Creation by God / Big Bang Theory

[kblackthorne]

Sneezer,

I'd like you to do an exercise for me.

Get out your Bible, and turn to Gen. 1. Read it, and write down what order things were created in.

Now turn to Gen 2. Read it, and write down what order things were created in.

[sneezer3]

Oh, I WISH I could find that story, because I don't do it nearly as well as the author did. But I remember neither the author nor the title.

Are you just quoteing that story or are you looking for it? If so i'd be happy to look it up for you.

Sneezer,

I'd like you to do an exercise for me.

Get out your Bible, and turn to Gen. 1. Read it, and write down what order things were created in.

Now turn to Gen 2. Read it, and write down what order things were created in.

Ok. :) and i'l post there here soon as well.

[kblackthorne]

Both, actually.

Anyone who can find this will have my profound gratitude.

I also think the story itself (or as much as I've been able to paraphrase) is relevant to the discussion at hand.

[sneezer3]

1 He made the earth formless and void (or empty,)

and made the light

2 Made the water.

3 Made thep plants. and grass etc.

4 Made the stars

5 Animals whales so on.

6 Mankind, the humen race.

7 He rested.

I asure you i did that on my own. as for your story i have no idea. but Moses in the Bible can be found mostly in Exodus. and as for the 10 Commandments can be found in chapter 20. 3-17

[kblackthorne]

Yes, that was Chapter 1. Now read what order it says in Chapter 2.

[sneezer3]

I don't see why, but ok. i'l edit this with what i find.

I don't see why, but ok. i'l edit this with what i find.

The Lord formed man out of the dust of the earth.(which is canfirmed i might add by the things found in a humen and soil)

The tree of knowlege of good and evil.(verse 9)

God commanded them telling them they could eat of any tree but the one of good and evil (verse 17

Caused a deep sleep to fall upon adem. and took his rib and made a women(verse 22)

thats about it. so whats your point?

[kblackthorne]

Here's what I read in Chapter 2:

Gen II,5-7: God made man. (It specifies that God made man before there was field, shrub, grass or rain.)

Gen II, 8-9: After God made man, He made the garden (Eden). Then He made trees.

Gen II, 10-14: God makes some rivers that are highly important in the Ancient world, along with precious metals & stones.

Gen II, 18-20: Well after Man was made, God made the animals as companions to man.

Gen II, 21-25: None of the animals were a fit mate for Man, so God made woman from man's rib.

Will you please confirm that your Bible matches mine in this?

[sneezer3]

As far as i can tell. yes

[Gobalopper]

Chapter two is a more detailed look at creation, mainly day six, then the what is found in the first chapter. They don't contradict each other if thats what you are trying to show.

[Acriku]

Man I have so much schoolwork I can't keep up with the threads. But enough of that.

The big bang theory is perfectly compatible, because nowhere in the Bible does it say how he made it. With a big bang? With a snap of the fingers? With a fart?

Katherine has pointed out an obvious contradiction(s), proving that God did not write the bible. Human people did. Were they inspired by god to write his word? Well they didn't do a good job in the little things, IMO, with all the contradictions, bloody scenes, etc.

Katherine that seems like a great story, I hope you or someone else can find it :) It's sort of like "The Last Question:Entropy" (thread about it is in here somewhere)

today's scientific atheist actually says that the universe arrived uncaused. it just popped into being via nothing. that, of course, is more miraculous than anything mentioned in the Bible, which is a far more simplistic view then the universe popping ex-nihlo "from nothing."

Miraculous? What is your definition of miracle? And this is serious, please answer.

[sneezer3]

The big bang theory is perfectly compatible, because nowhere in the Bible does it say how he made it. With a big bang? With a snap of the fingers? With a fart?

Katherine has pointed out an obvious contradiction(s), proving that God did not write the bible. Human people did. Were they inspired by god to write his word? Well they didn't do a good job in the little things, IMO, with all the contradictions, bloody scenes, etc.

Katherine that seems like a great story, I hope you or someone else can find it :) It's sort of like "The Last Question:Entropy" (thread about it is in here somewhere)

today's scientific atheist actually says that the universe arrived uncaused. it just popped into being via nothing. that, of course, is more miraculous than anything mentioned in the Bible, which is a far more simplistic view then the universe popping ex-nihlo "from nothing."

