Posted on 04/25/2014 8:30:14 AM PDT by fishtank
Americans Question the Big Bang
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A new poll revealed that 51 percent of Americans question the Big Bang theory, and 54 percent of Americans believe that the universe is so complex that there must have been a designer.1 Mainstream scientists are not happy about it.
The Associated Press-GfK poll queried Americans' confidence in a number of other issues—the genetic code's link to inherited traits, smoking's link to lung cancer—and the respondents expressed more confidence in these issues than they did in the Big Bang. According to AP, "Those results depress and upset some of America's top scientists, including several Nobel Prize winners, who vouched for the science in the statements tested, calling them settled scientific facts."2
But the Big Bang theory asks us to believe the incredible—that randomized forms of matter and energy coming from an unknown source self-organized into stars, galaxies, planets, life and ultimately people.
...more at link
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ExoPlanets: They cannot be seen, heard, touched, or otherwise detected. Yet scientists infer their existence based on the gravitational effects they have on the star that is in close proximity to them. Yet those same scientists will tell you that God does not exist, that faith is ignorance, because God cannot be seen, heard or touched. They put their faith in man and science. From what I have experienced in my life, I would rather put my faith in God; As science and man have mixed reviews and results, at best.
I’m just saying it’s not as plain and clear as you are supposing. The language is “lights”, not “sun” and not “moon”.
Also, it says “he set them in the vault of the sky”. I don’t have my concordance in front of me to know what word for “sky” is being used in Hebrew or Greek, but assuming the English is accurate that is also an odd thing to say as well.
God placed the sun and the moon and the stars thousands/millions of miles away in space. He did not actually place them in our sky. So that’s another clue that we are dealing with the vantage point of the earth’s surface.
That's a fair interpretation. But it is still an interpretation. It's not in the text of Genesis.
Sounds like you have read Pascal...
which is a great place to start your view of science.
Have a great weekend.
To listen in, click here.
Where did you get that notion?
Light was released during the first day of creation (when the cosmic temperature dropped to 3000 degrees Kelvin)..
Besides -- why illuminate something (Earth) that did not exist during those first days -- even according to Genesis...?
You are making the "grave error" of not differentiating between "creating (from nothing) and "forming" (or "shaping") materials that already had been created or formed...
Stars, Earth, etc. were not "created". They were "formed" by God -- just as the physical body of Adam was formed by God from "the dust of the ground" (light elements that God had created ex nihilo plus heavier elements that He caused to be formed by fusion in the cores of stars and supernovae.)
The "grave error" or "conflict" exists only in your mind -- because, you, apparently, neither understand Genesis nor the scientific description of Creation, aka "the Big Bang".
Conflict between Genesis and science exists only in the minds of folks who are ignorant of one or both -- or who make their livelihood by deliberately (and falsely) teaching that such a conflict exists.
I also so no conflict in God the Father’s revelations in: 1) the person of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, 2) the person of the indwelling Holy Spirit, 3) Scripture and 4) Creation (physical and spiritual.)
Whether or not I concede to your semantical musings, it does not change the fact that Genesis 1 indicates the Sun, Moon and Stars were created/formed on the fourth day.
And to clarify, YHWH reiterated in his fourth spoken command to all the Israelites from Mount Sinai that
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
In case you misunderstand the point of my assertion regarding grave error, the evolutionary big bang postulates that all matter was concentrated into a singularity, the rapid expansion of which, when sufficiently cooled, allowed the stars to either appear prior to the planets, or somewhat simultaneously. Furthermore, it postulates that the earth was a molten rock that gradually cooled, until water condensed forming pools, later oceans.
Taken at face value, Genesis provide an opposite chronology, for those who can be bothered to read it.
Your comments seem to indicate you understand what the writer of Genesis intended to convey, and since one apparently can't understand the sequence as written, we will enjoy your insight.
QUOTE: Besides -- why illuminate something (Earth) that did not exist during those first days -- even according to Genesis...?
Amazing. I will post here, the first 3 verses of Genesis, that DIRECTLY contradicts your statement. Have you even read it?
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
The purpose of the light was to mark time, the revolving of the earth. To wit,
Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
Indeed, dear brother in Christ, you note the critical distinction that so many people completely miss; i.e. that creating and forming are qualitatively different acts — and Genesis addresses them both.
The first is creation de novo, ex nihilo — a something that comes into existence out of nothing; the second utilizes what has already been created. The second is accessible to the natural sciences; the first is not. At least, not under the prevailing scientific model of methodological naturalism.
Which tells me that methodological naturalism is leaving out something necessary to the full explication of "All that there is." It can only give a partial account of the natural world in its fulness.
Just a thought. Thank you oh so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your telling, astute observation re: this "grave error!"
