Genesis and The Big Bang

[i_love_burritos]

Well, here is the question.

 

Why is the Big Bang theory a more valid "theory" than Genesis in determining the existence of the Earth, Universe, everything.

 

 

Here's the deal. I want to know what you know.

 

So please dont google the "answer" if there is one, and dont vomit out what you learnt in science over the last few days.

 

If anyone says, durrr, Big Bang, then you've clearly missed the purpose of this thread.

[Jeffwilson99]

Well it depends who you ask as to which is considered more valid.

 

Well one specific point I bring up is the timeline of the Earth existience. According to calculations made from the bible, I think it says that the earth is no more than several thousands of years old.

 

And despite this, we have pretty good evidence to suggest that the earth is in fact billions of years old. However this does not suggest that the Big Bang theory is valid, rather that the explaining in Genesis is invalid.

[Obtaurian]

Logical deductions made by observing the nature of the universe coupled with the fact that when we point our telescopes into the sky we're actually seeing into the past allows us to conclude certain things about the universe, one of which being the Big Bang "theory."

 

The simple and obvious answer is that the Big Bang is supported by evidence and observation. Genesis is supported by... a book. That alone makes the Big Bang "theory" more valid than Genesis.

[Iamdan]

Because Christianity is just 1 religion of many, invented by man. The only reason why the Christian god is widely believed in is because the Christians killed everybody else.

 

If somebody else had killed everybody else then a different mythical theory would be popular instead, however we would still have the big bang theory.

 

The big bang theory can be explained logically, rather than that some divine magic guy did it.

 

Genesis is not supported by anything, it's a book. The only difference between genesis and harry potter is that many people believe genesis is true, because their ancestors told them, because their ancestors believed it and killed anyone who said different.

[Sy_Accursed]

Personally I'd say the big bang is more valid for a couple of points:

 

First and foremost the concept of evolution, which has solid evidence to back it up. Where as with genesis virtually all modern creatures were apparently created with no reference to their predecessors.

 

Also dinosaurs. Scientifically a fact; but no signs of them in genesis because god jsut made like snakes and horses and man and stuff.

[jemathonical]

What do you think, Adrenal?

[Sunli]

Wheter you are a beliver or not; the fact is, that a simple table can not be made by it self, even if you put a bomb inside a furniture factory and hope all the parts in there magically assemblys its self after the smoke have cleared. "Intelligent" scientists are trying to convince us that the more complex universe, the planets and the living breathing humans are infact from a "big bang".

 

Well, Im not falling for that :)

[armourdilo]

Christians actually, to some extent support the "Big Bang Theory". It validated their belief that the universe actually was created. I have Christian friends that agree with the "Big Bang Theory", and it's even been mentioned in books that, "god" made the "Big Bang" happen.

 

But seeing as we have a good idea how it started, I'm more interested in how, and if it's going to end. I hope it doesn't. I don't want the big crunch to happen and I don't want the big chill to happen either. Maybe if it would continue on until forever, with life being supported from now until forever. I like life. [/topic change]

[i_love_burritos]

Well it depends who you ask as to which is considered more valid.

 

Well one specific point I bring up is the timeline of the Earth existience. According to calculations made from the bible, I think it says that the earth is no more than several thousands of years old.

 

And despite this, we have pretty good evidence to suggest that the earth is in fact billions of years old. However this does not suggest that the Big Bang theory is valid, rather that the explaining in Genesis is invalid.

 

1.) Provide and explain this evidence.

 

Logical deductions made by observing the nature of the universe coupled with the fact that when we point our telescopes into the sky we're actually seeing into the past allows us to conclude certain things about the universe, one of which being the Big Bang "theory."

 

The simple and obvious answer is that the Big Bang is supported by evidence and observation. Genesis is supported by... a book. That alone makes the Big Bang "theory" more valid than Genesis.

 

1.) Provide and explain your logical deductions aswell as observations and conclusions

2.) You have probably read these logical deductions and conclusions from a book. So, tell me why ?

 

 

Because Christianity is just 1 religion of many, invented by man. The only reason why the Christian god is widely believed in is because the Christians killed everybody else.

 

If somebody else had killed everybody else then a different mythical theory would be popular instead, however we would still have the big bang theory.

 

The big bang theory can be explained logically, rather than that some divine magic guy did it.

 

Genesis is not supported by anything, it's a book. The only difference between genesis and harry potter is that many people believe genesis is true, because their ancestors told them, because their ancestors believed it and killed anyone who said different.

 

1.) Try not to prove one by disproving or ragging the other.

2.) Explain this logic.

