Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

How exactly do the Big Bang and the Bible disagree? This is important.

So, it's just the age that's different? That's the only disagreement?

Why don't you take some time and enumerate exactly what you think the Big Bang and the Bible disagree on? Keep in mind that the Big Bang is not about the age of the Earth, the evolution of life, or anything but a model for the size of the universe over time up to Plank time - a tiny fracton of a second after the formation of the universe. (We don't have the theories yet to go back any further.)

Are you wasting mine? Why won't you answer a simple question?The point is, everybody who reads the Bible comes away with a different interpretation, so you saying "I believe in the Bible" doesn't tell me much about your position on the history of the universe. Especially since the Bible isn't a record of the history of the universe.The Big Bang is a history of the universe on a large scale, but it only starts a little bit after the actual beginning of the universe. And you're telling me that the Big Bang says something different than the Bible, and that they can't both be true. (But the only argument you've made so far is that one thing from the Big Bang - an expanding universe - is also in the Bible.)So I don't understand what your position is, beyond (I presume) "the Big Bang is not an accurate history of the universe." What I want to know is, what is the accurate history of the universe, in your view? You keep refusing to answer. What gives? Arguments can't proceed until both participants have stated their positions clearly. Simply saying "the Bible is true" isn't clear enough, because it's not clear what the Bible actually means.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-24-2004]

Irrelevant. We're talking about the Big Bang, right? The Big Bang makes no comment about time before the universe. The Big Bang makes no comment about the cause of the universe, or about God. So why do you bring it up? When I brought it up I was talking about my own personal beliefs, not the Big Bang, as I made clear. To which I responded with post 18. Your misuse of the word "faith" is not the subject of discussion here. Irrelevant - the Big Bang is not an explosion, but an expansion. Irrelevant question - anti-matter is created through the same processes in nature as it is in the lab. "lab-created" vs. "natural" is a meaningless distinction. The question isn't where it exists, only that it can and does exist. Not a point, just a question. Answered in post 39. I wasn't redefining the argument. I was making explicit exactly which areas of argument are irrelevant to the discussion. Any time you're ready. I honestly have to say that, as it stands now, when you say that you're on the side of the Bible and against the Big Bang theory, I simply don't know what position you hold. I'm sure you believe that God created the universe. The Big Bang theory doesn't say otherwise. I'm sure you believe that the Bible is true. The Big Bang theory doesn't say otherwise. I'm sure you believe that God created all species in an act of special creation 6,000 years ago. The Big Bang theory doesn't say otherwise.Do you see what I mean when I don't understand what we're arguing about? You're going to have to make it explicitly clear exactly where you think the Big Bang theory and the Bible contradict each other.

None of what you brought up were arguments. They were you asking questions about the Big Bang, or making mistatements about it which we clarified. Only in the past 3 pages or so have you actually started to argue against the Big Bang by addressing the evidence presented for it. And your only argument in regards to that evidence has been that the evidence also agrees with the Bible. Yes. The points I listed were things you seemed like you were trying to introduce, and my point was that they weren't relevant to the discussion we're having. You haven't refuted that. I wasn't asking you to refute the points, but rather, to defend their introduction, if you planned on introducing them, which you seemed about to be.Can we get back to the discussion, now? When are you going to spell out what your position is? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question? It's been 2 pages since I asked, at least.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-24-2004]

Sorry, as you can see I amended my post shortly after posting it (and after going back to review our exchanges again.) That might be considered unfair on my part, and I'm sorry.But my new point still stands - the points you raised aren't even arguments, and the discussion we're having only started when you started addressing the evidence for the Big Bang instead of asking questions - and making flippant remarks - about it.Fabulous. I'm glad the discussion has finally started. Now, can you outline your position so it can continue?

