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?)
: Gamerjohn21 Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 10:47:42
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?)
The polar ice caps give us good solid evidence the earth is old even w/o using various dating methods. We can see light from stars that are many millions of light years away so obviously the universe has had to be around for quite some time.
The second one you mention is really what made me question the young-Earth theory. Reading the first chapter of Genesis for meaning, that is, realizing what it was trying to convey and just where the Sun, moon, etc. fit in the equation, sealed it for me.
Genesis 1 is a wonderful account of creation, however, it is not meant to be a scientific account, imho.
Faith is not science and science is not faith.
If God is a God without man-made limitations, He is perfectly capable of creating a fully functioning universe with fully functioning living things, with a fully functioning earth, with or without a "past." He is capable of putting light waves into their proper place so we can see the stars. He does not need time to help him. However, in our limited capacity, we may need time as a crutch to explain things to ourselves if we lack faith in the bible.
If one believes God is without limit and is capable of doing all the above and much more beyond our imaginations, then we are only capable of measuring time for which we have a history passed down from our forefathers. Beyond that we may not be able to differentiate between what was created and what came with the passing of time.
The Bible is very clear that we are within the dimension of time and that not all of creation is in the time dimension. The Bible says time will be called to an end.
As far as evolution and the big bang, there is no scientific evidence for either.
Do not base your faith on cartoons in a government school textbook.
There is no scientific evidence for any science. It is all simply made up.
Read this for an account of the geological periods as represented by the 'days' in the Bible.
EDIT
Apologies to anyone who couldn't gain access and hopefully it has been sorted. Thanks.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=d7z8q66_34fjms5tg2
: Mr. J Thu Oct 22, 2009 - 22:37:21
Faith is not science and science is not faith.
If God is a God without man-made limitations, He is perfectly capable of creating a fully functioning universe with fully functioning living things, with a fully functioning earth, with or without a "past." He is capable of putting light waves into their proper place so we can see the stars. He does not need time to help him.
And if God is a God without man-made limitations, He is perfectly capable of creating a fully functioning universe through all the physical laws of of this universe as He created them in the beginning with the big bang. He does not need anyone, particularly the uneducated in the basic laws of sicence, to invent how they think He might have done it.
: Gamerjohn21 Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 10:47:42
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?)
your a lot smarter at 13 than iam at 60.
but there is some one a whole lot smarter in the area of science and history and the begining of creation than any of us .
And thats God.
And you knew that and told us that beautifuly and you are only 13.
To me who might live to be 70 or even to perhaps 80 if God gives me the strength .
7000 years is a very long time .
any way thought you might like a new link with a lot about science.
http://lutheranscience.org/2009-AgeofEarth.html
http://lutheranscience.org/
: Mr. J Thu Oct 22, 2009 - 22:37:21
Faith is not science and science is not faith.
If God is a God without man-made limitations, He is perfectly capable of creating a fully functioning universe with fully functioning living things, with a fully functioning earth, with or without a "past." He is capable of putting light waves into their proper place so we can see the stars. He does not need time to help him. However, in our limited capacity, we may need time as a crutch to explain things to ourselves if we lack faith in the bible.
If one believes God is without limit and is capable of doing all the above and much more beyond our imaginations, then we are only capable of measuring time for which we have a history passed down from our forefathers. Beyond that we may not be able to differentiate between what was created and what came with the passing of time.
The Bible is very clear that we are within the dimension of time and that not all of creation is in the time dimension. The Bible says time will be called to an end.
As far as evolution and the big bang, there is no scientific evidence for either.
Do not base your faith on cartoons in a government school textbook.
Great post. I have never really thought deeply about time outside of a great Sunday School class when I was about 12 years old and we were discussing death, rapture, and all meeting at the time of judgement.
When the Big Bang Theory was first proposed, it was rejected by a lot of scientists on the grounds that it was too similar to Genesis to be scientific fact (Let there be light.....and there was light). Personally I don't see how the Big Bang Theory contradicts anything in Christianity.
