The Big Bang explained in Genesis

If you read the first five verses of Genesis carefully, you'll notice that certain words are repeated when they really don't need to be. I've always thought this odd. It turns out that the repetition is there for a reason: the key words in the verses map to physics equations including E=mc2. By following the descriptions it is possible to recreate the equations in the context of the creation of the universe. They explain that the instant God created light, light accelerated from zero to its current speed. At the zero point the equation for relativistic energy in Genesis shows that an infinite amount of energy was released causing a Big Bang. Only light existed so the universe had a velocity of the current speed of light. At that point mass was created, velocity slowed and we have the early stages of the universe as we know it today.

So now we know about the singularity and how the action by God of first moving through the singularity to create three planes and time plus, and so the laws of motion, then creating light led to the formation of the entire universe.

a reply to: TheLamb

You do know that the order of events that god supposedly created the universe in are completely out of order from what science says happened right?

a reply to: TheLamb

Genesis says God created the firmament, which was believed to be a solid dome to separate the waters above (in space) from the waters below. The ancients had little idea about where rain came from. The Flood narrative even says God opened the "windows of heaven" because the ancients literally believed that's where all the rain came from. What we're dealing with is mythology, not science. If a God was actually involved in the writing of the Bible maybe we would see equations written out on the page, but we don't, we have an absurd narrative where God verbally commands plants to come into existence BEFORE HE CREATES THE SUN.

The Bible is important as a religious text for billions of people but it's not a science textbook, far from it.

a reply to: TheLamb

The universe didn't pop up from nothingness. That is not what the theory says. Light is not created from darkness.

Looks like you did a whole lot of work to not prove anything. You have copied some formulas, but have not explained how any of it proves that god exists or that he did anything. So the universe operating under natural laws is still the only theory that stands close to what we observe. The fact that mathematical formulas work, is not oroof of god.

a reply to: TheLamb

How about you write down the events of genesis as they are layed out in the bible in chronological order. Then we'll see how scientifically accurate they are.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Copied a bit more than just formulas

m.facebook.com...

a reply to: TheLamb

Your whole shpeel is taking a whimsical idea you got from a very old book full of talking animals and impossible feats, claiming that it is somehow relevant to any discussion on reality. In order to prove the existance of god, you would need to locate it. Observe it. To make any claim of what it is or what any of it's prooerties are, they would need to be directly observed. But no, you insist that it is real without offering any proof, and then you go about applying every scientific theory to your fantasy and proclaim that math itself somehow proves your imagination to be valid. This is the opposite of science so, you are just embarrassing yourself. It would serve you well to discuss how science comes to the conclusions it does. Instead of insisting on changing realscientific theories to suit your bias.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheLamb

You do know that the order of events that god supposedly created the universe in are completely out of order from what science says happened right?

Dont think so. Its just you People who dont understand what you are Reading as usuall.

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: TheLamb

Genesis says God created the firmament, which was believed to be a solid dome to separate the waters above (in space) from the waters below. The ancients had no little idea about where rain came from. The Flood narrative even says God opened the "windows of heaven" because the ancients literally believed that's where all the rain came from. What we're dealing with is mythology, not science. If a God was actually involved in the writing of the Bible maybe we would see equations written out on the page, but we don't, we have an absurd narrative where God verbally commands plants to come into existence BEFORE HE CREATES THE SUN.

The Bible is important as a religious text for billions of people but it's not a science textbook, far from it.

Give us a chance. This only concerns the first day. The rest is yet to come. The plants and the trees are the elements for creating life. Hydrogen, oxygen etc which were created before the sun.

We Creationists are always being asked to reconcile the Creation with science. So here you go.

a reply to: flammadraco

Ohhh!!! Busted!!! Stealing other peoples work. Thats just what i expect from you lamb. You couldn't have possibly come up with those ideas on your own. Even though they are just copied formulas for relativity. The way you applied them, or pretended to apply them, was laughable. Now i know that you don't even know what they mean.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheLamb

You do know that the order of events that god supposedly created the universe in are completely out of order from what science says happened right?

