Creation by God / Big Bang Theory

[emprworm]

gen 2 is not a chronology. it is very frequent in literature to describe events in a time table, and then fill in the detail of those events. Gen 1 gives chronology, gen 2 does not. There is nothing specific in Gen 2 that says God made man first.

"In the beginning of Fed2k Gob registered this forum and set it up. Then he assigned forum admins and staff. Then users came to post. Then the EBFD community arrived.

Now this is the account of the FED2k forums. The EBFD community, the pinnacle of the forums, felt neglected by Westwood, and this was not good. Gob made the forums and the EBFD community was placed there. "

This story has the same "contradiction" - which isn't a contradiction at all! The second paragraph might seem to read that the EBFD community was already here and then Gob made the forums afterwards. If all we had was the second paragraph, then we would have no idea what came first. The second paragraph doesn't really tell us what came first- the Fed2K EBFD community or forums. But because of the first paragraph, that chronology is clarified. Very common in literature. Contradiction it is not.

[sneezer3]

What he said. ;D

Basicly, all it does is tell you what happends next, if you read carefully, it is after the seventh day.

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.

Not really. for two reasons.

MAN HAS REJECTED THE TRUTH: And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. - John 3:19-20

MAN HAS REJECTED GOD: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed (shown) it unto them. 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 ( nature of God ); so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. - Rom 1:19-22

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).

You can't get life from non life- neither can you get an all powerful being, no matter how long the period of time. you can't get something from nothing. no laws of the universe, no universe NOTHING.

The Universe is a vacuum. Where then did matter and energy come from? Where did the earth, sun, moon and the constellations of stars come from? Other than God Himself, something cannot come out of nothing. Every effect must have a cause. The energy in the Universe is the effect. What causes it? The Scriptures rightly show the foolishness and inconsistency of man - "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God..." ( Psalms 14:1 )

For a full explanation of how GOd can be there without the Big Bang go to: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/253/0253_23.asp

as for the question, they only had the old testment.

(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.)

Well, God only wrote one. :)

[paul_of_arrakis]

But the current big bang theory asks if there was a huge supermass of all elements, that exploded for some reason. this is because pressure built up soo much, and the mass had to go somewhere so it expanded, creating the universe, and so earth. This is why the universe is still expanding.

[Terror]

Well, for i do not believe in God, and the Big Bang theory does seem possible, i believe in the last one. However, neither of them have any proof and thus i don't know what to believe. If there is a god, then i have been wrong all my life and probably am goin to hell... but that's the risk i'm taking

[kblackthorne]

There is nothing specific in Gen 2 that says God made man first.

Um, wrong.

It says right there in Gen. II: 4-7, it states a chronology. And again in Gen. II, 18.

Saying otherwise (when the chronology is right there in front of you -- go read it!) is just plain ridiculous.

It is sad that some people feel the need to deny what is written in this book. In my experience, that most often happens when one is trying to defend the literal truth of something that was never meant to be taken literally.

[sneezer3]

There is nothing specific in Gen 2 that says God made man first.

Um, wrong.

It says right there in Gen. II: 4-7, it states a chronology. And again in Gen. II, 18.

Saying otherwise (when the chronology is right there in front of you -- go read it!) is just plain ridiculous.

It is sad that some people feel the need to deny what is written in this book. In my experience, that most often happens when one is trying to defend the literal truth of something that was never meant to be taken literally.

In Genesis 2:3 we find God had already rested. in Genesis Chapter one verse 27 we find God made man, in Chapter 31 we find that it was the sixeth day he made man, in 2:3 we find he rested, No conterdictions here. In chapter two verse 18 is After he made man, and is when he saw we needed some company.

[Dude_Doc]

Flameweaver: Well, if you belive there is no God, believing in isn't so bad, is it? Because from your view, it won't matter... Just believe... and that's enough...

[sneezer3]

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

Did you know that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible?

In Job 38 God shows Job a behemoth. The animal that best fits this description is the largest sauropod, The answer is simple, They are in the Bible.