 

Personally I'd say the big bang is more valid for a couple of points:

 

First and foremost the concept of evolution, which has solid evidence to back it up. Where as with genesis virtually all modern creatures were apparently created with no reference to their predecessors.

 

Also dinosaurs. Scientifically a fact; but no signs of them in genesis because god jsut made like snakes and horses and man and stuff.

 

1.) Provide and explain the evidence for evolution

 

What do you think, Adrenal?

 

1.) After everyone has had their say.

 

Wheter you are a beliver or not; the fact is, that a simple table can not be made by it self, even if you put a bomb inside a furniture factory and hope all the parts in there magically assemblys its self after the smoke have cleared. "Intelligent" scientists are trying to convince us that the more complex universe, the planets and the living breathing humans are infact from a "big bang".

 

Well, Im not falling for that :)

 

Sorry, Sunli you were slightly unclear. Do you support the Big Bang theory ? I'm thinking that you do not, [please clarify, I may be wrong]

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

The real question is what is the "first cause"

 

Look, i'm tired and i'll post more later, i'm not in the mood for philosophy

[armourdilo]

Wheter you are a beliver or not; the fact is, that a simple table can not be made by it self, even if you put a bomb inside a furniture factory and hope all the parts in there magically assemblys its self after the smoke have cleared. "Intelligent" scientists are trying to convince us that the more complex universe, the planets and the living breathing humans are infact from a "big bang".

 

Well, Im not falling for that :)

 

Sorry, Sunli you were slightly unclear. Do you support the Big Bang theory ? I'm thinking that you do not, [please clarify, I may be wrong]

 

She's disagreeing.

 

Though, there is a problem with her argument. She's comparing a table, a very simple object to, well, everything. The Big Bang is a very precise event and a very complex event. We all know the theory, a singularity broke apart with a bang and it's mass formed small particles which made atoms, eventually, as things cooled down they began to join together and react to make denser and more complex structures, planets, stars, rocks, etc. (this is a VERY simple explanation, don't take it too seriously) This is nothing like an Ikea package, that Sunli has compared our universe to. Sunli, you haven't fallen for anything, what you have done is either misrepresented yourself with a bad choice of analogy, or you're wrong.

[Iamdan]

 

Because Christianity is just 1 religion of many, invented by man. The only reason why the Christian god is widely believed in is because the Christians killed everybody else.

 

If somebody else had killed everybody else then a different mythical theory would be popular instead, however we would still have the big bang theory.

 

The big bang theory can be explained logically, rather than that some divine magic guy did it.

 

Genesis is not supported by anything, it's a book. The only difference between genesis and harry potter is that many people believe genesis is true, because their ancestors told them, because their ancestors believed it and killed anyone who said different.

 

1.) Try not to prove one by disproving or ragging the other.

2.) Explain this logic.

 

1. You asked why I think the big bang is a more valid theory than creation. (or vice versa)I can't say that one is more valid without saying the other is less valid. Stating one is less valid is also a better way to show the other is more valid, because I have more to work with.

2. Which part?

 

Whoever brought up evolution, it has been proven but this is about the big bang theory not evolution.

[i_love_burritos]

 

Because Christianity is just 1 religion of many, invented by man. The only reason why the Christian god is widely believed in is because the Christians killed everybody else.

 

If somebody else had killed everybody else then a different mythical theory would be popular instead, however we would still have the big bang theory.

 

The big bang theory can be explained logically, rather than that some divine magic guy did it.

 

Genesis is not supported by anything, it's a book. The only difference between genesis and harry potter is that many people believe genesis is true, because their ancestors told them, because their ancestors believed it and killed anyone who said different.

 

1.) Try not to prove one by disproving or ragging the other.

2.) Explain this logic.

 

1. You asked why I think the big bang is a more valid theory than creation. (or vice versa)I can't say that one is more valid without saying the other is less valid.

2. Which part?

 

Whoever brought up evolution, it has been proven but this is about the big bang theory not evolution.

 

1.) Yes, but please use the proper channels / methods for proving it's validity.

2.) The big bang theory can be explained logically [sic]

 

Explain this logic.

[Iamdan]

1. You asked why I think the big bang is a more valid theory than creation. (or vice versa)I can't say that one is more valid without saying the other is less valid.

2. Which part?

 

Whoever brought up evolution, it has been proven but this is about the big bang theory not evolution.

 

1.) Yes, but please use the proper channels / methods for proving it's validity.

2.) The big bang theory can be explained logically [sic]

 

Explain this logic.

 

1. Proper channels? What is your reasoning behind wanting to handicap me? Make sure you answer the question without vowels.

 

Stating that 9 is less than 10 is just as good as stating 10 is more than 9.

