of the falsified pictures and disproven lies in the evolutionary textbooks. Which is also a fact not fabricated by mere opinion.)

(See Stephen Meyer, Coldwater Media and/or icr.org for the very scientific details.)

[truth945]

As a 13yrd old boy, i've become more and more interested in science and physics, yet at the same time I'm a Christian, and wanted to ask what everyone thought about Evolution and The Big Bang Theory. I've been on numerous websites teaching loads of different things I couldn't even start to understand. I've come to the conclusion that God didn't make us as single cells to evolve into what we are today, not just because of the bible, but because I find scientific evidence doesn't explain how we could have evolved over millions of years without something going wrong, and how we could have got to be such complex beings. I wanted to know what you thought about macro evolution also (as micro-evolution is fact)?

The second thing I wanted to ask you is about the date of the earth and the big bang theory. I may be missing something here, but I can't see how the big bang theory (on it's own) be enough to explain our existence. Last time I checked nothing can come out of nothing, and the universe can't just 'be there' with out being created. Onto the date of the earth. I believe in a young earth, yet at the same time, I wandered if there was actually any scientific evidence that could say 'the earth is this many years old, no questions'. I think I'm right to believe the bible goes back roughly 7000 years to the time of Adam and Eve, yet we don't know the time gap between genesis 1 when Adam and Eve were created, and genesis 2 when they sinned.

Thanks a lot! (P.S- Did I post this in the right place?)

What About Darwin's "Missing Link Theory?"


Does it Really Exist?

This Awareness indicates that the problem with the theory is that whereas there was life on this planet, and growth and movement occurred in a kind of evolutionary manner, according to the seeds of consciousness which were planted here, the evolutionary pattern was disturbed, or was disrupted by an influx of entities from outside this planet who merged with those evolving souls, or entities, the earth inhabitants. This Awareness indicates that this influx of more highly evolved entities upon this plane as that which created a leap in the evolutionary chain, so that a new being appeared quite suddenly, and the link as being not clear.

This Awareness indicates that essentially the primates, in their evolution would still be working toward present human development, except for the influx of more highly evolved beings, which created that leap in evolution. This Awareness indicates that these entities as being not of a single origin or a single time, but as being from different cultures and different places in different times of the human evolution. This Awareness indicates there are those who were known as the OONs, (pronounced Owans), the fish people, or those having scales; and there were those known as the Cyclops and the Atlans and the Titans and the Els, these being prehistoric in their nature, prior to your recorded history, and as having greatly affected the evolutionary chain.

This awareness indicates there are certain references to these ancient civilizations on this plane, in biblical references to giants which were on the earth. In certain other religious records there can be found information relating to the OONs, particularly in Babylonian records, and there can also be found references tot the Titans and Atlans in Greek and in certain references to Oriental sources. This Awareness indicates that the references to the Els, these being the more highly evolved of entities upon this plane; these having had great influence quite early in the life cycle of this planet.

This Awareness wishes to go back in time; that well over a million years ago there were great civilizations upon this plane, and within the inner parts of the Earth itself. These civilizations as having the technology to travel through space and having communication with other planets in this system. This Awareness indicates that there were those known as the Titans, and those who were known as the Atlans, and those who were known as the Cyclops, and those who were known as the OONs. (Pronounced Owe-ans).

This Awareness indicates that there were many battles between invaders and renegades who traveled through space to various planets, and many of these entities upon this plane were engaged in these battles. This Awareness indicates that some five hundred thousands years ago, after some of these entities left this plane, that continent known as Lemuria remained as the greater civilization upon this plane, and many of those who remained in that area continued to use the great machines which had been left by the earlier visitors.

This Awareness indicates that Atlantis as a civilization did not begin to unfold until approximately two hundred thousands years ago, then, reaching its climax or peak of its development approximately 75,000 B.C. This Awareness indicates that Lemuria began to fade around that same period of time.

[Seriousseeker]

I am surprised that no one has referred readers to www.icr.org where they will find good responses to this issue by those who have got it right.  These are well-qualified scientists who love the Lord.

- Seriousseeker

[Frank_N_Sense]

I don't have a problem with the big bang theory.  To me it sounds perfectly consistent with the Genesis account of creation.

Without God the BBT has at least two problems:

1) Some pre-existing materials were already there.  How did they get there?

2) Something made them go "bang."  What was it?

From what I've seen, science offers no clear answers to these two questions.

It seems perfectly inconsistent w/ Genesis IMHO............ TOTALLY..

From nothing came everything??

