[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang = Big Fail

[cupid dave]

Here's my take on the Big Bang theory:

It may have happened, just like Genesis may have happened, just like evolution may have happened. We can't prove any of them beyond a shadow of a doubt, so why worry about it?

If the Big Bang did happen, then God pulled the trigger.

That pretty much sums it up for me. I don't lose sleep over it.

All that seems important is that BOTH science and Genesis now finally agree, i.e.; the Universe was NOT ALWAYS there, but did have a beginning.

 

[Adam]

That would be a fine statement if the scientific community held that position and if you could show that "In the beginning" is actually in reference to the beginning of the universe..

It is still inconclusive, however, and no one is making the assessment that nothing existed before the big bang. Science is still saying "we don't know" so there is no reason to claim that there is an agreement.

And since the bible claims that the earth was created "in the beginning" it is not logical to conclude that "in the beginning" includes the beginning of existence. Many things existed for billions of years before the earth so "In the beginning", being a reference to the beginning of the existence and creation of the earth, cannot necessitate the beginning of all existence.

 

[Vanguard]

Many things existed for billions of years before the earth so "In the beginning", being a reference to the beginning of the existence and creation of the earth, cannot necessitate the beginning of all existence.

I have long held that theory: "In the beginning..." refers to earth's beginning not the universe's. Look at it in context of the time period. Mankind, in that era, knew nothing of planets and stars. As far as they were concerned, they were documenting earth's history. Nor did they have the capacity to know what was beyond our planet.

 

[Adam]

I interpret it as our solar system's beginning.

It seems that the only things documented were observable phenomena and assumptions based only on what could be considered: the world as understood through imperfect knowledge.

 

[cupid dave]

I have long held that theory: "In the beginning..." refers to earth's beginning not the universe's. Look at it in context of the time period. Mankind, in that era, knew nothing of planets and stars. As far as they were concerned, they were documenting earth's history. Nor did they have the capacity to know what was beyond our planet.

My focus is on why?
Why a bible believer would decide to pick any other interpretation when the Big Bang clearly is a possible support for Gen 1:1?
I wonder at the logic and motivation of believers who COULD ELECT TO understand the Big Bang as corresponding with Science fact, among all the possible ways to understand Gen1:1 but don't.



Of course the Earth was void of shape and without the form of a sphere, according to Gen 1:2.
So, we can not infer "In the beginning" refers to the moment earth time starts.

I would further argue that for God to refer to The beginning of the heavens is rather a direct reference to a time before there was a heavens, i.e., before the Big Bang.






The hot spinning molten matter thatwas to coalesce into the planet Earth WAS without form:

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was withoutform, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void: (not valid as a sphere yet- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].

And (the great Shechinah), thespirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon theface: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory things spinningcounter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])

 

[cupid dave]

I interpret it as our solar system's beginning.

It seems that the only things documented were observable phenomena and assumptions based only on what could be considered: the world as understood through imperfect knowledge.

I see the bible as perfect knowledge set down thousands of years before we understood that information and before we ourselves gradually came to confirm.
I see that others can read the Bible, and understand now what it was telling us, or others can interpret it themselves in a way that science will and must find foolish and wrong.

Those people would seem to be the atheists intent on bashing religion and ridicuing the Bible.
But it turns out that Christians hold to ideas set down in the Dark Ages rather than proclaim Science has actually confirmed the divine revelations made available thru Moses and the Prophets.

Go figure.

 

[Adam]

If you thought that the bible had perfect knowledge, you would not make so much effort to try to change what it says.


That means one of two things:

1) You don't believe the bible has perfect knowledge, which is why you feel the need to "correct" it (despite the fact that you get the science wrong)

2) You DO believe that it has perfect knowledge and you are purposely working against the bible to alter, manipulate, obscure, and destroy its message with additions and reinterpretations which, btw, do not reflect any accepted science, so you aren't even leading us away from truth to another truth.


Either you are a simple fool, or you are elaborately evil.

 

[cupid dave]

If you thought that the bible had perfect knowledge, you would not make so much effort to try to change what it says.


.

The people who "changed" what the bible MEANS are those churches which now each hold stubbornly to their 7 different private interpretations.

The Bible, of course, has just sat on our tables for 3362 years now, stating exactly the same thing from one generation into the next.

When Galileo et al corrected the churches in regard to those private interpretations against which Hersey was criminal, they ultimately relented and changed their doctrines and teachings without changing even a word of the Bible.

You are in the same olde guard as the Catholics of those times passed.
It you and your kind that holds to nonsense in the face of the same science which brought down the RCC.

The bible could never have meant what is clearly wrong when read comprehensively.
And given the choice to read the Bible as compatible with Science, but choosing to hold onto what is now lies, not ignorance is what is evil.







Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold,... (the golden spiritualinsights of the irrepressible idea of psychic Consciousness emerging fromscripture) ... tried in the fire... (of time),... that thou mayest berich... (in continued church leadership); and (re-interpret upon) white(yet unwritten, new pages), raiment,... (of revised books of yourevermore obvious misinterpretations), ...that thou mayest be clothed...(and protected in thine thinking with secularly acceptable scripturalconfirmations), ...and that the shame... (as visited in Geocentricismdoes not reoccur concerning magical Creationism, impossible literal world-widefloods, genealogies of individuals who lived inordinately long personal lifetimes, Sun and Moon and Stars absent from the Heavens while light shinesthrough the Cosmos, etc) ...of thy nakedness... (of your unsupportableintuitive irrationalities) ...do not appear... (and confront you ashappened before The Reformation); ...and anoint thineeyes...(awaken!)... with (the) eyesalve... (of reality!),...that thou mayest see... (socio-psychologically).

 

[cupid dave]

The irony of it all is that when the data started coming in for a beginning to the universe, it was resisted by some as it would lend ammunition to those who believe in the biblical creation account. The reigning paradigm of the time was the "steady state" I.e the universe didn't have a beginning. Fred Hoyle held this theory and coined the big bang as a joke.

LOL

You are correct in this but even funnier is the present stance of the Atheists and the Bible people, in general.

They BOTH wear two hats.

In the first matter, the Galileo Affair, the Church had already accepted the established Science of that day, and had a very exacting model to explain what could be seen in the night sky by any observer.
The church WAS the Science advocate.

Using Ptolemy's intricate explanation the Church opposed this Christian who found no limiting scripture that defied what he saw in his telescope.
Galileo opposed the Scientists of his day, not the Bible.


Today, the people right here, atheist and christian, oppose the Bible and the very Science which corroborates one another exactly.

 

[Adam]

The people who "changed" what the bible MEANS are those churches which now each hold stubbornly to their 7 different private interpretations.

That is called the "Two Wrongs" fallacy.

What other people do is irrelevant to what you are doing, which is adding words, ignoring definitions, decontextualizing and altering intent. What you do IS, in fact, an attempt to change what the bible means by changing literally what it says.

The Bible, of course, has just sat on our tables for 3362 years now, stating exactly the same thing from one generation into the next.

Yes, which is why your need to change the actual text, while pretending that you are just correcting faulty interpretations is quite embarrassing.

When Galileo et al corrected the churches in regard to those private interpretations against which Hersey was criminal, they ultimately relented and changed their doctrines and teachings without changing even a word of the Bible.

Except Galileo did no such thing.

You are in the same olde guard as the Catholics of those times passed.
It you and your kind that holds to nonsense in the face of the same science which brought down the RCC.

The RCC has not been brought down. What alternative universe do you live in?

BTW, i Don't have a "kind." You keep insisting that I am a fundamentalist that is adament about holding onto "medieval interpretations" but I have told you numerously that I do not hold such a position. Please stop ad homming.

The bible could never have meant what is clearly wrong when read comprehensively.
And given the choice to read the Bible as compatible with Science, but choosing to hold onto what is now lies, not ignorance is what is evil.

Let's get this clear: you have not shown a capability to read the bible comprehensively.

What you mean by "comprehensive" is a cognitive bias of trying to force the bible to say now, what they didn't know then. And you are terrible at it because you can't even get the science part right.

And yes, claiming the bible is compatible with science is ignorant when you have to alter scripture and make up pseudoscience which neither reflect any biblical standard or scientific standard.

the golden spiritualinsights of the irrepressible idea of psychic Consciousness emerging fromscripture of time in continued church leadership re-interpret upon yet unwritten, new pages of revised books of yourevermore obvious misinterpretationsand protected in thine thinking with secularly acceptable scripturalconfirmations as visited in Geocentricismdoes not reoccur concerning magical Creationism, impossible literal world-widefloods, genealogies of individuals who lived inordinately long personal lifetimes, Sun and Moon and Stars absent from the Heavens while light shinesthrough the Cosmos, etc of your unsupportableintuitive irrationalities and confront you ashappened before The Reformationawaken! the of reality! socio-psychologically

This is just weird.

 

[Adam]

Today, the people right here, atheist and christian, oppose the Bible and the very Science which corroborates one another exactly.

Except they don't. Not even close, which is why you have to make such incredulous claims as "bacteria are plants" and " there are 7...." whatever.


If they were corroberating, you wouldn't have to lie about the science and you wouldn't have to lie about the bible.

 

[alex_ro]

Firstly, please excuse me for being so late in this thread, but only yesterday I joined the forum. My point of focus in this forum will be cosmology, so what thread to make my firsts posts in if not a big bang thread?