Flameweaver: Well, if you belive there is no God, believing in isn't so bad, is it? Because from your view, it won't matter... Just believe... and that's enough...

No, unfortently it is not. there is a Big diffrance between beliveing, and trusting him with your life. Good works will not do either.

Saten belives, The Devils(otherwise known as demons) Belive and tremable.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the Devils also believe, and tremble.

-James 2:19

The Bible is clear there is only one way to heaven, if you'd like to know it click here or for a a small story and explanation.

or if you'd rather have it stright to the point click here

But the current big bang theory asks if there was a huge supermass of all elements, that exploded for some reason. this is because pressure built up soo much, and the mass had to go somewhere so it expanded, creating the universe, and so earth. This is why the universe is still expanding.

But thats the thing, when you have NOTHING you have NOTHING, and with NOTHING you can't get SOMETHING:! Otherwise you'd be rich ;D Those elments would have to come from somewhere.

THe chances of geting something of any kind out of such an explosion is VERY VERY VERY unlikely, it is about as likely as around 50% of ALL math ever done is incorrect, and we all know about computers doing math. :)

I can't put it much better then the Handy Guide did, so i'l quote it.

Can plasters, timbers and nails, when left on their own, organize themselves into a house or an apartment? Can an explosion in a printing shop result in an unabridged dictionary being produced? They can't and neither can the complexity of life evolve from inorganic matters by itself without an external intelligence, no matter how long the time element may be.

Every living thing is made up of trillions of living cells. The simplest living cell consists of millions of parts put together simultaneously without which it cannot live. All our technology and know-how today cannot even create "a fraction of a fraction" of a living cell.

I might add, if there was an explosion there would all fly in diffrant directions.

[emprworm]

Saying otherwise (when the chronology is right there in front of you -- go read it!) is just plain ridiculous.

huh? did you not even read my post and the literary examples I gave that prove this theory wrong?

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

the only chronology explicitly stated in this passage is:

TIME t: God made the earth, after which there were no plants or shrubs on the earth.

TIME y: Then sometime later, God made man.

This does not mutually exclude that God did not do something else at TIME t+1 which is < TIME y

The next verse reads "The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed."

It does NOT read THEN The Lord

You are ascribing verse 8 as a chronological continuation of verse 7, which is incorrect. I have empirically shown, it is common literary technique to describe events that are not chronological even though their appearance in the text is in a different order.

I will cite again (since you may have missed it the first time) a clear example of this literary technique:

"In the beginning of Fed2k Gob registered this forum. Then he assigned forum admins and staff. Then users came to post. Then the EBFD community was created.

Now this is the account of the FED2k forums. In the beginning of Fed2k Gob registered this forum. Now there were no users yet, for Gob had not yet created the topics, and there was no staff to manage them. The EBFD community felt neglected by Westwood, and this was not good. Gob made the forums and the EBFD community was placed there. "

The second paragraph lists the events in the first paragraph, but not chronologically. Using your constrained interpretation of Gen 2 and applying it to the second paragraph, it would seem that the EBFD community came before the forums! But we know this is wrong because the first paragraph lists the actual chronology, henceforth we can understand that the second pararaph is descriptive of that chronology, but not chronological.

If genesis 2 contradicts genesis 1, then paragraph 2 above must contradict paragraph 1, but it obviously does not, therefore neither does Gen 1 & 2.

[SurlyPIG]

Well. you can't get something from nothing.

Yes you can. Look around you: what do you see? Do you see anything? Now, was it always there? Maybe. Maybe it has just simply been chaning form

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

Nonsense. Even you have said differently: "You cannot get something from nothing." Obviously, God is a something, is He not? Well how did he come from nothing then?

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.

Not so. I'll use dolly, the cloned sheep, as an example.

The DNA from Dolly's mother was taken from a cell samlple from the sheep. It was taken from the breast of the sheep, hence the baby was named Dolly (as in Dolly Parton). They essentially extracted the genetic material from the sample cell and implanted it into a sheep stem cell. If the scientists had not done this, Dolly would not exist. They assembled life from other materials not part of the natural mammilian reproductive system. Assemble = create. They created Dolly.

