The big bang theory

[phil112]

Probably covered somewhat in the "how old is the earth" thread, but I wanted a different angle and more depth.

It seems that evolutionists believe in the BBT (big bang theory) and claim it proves there is no God. I have heard some believers claim there is no BBT so there is a God. I see no reason why the BBT has to be at odds with creation. God could have made this earth and all creation how He wanted to.
Me, I believe in the BBT and I know God created it. How old is the earth? God knows, and it is fruitless to discuss it if you believe in God. Why would I say that? God made Adam, not as a baby, but as a mature adult. It is completely irrational to think God created a newborn and reared it Himself. If God made Adam brand new, and made him to look, say 35 years old, why could He not have made earth the same way? He very well could have. We have no way of knowing.

Tell me, how long was Adam in the garden of eden? 10 years? 10 million years? You and I simply don't know. That is something that never gets addressed or taken into consideration in these discussions. I am confident it was more than 10, and less than 10 million, but beyond that I wouldn't hazard a guess.

When God talks to Job after Job's trial, He says a lot of very profound things to Job. He starts by saying this to Job :"Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me."
Think about that. He is telling Job to prepare himself for what He will tell him. Brace yourself! Stand up like a man! Fasten your seat belt and hang on!

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. [SUP] [/SUP]Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[SUP] [/SUP]Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof

The answer, of course, is beyond Job's ability to answer. We simply don't know, nor will we, until we reach eternity. These questions put forth by God did exactly what there were meant to: Left Job speechless. Humbled him immediately before God.

As humans we have the laughable trait of puffing ourselves up, thinking we are something, when in reality we are less than nothing.
God told me everything I know, not everything He knows. We must never forget that. Let's keep what Paul said to us in mind at all times: "For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself."

 

[Ugly]

There are Christians who believe God caused the big bang. Usually people who want to assume the earth was created already formed want to because they seem to have an attitude that suggests its more spiritual to believe that way. Despite the fact that God has shown more tendency to operate, in nature, in more natural way and less in obvious ways.

 

[doseofreality]

It seems that evolutionists believe in the BBT (big bang theory) and claim it proves there is no God. I have heard some believers claim there is no BBT so there is a God. I see no reason why the BBT has to be at odds with creation. God could have made this earth and all creation how He wanted to.

That is misconception, BBT of course does not prove there is no God.
What the theory does provide are plausible explanations for the observable universe and how earth was formed etc.
So it doesn't prove there is no God but it does give strong contrary evidence to theory of spontaneous creation.
Also the BBT is not positive evidence for a God either.
I agree with you that BBT need not be at odds with christianity or theism. God created everything, BBT is possibly how he did it. However, many non-believers will point out that its indistinguishable to the big bang occurring without God.

 

[paulsfam4]

20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 COR. This is my take on it. God calls us to him by faith. If God wanted us to know more about the origins of the universe he would have gone in to a greater detail about it! because as far as our salvation goes when God lit the firecracker! doesn't mean anything, all we know is that he made the universe, he said he made it Ill take it at his WORD. and that should be good enough for anyone.

 

[Skinski7]

What the theory does provide are plausible explanations for the observable universe and how earth was formed etc.

The Big Bang Theory as taught is nonsense. Gas expanding in a vacuum does not clump. Explosions do not produce complex orbits. Gas cannot collapse into planets.

Sure there may have been a Big Bang as God stretched the universe into existence at the creation but the description of the formation of stars and planets completely ignores known scientific laws. Thus the Big Bang as taught by cosmologists is speculative philosophical fiction, it is not science. There is nothing plausible about it.

 

[posthuman]

So it doesn't prove there is no God but it does give strong contrary evidence to theory of spontaneous creation.

pardon me, but isn't the Big Bang the most readily accessible example of "spontaneous creation" that anyone can give?

there was nothing...
BANG
there's a universe

(so the theory goes)

 

[posthuman]

The Big Bang Theory as taught is nonsense. Gas expanding in a vacuum does not clump. Explosions do not produce complex orbits. Gas cannot collapse into planets.

Sure there may have been a Big Bang as God stretched the universe into existence at the creation but the description of the formation of stars and planets completely ignores known scientific laws. Thus the Big Bang as taught by cosmologists is speculative philosophical fiction, it is not science. There is nothing plausible about it.

it's not "gas expanding in a vacuum" -- it's that vacuum itself, holding gases, expanding in, well, in nothing. the expansion of the universe isn't the expansion of the matter within a pre-allocated space, it's the expansion of space itself.

 

[OwenHeidenreich]

IT doesn't actually matter what scientists try to prove because only their math equations are proved, the proof relies on going back in time and seeing it for yourself.

 

[OwenHeidenreich]

Scientists do not actually know what caused the big bang, because scientists only can attempt to predict what happened billionths of a billionth of a second AFTER the so called bang. Scientists can only predict what happpened after time began, not when time was at 0 seconds. 0 exactly 0. scientists can only try to predict what happened 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds AFTER the big bang

(that small number by the way, is only a reference number. it is not by any means gathered through extensive research.)