As for evolution, guaranteed that some form of evolution has certainly taken place on earth, there is a large fossil record showing how organisms have changed over thousands and even millions of years. However the idea that life sprang up from no where on its own, evolved from single celled organisms to complex life forms that all fitted perfectly into an unimaginably complex biological web with each organism fulfilling a role in making an entire ecosystem work, all without a guiding hand, is preposterous. It's what's called the Thermo-Dynamic Miracle, the idea that even if something is technically POSSIBLE, the odds of it ever actually happening are so infinitesimally small that even when dealing with numbers as large as we see when studying the universe, that if it were to actually occur it would be the same as a miracle.
I don't think you can simply cling to either creationism or evolution absolutely, the truth certainly lies somewhere in between.
Great thoughts. I liked the idea of the big bang = let there be light, never thought about that (sadly).
I can definitely cling to creationism but I also see the adaption of biological life that takes place. So evolution = no, adaption = of course.
: Jimmy Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 13:44:25
He does not need anyone, particularly the uneducated in the basic laws of sicence, to invent how they think He might have done it.
Bravo! We are in total agreement on this point. The uneducated who wish to push a THEORY as though it were fact have always been a great problem within the scientific community. The Big Bang THEORY is just that, a theory. It remains a theory because it has too many holes in it to be accepted by the scientific body as a whole.
We are plagued by those who push theories as though they were fact.
: Mr. J Wed Nov 11, 2009 - 22:14:04
: Jimmy Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 13:44:25
He does not need anyone, particularly the uneducated in the basic laws of sicence, to invent how they think He might have done it.
Bravo! We are in total agreement on this point. The uneducated who wish to push a THEORY as though it were fact have always been a great problem within the scientific community. The Big Bang THEORY is just that, a theory. It remains a theory because it has too many holes in it to be accepted by the scientific body as a whole.
We are plagued by those who push theories as though they were fact.
If you believe that there was no "big bang" or beginning to our universe [or have an alternate belief] you can gather your data/evidence and submit it to the scientific community [peer reviewed journal works well]. If your findings refute what is currently believed, I'm sure you would win a nobel prize of some sort.
: Ciscokid Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 09:14:38
: Mr. J Wed Nov 11, 2009 - 22:14:04
: Jimmy Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 13:44:25
He does not need anyone, particularly the uneducated in the basic laws of sicence, to invent how they think He might have done it.
Bravo! We are in total agreement on this point. The uneducated who wish to push a THEORY as though it were fact have always been a great problem within the scientific community. The Big Bang THEORY is just that, a theory. It remains a theory because it has too many holes in it to be accepted by the scientific body as a whole.
We are plagued by those who push theories as though they were fact.
If you believe that there was no "big bang" or beginning to our universe [or have an alternate belief] you can gather your data/evidence and submit it to the scientific community [peer reviewed journal works well]. If your findings refute what is currently believed, I'm sure you would win a nobel prize of some sort.
Will you please show me the data that proves the Big Bang theory? Perhaps while you are doing that, you can explain why it violates Newton's laws of motion?
Thanks!
In Christ,
KP
: k-pappy Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 15:52:03
: Ciscokid Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 09:14:38
: Mr. J Wed Nov 11, 2009 - 22:14:04
: Jimmy Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 13:44:25
He does not need anyone, particularly the uneducated in the basic laws of sicence, to invent how they think He might have done it.
Bravo! We are in total agreement on this point. The uneducated who wish to push a THEORY as though it were fact have always been a great problem within the scientific community. The Big Bang THEORY is just that, a theory. It remains a theory because it has too many holes in it to be accepted by the scientific body as a whole.
We are plagued by those who push theories as though they were fact.
If you believe that there was no "big bang" or beginning to our universe [or have an alternate belief] you can gather your data/evidence and submit it to the scientific community [peer reviewed journal works well]. If your findings refute what is currently believed, I'm sure you would win a nobel prize of some sort.
Will you please show me the data that proves the Big Bang theory? Perhaps while you are doing that, you can explain why it violates Newton's laws of motion?
Thanks!
In Christ,
KP
Law? I wonder what Newton would do with today's technology.
: k-pappy Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 15:52:03
Will you please show me the data that proves the Big Bang theory? Perhaps while you are doing that, you can explain why it violates Newton's laws of motion?
Thanks!
In Christ,
KP
Before I begin, I think it's important to define what the big bang is. Cosmologist P.J.E Peebles said the following:
"That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began."
