Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

Sure, and while I am at it, how about you put together a system how they could fit together.Edit: If you are serious, of course I will reason with you. However, I'm not going to run in circles answering whatever your latest hypothetical concept is. Do you have a point here, or are you wasting my time?[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-24-2004]

Are you wasting mine? Why won't you answer a simple question?The point is, everybody who reads the Bible comes away with a different interpretation, so you saying "I believe in the Bible" doesn't tell me much about your position on the history of the universe. Especially since the Bible isn't a record of the history of the universe.The Big Bang is a history of the universe on a large scale, but it only starts a little bit after the actual beginning of the universe. And you're telling me that the Big Bang says something different than the Bible, and that they can't both be true. (But the only argument you've made so far is that one thing from the Big Bang - an expanding universe - is also in the Bible.)So I don't understand what your position is, beyond (I presume) "the Big Bang is not an accurate history of the universe." What I want to know is, what is the accurate history of the universe, in your view? You keep refusing to answer. What gives? Arguments can't proceed until both participants have stated their positions clearly. Simply saying "the Bible is true" isn't clear enough, because it's not clear what the Bible actually means.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-24-2004]

Frog,You say I think I brought up a few other things as well. Here are some examples.Post # 63 Post # 15 Post # 21 Post # 25 Post # 26 Post # 38 Now I know you've answered some of these, although a few points have been ignored. I'm not wasting your time. And I have argued more then just one point.In addition to that, you have tried to redefine the arguement to: The problem is, you had never made these points before! Of course I hadn't refuted them, I didn't even disagree with all of them. There is a reason I asked if you were wasting my time. I didn't want you to go off on some stupid offshoot, and be stupid...agian. Of course after pulling a dumb stunt like this, I will be more wary of trying to debate you furthermore. Do not accuse me of wasting your time, by checking your intentions, before investing time.JoePS: Answer coming soon. I am planning on investing the time now that I see you are at least somewhat genuine.

Irrelevant. We're talking about the Big Bang, right? The Big Bang makes no comment about time before the universe. The Big Bang makes no comment about the cause of the universe, or about God. So why do you bring it up? When I brought it up I was talking about my own personal beliefs, not the Big Bang, as I made clear. To which I responded with post 18. Your misuse of the word "faith" is not the subject of discussion here. Irrelevant - the Big Bang is not an explosion, but an expansion. Irrelevant question - anti-matter is created through the same processes in nature as it is in the lab. "lab-created" vs. "natural" is a meaningless distinction. The question isn't where it exists, only that it can and does exist. Not a point, just a question. Answered in post 39. I wasn't redefining the argument. I was making explicit exactly which areas of argument are irrelevant to the discussion. Any time you're ready. I honestly have to say that, as it stands now, when you say that you're on the side of the Bible and against the Big Bang theory, I simply don't know what position you hold. I'm sure you believe that God created the universe. The Big Bang theory doesn't say otherwise. I'm sure you believe that the Bible is true. The Big Bang theory doesn't say otherwise. I'm sure you believe that God created all species in an act of special creation 6,000 years ago. The Big Bang theory doesn't say otherwise.Do you see what I mean when I don't understand what we're arguing about? You're going to have to make it explicitly clear exactly where you think the Big Bang theory and the Bible contradict each other.

Left out the part where you accused me of only arguing one point, which was the WHOLE point of me bringing that stuff up agian.Compare these statments: Do these really mean the same thing to you?Joe

None of what you brought up were arguments. They were you asking questions about the Big Bang, or making mistatements about it which we clarified. Only in the past 3 pages or so have you actually started to argue against the Big Bang by addressing the evidence presented for it. And your only argument in regards to that evidence has been that the evidence also agrees with the Bible. Yes. The points I listed were things you seemed like you were trying to introduce, and my point was that they weren't relevant to the discussion we're having. You haven't refuted that. I wasn't asking you to refute the points, but rather, to defend their introduction, if you planned on introducing them, which you seemed about to be.Can we get back to the discussion, now? When are you going to spell out what your position is? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question? It's been 2 pages since I asked, at least.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-24-2004]

Frog, Using that logic, we had just started our "discussion" and I had only begun to address it. I suppose I wasn't going fast enough for you. Tough, Creationists are in short supply on here, wait in line like everyone else. I would suggest you stop trying to read my mind, and guess what I will be writting. You have enough trouble reading what I actually write.Joe

Sorry, as you can see I amended my post shortly after posting it (and after going back to review our exchanges again.) That might be considered unfair on my part, and I'm sorry.But my new point still stands - the points you raised aren't even arguments, and the discussion we're having only started when you started addressing the evidence for the Big Bang instead of asking questions - and making flippant remarks - about it.Fabulous. I'm glad the discussion has finally started. Now, can you outline your position so it can continue?