Miraculous? What is your definition of miracle? And this is serious, please answer.

The word "Miraculous" means amazieing i think.

Your wrong. it says "And by him where all things made" if Evolution is true then this verse isn't therefore they conterdict. God could not have made the heaven and the earth and the Big Bang too. They are not Compatable. It also says Itself is profitable for Doctrine and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about the Big Bang or Evolution.

Chapter two is a more detailed look at creation, mainly day six, then the what is found in the first chapter. They don't contradict each other if thats what you are trying to show.

I thought thats what she had in mind.(although i still do not know) but if that was it i'd get my "errors in the King James bible" book out and get an explanation for it. ;D

[Acriku]

I was asking for empr's definition, thanks though, but then anything can be miraculous on account of perception according to your definition so miracles are nothing more than things people find so emotionally provocative that it goes beyond their belief. Like having a baby, the emotions involved in that, surviving a crash, etc.

No one knows the mechanism for evolution, we have natural selection given by the Darwin, Charles, and then God could be that mechanism. Do not confuse what you do not understand with what you do, it creates a misunderstanding :) And just as edric says, who would believe or understand evolution or the big bang theory back then?

[sneezer3]

I was asking for empr's definition, thanks though, but then anything can be miraculous on account of perception according to your definition so miracles are nothing more than things people find so emotionally provocative that it goes beyond their belief. Like having a baby, the emotions involved in that, surviving a crash, etc.

No one knows the mechanism for evolution, we have natural selection given by the Darwin, Charles, and then God could be that mechanism. Do not confuse what you do not understand with what you do, it creates a misunderstanding :) And just as edric says, who would believe or understand evolution or the big bang theory back then?

The Big Bang does not make since to me. read my post on page one.

My definition of a miracle is something not humenly possable. like turning wine into water with just speaking.

[Acriku]

But how do you know that is not possible? Years ago people would have thought cloning a cat from a cat would have been miraculous, not humanly possible, but we can do it now.

[SurlyPIG]

Boy oh boy, the contradictions run wild...

If God made the bible so people could understand it 2000 years ago, then why, being perfect and omnipotent, did he not have the foresight to see what humanity would become? Why did He not see that humanity would realize that way in which he depicts the creation of the universe is not possible? Edric calls it an allegory, of course ::). IMO, at least sneezer is completely consistent in his beliefs (except for one thing).

Ok, here's what I think:

Like elite, I think it's foolish and arrogant to delude ourselves into knowing the origins of the universe. That said, we can make predictions and take guesses.

Where both evolution and creationism fail is the concept of something from nothing. How did a massive, universe-creating explosion derive from nothing? And how did an omnipotent being derive from nothing?

It seems that the only defense creationists have against this is that they believe the laws of the universe do not apply to their God. They believe God has just always existed. Furthermore, they say that God is not part of the universe. Therefore, they argue that the concepts of creation, conservation, and time do not apply to God. Edric says this. So does emprworm. To them I ask this question:

What ludacris reason do you have to believe there is anything outside of the universe? There isn't anything to indicate that the universe has limits or boundaries. As far is we know, the universe is the only and greatest extent of reality and existence. Therefore, it must be self-creating and self-sustaining. Thus the big bang theory. Thus evolution. This is the most likely explanation.

Where this fails, in both the physical and the biological, is how can somethind derive from nothing? Well, there's no possible way to guess how the physical universe formed from nothing, but since we can better observe the world around us, we can answer that question locally.

How does life evolve from nothing? Well, any evolutionary scientist will say that it evolves in baby steps. I think this is the same on a universal scale too.

Ultimately it comes down to the size of the first step: was the first step, say, a circumstantially created material able to utilize energy of one form to convert to another to sustain itself and reproduce? Or was the first step the birth of an un-senseable omnipotent being?

To the people who try to rebutt this (emprworm and edric most likely), do not even waste your time saying "well obviously God isn't part of the universe, dummy" because all I will do is quote myself...I have explained that in this very post.

[sneezer3]

But how do you know that is not possible? Years ago people would have thought cloning a cat from a cat would have been miraculous, not humanly possible, but we can do it now.

