The Big Bang explained in Genesis

a reply to: TheLamb

Are you Larry Hendricks?

m.facebook.com...

originally posted by: TheLamb
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.

Here's a challenge, study science better than Japanese. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about when you say things like this and the post above this one I'm quoting. You aren't and haven't used science in ANY of your threads. You've used scientific terms and ideas then repurposed them with your pareidolia and called it "science".

Also, you want us to use religion to prove god doesn't exist? How do you do that? I'm not entirely sure you understand how these things. God completely exists within religion. Oh and you can't prove a negative.

originally posted by: TheLamb
Well let me see. I proved God exists with some simple arithmetic and pi.

No you didn't. You took a bunch of unrelated stuff, some arbitrarily chosen numbers and patterns, and twisted them around in nonsensical ways and then claimed it somehow 'proved' your predetermined conclusion.

That wasn't good enough because I'd supposedly chosen four numbers that spell GOD in English and stacked the results.

That was just one of many, many problems with it.

So I used observation and experiment to prove intelligent design.

Damn dude, they should give you the Nobel for all the amazing things you've proven! Actually, on second thought, it'd probably be better if they gave you some medication to help deal with those incredible delusions of grandeur you seem to be suffering from.

It made the front page.

So? Lots of garbage "makes the front page". The only reason it was there was because there were so many people replying to it to tell you how wrong you were.

It wasn't sciency enough.

It wasn't "sciency" at all.

So I proved God created man using chemistry.

Again, you did absolutely no such thing. Get over yourself.

Nope still not good enough.

Still not good. Period.

Now I'm using recognised physics equations but because I copied them from the Internet they can't be used.

Recognized by who? Certainly not you, as you've already demonstrated a total lack of understanding of them and of science in general.

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.

We already know you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to anything related to science or physics. You don't have to keep hammering that point home.

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

Scientists would laugh in your face if you showed them how you "validated" anything.

originally posted by: TheLamb

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.

yes, here we go. a demonstration of how ridiculous creationism looks in a lab coat.

a reply to: TheLamb

At that point mass was created, velocity slowed and we have the early stages of the universe as we know it today.

You do realize that the expansion of the universe is steadily speeding up, right? The expansion of the universe is much faster than the speed of light. Kinda pokes a hole in your theory here.

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
You can't ever prove God with science, not a supernatural God anyway.

I still don't see where the OP has even defined God enough in order to prove it. If you can't even define something clearly enough for it to be understood, I'm not sure how you can prove that it exists.

If something can't come from nothing, then what created "God"?

The same answer is applicable for the universe itself. Time is something we invented.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

You are making many assumptions. Care to back that up with science? I don't think there is even one scientist who would definitively say what came first the earth or the sun. We don't know.

There are two different accounts. One the account of everything, the other the account of the garden. I imagine God could have created the animals in the garden in the same way he created the animals that are not in the garden, no contradiction.

The great thing about metaphors, they can adapt to science. Because you don't want to accept that the genesis account could be valid doesn't make your opinion more valid then mine.

Plants could have arose on the earth before our Sun, simply from the residual light of the big bang. Many plants and animals survive in extremely low light like would have been present after the bang.

You can't disprove my metaphorical take on genesis no matter how much you would like to. I believe you are debating with someone who understands the science better than you, who wouldn't make such a claim if it were impossible.

I still don't see where the OP has even defined God enough in order to prove it. If you can't even define something clearly enough for it to be understood, I'm not sure how you can prove that it exists.

Good point. God as a concept is fairly ill-defined even when it is defined. For example many believers define God by what he isn't, as in God isn't material and isn't subject to time and space. Existence is necessarily temporal, it makes little sense to say something can exist without time and space. And as far as we know there is no such thing as an immaterial substance or stuff. So even if the OP had defined God there'd probably be issues with the definition.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If something can't come from nothing, then what created "God"?

The same answer is applicable for the universe itself. Time is something we invented.

In my opinion this is the best evidence of God. In the physical environment we live something can't come from nothing. Which implies that there must be something eternal that doesn't play by the rules we see.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

You are making many assumptions. Care to back that up with science? I don't think there is even one scientist who would definitively say what came first the earth or the sun. We don't know.

The consensus of Astronomers and Astrophysicists disagree with that notion entirely. Please feel free to find someone in those fields that is willing to go on record stating that Planets form prior to Stars.

There are two different accounts. One the account of everything, the other the account of the garden. I imagine God could have created the animals in the garden in the same way he created the animals that are not in the garden, no contradiction.

Lots of "God could've" there while being light on definitive answers.

The great thing about metaphors, they can adapt to science. Because you don't want to accept that the genesis account could be valid doesn't make your opinion more valid then mine.

Being able to adapt a metaphor to science doesn't actually make it science though. That's the thing about metaphors. Wanting to believe with all your heart and soul that your personal interpretation of your faith likewise doesn't supersede established science simply because you are unaware of or ignorant towards the minutiae.

Plants could have arose on the earth before our Sun, simply from the residual light of the big bang. Many plants and animals survive in extremely low light like would have been present after the bang.

