Note from Adminnemooseus:
This is a copy and paste, of the initial message of a new topic that JJboy recently started (and that I have closed). JJboy has started (I believe) at least 8 new topics in the last two days. At least three were in the "Big Bang" forum. I feel this is excessive, and contributes to a clutter of redundant topics. I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it.
----------
JJboy said:
This is one of the chapters in an essay I am writing. If you guys & gals could read it and give me your constructive and not so cunstructive critisicm, it would be appreciated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionary scientists acknowledges with the Big Bang theory that a beginning is needed. Everything that is physical and tangible must have a start. The Big Bang theory, however, does not go far enough. Where did the gasses that caused the Big Bang originate? An evolutionary book starts with the Big Bang, but we never hear where the super compressed gasses originated. Think about this for a minute. Did the sceintists originated the Big Bang theory not think about that? Something does not come from nothing through scientifically measurable or understandable methods. Julie Andrews knows that. She sang a song that, 'Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could.' You can make the evolutionary time frame as long as you please. You can go back and make the world a kazillion years old. But still the problem looms: Where did it come from?
The Big Bang Theory is an effect without a cause, so to speak. The law of cause and effect is at the core of all science. It is a widely known and accepted fact that all effects are the result of a cause. If we see a building, we know that it has been 'caused', or built.
The building is the effect. But, Evolutionary science tries to show that we are all effects without a cause. The cycle of cause and effect had to begin at some point in time. This would infer, of course, that the original 'Cause' has always existed and not had a
beginning. Even if God had been created, which, I state emphatically, he has not been, that still leaves the question as to where his creator originated. Increasing the number of 'Causes' does not in the least bit address the question at hand. We know that the cycle started sometime. It is, however, scientifically impossible for this cycle to have started on it's own. No effect is ever quantitatively 'greater' or qualitatively 'superior' to its
cause. There had to be a supreme cause that was greater than all the effects and causes thereafter.
Now, what I am about to say may sound strange. It is only logical that logic and science can go only so far. We can rationally deduce that there are things that our minds cannot understand. Evolution attempts to explain everything through natural processes. On the flip
side of the coin, the Bible teaches that an infinitely wise and powerful God existent for eternity created the Universe and all that is contained therein in six days. Our small minds cannot comprehend an eternity. We cannot comprehend how something just is, or how something can be without having been created. But it is only logical that this is the case. Creation is not based on scientific theories and evidence. While the scientific evidence supports it, Biblical creationism, it does not rely solely on science. The Theory of Evolution is totally dependant on scientific evidence. It requires that all be rational and explainable. It cannot allow for the extra-logical or extra-scientific. I know both sides of the debate have their 'Famous questions'. 'How did pine trees in the northsouthern (or wherever!) coast of the USA survive a year under water?' or 'How did all the ' Flip the coin, 'Where did the first sexually reproducing organism find a mate?' etc... Obviously, the question of origins will not be solved solely by science. Creationism has a trump on the Theory of Evolution in that an evolutionary scientist can point out a scientifically impossible fact to a creationist scientist, such as light being created before a source of light, eg. sun and the stars. The creationist can merely say that Creation was not an act restricted by laws of science. If, however, the Creationist is to point out a scientifically impossible occurrence, such as the creation of gasses from nothing, the evolutionary scientist has no such argument. His theories require that all happen through scientifically explainable methods. Evolution supposedly occured while all scientific laws were under place. Therefore Evolution cannot have an explanation that is contrary to scientific laws. Creation can, and does. Science has been treated as the ultimate authority on everything. If it is not scientifically or
logically explained, our society rejects it. But we know that science has its limits. Therefore, an explanation of such an important matter as the origin of the universe based solely on scientific is bound to fail in fully explaining the answer. That is not to say that we discount the scientific evidence. If we did, we would be throwing out one of the most convincing arguments against evolution, and for authenticating the Genesis account. We must, however, remember that science is not the end-all explanation to all questions.
Now, supposing that the Big Bang did somehow manage to occur, despite the impossibility involved. Would it have produced the results we see today? It is highly unlikely. In fact, that is putting it lightly. It is also impossible. All that we know is energy. Everything is composed of energy. Yet is energy enough to create, to power life? Was the Big Bang's energy enough? The Big Bang was an outpouring of pure energy. Yet pure energy is not enough to create.
Take a car for example. In order for the car to operate, we need energy. So we fill the car with the highest-octane fuel, and step into the car. But unless we have an engine, a means with which to convert the energy into useful power, the energy in the fuel is useless. The Big Bang (that didn't happen) was pure energy without any means of harnessing the energy. An explosion that magnitude is chaos! To better exemplify this, think of atomic energy. Radioactive material, such as uranium, is the energy needed to create atomic bombs, electricity, etc... But unless the uranium (energy), is put into a useful (or not so useful!) system, it is worthless. Without a means of converting it, a mountain of uranium would do us very little good, unless maybe we used it for coffee whitener.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if you believe all I have said, which I am sure you will not, this leads to an obvious question: Is the 'Divine being' etc..., the God described in the Bible who created the Universe and all contained therein in six days, or is he a god who has created through
evolutionary processes, making Genesis 1 an allegory? This question justifies a post as large as this one, so, at a later date I will make a post on that subject.
But for now, tell me what is wrong with my thinking concerning this post
------------------
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
------------------------
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.
-Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
-----------------------
™ Version 4.2