 

2. I'm not going to explain the big bang theory just like that, entire books have been written on it. We all know what it is, if you have an issue with a specific part of it then point it out to be addressed.

[DerekZoolandah]

Something no one's thought of to use as additional proof that the BBT is more valid than Genesis:

 

Redshift. Nearly every heavenly body is expanding outward, caused by the dark energy (that was created by the BB), and the initial explosion itself. If the universe wern't expanding, then when reading spectral lines from various stars, they would stay where they are instead of shifting towards the red end of the spectrum.

[Barihawk]

My philosophy, and that of many Biblical scholars/non-idiotic Christians:

 

Why can't there be synergy between both?

 

Sure, if you add up the years in Genesis you get some wierd number, but guess what: Genesis was written 5000 years BEFORE our Calender, and several thousand years before the first calendars were even written. Who the hell is to say what a year was to God? One must also remember who's telling the story vs who the author was in both Genesis and Revelation, the first and last books of the Bible. God was speaking directly to both to men who lived in a time where they could not comprehend fully what he was trying to tell them. Hence, the heavy use of constructs in both books to represent imagery. God told Moses he created the world in seven days. But how long was a day to God? Could this have just been figurative language as to not boggle Moses' mind with billions of years of careful construction? Would John have been able to grasp the concept of the modern apocolypse with nuclear weaponry, ID chips, or global dictatorships?

 

So who's to say the two don't go hand in hand?

 

It's worth noting that the Big Bang theory was come up with solely by one scientist, Georges Lematire, in 1927 and that this man was a DEVOUT CATHOLIC PRIEST.

 

My advice for the topic: Stop thinking in black/white. Start realizing that in almost all things in this world, the gray area is much bigger.

[Sy_Accursed]

 

Personally I'd say the big bang is more valid for a couple of points:

 

First and foremost the concept of evolution, which has solid evidence to back it up. Where as with genesis virtually all modern creatures were apparently created with no reference to their predecessors.

 

Also dinosaurs. Scientifically a fact; but no signs of them in genesis because god jsut made like snakes and horses and man and stuff.

 

1.) Provide and explain the evidence for evolution

 

 

Erm all the fossils they have, that have been accurately carbon dated that show clear progression of animals from one state to another. Eg monkey to man

Not to mention the DNA relations between many animals that show they came from the same source; plus within our lifetime there is clearly evidence of humans on average becoming taller.

 

Got to most old tudor or medieval buildings (not rich palces jsut like average houses) and even average height people have to duck under doorways, and the skeletons back this up

[Iamdan]

 

Erm all the fossils they have, that have been accurately carbon dated that show clear progression of animals from one state to another. Eg monkey to man

Not to mention the DNA relations between many animals that show they came from the same source; plus within our lifetime there is clearly evidence of humans on average becoming taller.

 

Got to most old tudor or medieval buildings (not rich palces jsut like average houses) and even average height people have to duck under doorways, and the skeletons back this up

 

Not to mention all the proof you see today when it comes to the way attraction works. If evolution didn't exist I wouldn't get laid anywhere near as much as I do. Then you have things like attached earlobes and blonde hair which are much more recent changes than things like skeletons.

[Sy_Accursed]

 

Erm all the fossils they have, that have been accurately carbon dated that show clear progression of animals from one state to another. Eg monkey to man

Not to mention the DNA relations between many animals that show they came from the same source; plus within our lifetime there is clearly evidence of humans on average becoming taller.

 

Got to most old tudor or medieval buildings (not rich palces jsut like average houses) and even average height people have to duck under doorways, and the skeletons back this up

 

Not to mention all the proof you see today when it comes to the way attraction works. If evolution didn't exist I wouldn't get laid anywhere near as much as I do. Then you have things like attached earlobes and blonde hair which are much more recent changes than things like skeletons.

 

Not to mention the tail bone we have where a tail used to be whihc is becoming progressively less prominent through the years or the appendix which is an organ designed solely for digesting grass which has been shown to be becoming smaller as generations pass

[i_love_burritos]

1. You asked why I think the big bang is a more valid theory than creation. (or vice versa)I can't say that one is more valid without saying the other is less valid.

2. Which part?

 

Whoever brought up evolution, it has been proven but this is about the big bang theory not evolution.

 

1.) Yes, but please use the proper channels / methods for proving it's validity.

2.) The big bang theory can be explained logically [sic]

 

Explain this logic.

 

1. Proper channels? What is your reasoning behind wanting to handicap me? Make sure you answer the question without vowels.

 

Stating that 9 is less than 10 is just as good as stating 10 is more than 9.

 

2. I'm not going to explain the big bang theory just like that, entire books have been written on it. We all know what it is, if you have an issue with a specific part of it then point it out to be addressed.

