The Big Bang theory was totally rejected at first. But those who supported it had predicted that the ignition of the Big Bang would have left behind a sort of ‘hot flash’ of radiation.
If a big black wood stove produces heat that you can feel, then in a similar manner, the Big Bang should produce its own kind of heat that would echo throughout the universe.
In 1965, without looking for it, two physicists at Bell Labs in New Jersey found it.
At first, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were bothered because, while trying to refine the world’s most sensitive radio antenna, they couldn’t eliminate a bothersome source of noise. They picked up this noise everywhere they pointed the antenna.
At first they thought it was bird droppings. The antenna was so sensitive it could pick up the heat of bird droppings (which certainly are warm when they’re brand new) but even after cleaning it off, they still picked up this noise.
This noise had actually been predicted in detail by other astronomers, and after a year of checking and re-checking the data, they arrived at a conclusion: This crazy Big Bang theory really was correct.
In an interview, Penzias was asked why there was so much resistance to the Big Bang theory.
He said, “Most physicists would rather attempt to describe the universe in ways which require no explanation. And since science can’t *explain* anything – it can only *describe* things – that’s perfectly sensible. If you have a universe which has always been there, you don’t explain it, right?
“Somebody asks you, ‘How come all the secretaries in your company are women?’ You can say, ‘Well, it’s always been that way.’ That’s a way of not having to explain it. So in the same way, theories which don’t require explanation tend to be the ones accepted by science, which is perfectly acceptable and the best way to make science work.”
But on the older theory that the universe was eternal, he explains: “It turned out to be so ugly that people dismissed it. What we find – the simplest theory – is a creation out of nothing, the appearance out of nothing of the universe.”
Penzias and his partner, Robert Wilson, won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of this radiation. The Big Bang theory is now one of the most thoroughly validated theories in all of science.
Robert Wilson was asked by journalist Fred Heeren if the Big Bang indicated a creator.
Wilson said, “Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.”
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s installment: “Why the Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history.”
Sincerely,
Perry Marshall
For further reading:
“A Day Without Yesterday” – Albert Einstein, Georges Lemaitre and the Big Bang
Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Hi Perry, Thnks for thye second installment. I am a little confused over the statement that all atter and energy, time and space actually “started” in that split second during the big bang. If it was so, what was before that? if it was a void, then this void is also ‘space’, then how it can be said that space originated at that instant of the big bang? Can you through a little light over it? Sincerely yours, Anis Siddiqui.
There is no time “before” the big bang. there is no “before.” Time is a dimension that begins at that point and goes forward.
The cause of this has to exist outside of time.
We cannot call the void “space” we can only, apparently, call it “nothingness.”
If Noah’s flood was only a local event why didn’t Noah just take the animals beyond the area of the flood plain instead of buliding an ark for 120 years that would have been much easier.
please tell me sir that there are 9 planets or 8 in the universe !
thank you
A thought experiment:
Draw a circle. It’s radius is the radius of the sphere of the observable universe. What is outside of it?
If we are to accept God on Faith, Why can not we accept the existence of whole vast universes outside the one we live in. No matter that we cannot go there or that the properties of relativity limit our observance to what is inside the circle of observability. That does not negate the “stuff” outside that circle. Just like I believe in God, and the properties of human interaction, I also believe that there is “stuff” infinitely out there that “was, is, and always has been.” Each observer, no matter where in an unlimited universe, would witness the same properties in its own sphere of observability. Why do we put limits on our understanding? Genesis says, “God created the world.” It did not say, “God created the universe.” If God is the universe, then the world is of God. As we would not limit God, so we should not limit the universe. The world was created when God, universal mind of man another of God’s creation, perceived it to exist, and that probably did take six days. The Big Bang is an illusion. The justification is found in the gravitational redshift of light approaching the center of the obsersability sphere where stands the observer. The background radiation just comes from the surface of the sphere of observability. It is noise.
