Big bang? Then how's this?

If God is omnipotent, then he has NO RESTRICTION whatsoever to our physical realm. What could this mean? He could be a higher dimensional being in which the physics of that realm allow the creation of something from nothing. Yet, I beleive that God used the big bang in a sort of way to lay out a "canvass", and "drew" to his desire.

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. "

Verse 1 could very easily be interpreted as the Big Bang. How would we know? The people who wrote this book thousands of years ago had a very minimal understanding of science, and thus simplified God's real craftmanship, as to not confuse the reader. The following verses also describe the creation according to certain scientific views. The creation of the sun, followed by the creation of the atmosphere (seperation of sky and water), the creation of the land, and (here it gets really interesting) the creation of plants (the first multicellular constructs other than microrganims) the creation of Sea creatures (first according to evolution), the creation of aves (this one seems out of place), the creation of land creatures (in concordance with evolution), and then, the creation of humans (very last in the theory of evolution).

What am I implying? Science and Religion can coexist and create more beautiful and complex theories, that not only involve quantitative studies, but certain qualitative studies.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong with any of the evolution, as I forgot most of the specifics.

Double post, sorry about that.

[edit on 10-28-2004 by WaStEdDeAtH777]

What.. Gravity.. Moon.. circles Earth??? wait a sec.. How could that be?? Its cause of that big pole that connects the Moon to the Earth... :Note the sarcasm please:
What ever happened to some theory of our moon actually hitting the Earth, I don't know much more then that but I heard something like that once.


So "god" created something from nothing.. hmm "god" was around before nothing.. wait.. something was around before nothing.. I'm starting to get confused.. "First there was nothing"... does that mean "god" is nothing??

"God created man in his own image".. (-side note- perception of "Adam" is of having the same physical characteristics as the modern man) so after he created man, he then must have killed them, then turned the earth into a volcanic "hell hole" then created some dinosaurs, then decided to get rid of them and go off and created another version of man?

MMmmkayyyy... I see some misunderstandings about what the Big Bang is and about the concepts. If you're going to knock it over or scoff at it, then you really should understand and address the following concepts:

Superstring theory (the foundations):
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

P-branes (yes, that's the way it's spelled):
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

...and a basic overview of strings:
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

And a good theory should address or explain the unknowns -- and explain whether the model of the universe follows a fractal pattern or not:
kosmoi.com...

Byrd,

I like the end of one of those URLs you provided.....P-brane...
A lot of humans feel like that when discussing these kinds of topics!
Like myself..


Also,

If there is a God, this God is subject to all the same laws of physics that affect us piddly humans..

God, however, would have a MUCH BETTER understanding of them..!

[Edited on 29-10-2004 by spacedoubt]

Hey again...

Ok WaStEdDeAtH777 i was just wonder you say verse one could be which is fair enough. but verse three just doesnt go with the understanding that we have now of how and when the earth was formed....God said let there be light (is it not let there be light as it is in heaven??) anyway earth would of already had light for it was formed after the sun and would already of had the day/night that that verse talks of.

Another verse the sky to seperate water eh not to knock it but the sky would of came first unless he meant water as in a different form but then thats a liquid. (I trying to take both view points and argue myself here lol)

If you want to get techniqual "Nothing" is everything what say our concept of nothing is the same as the concept of nothing before the beginning of our great universe.

What if we aint the original Universe but part of a multi verse and we are just an outcome of multi possibilites what says we are the original or even who is the original.

Thought I add a new twist to the thinking of this thread.

Maybe posted before anyways.. www.space.com...

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Cardu]

Originally posted by Aelita
The fact that we find ourselves sitting on a prime real estate with a nice circular orbit....

I hate to pick nits, but the the earth has an elliptical orbit, as do the other planets in our solar system.

Originally posted by godservant
Big bang? Then how's this?

As for the big bang, scientists are just describing events based upon the evidence at hand. Personally, I believe that our universe was created by a Creator Son of the Universal Father, Michael, who sojourned on this planet as Jesus of Nazereth. The details of how He did that is what science is about. I see no contradiction between creation and science, at all.

The Evolution of the Local Universes

About the big bang theory

First, we must make very clear what a theory actually describes. The big bang theory does not describe the formation of the earth, the formation of the moon, the formation of the solar system, the beginning of life. It describes the changes the universe on a large scale went through from its very hot, high density start to it's current state. It says nothing about how the actual universe started, just like evolution says nothing about how the first organism was formed.

