Big Bang vs. God

Strange answers I must give, then:

Andromeda, which is 2.3 million light years away. So we know that the universe is at least that old because it takes at least that long for light to reach us. If the universe is 6,000 years old, it would be impossible for us to see something that is 2.3 million years old, notably the light from Andromeda.

I have no idea why God could act in such a deceitful manner, but conceivably He could have created a universe with a series of light "beams", already stretched out in space, that give the impression of a galaxy already in existence.Basically the light from Andromeda wouldn't have originated from there - God would have "placed" the light closer to us so it would seem that Andromeda lay 2.3 million l.y. away.Fuck knows why He'd do something as crazy as that, but they say He moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform... ------------------

quote:

---

All the boys think she's a spy

---

quote:

---

Fuck knows why He'd do something as crazy as that...

---

I call it The Practical Joke Theory of Divine Creation.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I have yet to see any scientific eveidence that disproves the Flood, the Creation, or a young earth. All evidence I have seen ( and I have done extensive research, being one who has to have facts) points to a logical following of the Biblical account in Genesis.

I believe that the universe is fairly young, and that perhaps the God who created it all was capable of creating ready to be seen, big as it already was. And this is not unscientific either. Science is all about questioning the known- what was definate a hundred years ago is known to be wrong today (you can't build a machine that goes into space!), so what is common knowledge today may be proved incorrect in the future. God is bigger than we can comprehend. He can do the impossible"

Extensive research and creationism usually don't go well together. But we'll see. Since the topic here is the big bang, why you don't start off by stating what evidence contradicts this theory?

quote:

---

I call it The Practical Joke Theory of Divine Creation.

---

Heh heh. I'm gonna go with my man Bill Hicks on this one...

quote:

---

Heh heh. I'm gonna go with my man Bill Hicks on this one...

---

Dude, I'm a huge fan of his. Just got Relentless on DVD. Pretty much have all the CDs. As the liner notes to Aenima say, "Bill Hicks: another dead hero"....We now return to your normally scheduled thread, Big Bang vs. God. Our apologies for the inconvenience.

quote:

---

I have yet to see any scientific eveidence that disproves the Flood, the Creation, or a young earth. All evidence I have seen ( and I have done extensive research, being one who has to have facts) points to a logical following of the Biblical account in Genesis.

---

Then hop on into the flood forum - and I'll see you there! (i.e., start posting on some of the topics that are already there, introduce your own, etc).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

balyons, Splendid. Please tell us what epoch equivalent the flood started & finished, for example, started at the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary, ended at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary.We will then be able to discount these units & you will be able to show me the order of creation in the fossil record of Pre-flood sediments, right?Mark

lets say that in fact the big bang did take place and all the matter in the univers was cluttered into one tiny ball so compact that it created the explosion that created the planets, stars and every thing else. i think that this is a definate possibility but the one question that comes about with this idea is where did the matter come from befor the explosion? it was no just simply there. someone had to have put the matter there for it to explode and creat everything. it is sort of like a dommino effect someone has to push the one for anything to happen. i donnot believe that we are here by accident i believe that God created the univers and everything in it for a reason. the best example that i can give on the idea of creation is if you take a bucket of paint, a brush and the canvase and leave it there you will never get the mona lisa. you would be leaving out the most important factor....the creator.

yawn

Well, ignoring for a moment that "before the Big Bang" might just be meaningless as a reference, you need to first supply a good reason to believe that matter and energy need to "come from" anything at all. In other words, if the Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe (which I don't believe it to be, incidentally), then in order to merit a question such as "where did it all come from?" you should first demonstrate that there exists a legitimate beginning to the real universe and furthermore that it would be meaningful to speak of causes existing outisde of it. It seems to me that anything that exists outside the real universe isn't real.In other other words, you need to support these assertions:

quote:

---

it was no just simply there. someone had to have put the matter there for it to explode and creat everything. it is sort of like a dommino effect someone has to push the one for anything to happen.

---

Why do you expect us to believe these statements? Because you say so?

it is a fact that somthing just dosent appear out of no were and that is what i am saying. you dont get something from nothing. if you dont think this is what happend then instead of attacking my beliefes tell me something that makes what i think wrong or inaccurate. i dont expect you to believe my statements just because i say so, i am just trying to go beyond the idea of the big bang.

Right, and I'm not claiming that an occasion of getting "something from nothing" is what happened. Rather, that "something" (matter and energy) has always been. Well, if you think that the Big Bang is an occasion of getting "something from nothing," you'd be wrong. The Big Bang is simply the result of the regression into the past of our observations of an expanding universe. It is a point of infinite density and infintesimal dimension. That's not "nothing." Still, it's probably more important to note that the Big Bang theory is a mathematical model and may differ greatly from the reality. Actually cosmologists are already ahead of you here. You should search the internet for some information about Max Tegmark's Many Worlds Theory, or the Ekpyrotic model as well. Both describe states of the universe "before" the Big Bang.

Please reconcile this "fact" with virtual particles. You do know what they are don't you? While you're at it you can explain Hawking radtiation and the Casimir effect.Be careful when you tread into areas that you might not know very much about. I'm no expert either, but at least I've attempted to understand some of it before I make assertions about what is and it not possible.