I can accept that on Faith, the same as I can accept God and a spiritual universe on Faith. Forgive me, but I am happier this way, and I don’t have to put labels on people.
Actually Paul I understand the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1 to be saying that in the beginning God created ALL – that’s what “heavens and earth” implies. The Big Bang matches Genesis 1:1 quite nicely.
I don’t subscribe to the young earth theory.
Hi Perry:
Why bother with trying to fit the BB with Gen 1:1 when it absolutely contradicts the rest of it. The ad hoc explanations of Hugh Ross and others are just that.
The Bible is plain a day the earth was created in 6 solar days just like our work week with a day of rest on the 7th. Ex. 20 8-11
The Bible teaches in Genesis and in 2nd Peter ch 3 that the earth was formed out of water. The BB teaches it cooled down over millions of years, no where in the bible does it suggest that and the idea originated in the late 8th century from atheists who were on a mission to seperate the Bible from reality and bring down Christianity.
The scientists like Dr. Russell Humphreys use the Biblical Chronology to make incredibly accurate prediction that are light years away from the secularists whom Ross supports.
When you look at the BB and the associated cosmology can you honestly claim
the Bible supports it? Can you honestly say, or do you even claim, that you are not taking man’s fallible ideas and using them to interpret God’s word instead of taking God’s word and using it to interpret nature?
Would you make the claim that you reject the recent creation that all the prophets, apostles , and Jesus Christ Himself preached because of the Bible itself , in other words what is the ultimate authority in your life, man’ ideas or God’s Word.
There was a recent study done on why young people leave the church.The bottom line is they don’t believe the Bible is true. Are you not reinforcing their non-belief by trying to force fit the BB into the Bible?
And Perry Gen 1:1 contradicts the BB. It says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It is an insult to my intelligence to claim that Almighty God calls 60% of the history of the universe “The Beginning” . If He is that vague why believe in salvation?
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Is that to mean that Adam and Eve were created 12 ba ago or do we need an atheistic scientist to tell what Jesus really meant? I hope you consider what I have said. Please, either believe the Bible as written or ignore it, to ride the fence is leading others down a slippery slope,
Forrest,
If you choose to dismiss Hugh Ross and others out of hand that is your decision. But it sure doesn’t sound to me like you have studied the other side much at all. I think that the Bible fits Big Bang cosmology quite well and there are plenty of sources where you can check that for yourself, for example https://evo2.org/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/. This view is by no means new; I can go back 1800 years and easily find hearty discussions about whether “day” means 24 hours in Genesis. Many theologians held this view long before there was any modern debate going on with an atheist scientist. Clearly theologians thought such questions belonged on the table a long, long time ago. If AIG told you otherwise, they either failed to do their church history homework or they were lying.
One reason some young people leave the church is they study science and discover things like the speed of light and find out that the Answers In Genesis crowd is asking them to throw their brain away.
Fortunately there is more than one way to read the Bible and the old earth view matches modern cosmology and the fossil record remarkably well. For the record, I have little patience for the standard Young-Earth chestnuts and I don’t consider it wise stewardship of my time.
Read Snoke’s book and THEN come back after you’ve done so and I’ll be happy to debate the details. And, by the way, the conversation will begin with the speed of light.
Perry
Dear Paul:
Jesus Christ said if you do not believe He is God you will die in your sins, a humanistic idea of a god will not save your soul. Being happy on earth is a wonderful thing but you you will dead a very long time.
How can we not obey the laws of God? They are the laws of the universe that we now have come to discover. They differ only in interpretation from the laws laid down in Leviticus. A close examination of those laws yields an understanding that those laws are founded in the very science that would provide for the people who wrote the laws down. Their very existence depended upon following those laws. It is no different today. If we do not follow the law that says E=mc^2 we will annihilate
the our right to live and prosper in the world that God gave us.
sir, when we say that there was a big bang, and all the galaxies were created out of that primeval matter, i want to know where from that primeval mass came from. i wanna know who and how was the primeval matter created which blasted off to form the galaxies.
penny
The best evidence for the BB is the background mw radiation, the best evidence against the BB is the background mw radiation.