Actually, I intend to make my own big bang thread in which to prove that big bang is not only wrong, but it CANNOT be right. But until I’m allowed that, I will have to post here. Thank you for understanding. Oh, and about me: I’m a YEC - I think that says it all…

Now, to business:

Lordkalvan, I always find it a bit ironic that big bang believers support big bang without actually knowing what they believe in. For example, Hammer said:

2) Inflation: This is the assertion that the light (energy) of the universe traveled much faster than the speed of light.

and you didn’t correct him:

Rather than an assertion, it is an hypothesis that has been substantiated by some observed predictions,

What Hammer said (and you reinforced) is not only wrong, it’s actually running against the mainstream at the highest degree. Hammer didn’t have to be right, because he obviously doesn’t believe in big bang. You, on the other hand…

And by the way, even some of the most important mainstream institutions, like for example ESA, agree that there’s NO EVIDENCE in regard to inflation.

Now, also in regard to inflation, you further say:

it is an hypothesis that has been substantiated by some observed predictions, e.g. the consequences of the gravitational collapse of perturbations in the inflationary epoch.

I’m really curious what gravity you could think of at the time of inflation.

By the way, inflation (and any expansion in general) is exactly the opposite of any “gravitational collapse”…

I also find your usage of the term “epoch” amusing. Do you know how much the claimed inflation lasted? Well, if you happen to even find a name for that period, let me know.

However, it is certainly the case that cosmological inflation still stands only as an hypothesis and is subject to criticism because of problems it is unable fully to resolve.

Inflation was postulated to solve SEVERAL problems that big bang previously had.

And by the way, would you guess the alternative to inflation, the alternate proposed explanation for (at least some of) those previous BB problems? Tip: ironically, although proposed within mainstream, that shakes the mainstream quite a bit - and that’s an understatement…

You suppose a number of uncertainties: that the Universe is a closed system

Well, you would probably claim other universes (you must, because this one doesn’t work as you expected, i.e. as is claimed in schools…). I on the other hand will certainly claim God…

I do believe that the universe can work by its own, in accordance with the laws set for it. However, I will never exclude God from His own Creation…

that, even if it is, local 'increases in order' cannot occur;

Surely they occur: each and every time there’s intelligence involved. Otherwise, well…

that galaxies represent an increase in order over a prior state.

That’s very curious to say the least. Once again, it involves running against the mainstream at the highest degree. Why? Because of this mainstream claim: cosmic evolution…

Perhaps you would prefer that no testable hypotheses be advanced to explain this acceleration?

How about this for an (un?)testable hypothesis: God…

By the way, expansion of the Universe is clearly stated in a millennia old book. Would you guess which one?

Secondly, none of these hypotheses is 'anti-science', unless you have a particular definition of 'anti-science' I am unfamiliar with.

I think I have the same definition of 'anti-science' as Hammer: all that runs against actual science. So I agree with him that big bang not only is no-science, but it’s actually anti-science, because BB is so riddled with contradictions that nobody should take it seriously. Moreover, most of the evidence claimed in favor of BB is actually evidence against it. I will soon prove that in my own BB thread – my material is almost ready.

By the way, my DEEPEST CONGRATS to Hammer. Although he failed in accurately comprehending some of the details of BB, he managed to understand the fundamental place where big bang fails. He’s one of the very few IN THE WORLD who succeeded in that (excluding the mainstream frontrunners, alert to their huge problem). Although, ironically, he doesn’t seem aware of his own statement… But I can’t address this yet, because it’s part of my material soon to be posted in my own big bang thread.

Thirdly, why do you suppose that naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena are impossible?

The way you phrased that obviously excludes ANYTHING that is not “naturalistic explanation” for being an explanation for “natural phenomena”…

 

[alex_ro]

If the Big Bang did happen, then God pulled the trigger.

Even if BB were true (and it can’t be), God did certainly more than just pulling the trigger. He created everything that was there before pulling that trigger, wouldn’t you agree?

I have long held that theory: "In the beginning..." refers to earth's beginning not the universe's. Look at it in context of the time period. Mankind, in that era, knew nothing of planets and stars. As far as they were concerned, they were documenting earth's history. Nor did they have the capacity to know what was beyond our planet.

Well, I’m sorry to inform you that your theory is wrong, because The Bible clearly refers to the Creation of sun, moon, stars. And, by the way, they are all created AFTER the Earth…

 

[alex_ro]

That would be a fine statement if the scientific community held that position and if you could show that "In the beginning" is actually in reference to the beginning of the universe..

If not “the beginning of the universe”, then the beginning of what?

It is still inconclusive, however, and no one is making the assessment that nothing existed before the big bang.

I can tell you what has existed before the entire Creation: the Creator…

And since the bible claims that the earth was created "in the beginning"

That’s a very curious statement from my point of view. I thought The Bible claims EVERYTHING (the entire Creation) was created in the beginning…

it is not logical to conclude that "in the beginning" includes the beginning of existence.