Not originally of course. But that does not matter. If I make clothing from a template, I am still creating clothing. I'm not just "cloning" it.

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.

I find it amusing how you laugh and mock atheists, saying "How can simple forms of matter and energy POSSIBLY come from nothing." while you maintain that an omnipotent being exists and caused everything else. Well where did IT come from? NOTHING? Of course it did. You say that matter and energy cannot come from nothing, yet somehow an omnipotent being can. Obviously a contradiction.

Take the atheist view of how the universe got here, for example. They say that something from nothing is feasible.

Obviously it is. Look around you. What do you see? Do you see anything? Or are you in a giant void? I'll bet you see lots of somethings around there. They had to come from somewhere, didn't they? Yes/no? If yes, then you maintain that everything had to come from something else. You indirectly said this in your post. However, you exclude your God from this. Ultimately there is one difference...one question, emp.

What do you think of the theory that the universe has always existed? Some atheists hold this theory.

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.

You are correct, except for one thing; what ludacris reason is there for you to believe there is anything beyond the natural? Beyond the universe? And please, for the sake of intelligence, do NOT say the bible. The scientific value of a millenia-old book undergone umpteen translations and recreations is nill.

[emprworm]

I find it amusing how you laugh and mock atheists, saying "How can simple forms of matter and energy POSSIBLY come from nothing." while you maintain that an omnipotent being exists and caused everything else.'

yes i do. its a much simpler view to hold. The universe is made up of finite changing things that need causes. The sum of any set of finite changing things that need a cause is ALSO a finite changing thing that needs a cause. To postulate therefore that the universe itself needs no cause, despite all the components requiring one is a vastly more complex view to hold then mine. Set of things requiring cause = Sum of Set also requires a cause

Well where did IT come from? NOTHING? Of course it did. You say that matter and energy cannot come from nothing, yet somehow an omnipotent being can. Obviously a contradiction.

no. obviously you do not yet understand the concept of INFINITY and ETERNAL.

A finite changing thing requires a cause. An infinite eternal thing cannot possibly have a cause. To even think that it should is an irrational fallacy. You are telling me that an infinite eternal being REQUIRES a beginning? LOL! And you accuse me of being contradictory? C'mon Ace. How in the world could an infinite being have a beginning?

Yet the universe is a FINITE thing, and it MUST have a beginning.

What do you think of the theory that the universe has always existed? Some atheists hold this theory. Do you think it is feasible? Possible? Or do you mock it like you mock other atheists.

very few do.

#1, its philosophically impossible. No finite thing can traverse an actual infinite set of measurable quantities. If i asked you, "Ace, take this red ball, go walk an infinite amount of steps, then put the ball down." At what point would you put the ball down? NEVER! You could NEVER look behind you and see an infinite amount of measurable steps. In the same way, it is impossible to look in the past and see an infinite amount of measurable events behind us. Just to reach NOW means that somehow you were able to set down that red ball after taking an infinite amount of steps. This, of course, is impossible, which is a major reason why few atheistic scientists hold to a universe that exists infinitely in the past. You just need a lot of reliious faith to believe it, since philosophically it is absurd.

Second, the universe would make a horrible machine. The idea of endless big bangs is completely rediculous. When you drop a basketball, it bounces then entropy causes it to stop...it does not bounce forever. Neither would the universe. You can BELIEVE that, but dont call yourself non-religious.

what ludacris reason is there for you to believe there is anything beyond the natural?

if you believe sometihng from nothing, if you believe an endless universe, then you obviously have some reasons.

[sneezer3]

Missed this post earlyer :-[

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.

The Bible is why Science is how. And i take him at his word when he says In the BEGINGING was the word John 1:1 look it up.

[paul_of_arrakis]

for genesis theory, god must exist so why do men suffer? it says in genesis that women shall suffer - hence they are thought to be the weaker sex.