The Horizon problem cannot be scientifically explained by expansion as there are no laws of physics to explain it so it is an ad hoc metaphysical explanation.
There are many respected astronomers like Halton Arp [haltonarp.com] that totally disbelieve the BB for purely scientific reasons. Why would you lead people into thinking they should base their belief in God on a metaphysical theory that will likely be dumped at some point?
Information Theory is true science and will never be overturned but the BB has to be propped up with the threat of career ending repercussions for all who question it.
Could you please explain further, I will like to know what caused the big bang. And it there was a ‘big’ bang! Some things must have contributed for the ‘big’ in the bang, how did those things come about? Thanks
I’ve always been interested in science and I have always believed in god,which for most people I meet its one or the other. Science gives me numbers(like poker) where I can make a fairly accurate decison but never answers any of the really interesting questions(atleast not in my lifetime). God gives me no numbers at all, I can’t hear him or touch him yet my life has been completely different since I opened my heart to god. What do I mean when I say that, well for me it means just believe 100% thats all. My family goes to church every sunday(my kids too) while I catch up on sleep or grocery shopping. I’m not ashamed of it at all, there is just too many versions, catholic, methodist, mormon, buddist etc…. Which one is the right one? I don’t wanna choose the wrong religon and be cast into limbo when my time comes. I choose god, I will not let a human being tell me who I should pray too nor will I believe in books written in the stone-age by dozens of people who thought the earth was flat and humans were alone in the universe. If science and God come together to make a religon, I’m in.
P.S. Hi Perry
Love this website
Hi Darryl:
It is not so hard to sort through and find the one true religion, an atheist came up with this.
All the religions other than the Abrahamic ones worship a God that is not consistent and the universe shows He would have to be, the Buddhist have no god. The Hindus have 30 million and logic precludes their all agreeing on a system of creation. The idea of pantheism and idol worship, animism etc are easily dismissed.
That leaves you with Islam , Christianity , and Judaism. We can eliminate Islam because it is a hodgepodge of Judaism , Christianity and Arabian animism [genies ,Jinns etc,} and Allah is capricious and cannot be trusted to maintain the laws.
That leaves you with Orthodox Judaism and Christianity whose only real differences are dietary laws and who Jesus of Nazareth is.
He stopped there. The rest is mine.
We have verifiable copies of the Jewish Bible from 3 centuries before Christ that document His life , death, and resurrection in great detail. The Bible wrote history in advance and not a word has ever been proven untrue. Less than 1% is even contested and those are mostly minor copying errors ,none of which effects doctrine.
Jesus Christ said that He is the only way to heaven period. It would be wise to research and see if that is true . Hell will be full of the nicest people and salvation is a free gift, you only have to accept it.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
God bless Forrest Charnock for saying what a Christian should say, the way a Christian should say it !! So many are led down the wrong path by so many false gospels. Friends, if your theology contains “well _I_ think” or “_I_ can’t believe that”,
or if you believe a “scientific theory” can show you the way to Eternal life with God, you need some time to talk to the Lord and see what HE thinks!! Again, God bless Forrest Charnock !!!
Dear Sir,
I would like to request you respectfully that existence of God can be proved. We the human beings, animals, plants all have lives. God lives us in the form of life and in our mind. God is nowhere else. God is in us. God is in everybody’s mind. God is our super concious mind. In Hinduism, it is well explained.
In one avatar of Lord Venkateswara (Narasimha Avatar), the litle child Prakalata will tell his father Eranyakasib that ” God is everywhere. God will present in all things , in a small dust to a big pillar”. Then the Raja Eranyakasib will immedaitely broken the pillar which is nearby with his big Ghada, then the Lord Narasimha will appear with a Lion face and a human body and will kill Eranyakasib. It is moral in our Hinduism that God is everywhere.
