• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang and Evolution

stovebolts

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
18,905
Reaction score
7,268
Not being a science major, I thought I'd run this by your guys.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/big-bang-gods-chosen-method

Most people know something about magnets, like the kind found in a compass. These magnets have two “poles”—a north pole and a south pole. Poles that are alike repel each other, and opposites attract. A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but with only one pole. So a monopole would have either a “north” pole or a “south” pole, but not both. Particle physicists claim that the high temperature conditions of the big bang should have created magnetic monopoles. Since monopoles are predicted to be stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable searching, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles?
The fact that we don’t find any monopoles strongly suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang. But the lack of monopoles is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely high temperatures.
 
" But the lack of monopoles is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely high temperatures."


My bible just says In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I dont see anything about any temperatures.
 
" But the lack of monopoles is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely high temperatures."


My bible just says In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I dont see anything about any temperatures.

I think that's the point ;)

But it does appear that science affirms the negation of the big bang based on the lack of monopoles as far as the article is concerned.
 
Ok firstly I'm gonna be honest here and say that magnetic monopoles and string theory are not exactly my primary areas of interest and so please don't quote me on anything haha!

Anyway, as far as I am aware magnetic monopoles are only predicted in these "theories of everything" - such as certain types of string theory - that keep cropping up as of late. Such theories are, in truth, far from irrefutable science. In fact, many theoretical physicists consider string theory to be little more than speculation and actually undeserving of the title "theory", given that almost the entirety of their predictions lie outside the realms of what we are able to test. In that sense, they cannot be considered falsifiable and so some might argue that they are not science in a stricter sense of the term.

Basically what I'm saying is that the big bang theory does not predict magnetic monopoles: unfalsifiable "grand unified theories" predict them, given the calculated conditions of the big bang. Thus, it is not reasonable to consider the absence of magnetic monopoles evidence against the big bang.
 
"... Bible’s account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely high temperatures."

The Bible does not say anything about temperatures. To say that it does is adding to scriptures.
 
I think that's the point ;)

But it does appear that science affirms the negation of the big bang based on the lack of monopoles as far as the article is concerned.

Your argument presupposes that the science relating to monopoles is correct.
Maybe the science needs to be revised based on the evidence?
If monopoles are found are you ready to say that science affirms the big bang?
How does the nonexistence or difficulty in finding monopoles prove anything in the bible?
 
well i dont buy the bbt for the reason who does something organise itself?

how does stellar nucleosynthesis account for the formation of particles from the simple hydrogen and helium isotopes to what we have on the periodic table now?

and also gravity wells is explained by what? something called dark matter.
 
Of course, monopoles are of no significance at all to evolutionary theory, which does not make any claims about that. It only assumes living things exist, and describes how populations of them change.
 
"... Bible’s account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely high temperatures."

The Bible does not say anything about temperatures. To say that it does is adding to scriptures.

Exactly Roof, you got it!

You've already quoted the passage, and we can clearly see that it makes no mention of extremely high temperatures. So, from a biblical view of creation, the Big Bang didn't occur.
 
Exactly Roof, you got it!

You've already quoted the passage, and we can clearly see that it makes no mention of extremely high temperatures. So, from a biblical view of creation, the Big Bang didn't occur.

I disagree. Just because the Bible doesn't mention temperatues does not mean that the universe or world or whatever was never at those temperatures. If that were the case, then we would have to conclude that there was no temperature at all (because the Bible does not mention any temperature)... which is nonsensical.

Does the fact that the Bible doesn't say "cheese exists" lead us to believe that cheese does not exist? Of course not! And the same reasoning applies here.

What we can infer from the Bible's lack of reference to extremely high temperatures is simply that the Bible lacks reference to extremely high temperatures.
 
Ohh I agree Light. I can see dogma when I see it :lol
 
Doesn't mention evolution either, now I think about it - but it does mention creation!
 
Light said:
I disagree. Just because the Bible doesn't mention temperatues does not mean that the universe or world or whatever was never at those temperatures. If that were the case, then we would have to conclude that there was no temperature at all (because the Bible does not mention any temperature)... which is nonsensical.

The Bible is silent on the matter because it was not important at the time. However, as the article I posted mentioned, the Big Bang doesn't pass the Scientific scratch and sniff test by their own measures.
 
Which could have happened through evolution;)

God said he formed Adam out of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life... It doesn't say anything about humanity evolving out of monkeys and there is much scientific evidence to state that we did not evolve from monkeys.