[Dude_Doc]

Mankind causes pain, not God. Cheeses, how many time do I have to tell everyone? ::)

[Sneakgab]

Those who suffer are not neccesarily weak and those who do not suffer are nessecarily strong

Much like the qoute: All who wonder are not neccesarily lost and those who are lost do not neccsarily wonder

[paul_of_arrakis]

no. If god created us in his own image, andwe hurt each other, then sureley pain and suffering are gods doings.

[exatreide]

Well acording to some big bang therios. That lasted for a few billion years the universe was nothing but darkness.

something happend that created everything. planets,people,begonias, and lizerds.

most of the universe at that time was made up of only helium and hydrogen and trace amounts of litheim.

The first step was when grabity gatherd gasses into diffuse clouds. as these gasses cooled, they coaesced at the center of each cloud into a clump no larger than oure sun. the clump colaspsed further while surounding gas piled on top of it. In this way it grew into a monster, 100 times the size of our sun. finaly several milliion years after this process begain. the intesice compression forged the first full fledged star.

and there was light.

elsewhare the same star forming process had begun in other glouds. referd to as micro galaxys. single starred versions of our galaxys today. son becons of light from massive stars permeated the darkness. these starts burned brightly for and then fizzled after only after a few million years. dying in massive supernovas.

when these stars were alive. they changed everything. heating surrounding gasses and bombarding them with ultravioliot light. and when they exploded. they seeded the universe. and the next geneation of stars. with the first suply of heavy eliments.

including the oxygen we breath.

:)

[SurlyPIG]

yes i do. its a much simpler view to hold.

Indeed. The human mind is not capable of comprehending the origins of the universe. Anyone who tells themselves otherwise is being blindly arrogant, IMO. But human curiosity continues to attempt to accomplish the impossible. That is why we created the concept of an infinite being. We created God, my friend, through our feeble minded curiosity. Not the other way around.

The universe is made up of finite changing things that need causes. The sum of any set of finite changing things that need a cause is ALSO a finite changing thing that needs a cause. To postulate therefore that the universe itself needs no cause, despite all the components requiring one is a vastly more complex view to hold then mine. Set of things requiring cause = Sum of Set also requires a cause

A beautiful web of words. How unfortunate it is that they aren't true. You can ramble on about infinite this and how it just HAD to have derived from finite that, but since you ignored me the first time, what REASON do you have to believe that there is anything beyond the finite?

no. obviously you do not yet understand the concept of INFINITY and ETERNAL.

Yes I do. They are common impossible concepts, often found in fantasy literature, mythology, and other fiction.

Look around you, emprworm. What do you see? Finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, finite. Humanity has made up a concept that is impossible. Infinity is impossible. However many people simply class it under its own category in order to believe. In order to exclude it from reality.

Yet the universe is a FINITE thing, and it MUST have a beginning.

What makes you so sure? You speak as if you actually know this as a fact. Well how can you? Facts require undisputable evidence. Elite said it best; you weren't present during the beginning of the universe. You weren't snapping polaroids of this big bang you believe in.

What do you think of the theory that the universe has always existed? Some atheists hold this theory. Do you think it is feasible? Possible? Or do you mock it like you mock other atheists.

very few do.

#1, its philosophically impossible. No finite thing can traverse an actual infinite set of measurable quantities. If i asked you, "Ace, take this red ball, go walk an infinite amount of steps, then put the ball down." At what point would you put the ball down? NEVER! You could NEVER look behind you and see an infinite amount of measurable steps. In the same way, it is impossible to look in the past and see an infinite amount of measurable events behind us. Just to reach NOW means that somehow you were able to set down that red ball after taking an infinite amount of steps. This, of course, is impossible, which is a major reason why few atheistic scientists hold to a universe that exists infinitely in the past. You just need a lot of reliious faith to believe it, since philosophically it is absurd.

Precisely my view of God, infinity, and eternity. Absurd. All absurd. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Second, the universe would make a horrible machine. The idea of endless big bangs is completely rediculous. When you drop a basketball, it bounces then entropy causes it to stop...it does not bounce forever. Neither would the universe. You can BELIEVE that, but dont call yourself non-religious.

