Physicist: Big Bang Breakthrough 'Confirms Creation'

WND ^ | 3-19-2014

[betty boop]

This 'big bang' theory tends to make the Creator incidental in the event. In reality does the Creator really care if a man famous physicist decides there is real evidence for 'creation'? What does his so called discovery mean to the Creator?

HOW does the "big bang theory" make the Creator "incidental," irrelevant?

What is called, from the "physicalist" point of view, the Singularity, is from the Genesis point of view God's Word in the Beginning, the LOGOS of ex nihilo Creation. It "banged" into existence in an unimaginably colossal explosion driven by the Power of God, in the very act of articulating His Word.

It marks the Beginning of all that there is, and is the structuring power of the Creation Alpha to Omega and every point in between: It is the life-sustaining source of all moral and natural law.

At least, that would be how I'd try to explain it.

A friend of mind hopefully will soon provide greater details to show that the biblical account of Creation is increasingly being supported by cutting-edge scientific discovery.

In no way does this minimize the Creator — He wants us to glorify Him, even through our understanding of His Creation — see Romans 1:20.

That was the sort of insight that motivated such great scientists as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

I really see no reason to be "science phobic."

Thanks for writing, Just mythoughts.

[Just mythoughts]

HOW does the "big bang theory" make the Creator "incidental," irrelevant?

Psalms 148 says God commanded, not that he banged anything.

What is called, from the "physicalist" point of view, the Singularity, is from the Genesis point of view God's Word in the Beginning, the LOGOS of ex nihilo Creation. It "banged" into existence in an unimaginably colossal explosion driven by the Power of God, in the very act of articulating His Word.

But that is not the way God had His elected prophets describe what He did.

It marks the Beginning of all that there is, and is the structuring power of the Creation Alpha to Omega and every point in between: It is the life-sustaining source of all moral and natural law.

I read the article and it was empty of singing the Praise of the Creator. The article comes off that only now can this be a truth since some physicist says so. It has always been a truth regardless if flesh man knows or agrees.

At least, that would be how I'd try to explain it. A friend of mind hopefully will soon provide greater details to show that the biblical account of Creation is increasingly being supported by cutting-edge scientific discovery.

I have no issue with pure science. But the scientific methodology has become so polluted by man's handiwork of making claims that have no foundation. For me the OJ trial wherein DNA became understandable for us commoners, made that 'rib' of Adam understandable. DNA is the most pure method of flesh identification and can tell us from whence we descended. Course there are identical twins that cause a side trip. But, flesh is temporal whereas the breath of life = soul/spirit intellect was created long ago and as it is Written all souls belong to the Creator. He and only He will judge that outcome.

I consider the original state the Adam was formed in the image of God. Then there was the first recorded surgery and something removed to make the woman. Had to be the DNA. That tells me that the Creator is fully both the male strength and female strength in His perfectness. Now I did not say in physical appearance.

In no way does this minimize the Creator — He wants us to glorify Him, even through our understanding of His Creation — see Romans 1:20. That was the sort of insight that motivated such great scientists as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. I really see no reason to be "science phobic."

It may appear I am "science phobic", but that is not the case. I love science that has not been polluted by the scientific methodology. Humility is not a calling card of the majority of modern scientists. It is not pure science if the performers have already determined what it is they seek to prove and ignore the Creator. Christ said in Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. I know for myself that I have yet to learn/understand all these things already foretold.

The WORD to me is like a prism hung in direct sunlight. Multifaceted and multicolored and I do not believe any one flesh being can fully capture the full spectrum.

Thanks for writing, Just mythoughts.

You as well

[MHGinTN]

Since you are so well versed in information theory, that ‘singularity’ can be thought of as the unity that differentiated ‘in the beginning’. The first differentiating would be dimension space and dimension time, and inflation was off and running! Above Planck scale radiation can occur and certainly sonic compressions can happen.