Our Lord, Jesus, (who was and is fully God) commonly spoke in parables. I see this as exactly the same -- except that Jesus, while on Earth, sometimes added to the example, "Go thou and do likewise."
Nothing in this scripture citation equates the length of God's day with the length of an earthly day. Nor does any other scripture -- without severe and dishonest twisting by created humankind -- make that same equation.
FYI, my description of the duration of Creation is
"Six of Almighty, Eternal God's workdays".
I refuse to take the spiritual risk of demanding that those Divine "workdays" be "scrunched down" to the size of one of humanity's earthly days. I certainly have no right to do so...
~~~~~~
P.S. You would also be well advised to heed the term, "make" (as opposed to "create") in the above Scripture... Our Creator repeatedly made that distinction --- and so should His believers...
Actually, the Bir Bang does not postulate that ‘all matter’ was concentrated in a singularity. Here again you err, along with conflation of ‘creating’ and ‘forming’, as TxnMa has cogently pointed out. The singularity may have been without temperature, without mass even. It was CREATED by the Creator. What we may conjecture is that the CREATED singularity differentiated into ‘some thing’, formed into something, and that what followed, by God’s direction/information injected into the formless void, was the manifestation of what would eventually form quarks and every other form of matter. It is like saying you can create life in a test tube, but you will need a little RNA to get started, if you get my drift.
Unfortunately, you eventually "telegraph" your real motive for your circular, sola scriptura, one-sided reasoning in your absurd #52:
"The purpose of the light was to mark time, the revolving of the earth. To wit,"
There is zero relationship (either scriptural or scientific) between God's initial, omnidirectional but anisotropic, release of photons -- and the human convention of marking the angular position of light rays from the (later-formed, self-iluminated) sun, striking the "revolving" earth -- as a means of earthly time measurement.
The inevitable follow-on claim to your position edicts that the duration of the days ["yom"] of our eternal Creator God are dictated by the spin rate He imparted on this [created, then (later) formed] ball of dirt -- three Divine days after He caused light to be released from the "stuff" or "dark fire" of His original, simultaneous, instant creation of energy, time, matter, and space.
IOW, your statement is a vain, human scheme to dwindle almighty God down to human-comprehensible scope. There is nothing righteous, holy or worshipful in it; quite the opposite.
And, most certainly, there is no such "purpose" for "Let there be light", -- either stated or implied -- in Genesis.
Your above statement is a purely human-contrived vanity. I defy you to support it with Scripture. And I challenge you to relate it to the actual reality of God's created universe (which you scornfully ignore).
You would be well served to consider prayerfully this truth often stated by Alamo-Girl:
"Man is not the measure of God."
"Genesis: a Scientist Looks at the First Four Verses"
...especially from those (see #49, on another thread) who make a lifetime career of myopically stirring the same 31 sentences in Genesis in hubristic efforts to twist them to their (or their preacher's') Homocentric purposes -- and doing so while blissfully ignoring (or demeaning) His other revelations (including the wondrous universe and creatures He created and formed).
Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
King James Version (KJV)
"...and the human convention of marking the angular position of light rays from the (later-formed, self-iluminated) sun, striking the "revolving" earth -- as a means of earthly time measurement."
The timing convention for Earth and its inhabitants, was, obviously, ordained and provided for by our Creator, Himself:
Gen 1:14 "And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nonetheless, the special and specific formation ("making") of Sun & moon ("God made two great lights") relative to the "rotating" Earth was totally separate and distinct from the initial, fundamental release of light, itself, (photons) ["Let there be light."] on the first day.
The erroneous "human" convention" is in insisting that the pace of God's days in Heaven is in any way influenced by (or related to) the statements in Gen 1:14-19.
In fact, God, Himself, specifically states-- in both the Old and New Testaments -- that is NOT the case:
Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." (KJV)and...
2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (KJV)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I apologize for my hasty proofreading.
Silly me! Guess that's what passes for public school science. To be sure, I read the NASA website, and took the following statement
"...when the entire Universe was contained in a single point in space."
to mean all matter as well. Thanks for clarifying my simplistic reading! You advise NASA to clarify their misleading statements.
You may also want to correct Stephen Hawking as well, who stated
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity.
You're not half as clever as you think!
Except for the seemingly earth centric repetition of "...evening and morning were the first day", which is stated in Genesis 1:5, and repeated in verse 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31. Are you suggesting there is evening in God's heaven?
If he could do it in a thousand year long day, why could he not speak it into being in a single 24 hour period? Why did he bother taking a whole day at that?
Another clue you fail to recognize is in Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Why would you take it to mean anything other than 6 days, earth-centric days, 24 hour days?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.