I entirely agree. Because that would exclude THE ONLY ONE who actually exists: God. As for the rest, we not only did have a beginning but, along with the rest of the universe, are only a shadow (a fallen world, a wreck, a graveyard…) of what once was, and what some of us will soon be again…

Many things existed for billions of years before the earth

God…

I interpret it as our solar system's beginning.

Please see my reply above to Vanguard.

 

[alex_ro]

So do you believe that the Universe had a beginning, even if that beginning was silently, and no bang involved????

Now that’s funny. Because in my own thread I will demolish the big bang universe starting from the very title of the standard cosmological model. However, at this point, I’m interested in this: “bang” in relation to what exactly? And “big” in relation to what?

I see the bible as perfect knowledge set down thousands of years before we understood that information and before we ourselves gradually came to confirm.

And I see The Bible as God Himself calls it: a book of remembrance. That is, not a book that will be understood several millennia later (post-Darwin and post-Einstein), but a book of REMEMBRANCE…

 

[Adam]

If not “the beginning of the universe”, then the beginning of what?

Probably our solar system.

I can tell you what has existed before the entire Creation: the Creator…

The context of my statement is obviously in regard to a scientific consensus.

That’s a very curious statement from my point of view. I thought The Bible claims EVERYTHING (the entire Creation) was created in the beginning…

And of course, the earth did not come to be until 10 billion years after the big bang.

it is not logical to conclude that "in the beginning" includes the beginning of existence.

I entirely agree. Because that would exclude THE ONLY ONE who actually exists: God. As for the rest, we not only did have a beginning but, along with the rest of the universe, are only a shadow (a fallen world, a wreck, a graveyard…) of what once was, and what some of us will soon be again…

Sir, would you mind not talking to me as if I had never been introduced to these concepts? Even if I were not a Christian, I am a human being and it is the 21st century. I am well aware of the basic tenets.

I interpret it as our solar system's beginning.

Please see my reply above to Vanguard.

Why?

 

[Claudya]

soon to be posted in my own big bang thread.

Bring it. :swords

 

[alex_ro]

Probably our solar system.

In my reply to Vanguard (the one that you didn’t want to read, since further you ask me: “Why?”) I said that The Bible clearly refers to the Creation of STARS. Thus, your statement is wrong. And, by the way, all celestial bodies were created AFTER the Earth…

The context of my statement is obviously in regard to a scientific consensus.

Are you claiming that anyone who doesn’t believe in big bang is automatically ruled out from science? Really?

And of course, the earth did not come to be until 10 billion years after the big bang.

And of course, the Earth was created BEFORE any celestial body… And of course, it all took place a few decades short of 6000 years ago…

Sir, would you mind not talking to me as if I had never been introduced to these concepts?

I apologize if you found anything condescending in my remarks. I assure you it wasn’t intentional. Also, please don’t “sir” me. I certainly don’t deserve it. If instead it was ironic, well, I presume I deserve that, so thank you.

Even if I were not a Christian, I am a human being and it is the 21st century.

None of those statements was put under question. However, I strongly disagree with the implications of the latter: that modern people are “improved” over the ancient ones. Not only they actually lived longer (think about Adam if nobody else), but they managed to do things that modern men still can’t figure out. If you think otherwise, then please explain how exactly they built the Great Pyramid, for example. And make sure you understand the level of precision here (confirmed by modern lasers). So if you’re up to the task, I think a Nobel prize awaits you. And no, I’m not sarcastic at all.

Moreover, what I said, which is this:
“I entirely agree. Because that would exclude THE ONLY ONE who actually exists: God. As for the rest, we not only did have a beginning but, along with the rest of the universe, are only a shadow (a fallen world, a wreck, a graveyard…) of what once was, and what some of us will soon be again… “

is entirely AGAINST mainstream. So if you share those thoughts with me, that would mean flowing against mainstream (this time pun intended) at the highest degree…

Especially since just immediately later you confirm your position by saying “I am well aware of the basic tenets”.

So, if those are your “basic tenets”, then you must be a YEC…

 

[alex_ro]

Bring it. :swords

Well, if you’re a big bang supporter, you’ll be sorry for it…

As for the sword and your fighting mood, it is written: “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”… So, are you ready to say farewell to your big bang?

By the way, when is it that I’ll be allowed to start a new thread? Thanks.

Meanwhile, I’ll appreciate if you could tell me the name of the standard cosmological model. Because it all starts there…

 

[Sparkey]

when is it that I’ll be allowed to start a new thread? Thanks.

Now? Just click the New Thread button. Let me know if there is any problem, please.

View attachment 3221 <---- Click to Enlarge