[TXnMA]

zeestephen, I said I would reply at length to this. Here 'tis...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

zeestephen:"My point was that, in science, we cannot selectively choose things that confirm our thesis, then ignore things that falsify our thesis, or ignore things that add ambiguity to our thesis."

I'm a physical chemist -- and agree fully with your statement.

However, you selected a single, specific event in the sequence of the development of the universe, and asked, in essence, why there was a recorded claim that God was responsible for -- and claimed responsibility for -- that unique (and, as you mentioned, "inevitable") event:

I’m not sure why God needed to say,
“Let there be light.”

I share your concern, -- so much so, that I have been "dissecting" the sequence of claims made in the first four verses of Genesis, and have been comparing them to our current ("scientific") understanding of the universe and its development. (IOW, I am trying to falsify -- or confirm -- those claims and the record of which they are a part)

You questioned a single one of those claims. I am questioning the entire sequence of claims and the order in which they were recorded.

~~~~~~~~~

The recording of Genesis faced several constraints:

1. Obviously, there was no human extant to directly observe and record the events in Genesis 1:1-4.

2. At the time that Genesis was recorded
   1. Language (especially written language) was in a primitive state.

   2. Terms such as "plasma", "quantum", "relativity", "galaxy" etc., did not exist in the human vocabulary or as concepts in the human experience.

   3. At best, 'materials science' recognized four "elements": "Earth", "Air", "Fire" and "Water".

   4. Observation tools were limited to the "Mark one naked eyeball".

3. The recorder(s) of Genesis were basically nomadic herders in the desert.

Since the events recorded were claimed to be acts of a creative God, there could be but two sources for the information recorded:

1. Human imagination
   or...
   
2. Divine revelation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is a lengthy, time-sequenced series of claims/events recorded in Genesis 1:1-4.

IMO, for the claims to be valid, they not only need to describe a actual events or development processes, but they must do so in the same temporal sequence order in which observations show the events occurred.

The "claims sequence" in Genesis 1:

1. "In the beginning" -- there was a time before which nothing in our universe existed: neither matter nor energy, nor space nor time; i.e., there was a beginning.

2. "God" -- God pre-existed the universe (valid only if all other claims are valid).

3. "created" -- caused to exist ("ex nihilo") where nothing had existed before

4. "the heavens" -- (formed from created matter -- prior to the earth)

5. "and the earth" -- (formed later from hevy-element matter resulting from fusion)

6. "and the earth was without form" -- the universe was isotropic [formless]. ("earth" = one of the four 'known' "elements"...)

7. "and void and darkness covered the face of the deep" -- There was a period of time when the universe consisted of "darkness" (?"dark matter"?) and "void" into which it could expand...

8. "and the Spirit of God ["Ruach Elohim" or "wind of God"] moved upon the face of the waters" -- ("waters" = the only available elemental descriptor for matter in a dense, fluid state...) Until recently, this claim made no sense at all -- then I began to research possible sources of the anisotropy seen in the CMB.

9. "and God said, "Let there be light" -- there was a specific instant in time when free photons first appeared. (This is the single claim that you questioned - and we both agree that it occurred at ~380 K years elapsed time.)

10. "And God separated the light from the darkness" -- Instead of being isotropic (as expected) , the universe -- as seen in the CMB --had an anisotropic pattern imposed upon it. This recent report re "gravity waves" is relevant...

That is a specific set of claims -- in a specific order. It should be possible to determine if they align -- in content and in sequence -- with our current state of "scientific" understanding...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note that I make a clear distinction between creation (from nothing) and formation, shaping and development -- working with already-existent (created) materials and energy.

Also, AFAIK, there has never been an instance when the expanding reaction products from an unconfined explosion (chemical or nuclear) behaved in any manner other than isotropic. I.e. they never "clumped together" to form solid "chunks" of material; the reaction products invariably expanded uniformly until they were dispersed.

Likewise, without a structuring, pattern-imposing influence, (such as the "gravity waves" reported by BICEP2) the "exploding" universe also should have expanded ISOtropically.

Without ANISOtropy, there would have been no stars, no galaxies, no planets. no -- us...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Each of the above statements/claims in Genesis was recorded over 4.000 years ago, and the text (Genesis and the entire Torah) is by far, the most meticulously-preserved text in existence. If it turns out that those ancient writings align well with current knowledge, then we would have to face the question:

"If those ancient folks weren't just making stuff up, where (or from Whom) did they get that knowledge -- millenia before we, with all our instrumentation -- figured it out?"

[MHGinTN]

"At the time that Genesis was recorded" ... oh my.

If the data regarding artifacts all over our solar system are real (and I have no reason to doubt that they are real), then at the time Genesis was written down, these artifacts were already very old and evidence of a much more advanced civilization existing before Genesis was written. Such technology requires techniques of 'observation' a bit more sophisticated than eyeballing some event.

[metmom]

If they were making it up, they were pretty good guessers.

"and the Spirit of God ["Ruach Elohim" or "wind of God"] moved upon the face of the waters" -- ("waters" = the only available elemental descriptor for matter in a dense, fluid state...) Until recently, this claim made no sense at all -- then I began to research possible sources of the anisotropy seen in the CMB.

That's a VERY interesting way of looking at it.

It essentially describes the states of matter, solid, liquid, and gas, plus plasma.

[TXnMA]

Responded via FReepMail...

[TXnMA]

"... evidence of a much more advanced civilization existing before Genesis was written."