If we extrapolate the expansion backwards using general relativity, we do get a singularity and a real start. But you're already far in GUT energy scales there, so what scientists do is the following: they go back as far as currently proven theory and current evidence allows us to and simply say that we don't know what happened before that 10^-43 s (or something) after the hypothetical singularity. If we irresponsibly extrapolate with theories that aren't made for such energies, we get a singularity, but we don't really know.

There are theories that do describe the start of the big bang, like Ekpyrotic theory. These require some to be present before the big bang and therefore don't solve the problems of the start of the universe either. You can also make theories that describe cyclic or infinitely much Big Bang events and prevent the start of the universe that way. Most people don't find the very satisfactory though. Others think that the arrow of time is not something that is part of the real laws of nature, but just something that shows up on macroscales (Sean Carroll on this theory).

The reality is that we probably will never find out. There is nothing or not much information left from before or the moment of the big bang. We can construct metaphysical theories by extrapolating current theories, but I don't like that. Maybe new technology will allow us to test those theories, but they are currently unfalsifiable (although some theories do give testable predictions, like cosmic natural selection).

The big bang theory is not unfalsifiable and is not metaphysical, as I have explained above. There is evidence supporting it and there are observations imaginable that falsify the theory. The supporting evidence is quite large and includes the higher redshift for galaxies further away, CMBR and the amounts of elements in the universe at different times (big bang nucleosynthesis). There are people that think there are other explanations, like intrinsic redshift or a redshifting by the interstellar medium instead of doppler shift. We don't know if these other explanations and current evidence still favours big bang theory.

About design in the universe

Some of you are saying that the universe is designed. How do you know? We only have one example of a universe. We can't compare our universe with a designed and a non-designed one to see which universe ours resembles most.

Galvatron and others are right about the moon and earth design argument. Even if our solar system is special, there is reason to assume design. There is a very large number of solar systems in the universe. Chance can bring forth a seemingly special solar system, just like a random number generator can generate by coincidence the first 100 decimals of pi. If such a solar system favours life, it is only logical that we were formed there.

We don't really understand the formation of solar systems that well. Our system seems special compared to the solar systems we have detected, but our equipment is not very sensitive. Earth itself would not be noticed by the equipment.

In the end, there is no reason to assume design. The laws of nature can form this solar system and us. There are enough solar system to make even the very rare events possible. Arguments from design about nature have been proven in the past, with evolution, and are generally not testable or falsifiable. They are usualyl arguments from ignorance: "If we don't know how this formed naturally, it must have been designed." Not in science, in science the argument goes like this: "If we don't know how this formed naturally, we don't know how this formed naturally." A design required more evidence than ignorance.

The evidence for design in the universe is especially crappy: we only have one example of a universe, the universe is very large so rare random events can occur, we wouldn't be here if the parameters weren't right for life (so bad parameters can't be observed) and in general the universe is very hostile to life.

About belief

I respect your belief in a higher force, although I don't share your belief. However, you must understand that the evidence does not require a higher force to be explained.

I recommend a more agnostic stand towards a higher force than the one most of you seem to have. I think you're trying to fit the evidence to the theory, instead the theory to the evidence. Sometimes a simple 'we don't know' is better.

[edit on 30-10-2004 by amantine]

Also, you ever notice how every planet and star is circular? I honeslty think that god put a atom in the middle of the universe, which has every element of the atoms of all materials.


Its hard to explain, Its probabbly 99.9999 % wrong, but thats what I think

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Laxpla]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
If there is a God, this God is subject to all the same laws of physics that affect us piddly humans..

God, however, would have a MUCH BETTER understanding of them..!

[Edited on 29-10-2004 by spacedoubt]

you must know everything to be able to say that.

Originally posted by Laxpla
Also, you ever notice how every planet and star is circular? I honeslty think that god put a atom in the middle of the universe, which has every element of the atoms of all materials.


Its hard to explain, Its probabbly 99.9999 % wrong, but thats what I think

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Laxpla]

Text Bluevncvn

The planets are circular due to gravity. Though not everything is a (near) perfect circle ,titan,a moon orbiting jupiter is "squeezed"to a sort of oval shape,due to the immence gravity pull from its host.