Here is some data that helps to substantiate the theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Hubble.27s_law_and_the_expansion_of_space
With regard to your question about Newton's law of motion, can you describe in better detail what you want me to address specifically?
: Ciscokid Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 09:14:38
: Mr. J Wed Nov 11, 2009 - 22:14:04
: Jimmy Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 13:44:25
He does not need anyone, particularly the uneducated in the basic laws of sicence, to invent how they think He might have done it.
Bravo! We are in total agreement on this point. The uneducated who wish to push a THEORY as though it were fact have always been a great problem within the scientific community. The Big Bang THEORY is just that, a theory. It remains a theory because it has too many holes in it to be accepted by the scientific body as a whole.
We are plagued by those who push theories as though they were fact.
If you believe that there was no "big bang" or beginning to our universe [or have an alternate belief] you can gather your data/evidence and submit it to the scientific community [peer reviewed journal works well]. If your findings refute what is currently believed, I'm sure you would win a nobel prize of some sort.
Cisco,
You are asking for an alternative to the Big Bang. Science does not operate on the premise that one must have an alternative. Science operates on the premise that an idea or theory must be proven true. No alternatives, no excuses. Either it stands on it's own merit or it does not.
This nonsense about needing an alternative idea comes not from the scientific method, but from some sort of religious attachment to a notion (theory) which must be protected as any cost.
Believing in an unproven theory (no matter how popular) to the exclusion of all other possibility is an act of faith. A belief based on faith is a religion.
There are those who can see some of the evidence that might point to a Big Bang while still retaining their objectivity, being able to see holes in the theory. And then there are those who just jump in head first and become part of the Big Bang Religion. (Or Evolution Religion, etc, etc.)
A lot of thought has gone into the Big Bang Theory. A lot of interesting observations have been made. A lot of what was considered sound physics has been shown by further observation to be perhaps not so sound. It is a theory. No more, no less.
The Flat World Theory was once taught in all the major schools. If one did not go along with the popular position, one was an outcast, or worse. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The opposite of the Big Bang is the Little Poof. That may not add to the discussion but opposites attract - I may be on to something!
: Ciscokid Fri Nov 20, 2009 - 10:26:22
: k-pappy Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 15:52:03
Will you please show me the data that proves the Big Bang theory? Perhaps while you are doing that, you can explain why it violates Newton's laws of motion?
Thanks!
In Christ,
KP
Before I begin, I think it's important to define what the big bang is. Cosmologist P.J.E Peebles said the following:
"That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began."
Here is some data that helps to substantiate the theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Hubble.27s_law_and_the_expansion_of_space
With regard to your question about Newton's law of motion, can you describe in better detail what you want me to address specifically?
Cisco,
Contrary to what Mr. Pebbles says, The Father of the Big Bang Theory, Georges Lemaitre, says,"According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time."
Mr. Pebbles, and countless others, abandoned the high priest of Big Bang on the basis that it is not a sound theory, following a modified theory instead. There are, however, many who follow blindly in the footsteps of the high priest of the Big Bang Religion. Others follow break away Big Bang religions. Others just call it a theory and don't get hung up on assumptions.
The Big Bang theory was published in 1931. We've learned a lot since then, which is why the theory has had to change, and change, and change some more. Science has disproved the Big Bang theory again and again, for almost 80 years.
The more we learn, the more holes we poke into our assumptions.
: Mr. J Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 17:20:11
: Ciscokid Fri Nov 20, 2009 - 10:26:22
: k-pappy Thu Nov 19, 2009 - 15:52:03
Will you please show me the data that proves the Big Bang theory? Perhaps while you are doing that, you can explain why it violates Newton's laws of motion?
Thanks!
In Christ,
KP
Before I begin, I think it's important to define what the big bang is. Cosmologist P.J.E Peebles said the following:
"That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began."
Here is some data that helps to substantiate the theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Hubble.27s_law_and_the_expansion_of_space
With regard to your question about Newton's law of motion, can you describe in better detail what you want me to address specifically?
Cisco,
Contrary to what Mr. Pebbles says, The Father of the Big Bang Theory, Georges Lemaitre, says,"According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time."