Not contradictory to the Big Bang. If God created the Big Bang and the Earth formed via subsequent natural processes, then God is the creator of the Earth, as well. Well, prior to the Earth's formation via natural processes, it would have been a "formless" cloud of debris from a prior supernova. So this doesn't really contradict the cosmological account (nor the Big Bang, which is not a theory about the formation of the Earth.) This could refer to the de-unification of fundamental forces in the moments subsequent to the Big Bang. So, no contradiction. The Big Bang is not a theory about the formation of water on Earth, so no contradiction. Since the Big Bang is not a theory about plants, your question isn't meaningful. If you want to talk about plants, hit the evolution threads. Anyway, there's no contradiction here, because the Big Bang doesn't talk about plants. This could simply refer not to the creation of the planets, but simply of the arrival of their light to Earth. The Bible does seem to concentrate on their properties as light sources and not generally as their existence as planetary bodies. According to models of the formation of the solar system, the Sun and all the rest of the planets probably coalesced within more or less the same time frame. This again could refer not to the creation of the Sun but it's actual "ignition" as a light source. And not contradictory to the Big Bang, which is not a theory about the origin of life. Hey, don't look at me. I was just waiting for you to outline your own position and not put words in your mouth. You know, like you asked me to do. Jeez.So, what do we have? A bunch of stuff that doesn't contradict the Big Bang. So what are we arguing about? Interpretations of the Bible or something?Oh, and where's the part that says that all this happened 6,000 years ago? That would contradict the Big Bang theory, but you didn't list that in your post.

It's in the Bible. God creates the Earth, then plants, and then the rest of the planets. Did I say something differently? And that's more or less what the Big Bang says - planet formation is ongoing. Many planets might have come into being since the formation of the earth. What's with the ad hominem all the time? What did I ever do to you besides disagree? Jeez. It's a theory about the history of forces in the universe. It's not about planets. It's a theory about how forces and spacetime have behaved in the past.And it doesn't explain the creation of the universe. It just explains the history of spacetime up till a few moments after the beginning. Let me hit that again for you - the Big Bang theory doesn't go all the way back to the beginning yet. Oh, absolutely. It's just not what you said you wanted to talk about. Hrm, I see it the exact opposite way. Why would God create something so imperfect he had to meddle all the time? What's more impressive, the ultimate pool trick shot that sinks every ball in one break, or the guy who just grabs the balls and shoves them into the pockets? God's too big to just wave his hands and create by fiat.

Remember when Navy claimed to be one of those creationists who doesn't run off when he loses arguments? Teh Funny!

Well, I did wait a couple of months. So long, in fact, that I've mostly forgotten what we were talking about.How long was I supposed to wait before coming to the conclusion that you were just like all the other creationists who turn tail and run when they can't avoid the evidence? Just curious. I'm glad I was wrong about you but you have to cut me some slack, ok? You overlook the similarities in the various competing models and focus only on their slight differences, so it's no surprise you come to this conclusion. I could just as easily say that, because there's 200 or more different Christian demoninations, God must not exist.I'd be just as wrong as you, because I'd be overlooking the similarities between denominations.The distinction between debating the concept and debating the details may not be readily apparent to an outside observer of science, but the distinction exists, nonetheless. That's a very intelligent observation. But you should keep in mind that as science rejects old theories, it moves closer and closer to the truth.On the other hand, if you start out wrong and never change, ala creationism, you're wrong forever.I'd rather be almost right and getting righter than eternally and unchangingly wrong. I put the truth at a higher priority than not changing my beliefs, but I guess I'm weird like that.

But that's a false statement.My statement was true - creationism has been proven wrong. There's just too much evidence against it.Moreover, there's a significant weight of evidence for evolution. I don't see why that matters. The purpose of science is not to determine exactly what happened - that's impossible - but to determine the most parsimonious explanation for the results we see today. We don't. That's the scientific principle of "tentativity." It means that we only accept our models provisionally. The minute we have observations that contradict them, we throw them out.Since we keep making new observations, it's pretty reasonable to expect that if there's an observation out there that would disprove our models, eventually we'll make it, and we'll know we were wrong.

---

"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich

Nobody's going to answer your questions here, because it wouldn't be on topic.But we do have answers for all that. You should post these questions as new threads and we'll be happy to answer them if you want.

You need to make sure that, when you post stuff you haven't written yourself, you make the proper attribution. Otherwise it's plagarism.Nobody's saying you can't post stuff from whatever sites you like, but you have to say where you got it from, or you're being dishonest.

But when we cut and paste stuff from other sites, we say where we got it from. When we employ other people's information or reasoning in our own, we give credit where credit is due.Didn't they teach you that in school?