 

[p_rehbein]

IT doesn't actually matter what scientists try to prove because only their math equations are proved, the proof relies on going back in time and seeing it for yourself.

One of the problems with all these "theories" in my opinion lies in that old adage.........

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT........

(but, now, that may just be me, so............)

 

[oldhermit]

pardon me, but isn't the Big Bang the most readily accessible example of "spontaneous creation" that anyone can give?

there was nothing...
BANG
there's a universe

(so the theory goes)

I am no scientist and I have only a limited background in science but, no, the BB is is not something created out of nothing. It is a theory of the massive dramatic expansion of existing materials. It really does not matter which theory of the BB one may wish to examine, they all violate ate least one rule of thermodynamics which automatically renders any such theory invalid.

 

[oldhermit]

IT doesn't actually matter what scientists try to prove because only their math equations are proved, the proof relies on going back in time and seeing it for yourself.

This is a very good point that most people do not seem to grasp. The scientific community, in their search for causation always begins with the examination of the observable present and attempts work backward in time to answer the question of causation. They accumulate all of the available evidence and formulate a hypothesis that SEEMS to fit the available evidence. As they continue to work further backward in time, they continue to build one hypothesis upon another until they come to point of first cause and the result is a compilation of absolute nonsense. This not how scripture tells us we are to view reality. Scripture always represents God as the active cause in the natural world. He thinks it and it is done. Man will never be able to appeal to natural process to explain a non natural event.

 

[posthuman]

I am no scientist and I have only a limited background in science but, no, the BB is is not something created out of nothing. It is a theory of the massive dramatic expansion of existing materials. It really does not matter which theory of the BB one may wish to examine, they all violate ate least one rule of thermodynamics which automatically renders any such theory invalid.

i do have a background in Physics -- and the way it was taught to me, the classical Big Bang theory points at the entire universe springing from a single point of zero dimension - a singularity - i.e. "nothing"
it's this confounding result that makes scientists say "the physics breaks down" at a certain point in cosmological history - specifically, before the point at which the universe was a planck-length wide. physics as humankind understand it today can't account for anything smaller than this, no matter what mass it has.
of course 'creation ex-nihlio' bothers scientists and laymen alike, so we have theories like the universe spontaneously 'poofing' into existence from an inexplicably existent quantum foam or an infinitely repeating cycle of expansion and collapse that has no beginning and no end. because no one but a Theist can explain how the universe sprang from nothing (and we can't even 'explain' it - we just say God did it!) most scientists either simply admit that it's inexplicable, or insist that the universe has existed and will exist forever, without any beginning. this isn't what the math or what any observational evidence implies - it's just the logical conclusion anyone who doesn't believe God can speak a thing into existence has to come to.


usually the answer to how all this order can arise in the universe when entropy must always increase (that's the 2nd law of thermodynamics) is that the law applies to the system as a whole, and that the organization of matter and energy into complex bodies like stars and hedgehogs is offset by the entropy of heat, noise and radiation. for example the complex order of a single star is overshadowed by the chaotic dispersion of it's elements in a nova explosion. taking that principle and applying it to the universe as a whole over it's entire history, people say entropy increases. the entire universe collapsed to a single point of zero dimension they say is a much more ordered state than the comparative disarray of matter and energy spread across light-eons of "space"
of course that's not something anyone can measure, and i tend to think too that the finely-tuned structure of the cosmos seems to lend a lot of credence to the guiding hand of a creator a whole lot more than it does to happenstance.

 

[oldhermit]

i do have a background in Physics -- and the way it was taught to me, the classical Big Bang theory points at the entire universe springing from a single point of zero dimension - a singularity - i.e. "nothing" it's this confounding result that makes scientists say "the physics breaks down" at a certain point in cosmological history - specifically, before the point at which the universe was a planck-length wide. physics as humankind understand it today can't account for anything smaller than this, no matter what mass it has. of course 'creation ex-nihlio' bothers scientists and laymen alike, so we have theories like the universe spontaneously 'poofing' into existence from an inexplicably existent quantum foam or an infinitely repeating cycle of expansion and collapse that has no beginning and no end. because no one but a Theist can explain how the universe sprang from nothing (and we can't even 'explain' it - we just say God did it!) most scientists either simply admit that it's inexplicable, or insist that the universe has existed and will exist forever, without any beginning. this isn't what the math or what any observational evidence implies - it's just the logical conclusion anyone who doesn't believe God can speak a thing into existence has to come to.