Mr. Pebbles, and countless others, abandoned the high priest of Big Bang on the basis that it is not a sound theory, following a modified theory instead. There are, however, many who follow blindly in the footsteps of the high priest of the Big Bang Religion. Others follow break away Big Bang religions. Others just call it a theory and don't get hung up on assumptions.
The Big Bang theory was published in 1931. We've learned a lot since then, which is why the theory has had to change, and change, and change some more. Science has disproved the Big Bang theory again and again, for almost 80 years.
The more we learn, the more holes we poke into our assumptions.
Just how has science deproved the big bang theory? I know you said "again and again", but once will be enough. The last time I looked, the "big bang" is pretty much the accepted description of the last 13+ billion years of the universe.
: zoonance Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 15:32:46
The opposite of the Big Bang is the Little Poof. That may not add to the discussion but opposites attract - I may be on to something!
I hate that thing. It seems to follow me sometimes.
: Mr. J Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 17:20:11
The Big Bang theory was published in 1931. We've learned a lot since then, which is why the theory has had to change, and change, and change some more. Science has disproved the Big Bang theory again and again, for almost 80 years.
The more we learn, the more holes we poke into our assumptions.
Do you mind addressing that statement a little more? I'm absolutely blown away by it and I have no idea where you came up with it so I'm curious.
Which Big Bang theory? There are countless theories and ideas, each calling themselves the Big Bang, each one "proving
Mr. J,
Have you had any formal training in the sciences? My guess is that you haven't. What you have presented as an argument against the reality of the big bang doesn't accomplish what you seem to think it does. All you have done is present the various questions that have arisen over the years about the progression of events. Some of them have been answered rather conclusively, some might still be in question. But that is not an argument against the big bang.
Actually, the big bang doesn't really deal with time zero; but rather only after.
here is an awesome video that pretty much proves Darwin's Theory of Evolution is fake....
Incredable...We watched this a couple weeks ago in Bio class....My teacher doesnt belive in Darwin so he was showing us both sides of the story ::smile::
This video silenced all fourty of us students....You could have heard a pin drop....Stunned silence...
amazing video
God Bless
: Jimmy Thu Dec 17, 2009 - 07:02:41
Mr. J,
Have you had any formal training in the sciences? My guess is that you haven't. What you have presented as an argument against the reality of the big bang doesn't accomplish what you seem to think it does. All you have done is present the various questions that have arisen over the years about the progression of events. Some of them have been answered rather conclusively, some might still be in question. But that is not an argument against the big bang.
Apparently you totally missed the point. There very much is disagreement as to the validity of the Big Bang. Even within the Big Bang camp, there is so much disagreement that there is no possibility of a cohesive theory. Those who want to believe in the Big Bang cannot even agree on what to believe in.
The big bangers all tell us it is true, yet they cannot even tell us what it is!
The only common agreement amongst the big bang believers is the notion of an expanding universe. Big Bang was 100% based on Hubble's idea of redshift suggesting an expanding universe. No expanding universe, no big bang.
Einstein proved Hubble's thoughts about redshift were wrong and did not show an expanding universe.
Einstein disproved the big bang theory.
If you wish to come on a board to discuss or debate your position on the Big Band, it would be greatly helpful for all readers if you would define which of the many versions of Big Bang you believe in and why that version has proven superior to all other versions of Big Bang. If you have no position, then you're only an instigator.
The majority of the scientific body held on the the Flat Earth idea long after it was shown to be untrue, also. Just because you're in the majority does not mean you are right.
: Todd Grace Thu Dec 17, 2009 - 22:03:53
Britt333,
I could tell by the picture it was M. Behe. He is also on Lee Strobel's A Case for Creation DVD. You would like this a lot. Also send away for the free publication Creation or Evolution from www.gnmagazine.com. Awesome stuff.
THANKS
::smile::
God Bless
: Mr. J Thu Dec 17, 2009 - 22:48:37
: Jimmy Thu Dec 17, 2009 - 07:02:41
Mr. J,
Have you had any formal training in the sciences? My guess is that you haven't. What you have presented as an argument against the reality of the big bang doesn't accomplish what you seem to think it does. All you have done is present the various questions that have arisen over the years about the progression of events. Some of them have been answered rather conclusively, some might still be in question. But that is not an argument against the big bang.