That is not necessarily true. It's all about how you interpret the metaphors. The Genesis account and the process of life from plants, sea animals followed by land animals is consistent with both the big bang and evolution. One only needs to believe a day in Genesis is a period of time, a theory that is supported by the scriptures themselves.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: TheLamb

This isn't reconciling with science, it's arguing that the Bible contained the science FIRST before scientists discovered it. Not only is this evidently NOT the case but it actually requires corrupting the myth into saying something it's not saying. You can't just shove the square peg of genesis into the round hole of science and pretend they're a perfect fit.

Hydrogen, oxygen etc which were created before the sun.

??? You mean water? Or do you mean the elements hydrogen and oxygen? In what way can you twist God's creation of plants into "the elements hydrogen and oxygen"? There wasn't all that much oxygen in Earth's early atmosphere, not compared to how much there is today anyway, or are you talking about God creating them wholesale, like the first time he ever created them?

Either way it's a mess of stretching the text far beyond breaking.

Reply to Woodcarver

Well let me see. I proved God exists with some simple arithmetic and pi. That wasn't good enough because I'd supposedly chosen four numbers that spell GOD in English and stacked the results. So I used observation and experiment to prove intelligent design. It made the front page. It wasn't sciency enough. So I proved God created man using chemistry. Nope still not good enough. Now I'm using recognised physics equations but because I copied them from the Internet they can't be used.

Relativity can't be observed, located or tested. You don't quibble with Einstein. Modern science doesn't have a sequence of events for before the Big Bang. Quantum physics only theorises how matter was created. It doesn't touch on the creation of light.

Scientists should be glad their unverified theories are getting some validation from an independent source.

a reply to: TheLamb

Let me ask you something, do you even understand those equations? I sure as heck don't.

I can explain the evolution of the universe with shaky confidence, that's best left to the experts. But I have read bits of genesis and it never said 'on the first day, the simplest of atoms couldn't be formed due to intense heat..'

I've bent over backwards to prove God exists using your precious science yet you're never satisfied. You demonstrate no creativity or imagination in your responses. Is that what science does to a person? Thank God I dropped it and studied Japanese instead.

Here's a challenge. Prove the theory that God exists is wrong using religion.

a reply to: TheLamb

Here's a challenge. Prove the theory that God exists is wrong using religion.

Does anyone know what God looks like? next question. Sorry, wrong question.

Hmmm....If God is everywhere and if we can find God, Then where is he? Waldo is easier to find. Believe in God, that's your right, but extrapolating complex equations doesn't constitute as evidence.

Science doesn't have the answer to the birth of the universe, but their is evidence of everything that happened after that.

a reply to: TheLamb

You can't ever prove God with science, not a supernatural God anyway.

Science works under methodological naturalism and the best you could do under that system is show that a supernatural effect exists. You can prove the phenomenon but never the cause of that phenomenon. So if God does manifest in reality in some detectable way we could detect that manifestation but science would not be able to say anything about the cause if that cause was supernatural.

So you claim to have proved gods existence 4 times in about a month, something no one has been able to prove sence the rise of religion?
Are you serious?
Don't you think if it was that simple someone else would have figured it out by now?
The b@//$ on this guy.
If this is proof why are you posting it on a random website that you know if full of science loving heathens?
Take it public.
Let the religions and scientists of the world know that you, thelamb, have figured it all out, we can all unite under Christianity cause you proved without a shadow of a doubt(evidently) that the Christian God exists.
Why are you wasting your time here o great prover.
Share your proof with everyone else.
Leave us heathens to burn in peace.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheLamb

You do know that the order of events that god supposedly created the universe in are completely out of order from what science says happened right?

That is not necessarily true. It's all about how you interpret the metaphors. The Genesis account and the process of life from plants, sea animals followed by land animals is consistent with both the big bang and evolution. One only needs to believe a day in Genesis is a period of time, a theory that is supported by the scriptures themselves.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. The time spans between each "day" are inconsistent. Some days are millions or billions of years long, while others are a mere few thousand. Not to mention, the lengths don't go from longest to shortest or shortest to longest. They vary from day to day. In order for that theory to hold water, the length of time between the days should be consistent. Otherwise, why even call those timespans a "day"?

Plus, the order of events are STILL wrong. I don't care what your metaphors say, the stars weren't created after the Earth. Heck, according to the bible, the sun and moon were created after the earth too. Also wrong. The bible narrates the creation of animal life several times.

a reply to: TheLamb

Bro ffs learn deduction your brain is gonna melt.