~~~~~~~~~~

OR -- the Creator, Himself, revealed (visually or verbally) to the recorders, what He claimed to have done.

[MHGinTN]

And He apparently tried to reveal these data points to the Sumerians, based upon the numerous similarities in manuscript assertions. But the Sumerians were not into following The Lord God as One.

[TXnMA]

I should have said, "visually and/or verbally". However, IMHO, Genesis reads much like a primitive author writing down what he derived (or was told to record) from a visual revelation (vision).

I certainly do not consider Genesis to be "allegorical".

[MHGinTN]

I agree, it is way more spot on than allegory. Even the assertion that God spoke worlds into existence can be aligned with sonic compression waves causing vortices in the earliest electromagnetic stew which generated quarks.

[betty boop]

Also, AFAIK, there has never been an instance when the expanding reaction products from an unconfined explosion (chemical or nuclear) behaved in any manner other than isotropic. I.e. they never "clumped together" to form solid "chunks" of material; the reaction products invariably expanded uniformly until they were dispersed.... Likewise, without a structuring, pattern-imposing influence, (such as the "gravity waves" reported by BICEP2) the "exploding" universe also should have expanded ISOtropically.... Without ANISOtropy, there would have been no stars, no galaxies, no planets. no — us....

That clinches it for me, dear brother in Christ! Simply outstanding — and I daresay, positively inspired! The Holy Spirit must have been with you as you worked this all out....

Thank you, oh so very much!

[ctdonath2]

The concept of “a second before” doesn’t make sense in that context. Kinda like asking for the square root of yellow.

[metmom]

The term *succinct* comes to mind.

Genesis was recorded in a way that anyone could grasp the basic concepts of creation, no matter what their education level.

Except maybe those who have educated themselves into ignorance and disbelief.

[Gamecock]

But the issue is what acted on it to create the big bang.

[TXnMA]

There is no way we can even calculate conditions before time=0.

The answer to #12 is, "In the beginning, God..."

[Alamo-Girl]

In no way does this minimize the Creator — He wants us to glorify Him, even through our understanding of His Creation — see Romans 1:20.

So very true, dearest sister in Christ!

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3

[Alamo-Girl]

The singularity was a mathematical point (zero dimensions) but it is not nothing even though no dimensions are required to describe it. Conversely, prior to the beginning ex nihilo there is no mathematical point, no dimensions, no "thing" at all.

So indeed, the coming into existence of a singularity ex nihilo is the start of the Big Bang.

[Alamo-Girl]

Outstanding, dear brother in Christ! Thank you!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Well and truly said, dear sister in Christ!