Zone1 the universe has a beginning

[Quantrill]

It means I know what you are.

So? What does that have to do with anything?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

You don’t know any science.

I know enough to know science is not in agreement with (Gen. 1:1) as you seem to believe.

Quantrill

 

[ding]

So? What does that have to do with anything?

Quantrill

Everything.

 

[ding]

I know enough to know science is not in agreement with (Gen. 1:1) as you seem to believe.

Quantrill

Given the reason you gave for rejecting the Big Bang is the Bible, it doesn’t seem you do.

 

[Quantrill]

Given the reason you gave for rejecting the Big Bang is the Bible, it doesn’t seem you do.

You never gave the reasons the big bang is in the Bible, though you claimed it was. Why? Now you demand I give the reasons for rejecting it.

(Gen. 1:1) " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Show me the big bang there?

Quantrill

 

[ding]

You never gave the reasons the big bang is in the Bible, though you claimed it was. Why? Now you demand I give the reasons for rejecting it.

(Gen. 1:1) " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Show me the big bang there?

Quantrill

I addressed it in post #26. The theory of the Big Bang is consistent with the account of creation.

Please don’t tell me you are one of those religious nut jobs that thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and reject the theory of evolution.

 

[ding]

Show me the big bang there?

Ok.

Both the Big Bang theory and Genesis describe a universe that had a definite start, rather than having always existed.

The biblical statement "let there be light" is correct. The universe was created ~380,000 years before light appeared.

The rest of the creation account is consistent with a universe which evolved logically and sequentially over time.

 

[ding]

You never gave the reasons the big bang is in the Bible, though you claimed it was. Why? Now you demand I give the reasons for rejecting it.

(Gen. 1:1) " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Show me the big bang there?

Quantrill

Do you have a scientific reason to reject the Big Bang?

Or do you reject all science that says the earth is older than 6,000 years and that natural selection is how life evolved on earth. I need to know just how big of a religious nut job I am dealing with.

 

[Quantrill]

I addressed it in post #26. The theory of the Big Bang is consistent with the account of creation.

Please don’t tell me you are one of those religious nut jobs that thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and reject the theory of evolution.

No you didn't. Just saying the big bang is consistent with (Gen. 1:1) means nothing. I quoted (Gen. 1:1) to you. Show me how the big bang is consistent with it.

Your 'please' means nothing to me. And now you try and change the subject.

Quantrill

 

[ding]

No you didn't. Just saying the big bang is consistent with (Gen. 1:1) means nothing. I quoted (Gen. 1:1) to you. Show me how the big bang is consistent with it.

Your 'please' means nothing to me. And now you try and change the subject.

Quantrill

You are a religious nut job who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and reject the theory of evolution, aren’t you?

Both the Big Bang theory and Genesis describe a universe that had a definite start, rather than having always existed.

The biblical statement "let there be light" is correct. The universe was created ~380,000 years before light appeared.

The rest of the creation account is consistent with a universe which evolved logically and sequentially over time.

 

[Quantrill]

Ok.

Both the Big Bang theory and Genesis describe a universe that had a definite start, rather than having always existed.

The biblical statement "let there be light" is correct. The universe was created ~380,000 years before light appeared.

The rest of the creation account is consistent with a universe which evolved logically and sequentially over time.

The big bang doesn't say the universe was created from nothing. It doesn't say that the universe was created by God. The big bang says there was something there in order to have a big bang. In other words, there is nothing consistent with the big bang and (Gen. 1:1).

I know the Biblical statement 'Let there be Light' is correct because the Bible says so. Not because science may admit.

Nothing in the creation account agrees with evolution.

Quantrill

 

[ding]

Your 'please' means nothing to me. And now you try and change the subject.

It’s idiotic to believe the earth is 6,000 years old and reject the theory of evolution. So it’s important to know if that’s what you believe. Because if that’s what you believe despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary then that means you are an ideologue and that there is no amount of evidence that will change your mind. So it absolutely is relevant to this conversation.

Now do you understand?

 

[Quantrill]

Do you have a scientific reason to reject the Big Bang?

Or do you reject all science that says the earth is older than 6,000 years and that natural selection is how life evolved on earth. I need to know just how big of a religious nut job I am dealing with.

Why do I need a scientific reason? I have the Bible which plainly states the why I reject the big bang.

Why should I reject the age of the earth being more than 6,000 years old?

Well, who the 'nut job' is, remains to be seen. You are 'religious'...correct?

Quantrill

 

[ding]

The big bang doesn't say the universe was created from nothing. It doesn't say that the universe was created by God. The big bang says there was something there in order to have a big bang. In other words, there is nothing consistent with the big bang and (Gen. 1:1).

I know the Biblical statement 'Let there be Light' is correct because the Bible says so. Not because science may admit.

Nothing in the creation account agrees with evolution.

Quantrill

Incorrect. The universe was not created from existing matter. That’s literally the Big Bang theory. The religious counterpart is called creatio ex nihlo. Which means created from nothing. Which was a common belief in biblical times.

In 2 Maccabees 7:28, the author writes:

I implore you, my child, observe heaven and earth, consider all that is in them, and acknowledge that God made them out of what did not exist, and that mankind comes into being the same way.

 

[ding]

The big bang doesn't say the universe was created from nothing. It doesn't say that the universe was created by God. The big bang says there was something there in order to have a big bang. In other words, there is nothing consistent with the big bang and (Gen. 1:1).

I know the Biblical statement 'Let there be Light' is correct because the Bible says so. Not because science may admit.

Nothing in the creation account agrees with evolution.

Quantrill

https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-new-big-bang-evidence-creation-is-a-fact/amp/

“If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

 

[ding]

The big bang doesn't say the universe was created from nothing.

 

[Quantrill]

Incorrect. The universe was not created from existing matter. That’s literally the Big Bang theory. The religious counterpart is called creatio ex nihlo. Which means created from nothing. Which was a common belief in biblical times.

In 2 Maccabees 7:28, the author writes:

There is no big bang without something to go big bang.

And the Bible says God created from nothing.

2 Maccabees isn't Scripture.

Quantrill

 

[ding]

The big bang doesn't say the universe was created from nothing.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Early Universe

Eruption from Another Universe. All Is Lava.


That refers only to this universe. It's also illogical; the "singularity" before the imaginary "big bang" was an impossible concentration.

Postmodern Science is as much a fantasy as Theism. Irrational megalomaniacs can't help themselves, whether they're preachers or physicists.

 

[ding]

Why do I need a scientific reason? I have the Bible which plainly states the why I reject the big bang.

Why should I reject the age of the earth being more than 6,000 years old?

Well, who the 'nut job' is, remains to be seen. You are 'religious'...correct?

Quantrill

OMG I was right. You are a religious nut job.

God gave you a brain for a reason. The Big Bang and evolution do not refute God, they show God’s power and glory.