No, what the Bible teaches is that each type of animal was created, after it's own kind. It doesn't say that monkey's evolved from fish.
 
God said he formed Adam out of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life... It doesn't say anything about humanity evolving out of monkeys and there is much scientific evidence to state that we did not evolve from monkeys.

No, what the Bible teaches is that each type of animal was created, after it's own kind. It doesn't say that monkey's evolved from fish.

Fortunately, evolutionary theory does not claim (and, indeed, never has claimed) that humans evolved from monkeys!

Genesis 2:7 (NET):
The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
So, "Adam" was formed from the soil of the ground and God caused him to live. Is this compatible with evolutionary theory? Yes: evolution does not explain the creation of life itself, and at some point abiogenesis - the creation of life from non-living matter, such as "soil" - must have occurred.

Genesis does not explain how life was formed from the soil of the ground, or precisely what it means to breath the breath of life into something.

What if I were to go liberal on you, and claim that Genesis is meant figuratively or symbolically? I could be wrong in believing that it was intended to be metaphorical, but that does not alter the fact that certain understandings of scripture are entirely compatible with evolutionary theory.

---

Just to clarify- I don't favour a liberal interpretation of scripture, and I am personally unconvinced that humans were not created as humans from the first.
 
Fortunately, evolutionary theory does not claim (and, indeed, never has claimed) that humans evolved from monkeys!

Wow, I must be much older than you because when I was in elementary and Jr. High they were teaching us that we evolved from monkeys... If they're no longer teaching this, then I'm glad Science is changing it's views. :wave


Genesis 2:7 (NET):
So, "Adam" was formed from the soil of the ground and God caused him to live. Is this compatible with evolutionary theory? Yes: evolution does not explain the creation of life itself, and at some point abiogenesis - the creation of life from non-living matter, such as "soil" - must have occurred.

In Genesis 1:1, the word created is used. In the Hebrew, that word is Bara. This is how the Jews understand that word.

Ramban said:
Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having the power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly, He did not create anything, but he formed and made things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition.

Know that the heavens and all that is in them consists of one substance, and the earth and everythign this is in it consists of one substance. The Holy One, blessed be He, created these two substances from nothing; they alone were created, and everything else was constructed from them.

This substance, which the Greeks called hyly, is called in the sacred language tohu, the word being derived from the expression of the Sages: “betohei (when the wicked bethinks himself) of his doings in the past.” If a person wants to decide a name for it [this primordial matter], he may bethink himself, change his mind and call it by another name since it has taken on no form to which the name should be attached. The form which this substance finally takes on is called in the sacred language bohu, which is a composite word made up of the two words bo hu (in it there is [substance]). This may be compared to the verse, Thou art not able 'asohu' (to perform it, Exodus 18:18) in which case the word asohu is missing a vav and an aleph [and I is a composite of the two words] aso hu. It is this which Scripture says, And he shall stretch over it the line of 'tohu' (confusion) and the stones of 'bohu.' (Isaiah 34:11) [The tohu in Hebrew or the hyly in Greek] is the line by which the craftsman delineates the plan of his structure and that which he hopes to make. This is derived from the expression, Kavei (Hope) unto G-d (Psalms 27:14). The stones are forms in the building. Similarly it is written, They are acconted by Him as nought and 'tohu,' (Isaiah 40:17) as tohu comes after nothingness and there is nothing yet in it.

So the Rabbis have also said in Sefer Yetzirah: “He created substance from tohu, and made that which was nothing something.”

They have furthermore said in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah: “Rabbi Berachyah said: “What is the meaning of the verse, And the earth was 'tohu' (without form) 'vavohu' (and void)? What is the meaning of the word “was?” It had already been tohu. And what is tohu? It is a thing which astonishes people. It was then turned into bohu. And what is bohu? It is a thing which has substance, as it is written, [bohu is a composite of the two words] “bo hu” (in it there is subtance)

Genesis does not explain how life was formed from the soil of the ground, or precisely what it means to breath the breath of life into something.

Soil is a composite of organic matter and as scripture states, God called forth the land to produce vegetation. Humans are a composite of organic and non organic matter. Humans (as do other mamals) inhale and exhale the air around us. That is to say, we have the breath of life in us. Don't believe me? Stop breathing.

If you understand scripture, then you will see that all of creation has this breath of life. We first see this in verse two. And God's Ruwach... In Genesis 3:8, we see the words, ruwach of the day, so we see that even the day has a ruwach. Perhaps this is why scripture says that the whole earth is full of His glory...