How many lumens were emitted as residual light from the Big Bang? You're the one claiming that planets formed prior to stars and that life could have thrived prior to solar radiation existed so how many lumens and how much heat was dispersed?

You can't disprove my metaphorical take on genesis no matter how much you would like to.

And from a scientific perspective, nobody would bother trying. You don't prove a negative, therefore the onus lies upon you to demonstrate the veracity of your claim. It's not up to others to disprove your claim.

I believe you are debating with someone who understands the science better than you, who wouldn't make such a claim if it were impossible.

I believe that you are trying to weigh in at a much higher weight than you're supposed to as demonstrated by your ignorance just above with requesting others to prove a negative. If you were as knowledgable about science as you promote yourself to be you would have already known that.

a reply to: spy66

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

It's all laid out for us in Genesis. Nothing to misunderstand about the order in which it states things occurred, and how incompatible it is with cosmology.

No talk about how it's a vision from Moses, or anything else, changes that.

a reply to: TheLamb

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.

Not just the elements. It says there is an abundance of plant life on Earth, including fruit-bearing trees.

s. 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.

No it's not.

The Bible says there are birds flying above the oceans before all land animals...

Prove the theory that God exists is wrong using religion.

Religion makes that easy to do.

The Bible makes claims about the physical universe that are not true. So we throw the baby out with the bath water.

Now, that's in regards to the Biblical god Yahweh.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't think there is even one scientist who would definitively say what came first the earth or the sun.

Let’s address stars in general since Genesis says all stars were made after Earth.

Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. The Universe is around 14 billion years old.

By using data collected by the Hubble Space Telescope and observations from the Keck I telescope at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii, astronomers have now confirmed that the galaxy designated z8_GND_5296 formed within 700 million years after the beginning of the universe, making it the oldest and most distant galaxy ever .
link

Stars existed before Earth. Genesis says otherwise.

a reply to: peter vlar

I am not not claiming anything other than it is possible. I even said I imagine, not I have proof.

Since it is possible that our planet formed before our sun I don't have to prove anything. Religion isn't necessarily about proof, it's about faith. The burden of proof is on the scientists.

But here is some science for you.

The earth has water older than the sun
www.nature.com...
news.sciencemag.org...

Scientists suggests our previous model of the formation of the sun and solar system might be different than original models.
www.sciencedaily.com...

We have a lot of theories but we don't "know" much. And I don't think you would find a scientist who would definitively (bet his life on) exactly how it happened.

I have no idea how many lumens were created, but as life on earth suggests it doesn't take many.

I don't call the bible a science book. I am just not going to allow scientists to claim to disprove the bible when they have not.

You can imagine I am wrong just like I can imagine I am right. But neither of us can prove anything at this point.

originally posted by: TheLamb

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

Challenge Accepted

Abrahamic Religions are wrong .... reason....since they are copies of other religions that where there before.

How would that one god who is new ( abrahamic religions are new ) be able to create something that was already there according to those religions that are older.

2. Never use Pi to prove God you should use Tau. Pi is wrong.

C. Instead of trying to prove your religion and your God to be right and the only. Why not just let everyone do there own thing. Why not get past the what came first , who is right and who is wrong and move on to bettering the world.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The bible could be metaphorically speaking from an earth based perspective and only be talking about the formation of the Milky Way.

But the age and distance from earth to these distant galaxies is pseudo science.

We have not proven the speed of light has remained constant, which in itself is an assumption that must be made to determine the distance. The theory of relatively and the visible effects that gravity may have on the speed of light actually suggest it isn't and wasn't constant.

If the speed of Light was not the same in the beginning as it is today all measurements are invalid.

I know both what science says and where it admits it could be flawed. Nothing I have stated has been proven wrong.

Add - The beauty of loving science and being deeply spiritual allows me to separate what is proven scientifically and what has not. It also allows me to accept when science is correct and understand the scriptures metaphorically.

Science can do nothing to damage my faith. Nor do I believe it should destroy anyone's faith in the scriptures. Since the scriptures can always be viewed as non scientific metaphors.

You extrapolate a ton of math based on suppositions and complete nonsense.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Religion isn't necessarily about proof, it's about faith. The burden of proof is on the scientists.

The burden of proof is on anyone positing a claim as truthful.

You don't get to avoid that burden by invoking faith when you hold others to it. That's not the way it works.

Religions make such claims, and they have a burden of proof to meet.

It would be more genuine of you to just say "we cannot meet the burden of proof, but I have faith anyways".

a reply to: Isurrender73

The bible could be metaphorically speaking from an earth based perspective and only be talking about the formation of the Milky Way.

Genesis's creation account is presented in a literal way though..

The context seems to be the Universe in general. Even if it were confined to the Milky Way, it’s not true Earth was formed prior to all stars in the Milky Way.

Science can do nothing to damage my faith.

Makes sense. These two paradigms are diametrically opposed. I imagine for many they forgo one for the other.

Nor do I believe it should destroy anyone's faith in the scriptures. Since the scriptures can always be viewed as non scientific metaphors.

Which is the crux of it. If viewed literally then science should, and does, destroy its merit. If viewed metaphorically, it does not. So it just depends on which angle the religious person is coming from.