Let me rephrease that.

Something God can do and Man can not.

[SurlyPIG]

In a way, we've created life (cloning). And we modify it on a continuous basis (genetics).

[sneezer3]

Ultimately it comes down to the size of the first step: was the first step, say, a circumstantially created material able to utilize energy of one form to convert to another to sustain itself and reproduce? Or was the first step the birth of an un-senseable omnipotent being?

I would agree that is one reason why they are not compatable. ;)

How does life evolve from nothing? Well, any evolutionary scientist will say that it evolves in baby steps. I think this is the same on a universal scale too.

Well. you can't get something from nothing.

Where both evolution and creationism fail is the concept of something from nothing. How did a massive, universe-creating explosion derive from nothing? And how did an omnipotent being derive from nothing?

God does not have a time. he has been here forever.

[Dude_Doc]

Wouldn't people fear God if it was prooven that He existed? That's our greatest gift from Him. Freedom. To do whatever we want with our lives. To believe in whatever we want to believe in. Like your dog, you can choose to beat it, and yell at it, or you can choose to be a good carer of it. Humans control their own fate, we create misery and war, not God. Every person would live in fear if God punished every one that did something wrong. He gave us brains to think with. We all know that smoking and drinking is bad for our health, but not too bad if we drink once in a week and so on. We know that killing is wrong. Take the local government for example. You can kill a person and get away with it, without a government punishing you. But it is you who will be sad later on, it is your mind that will have trouble of letting it go, or ignore the fact that killing him/her on that day was wrong and that there were other ways.

And isn't it proof enough that we all have different feelings and emotions. Some persons can be extremely good, while others are the local Hitler. And if all emotions and different feelings are affected by how we were grown up, or treated, then how did we get them 8000+ years ago?

[zamboe]

In a way, we've created life (cloning). And we modify it on a continuous basis (genetics).

In no way.

We have duplicated/cloned/copied life, but not CREATED. Creation of life is something beyond human power, it's God's gift. There is a BIG difference between creation and cloning.

[Dude_Doc]

Actually, we can say that we "clone" a cd when we record it's music to another cd: It's the same music! But, if you "create" a cd, you first have to, with your hands, create the cd itself, then the music, then place the music on the cd for it to work on a stereo.

[Khan]

But what about dinosaur bones where do they come from. Although I know some literalists think god planted them as a test to humantity

[kblackthorne]

For those who asked what my point was, it is this:

According to the Bible, which was created first, Man or animals?

According to Gen. 1, it was clearly animals. (Man was the pinacle of creation.)

According to Gen. 2, it was clearly man. (Man was among the first of creation, and all else was created for his benefit.)

Now, how is that not a contradiction?

(Sneezer, it probably won't show up in your book, since it is not specific to the King James Version. It is simply -- as is found throughtout Genesis -- two versions of the same story.)

As for saying that evolution & God are incompatible... are you really going to place limits on the methods God is allowed to use?

Science is how. Religion is why. Are you really going to tell God that He can't use a particular tool (evolution, Maxwell's equations {or whatever the correction of them is}, etc) simply because it offends you? ~laughter~ I didn't think so.

[emprworm]

because nowhere in the Bible does it say how he made it. With a big bang? With a snap of the fingers? With a fart?

no, a giant cosmic fart is the atheist view, actually, of how the universe came into being. See: Guth and his space-time foam and quatnum fart fluctuating wild speculation that something can come from nothing.

What is a miracle? Simple. An event which has supernatural causation. Take the atheist view of how the universe got here, for example. They say that something from nothing is feasible. This is a supernatural event, far more profound than a "miracle" of Jesus taking already existing water molecules and re-arranging them into wine. No new energy/matter was added to the universe. The atheist view that matter/energy popcorn into existence ex-nihlo from nothing uncaused is magical far beyond any greek mythos or Hindu veda combined. Natural laws forbid something from nothing, and to speculate that such a thing occurs "naturally" is to have supernatural faith more dynamic than a 1000 circus tent evangelists. Such a view which is so out of line with natural law is far more complex than the idea that the universe was caused. A caused universe is inline with natural law, and is far more simple than the atheist miracle of an uncaused one.

[sneezer3]

I'l reply a little later. :)