Ok...pretty basic so far... Again nothing to complex to understand. This was day one. This expanse was the atmosphere. The water above it was probably a water canopy that at one point enveloped the earth. Notice that plants are made before other planents, or even the sun and moon. How is that going to happen with the Big Bang? Planets. Now we have a sun and moon. Pretty basic. Now the account of how he went about creating Man is in Chapter two. I really don't see what was so hard about understanding this. I mean, if you are taking this for literal truth, as I am, how many interpretions can you come up with? Anyway, here you go, the basics of my beliefs.JoeEdited to delete one extra word[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-24-2004]

How well do the basics of your beliefs reconcile with evidence gathered from the natural world?--Percy

Not contradictory to the Big Bang. If God created the Big Bang and the Earth formed via subsequent natural processes, then God is the creator of the Earth, as well. Well, prior to the Earth's formation via natural processes, it would have been a "formless" cloud of debris from a prior supernova. So this doesn't really contradict the cosmological account (nor the Big Bang, which is not a theory about the formation of the Earth.) This could refer to the de-unification of fundamental forces in the moments subsequent to the Big Bang. So, no contradiction. The Big Bang is not a theory about the formation of water on Earth, so no contradiction. Since the Big Bang is not a theory about plants, your question isn't meaningful. If you want to talk about plants, hit the evolution threads. Anyway, there's no contradiction here, because the Big Bang doesn't talk about plants. This could simply refer not to the creation of the planets, but simply of the arrival of their light to Earth. The Bible does seem to concentrate on their properties as light sources and not generally as their existence as planetary bodies. According to models of the formation of the solar system, the Sun and all the rest of the planets probably coalesced within more or less the same time frame. This again could refer not to the creation of the Sun but it's actual "ignition" as a light source. And not contradictory to the Big Bang, which is not a theory about the origin of life. Hey, don't look at me. I was just waiting for you to outline your own position and not put words in your mouth. You know, like you asked me to do. Jeez.So, what do we have? A bunch of stuff that doesn't contradict the Big Bang. So what are we arguing about? Interpretations of the Bible or something?Oh, and where's the part that says that all this happened 6,000 years ago? That would contradict the Big Bang theory, but you didn't list that in your post.

Lil Froggie,Note that there is a "surface of the deep"? The rest of verse two, says that "The Spirit of God was moving above the surface of the waters."A surface. A gas cloud has no surface. A gas cloud also has no deep waters.While I know that the formation of plants is not covered by the Big Bang, logic (I know I like logic, and what makes sense more then you, but still) would dictate that there has to be for a plant to be. I mean, God would create a plant to float around in a cloud until a planet happened to come around? Dude, I know you're not that stupid. I'm hoping so anyway.The Big Bang is supposed to explain the creation of the entire universe, but it can't handle the forming of the world...ok, if you say so. I suppose there is a theory for this, if not, I suppose that "Godless Universe" people have yet another chink in thier armour.The real question here is, why would God even want to use a Big Bang? He's bigger then that. I mean, why would a perfect God, use such an ackward way, to create what was then, a perfect universe.Percy,If you could be more specific on what evidence, I would be able to answer your question.Joe

It's in the Bible. God creates the Earth, then plants, and then the rest of the planets. Did I say something differently? And that's more or less what the Big Bang says - planet formation is ongoing. Many planets might have come into being since the formation of the earth. What's with the ad hominem all the time? What did I ever do to you besides disagree? Jeez. It's a theory about the history of forces in the universe. It's not about planets. It's a theory about how forces and spacetime have behaved in the past.And it doesn't explain the creation of the universe. It just explains the history of spacetime up till a few moments after the beginning. Let me hit that again for you - the Big Bang theory doesn't go all the way back to the beginning yet. Oh, absolutely. It's just not what you said you wanted to talk about. Hrm, I see it the exact opposite way. Why would God create something so imperfect he had to meddle all the time? What's more impressive, the ultimate pool trick shot that sinks every ball in one break, or the guy who just grabs the balls and shoves them into the pockets? God's too big to just wave his hands and create by fiat.

All that separates beliefs based upon the Bible from beliefs based upon science is real world evidence. Bible-based beliefs about the natural world, such as that the Big Bang didn't happen, are rejected by science not because they're based upon the Bible, but because they are inconsistent with or even contradicted by real-world evidence. I was willing to let you choose whatever facets of your beliefs you think are supported by evidence.When the Bible speaks of days having a morning and an evening we know it is scientifically accurate because we can observe mornings and evenings. But when the Bible talks about men living to be 900 years old or about global floods, then we question its accuracy because we can find no evidence that such things ever happened.Not having evidential support doesn't make your beliefs wrong, but it does mean they're not science.--Percy

Yes yes. I know this. Why do you think I was consentrating on evidence for the Big Bang? Now incidently, there is tons of evidence for a global flood. Someday I'll go through it. This thread however is named "Big Bang...How Did it Happen?". So maybe we could talk about that.
Mr Jack has proposed that backround radiation proves that the Big Bang happened. Are any others who agree, and if so why?Joe