Evolution and the Big Bang Theory ..

[Gamerjohn21]

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?)

[Ciscokid]

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.

[marc]

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.

[Mr. J]

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.

[zoonance]

There is no scientific evidence for any science.  It is all simply made up.

[0man]

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

[Jimmy]

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.

[ex cathedra]

       

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/

[OUmillenium]

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. 

[Huscarl]

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.

[OUmillenium]

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.

[Mr. J]

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.

[Ciscokid]

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.

[k-pappy]

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

[zoonance]

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. 

[Ciscokid]

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? 

[Mr. J]

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.

[zoonance]

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!

[Mr. J]

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.

[Jimmy]

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.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

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.

[Ciscokid]

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.

[Mr. J]

Which Big  Bang theory?  There are countless theories and ideas, each calling themselves the Big Bang, each one "proving

[Jimmy]

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.

[Jimmy]

Actually, the big bang doesn't really deal with time zero; but rather only after.

[Britt333]

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 

This video silenced all fourty of us students....You could have heard a pin drop....Stunned silence...
amazing video

God Bless

[Mr. J]

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.

[Britt333]

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



God Bless

[Jimmy]

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.

[Mr. J]

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.

[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.