In Exodus 10:13, we see an East Ruwach and in verse 19 we see a West Ruwach.

Ruwach, Spirit/Wind. It's one in the same... so we see the whole earth alive and breathing, which is why all of creation can groan (Romans 8:22). But we also see this trait in the Greek language. Take John 3:6 as an example. that which is born of the pneuma is pneuma, and in verse 8, The pneuma bloweth where it listeth....that is born of the pneuma.

And how does God create and form? He speaks it, for as scripture states, "And God said". And to speak is to breath, for in the breath, is also the spirit.

What if I were to go liberal on you, and claim that Genesis is meant figuratively or symbolically? I could be wrong in believing that it was intended to be metaphorical, but that does not alter the fact that certain understandings of scripture are entirely compatible with evolutionary theory.

---

Just to clarify- I don't favour a liberal interpretation of scripture, and I am personally unconvinced that humans were not created as humans from the first.

I believe in free will, so if you want to go liberal then that's your choice. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, I must be much older than you because when I was in elementary and Jr. High they were teaching us that we evolved from monkeys... If they're no longer teaching this, then I'm glad Science is changing it's views. :wave

It's cool; I was just being a little pedantic. It hasn't ever been taught (at least by a competent teacher) that we evolved from monkeys; rather, monkeys and ourselves share a common ancestor. To our untrained, non-zoologist/biologist understanding, this common ancestor would probably resemble a monkey;) (at least around the time of divergence, if that's the technical term haha!)


In Genesis 1:1, the word created is used. In the Hebrew, that word is Bara. This is how the Jews understand that word.

Can I ask you to elaborate on this? The writing you gave was informative, but I don't really understand how it prevents a reconciliation of scripture and evolution? Or were you simply posting it for interest? Sorry if I'm being dense!


Soil is a composite of organic matter and as scripture states, God called forth the land to produce vegetation. Humans are a composite of organic and non organic matter. Humans (as do other mamals) inhale and exhale the air around us. That is to say, we have the breath of life in us. Don't believe me? Stop breathing.

Oh yes, I'm not denying that! My point about the God's breathing of life into the man was that it simply cannot mean that literally: God has no need to breathe, and indeed no common physical manifestation that breathes. For this reason I consider the clause "[God] breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" to be at least somewhat metaphorical; I understand it simply to mean that God gave the man life.



And how does God create and form? He speaks it, for as scripture states, "And God said". And to speak is to breath, for in the breath, is also the spirit.

But is it not possible for God to speak, and for that which he has spoken to then come about through a process, such as evolution? Even if God creates by speaking, there must be a way in which this speaking causes things to be created and, in the case of the diversity of life, this could well be evolution! Now I'm by no means saying that scripture implies evolution; merely that it does not necessarily contradict or preclude it.
 
light said:
It's cool; I was just being a little pedantic. It hasn't ever been taught (at least by a competent teacher) that we evolved from monkeys; rather, monkeys and ourselves share a common ancestor. To our untrained, non-zoologist/biologist understanding, this common ancestor would probably resemble a monkey (at least around the time of divergence, if that's the technical term haha!)
Whatever...

light said:
Stovebolts said:
In Genesis 1:1, the word created is used. In the Hebrew, that word is Bara. This is how the Jews understand that word.
Can I ask you to elaborate on this? The writing you gave was informative, but I don't really understand how it prevents a reconciliation of scripture and evolution? Or were you simply posting it for interest? Sorry if I'm being dense!
I would suggest reading it again.

light said:
Oh yes, I'm not denying that! My point about the God's breathing of life into the man was that it simply cannot mean that literally: God has no need to breathe, and indeed no common physical manifestation that breathes. For this reason I consider the clause "[God] breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" to be at least somewhat metaphorical; I understand it simply to mean that God gave the man life.

The God's?....And your understanding of scripture is lacking, which is why you come to the conclusions you do. But it sounds as if you're pretty set on your view so I'm not sure there's much more to say.

light said:
But is it not possible for God to speak, and for that which he has spoken to then come about through a process, such as evolution? Even if God creates by speaking, there must be a way in which this speaking causes things to be created and, in the case of the diversity of life, this could well be evolution! Now I'm by no means saying that scripture implies evolution; merely that it does not necessarily contradict or preclude it.

Where do you stand? You say that it is not possible for God to speak, then you dance around by saying "even if God creates by speaking". I suppose God never spoke to Moses either huh?

No offence, but you and I see scriptures vastly different and honestly, I don't think I have the patience or graciousness to argue our differences. I wish you well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top