The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: Astyanax

well remember you got a closed mind ........................and how do they know all this stuff i mean come on how much can reverse engineering math really tell you

a reply to: sweets777

prove it

Read the link in my earlier post.

If that's not good enough (and it should be), then go the whole hog and study the relevant literature. You may have to earn yourself a degree in physics first, though, in order to understand it.

Come back in three years, when you're done reading, and we'll discuss it further. Until then, kindly don't waste my time.

a reply to: Astyanax
His long post to 3NL1GHT3N3D1 is the exact same post he used as a reply to another member in another thread. Verbatim. Have a feeling he pastes it frequently. Methinks he's good at wasting peoples time.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: cooperton

How did this OP somehow connect something as simple as a god speaking and creating light to something as complex as the big bang? We are left with the conclusion that confirmation bias.

The Genesis creation myth is very similar to that of the Babylonian creation myth. I guess the Babylonian religion was divinely inspired?

Your argument is extremely weak, no offense. A new theory says that the universe is eternal, having no beginning or end. What does that say about your creation story?

Actually it is your response which is weak. The message in Genesis was not intended as an advanced science course in space and all the physical sciences, so the simple message was more than enough for those not hindered by any need for unnecessary and expanded thesis based description and overburdened with excess nomenclature, just to satisfy those with noses high in the air and staunch with pride of self. Not that this is you by any means, but this is the point of why it was written the way it was written.

The entire Bible is this way. For those who don't get this, the way it was written was to show that understanding will only come when people toss their excess self pride long enough to soak in these simpler descriptions and seek the missing details they crave by taking the time to realize that some things can only be understood for the why's and the how's by losing self ego enough to gain a tad bit of humility. Gaining some of that can be quite valuable if one is searching for a way to make sense of their current philosophy to see if it has the value it takes TO make sense of things that are not written to take all the work and effort away from it.

It first takes a willing heart and a gentle mind. Granted, there are a lot of people who aren't going to be this no matter what anyone says.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Actually it is your response which is weak. The message in Genesis was not intended as an advanced science course... so the simple message was more than enough for those not hindered by unnecessary and expanded thesis based description and overburdened with excess nomenclature, just to satisfy those with noses high in the air and staunch with pride of self.

So you're disagreeing with the OP? You're saying the Genesis story has nothing to do with the Big Bang after all?

Welcome to the party of science, rationality and common sense.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Actually it is your response which is weak. The message in Genesis was not intended as an advanced science course... so the simple message was more than enough for those not hindered by unnecessary and expanded thesis based description and overburdened with excess nomenclature, just to satisfy those with noses high in the air and staunch with pride of self.

So you're disagreeing with the OP? You're saying the Genesis story has nothing to do with the Big Bang after all?

Welcome to the party of science, rationality and common sense.

I definitely DO agree with what the OP says, and my former reply doesn't say what you are saying in any way.

Genesis has a short and simple description of the big bang. You really can't see that, or are you just adding a bit of sarcasm?

Reread what I said earlier.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It resembles nothing close just look at the oder things were created and you have your answer.

Or you gonna come back with that I am not reading it right?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It has a few simple & short descriptions in Genesis related to cosmological discussion. Enough to demonstrate its account for creation is in opposition to the findings of science. You guys like to read it as description for the BBT and say 'Aha!' but ignore the rest. Such as the Sun and all stars being made on Day 4, after the Earth had formed. Care to reconcile that?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I definitely DO agree with what the OP says, and my former reply doesn't say what you are saying in any way.

I'll accept the first point — since you say so — but you're wrong about the second.

3NL1GHT3N3D1 told the OP his argument was weak because the Genesis account does not closely resemble the Big Bang model, and also because that model is absent from some academic cosmologies.

In your post, you explained why you think Genesis doesn't resemble the Big Bang more closely. Which means you think it doesn't. Which means you disagree with the OP when he or she says it does.

Well, you're right. Read my post above, and visit the embedded link. The Big Bang was dark. Light didn't appear until about 400 million years later. The OP is wrong, and you are quite right to have pointed it out.

Well done!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It resembles nothing close just look at the oder things were created and you have your answer.

Or you gonna come back with that I am not reading it right?

It made sense to me just fine. I guess your ability to understand me, and I you, is just one of those things that aren't going to happen.

No worries,
Cheers

a reply to: Astyanax

What I was trying to convey originally, was that the "let there be light" quote, was and is a very simple and all encompassing "Big bang" theory in a nut shell, and to fill in all those desired missing scientific wordings, takes a willing heart and a gentle mind to do it.

