极速赛车168官网 Comments on: Why We Should Be Cautious Using the Big Bang Argument

极速赛车168官网 By: onearmsteve

onearmsteve — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:54:00 +0000

Couple great sermons on Big Bang that you can use

http://youtu.be/SFRP8ASaM54

极速赛车168官网 By: onearmsteve

onearmsteve — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:54:00 +0000

http://youtu.be/7K-0zpl5Umk another here on history and Big Bang

极速赛车168官网 By: 2005wsoxfan .

2005wsoxfan . — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 04:30:00 +0000

Hello, I have to admit that a lot of this physic stuff is over my head. From what I understand Jimmy is saying that as Christians we should not as of yet hang our hat on the Big Bang Theory being the absolute beginning of the universe since this has not been proven with certainty. There could very well be other causes to the existence of our universe such as multi-verses etc. that may have proceeded the BB. However, from what I understand doesn't the BGV Theorem state that no matter what, Multi-verses, String Theory etc. that there is still a beginning? Thanks and Peace Be With You!

极速赛车168官网 By: geekborj

geekborj — Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:00:00 +0000

I agree that the Genesis creation account offers nothing for empirical sciences. However, it can be used to provide reasonable points. 1. God created the entire Universe (or Multiverse or Multi-multiverses ad infinitum). 2. God created the entire Universe ex nihilo. 3. The Creation Account is not in opposition to the empirical findings about our Universe. As for the Genesis account quoted in this article, God is depicted to have created the earth "formless" and "void" before light was created. I think it would be consistent to interpret this as God having the "seed" or "idea" of the earth in the very beginning though without the material part yet. Consistent with the Thomasian interpretation (as I would understand), everything was already created as potentiality the moment God created everything from nothing (at least the material realm). It was out of God's goodness that he allowed his creations to participate in the creation process --- pro-create all the fine details while along the way supporting all the events. When God creates a tree, He first creates the entire Universe and then creates the seed and plants it in the soil.

极速赛车168官网 By: andybbn

andybbn — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:18:00 +0000

There is also the fact that we do not have physical theories that work for singularities. As it stands, time is not even defined at a singularity with infinite density. The statement "The universe started at the Big Bang" may well be false.

极速赛车168官网 By: Sample1

Sample1 — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:06:00 +0000

In reply to frodiak. Are you in a Federal prison? Mike

极速赛车168官网 By: David

David — Wed, 29 May 2013 14:05:00 +0000

Mr. Akin, you say: "There is another thing we need to be careful about, which is identifying the Big Bang as the moment of the physical universe came into existence. It may well have been. I would love for us to find a way to prove that scientifically." Really? You also say: "...If we one day get solid evidence of something physical existing before the Big Bang, what would the implications be?" I think that we may have more causes for concern. Dr. Russell Humphreys says in "Starlight and Time Revisited" on YouTube: "... Why would the experts (in the big bang) make such a hard thing to understand. Is it required by the facts of science? And the answer is no. It results from assuming the Copernican principle or the cosmological principle. This principle is arbitrary and evolutionary." The experts in the big bang also say: "We are not able to make a cosmological model without some admixture of ideology... You can't just start from the observed facts about the cosmos and build a unique cosmological theory. You have to stick in some other ideas." According to Dr. Russell Humphreys: Scientist supporting the big bang theory (Richard Gott) assume that "we got where we are by sheer accident, and that's the central assumption of materialistic, naturalistic evolution." That's "rejection of a purposeful Creator, who has purposes behind what is..." "So, Christians who advocate that the big bang theory happened have to realize that at its heart is an evolutionary theory they are unwittingly supporting, a naturalistic view of the universe because this is at the central heart of the big band theory. The Bible contradicts this principle..."

极速赛车168官网 By: 42Oolon

42Oolon — Mon, 27 May 2013 15:17:00 +0000

I think the story of the creation of matter before light is a serious problem for apologists. We know scientifically that this cannot have been the case, so then this text must be symbolic of something. But symbolic of what? God's power? Why show your power by getting the series of events wrong? Would this not have been much clearer if He inspired the text to say. "In the beginning, there was God, foreeverlasting and never-beginning. God created all dimension, time and firmament on the first day which he drew forth from a point immeasurably small yet immeasurably heavy. From this God caused the firmament and the Heavens to be..." etc. This seems equally, if not more powerful and would be less misleading. Compared to my example, the text suggests that the God does not transcend time and space. Created light after matter and so on. I think you need to drop this part of Genesis as being not inspired by God. or redefine your God as being wrong about how he created the Universe.

极速赛车168官网 By: DAVE

DAVE — Sun, 26 May 2013 14:55:00 +0000

Great article and I agree Genesis I isn't a scientific argument, but there is a flaw in your interpretation of verse 2 above: "Formless and void" in Hebrew (tohu vabohu) are nonsense words and seem to exist NO WHERE ELSE in Hebrew (and maybe semitic) writings. So, formless and void become the most logical translation, but for what kind of situation? Also, let's not forget that the waters and 'the deep' represent chaos in early Hebrew (and other early) cosmologies. The Spirit hovering 'over the surface' indicates, not simply a positional but a relational situation -- beyond and above the chaos. Which heightens and makes utterly complete the chaotic situation of whatever was the state of existence (non-or otherwise) of the universe. One that could only be described by the original author as Tohu va Bohu. Nonsense. It seems to me that to argue that there was some sort of pre-existent world is just as much a leap as claiming the universe started at a single-bang. Either way it doesn't matter.... God created it. We know that, because that's what God revealed.

极速赛车168官网 By: mriehm

mriehm — Fri, 24 May 2013 23:13:00 +0000

In reply to physicistdave. I enjoy these religious discussions but I also really get turned off when the conversation deteriorates into name calling, as it so often does. I try to remain civil, and avoid a downturn in the tone of the conversation.