Natural selection............  What was it called before there was something to select??

DNA invented itself??  How was that??

[Ciscokid]

I don't have a problem with the big bang theory.  To me it sounds perfectly consistent with the Genesis account of creation.

Without God the BBT has at least two problems:

1) Some pre-existing materials were already there.  How did they get there?

2) Something made them go "bang."  What was it?

From what I've seen, science offers no clear answers to these two questions.

It seems perfectly inconsistent w/ Genesis IMHO............ TOTALLY..

From nothing came everything??

Natural selection............  What was it called before there was something to select??

DNA invented itself??  How was that??

He's talking about Cosmology you're talking about Evolution, two different topics. 


Regarding Steve's questions, read up on M-theory. 

[zoonance]

I don't think the majority of scientists are out to prove there is no God.  That is silly.   

[JohnD]

I haven't read all the posts here, so I apologize if any of my reply is redundant to information provided by others.

1. God created a complete and functioning closed universe. He gave the stars and planets as light to the earth to be the beginning of time and for telling of time both day and night (24hr days) as well as the seasons.  Their light reached earth immediately, in the day they were created. God also made the natural/physical laws that all of creation has followed from their point of creation forward. This fact eliminates the speed of light as a means of dating the earth.

2. Every animal, herb, grass of the filed and tree was created with it's seed in it capable of reproduction. Trees and plants were already mature and bearing fruit for consumption. Adam and Eve were also mature intelligent adults capable of reproduction and given the command to populate the earth and subdue it.

3. If Adam cut down a tree on Day 8 how many rings would it have had? Some say none, I personally believe they would have had however many rings it would take a tree of that species to reach the same level of maturity. This would have been key information for anyone tending a garden. :)

4. After the fall of man and their expulsion from the Garden use of technology was a swift advancement starting with Cain. His lineage created music, metal working, architecture and cattle herding and domestication. Most of which was destroyed in the Flood.

5. Noah and his sons would have brought some of this technology with them, the ark itself for example. They would have had knowledge of building and architecture. Ship building tools, plants and seeds for animal fodder and replanting. There would have been few other natural resources available. Caves would have provided shelter and stone would have been the most abundant building material and resource available. The neolithic and bronze ages correspond directly to the years right after the Flood.

5. The flood and the affects of it on weather and the post flood world would drastically alter the original creation. Mountain ranges and rose due to increased volcanic activity to remove the water from the dry land. It also brought on the ice age making most of the northern hemisphere uninhabitable and at the very least hostile to life. Hunting and gathering would have been the primary source of survival.

6. All domestic herding, planting and human social development begins in Mesopotamia and the fertile crescent and spreads east and north from there beginning roughly 4500-6500 years ago. The oldest cities and the oldest written language(s) all come from this same region and time period. The Bristle Cone pine is the oldest living thing on earth and goes back 4500-4800yrs.  All of this corresponds to the end of the flood.

7. Given the detailed generations provided in the Bible we can safely gauge the age of the earth. All the generations up to the beginning of the flood equal 1656yrs. Generations from Shem 2yrs after the flood to Abraham equal 296yrs and Abraham to Jacob (Israel) equals 160yrs. Jacob's birth to the beginning of Egyptian captivity 130yrs plus 400yrs captivity till Moses led them out. So far that's roughly a total of 2644yrs from the beginning of Creation to the Israelites leaving Egypt. Dating the Exodus precisely to a BC date gets a little tricky, but as a nation Israel started roughly 1100BC and it's been a little more than 2000yrs since Christ's birth. Making the date of creation some 3744yrs before Christ and roughly 5744yrs+/- from 2010.

I believe God created what we would perceive as an "old" universe only because it was created fully complete as a closed system. The flood and post flood volcanism and glaciation created the geologic record we see today. Radioactive dating isn't reliable for the fact no one knows what the initial radioactive levels were, they can only be assumed.

Give Job 38-41a read for God's rebuke of Job for speaking without knowledge. God reveals the folly of man's perceived wisdom of events or the ways of God using His creation as an example. Through this we learn much about the creation and the mightiest of God's creatures Behemoth and Leviathan.

God gave the mind a desire to know and seek knowledge and science has the potential to reveal much about the wonder of God's work but never let the wisdom of men over run God's wisdom and your faith in God's word.

Cheers.

[jamcolo]

  WOW, what proof you got that god made anything? What ya got to show god made light from stars billions of light years away get here at creation?


What did Adam use to cut down the tree?


Do you believe in a flat earth? The bible does.

 I had I good laugh.