When I read the phrase now: "Let there be light" I see a big book of science and theory trying to describe it in thousands of words, rather than just seeing 4 words.

edit:

Who says there is a rule that the light showing up is supposed to take only a minute of earthly time as opposed to 400,000 years or a billion years for the aforementioned declaration of "let there be light" to be valid? This is just simple human perspective and the human condition that might suggest this to you and me. The rules of time and the universe being created and the statements of a Creator do not have to follow man's rules to be valid do they?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It has a few simple & short descriptions in Genesis related to cosmological discussion. Enough to demonstrate its account for creation is in opposition to the findings of science. You guys like to read it as description for the BBT and say 'Aha!' but ignore the rest. Such as the Sun and all stars being made on Day 4, after the Earth had formed. Care to reconcile that?

Reconciliation:

Man's time is not the same as time everywhere else in the universe.

1 day for a creator who exists without being bound to time could be a million earth years.

Earth has a year that is 365 days long for it to orbit once around our sun, right? Well, lots of stars and planets around them have much longer, and some shorter time spans for their years.

You're never going to reconcile things if you always apply earth's model of time and space to everywhere else, because everywhere else does not follow the same rules, (or rather, the same measuring system of time), for the passage of time.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

How does that reconcile it.

Regardless of the timing, it explicitly says all stars were made after the earth was already formed [and growing plant life].

It doesn't matter what god's Day represents, this is about the order in which things are said to have occurred.

a reply to: Astyanax
no pretty swiggles on a blackboard ..................i can do calculus 1 and basic trig so im not
an ignorant person but no pretty lines and swiggles on a blackboard are goimg to convince
me that there isnt divinity in my creation .
And i went to a lecture of Martin Rees where he is talking about the big bang and genisis
and also here is this creation.com... and thats just one there are more
what discipline did you study

a reply to: sweets777

You basically just said that even if strong evidence is presented to you against your faith, you will still believe.

Clearly this isn't about evidence at all. It's about faith. So why concern yourself with science at all if it won't really having any bearing on your perception of reality?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

How does that reconcile it.

Regardless of the timing, it explicitly says all stars were made after the earth was already formed [and growing plant life].

It doesn't matter what god's Day represents, this is about the order in which things are said to have occurred.

No it doesn't say that at all. The entire process of creation was not done using any earth based, or man made model, and so the reading in of time not conforming to man's time is what is causing this dilemma.

Maybe those who just can't see it this way have never sacrificed any pride or self ego enough to look a bit deeper than just using a purely academic approach to it. I can't answer why some just refuse to consider that they are missing a perspective they need in order to see further.

I once too thought that the wording in Genesis using "On the first day" some stuff happened, and thought that makes no sense at all, that can't be right, but I didn't jump on my misunderstanding of it to rubbish it all as incorrect and false, and because of remaining willing to try and see it beyond just a simple minded human perspective, I have tasted a new level of understanding than I could have hoped for if I remained stubborn and bullheaded about it. Not that you are doing that, but It is what I had to get past once though, in order to learn.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Who says there is a rule that the light showing up is supposed to take only a minute of earthly time as opposed to 400,000 years or a billion years for the aforementioned declaration of "let there be light" to be valid?

Genesis says that 'Let there be light' was the first act of Creation.

The universe existed for 400 million years before first light.

The rules of time and the universe being created and the statements of a Creator do not have to follow man's rules to be valid do they?

They're not man's rules. They are the laws of nature. But that isn't the point; the point is that you are obliged to be consistent. Either Genesis is a more or less accurate account of the Big Bang, or it isn't. If you take away the light, what is left of the resemblance? Nothing.

Either the words of Genesis can be twisted to mean anything, in which case of course they mean nothing, or else they are to be taken as read (though we may choose to read them as metaphor). In the latter case, metaphor notwithstanding, the Genesis account of creation doesn't resemble the Big Bang in any respect.

Which is it? Make a choice and stick with it. You can't swing from one position to another and back in post after post.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I feel like you're inventing an elaborate defense for Genesis without any scriptural backing. I mean I could paste the exact verses to substantiate what I am saying. It seems your counter to that is my viewpoint is spiritually narrow. Fine. Maybe it is. How is that not just your interpretation though... and from what I can see not even an interpretation with scriptural basis.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: sweets777

You basically just said that even if strong evidence is presented to you against your faith, you will still believe.

Clearly this isn't about evidence at all. It's about faith. So why concern yourself with science at all if it won't really having any bearing on your perception of reality?

I believe he knows already that the so called strong evidence some people think is evidence against creation is totally fallible since these evidences are always based on the limited human condition and frail understanding of time and the universe.

I have never seen any evidence against what is written, to have any merit when it is measured using simple human perspective, and especially when these evidences are presented by totally biased minds who are "creating their own belief system based on the evidence that they construct against creation being true. Evidence can be presented to support anything you want, but when it is a want that constructs it, and not a desire for the truth, it will always be lopsided with bias, and bias does push the scales of truth far far away.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Man's time is not the same as time everywhere else in the universe.

Ah, the old escape clause: 'a thousand ages in Thy sight are like an evening gone.'

Read this thread and see what a twist the OP gets into trying to defend that position.