So would this not violate the first law of thermodynamics which states that matter can neither be created no destroyed?

usually the answer to how all this order can arise in the universe when entropy must always increase (that's the 2nd law of thermodynamics) is that the law applies to the system as a whole, and that the organization of matter and energy into complex bodies like stars and hedgehogs is offset by the entropy of heat, noise and radiation. for example the complex order of a single star is overshadowed by the chaotic dispersion of it's elements in a nova explosion. taking that principle and applying it to the universe as a whole over it's entire history, people say entropy increases. the entire universe collapsed to a single point of zero dimension they say is a much more ordered state than the comparative disarray of matter and energy spread across light-eons of "space" of course that's not something anyone can measure, and i tend to think too that the finely-tuned structure of the cosmos seems to lend a lot of credence to the guiding hand of a creator a whole lot more than it does to happenstance.

Would this not violate the second law of thermodynamics which states that every energy system or process moves toward the condition of entropy? Would it not also violate Nerst’s theorem?

 

[crossnote]

whatever 'poofed', 'banged', 'compressed' etc. begs a certain question...where did the 'whatever' come from?

rather...

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(Heb 11:3)


The eye will never discover the hidden source which flowed forth as God's spoken Word....try as it may.

 

[posthuman]

So would this not violate the first law of thermodynamics which states that matter can neither be created no destroyed?

yes, i think it would. it's to avoid that that cosmologists imagine the universe has existed forever, even though observation and the theoretical math points to it all having a distinct beginning.
it also would violate one of Newton's laws - Inertia - that an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. if the universe was at equilibrium as a singularity, it should ahve stayed that way, instead of (BANG!).

i believe in an "outside force"

Would this not violate the second law of thermodynamics which states that every energy system or process moves toward the condition of entropy? Would it not also violate Nerst’s theorem?

i personally agree that it does violate the law of entropy. i was just trying to relate the counterargument, and probably didn't do it justice.

Nernst's theorem says more or less that at absolute zero, entropy stops changing. the universe doesn't seem to be able to reach absolute zero though; even if the expansion continued forever, and eventually all matter and energy were swallowed by black holes, and the cosmos succumbed to "heat death" - black holes give off what's called "Hawking Radiation" and they themselves should eventually dissipate, filling the universe with a non-zero energy, so it wouldn't be at absolute zero.

cosmologists say the early universe was incredibly hot and has been cooling ever since, so Nernst's theorem predicts that the change in entropy these days ought to be smaller than it was in the beginning. i'm not sure if that's violated; i'll have to give it some thought. the theorem makes a statement about the change in entropy, not the total amount.

 

[oldhermit]

yes, i think it would. it's to avoid that that cosmologists imagine the universe has existed forever, even though observation and the theoretical math points to it all having a distinct beginning.
it also would violate one of Newton's laws - Inertia - that an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. if the universe was at equilibrium as a singularity, it should ahve stayed that way, instead of (BANG!).

i believe in an "outside force"




i personally agree that it does violate the law of entropy. i was just trying to relate the counterargument, and probably didn't do it justice.

Nernst's theorem says more or less that at absolute zero, entropy stops changing. the universe doesn't seem to be able to reach absolute zero though; even if the expansion continued forever, and eventually all matter and energy were swallowed by black holes, and the cosmos succumbed to "heat death" - black holes give off what's called "Hawking Radiation" and they themselves should eventually dissipate, filling the universe with a non-zero energy, so it wouldn't be at absolute zero.

cosmologists say the early universe was incredibly hot and has been cooling ever since, so Nernst's theorem predicts that the change in entropy these days ought to be smaller than it was in the beginning. i'm not sure if that's violated; i'll have to give it some thought. the theorem makes a statement about the change in entropy, not the total amount.

Thank you.

Just to establish a baseline for discussion of the BB, I see three immediate weakness in all related theories. Perhaps you can help me in the argumentation of these theories. Here are the assumptions and weakness I see in the BB theory.

1. None of the theories are ever able to answer first cause.
2. They demand the eternal existence of matter - Violates first law
3. They violate the law of entropy - second law
4. The origin of a primevil atom and initiation of the BB in a stable environment - also violates second law.

 

[CRC]

The simplest lesson the universe teaches us is the most obvious one, one that proud medieval man strove to ignore but one that Biblical poets humbly acknowledged millenniums ago—that of man’s insignificance.
Recent discoveries reinforce King David’s realistic appraisal: “When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have prepared, what is mortal man that you keep him in mind, and the son of earthling man that you take care of him?”—Psalm 8:3, 4.

 

[RickyZ]

The God Abraham believed in says that He spoke the universe into existence out of nothingness; Science tells us that out of nothingness kaboom there it is.

This same God says He took a single rib to separate the woman from the man… and science tells us a single gene is all that separates the male and female zygotes.

The world’s top propeller heads say that 90% of what makes up the universe we can’t see or detect… we only know it by how it affects that which we can see and detect. And that same God tells us that there is indeed a whole ‘nother realm of existence, one we are currently exiled from, and cannot see or detect other than by how it affects what we can see and detect. And oh by the way He wants His 10% back.

Science proves the existence of God. It's all in who's reading it to you.

 

[crossnote]

The God Abraham believed in says that He spoke the universe into existence out of nothingness; Science tells us that out of nothingness kaboom there it is.

Science says ''out of nothing''?