I don't believe that. What on Earth made you think I believe that? And the basketball stops bouncing because it encounters air resistence. Remove the resistence, and the basketball will never cease to bounce. Remove the resistence, and perpetual motion was possible. The laws of physics are not unlike other rules. Rules have exceptions. They cannot, however, be broken, and there cannot be uncaused exceptions.

what ludacris reason is there for you to believe there is anything beyond the natural?

if you believe sometihng from nothing, if you believe an endless universe, then you obviously have some reasons.

Why didn't you answer my question instead of making wild assumptions and trying to throw it back in my face. Remember those three "possibilities" for the origins of the universe you posted in a previous thread? Well, they're all impossible. Yet here we are. A paradox - that's what this is. By our understanding, the universe is impossible. Either we are correct and this is all impossible, or our understanding of reality is too limited to comprehend the origins of the universe. Obviously, I think it's the latter.

[paul_of_arrakis]

can we keep replies shorter please

[zamboe]

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.

Not so. I'll use dolly, the cloned sheep, as an example.

The DNA from Dolly's mother was taken from a cell samlple from the sheep. It was taken from the breast of the sheep, hence the baby was named Dolly (as in Dolly Parton). They essentially extracted the genetic material from the sample cell and implanted it into a sheep stem cell. If the scientists had not done this, Dolly would not exist. They assembled life from other materials not part of the natural mammilian reproductive system. Assemble = create. They created Dolly.

Not originally of course. But that does not matter. If I make clothing from a template, I am still creating clothing. I'm not just "cloning" it.

I've just checked my dictionary and there is no relation between assembling and creation. They didn't created Dolly, they cloned/replicated/copied it.

I was just about to get a more detailed answer, but I realized that you don't share christian view of this subject, therefore since we don't agree on a more important basic, such as the christian concept of creation and life, we certanly cannot agree on derivated subjects.

This is just a semantic problem of for you, between those two verbs/concepts.

[SurlyPIG]

When you copy/clone something, you are creating another one. If I jot down your last post, I am creating another copy of the original. In this case, Dolly was the copy and her seregate was the original.

You are correct in that it is not an original creation. It is, however, a creation nonetheless. Though only in the most literal sense.

[Acriku]

Don't have time to read all of it, so I'll reply to early ones and one that stood out, yes I'm looking at you sneezer.

Quote:

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.

Since when does evolution state something coming from nothing? Ok listen up people!

Evolution is not abiogenesis! It does not tell anybody anything about how life came about. It tells how life developed. Please keep that in mind!

I want to scream everytime I hear someone say that about evolution.

Now onto the current threads. Calming down...now.

As for cloning, it's sort of like being the big daddy putting such-and-such into such-and-such and letting it replicate. This kind of genetic engineering has led us to grow such things as insulin, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), and using a method such as inserting cut DNA with sticky ends (by such things as endonuclease, which is a restriction enzyme that cuts the DNA) into a plasmid (circular ring of DNA acting like an extrachromosome) which is also cut with complementary sticky ends and then the plasmid and section of a DNA that codes for different things, for example insulin, bound together with DNA ligase (this is necessary because Hydrogen bonds are not that strong) and then grown in a bacteria culture which clones the plasmid with the gene of interest and then extracted and put into the selected organism. I learned this in AP Biology, ain't it grand? :D

[Nyarlathotep]

But what about dinosaur bones where do they come from.

Interesting reply and is the same I've been asking myself for a long time. To bad everyone seems to have missed it. I would love for someone to explain me where dinosaurs fit into the God creation theory. No where in the bible is stated anything about them (as far as I know).

[sneezer3]

Aww, not much time to reply.

But what about dinosaur bones where do they come from.

Interesting reply and is the same I've been asking myself for a long time. To bad everyone seems to have missed it. I would love for someone to explain me where dinosaurs fit into the God creation theory. No where in the bible is stated anything about them (as far as I know).

But they are in the Bible.

Dr Kent hovine explans why.

http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/creationseminar.asp

Unfortently you' dhave to order them. i saw one of there videos free online to watch somewhere. its been a while. :-

[Acriku]

Are you refering to the big dragon things mentioned in the bible?