 

 

Your approach

 

1.) Christianity is manufactured - hence it sucks.

2.) Therfore the Bible is also, manufactured.

3.) Genesis is explained by the by Bible.

4.) Therefore Genesis is invalid.

5.) The Big Bang Theory is valid.

 

1, 2, 3 are not proper. 4 - 5 are perfectly fine.

 

We all know books have been written about it. Seems that this is too difficult on this type of platform. [Over the net, with several people]

 

I wanted to know what you know and how you know it.

 

What is true knowledge ?

 

And what is inherited by rote ?

 

For example :

 

Erm all the fossils they have, that have been accurately carbon dated that show clear progression of animals from one state to another

 

Give example, not just from monkey to man. What are the ages of this dating ? How does dating work ?

 

Not to mention the DNA relations between many animals that show they came from the same source.

 

What methods are used to certify this ? Is it DNA-DNA hybridisation ? Gene mapping ? What ?!

 

We can keep on breaking this down, to what you, the recipient truly knows.

[warri0r45]

In a nutshell, Genesis is a myth fasioned by very ignorant, superstitious people thousands of years ago. The big bang theory is a logical conclusion drawn from several lines of astronomical evidence. Which is more likely to be true? That should be pretty obvious to the rational observer.

[Lenticular_J]

I believe that there is a God, and he's probably from Japan. Therefore, we are entirely wrong, and the Big Bang and Genesis are both stupid, as we'll find out in the future, because something incredibly ridiculous happened.

 

There are plenty of theories that go against the Big Bang with that equally ridiculous term "empirical evidence". It's just that nobody cares about them, and Carl Sagan ignored them. Scientific elitism. "Not only do I have to be right, all of my friends that have equally good ideas must be wrong! And in 200 years everyone will agree with me and definitely won't think we were ignorant people who knew nothing!"

 

I hate elitism. I'm very elitist about it. With such things in science that don't effect me in the slightest, I take a stance of not caring. We'll all be proven wrong some time in the future.

[Bauke]

Genesis is made up, there are no facts to support it and it sounds ridiculous. The big bang is a theory derived from research, which doesn't necessarily have to be true, but there are indications it holds a certain part of the truth.

 

There.

[warri0r45]

I believe that there is a God, and he's probably from Japan. Therefore, we are entirely wrong, and the Big Bang and Genesis are both stupid, as we'll find out in the future, because something incredibly ridiculous happened.

 

There are plenty of theories that go against the Big Bang with that equally ridiculous term "empirical evidence". It's just that nobody cares about them, and Carl Sagan ignored them. Scientific elitism. "Not only do I have to be right, all of my friends that have equally good ideas must be wrong! And in 200 years everyone will agree with me and definitely won't think we were ignorant people who knew nothing!"

 

I hate elitism. I'm very elitist about it. With such things in science that don't effect me in the slightest, I take a stance of not caring. We'll all be proven wrong some time in the future.

 

Plenty of theories with empirical evidence. And those would be? I wouldn't be so quick to call scientists elitists because they think BBT is better than the others you claim exist.. scientists just favour BBT because it's the most consistent and has the most evidence supporting it. Also, for someone who doesn't care, you seem to be quite interested in challenging the mainstream scientific consensus.

 

 

Erm all the fossils they have, that have been accurately carbon dated that show clear progression of animals from one state to another. Eg monkey to man

Not to mention the DNA relations between many animals that show they came from the same source; plus within our lifetime there is clearly evidence of humans on average becoming taller.

 

Got to most old tudor or medieval buildings (not rich palces jsut like average houses) and even average height people have to duck under doorways, and the skeletons back this up

 

Just thought I'd add that average height increases in a few generations is more likely due to diet than evolution. Evolution works over much greater time scales.

[Iamdan]

Your approach

 

1.) Christianity is manufactured - hence it sucks.

2.) Therfore the Bible is also, manufactured.

3.) Genesis is explained by the by Bible.

4.) Therefore Genesis is invalid.

5.) The Big Bang Theory is valid.

 

1, 2, 3 are not proper. 4 - 5 are perfectly fine.

 

2 and 3 are fine, 1 wasn't really what I said, but in any case:

 

 

I wanted to know what you know and how you know it.

 

I know what I know because it interested me and I spent time researching it. I don't have the time to explain everything I have learned, retrace the steps that took me years, and find all the evidence though :mellow:

 

In a nutshell, Genesis is a myth fasioned by very ignorant, superstitious people thousands of years ago. The big bang theory is a logical conclusion drawn from several lines of astronomical evidence. Which is more likely to be true? That should be pretty obvious to the rational observer.

 

Sums it up well enough.