Apparently you totally missed the point. There very much is disagreement as to the validity of the Big Bang. Even within the Big Bang camp, there is so much disagreement that there is no possibility of a cohesive theory. Those who want to believe in the Big Bang cannot even agree on what to believe in.
The big bangers all tell us it is true, yet they cannot even tell us what it is!
The only common agreement amongst the big bang believers is the notion of an expanding universe. Big Bang was 100% based on Hubble's idea of redshift suggesting an expanding universe. No expanding universe, no big bang.
Einstein proved Hubble's thoughts about redshift were wrong and did not show an expanding universe.
Einstein disproved the big bang theory.
If you wish to come on a board to discuss or debate your position on the Big Band, it would be greatly helpful for all readers if you would define which of the many versions of Big Bang you believe in and why that version has proven superior to all other versions of Big Bang. If you have no position, then you're only an instigator.
The majority of the scientific body held on the the Flat Earth idea long after it was shown to be untrue, also. Just because you're in the majority does not mean you are right.
I was right. You obviously have not had any formal training in any of the sciences. You haven't the foggiest notion about Einstien or his work. Einstein most certainly didn't prove Hubble's ideas were wrong about the redshift. And Einstein most certainly didn't disprove the big bang. He didn't like what his own equations were telling him about the expansion of the universe, therefore he adjusted his equations arbitrarily to yield a solution of a steady state universe. Later, when Hubble's data confirmed an expanding universe, Einstein said that the arbitrary modification that he imposed was probably one of the biggest mistakes that he made in his career.
As far as the rest of it is concerned, based upon your comments thus far, it would seem that you are in any position to debate anything of substance in the fields of astronomy, cosmology, or advanced physics.
http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-redshift (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.
I watch The Big Bang Theory on CBS every Monday evening. Hilarious. Best comedy I've seen in many years. rofl
: Mr. J Sat Dec 19, 2009 - 22:50:08
http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-redshift (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.
: Todd Grace Sun Dec 20, 2009 - 07:47:24
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 rofl, 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.
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?
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.
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.
: fcadcock Thu Mar 11, 2010 - 21:54:59
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
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.)
: Gamerjohn21 Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 10:47:42
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.
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
: stevehut Thu Mar 11, 2010 - 20:58:51
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??
: Frank_N_Sense Thu Jun 24, 2010 - 18:29:41
: stevehut Thu Mar 11, 2010 - 20:58:51
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.
I don't think the majority of scientists are out to prove there is no God. That is silly.
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.
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.
You think that you are a human? You are not. No one is. Whats wild is that for every cell in your body that is you there are 10 that are not. Thats right there are 10 times more bacterial cells in your body than human cells. Without them you would not be healthy. People would not even be at all.
What you say.
Its like this. Soon after the Human Genome Project published its preliminary results in 2001, a group of scientists announced that a handful of human genes—the consensus today is around 40—appear to be bacterial in origin.
Without the bacterial humans would not have evolved at all.
Science can tell us the "How," religion can tell us the "Why."
reread the Genesis story. Remember, it was written many thousands (6,000 I believe. Way before the bible) of years ago by people who had absolutely no knowledge of science. They barely understood fire.
Now compare the story with the Big Bang theory. The only item that doesn't match up correctly are birds. The bible puts them in the same day as fish, while evolution tells us that they would have come after land creatures. (also, note that the theory of evolution doesn't say that humans had to have come from monkeys.) That and you have to stretch the "days" out a little.
Realize that our sun is a star and wouldn't have been created until the heavens were created. So what was the light on the first day? It was the explosive expansion of existance from nothing, or the "bang."
The universe (and all of existance) is FAR too organized to be random. Also, there are no outlying oddities. If everything were truly random as people say, physics wouldn't work. Math wouldn't work. every now and again, 2+2 would equal 6 and not always 4. There IS something that created the universe. That something is God, and God created EVERYTHING. Dirt, water, math, the sun, general cornwallas, my left shoe, all of it, was created by Him. (well, my left shoe was created by some woman in china, but the atoms that make up the shoe are deffinately HIS...)