We should be supreme soul. We should be embodiment of love, peace, religion, truth and non violence. God is within us, in ourselves and around us. You can experience god when we click the super concious mind. He is in our super conscious mind only.
Our Late. Vedathri Maharishi has answers for all your questions. His Vedathrium teaches all things about God. It is in Azhiyar, near Coimbatore, Tamil nadu, India. Please, make this endeavor just for one time. I am very much obligued to you for getting chance to share my feelings with you.
You can see God in Sai baba , Prashantinilayam, Puttaburthi also.
If possible try to read our Hinduism related books. God is well explained in our Hinduism books.
Forrest –
Why do you assume that the water in Genesis 1:2 is H20? Didn’t Jesus say that he was Living Water? There are references to water in the Bible that are clearly not H20, so water is not a well defined term with only reference to the physical. Why couldn’t the Spirit have been hovering over Living Water? Why couldn’t the Spirit have been mapping out the DNA code in the Living Water while he was hovering? I am NOT saying that Jesus is DNA – what I am saying is that it is not outside of the possible meaning of that verse that the Spirit’s hovering over the waters could have been Him writing the DNA code that accounts for our existence.
I prayed over this verse for a long time several years ago because it did not make sense to me – what was the reference to water if light had not been created yet and everything was “formless and void”? Why “hovering”, which implies time? What was the Spirit doing while hovering? The answer came to me in a still, small voice, and I submit it with humility, as well as a sense of profound truth.
There is very little information in Genesis 1 (only 31 verses) relative to the enormously complicated event that it encompasses. God did not intend the Bible to be a science or a history book – yet he gave us great truth in both his word and his creation.
Given that Romans 1 says that he revealed himself in his creation, then to propound a young earth philosophy is to say that God lied in his creation. Think how much damage was done because some theologians insisted that the earth was fixed, based on one not-scientific verse. God made himself evident in his creation (Romans 1), thus it is another source that he gave us to know more about him.
God created an orderly world that we can understand. He placed us at a time that we can see into the past and still find evidence of the creation event. He put us in a place in the universe from which we could see the rest of the universe. God is not afraid of our study of his work, quite to the contrary – He made himself evident in his creation. Let’s see what He tells us about himself
A friend in Christ,
Kristi
Dear Kristi:
Why would you assume it was not H20? Genesis is written in the historical narrative and has 12 toledoths in the book. No where is it presented as allegory, poetry , or parable, it is the history of the universe through the time of Joseph, although condensed. The living water statement is poetic. If you need further evidence read 2nd Peter.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Unless you want to claim the flood was not an event that required H20 then you must conclude it is literal both places. In fact the greatest predictions in astronomy since Newton’s day were made by Dr. Russell Humphrey’s using the Biblical chronology and the assumption God created everything in the universe from water. His prediction of the magnetic field strength of Neptune was 100k times greater than secular [Big Bang} cosmologist and the Voyager 2 spacecraft proved his predictions were dead on the money. The odds of that being chance would be like winning the lottery every week for a thousand years by finding the wining ticket on the sidewalk.
Thank God He did not make Genesis a science book! They are outdated before going to press! It is sad you have decided to take man’s fallible ideas aboiut the past and give them authority over God’s Holy word. If Genesis is a pack of lies from the very first verse why trust any of it? I hear all the time this chronological snobbery that the ancients were stupid so God gave them a simpletons explanation. How arrogant is that? God created Adam with all the knowledge he had, to think he was not the most intelligent person to ever live is to say we can teach a child better than God can supernaturally impart knowledge. Science has no clue how the universe came to be, not one atom, not a single star. God is smarter than we are so just because we can’t explain with our finite minds how He can speak things into existence is no reason to ever doubt His word. Remember the words of Satan.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
God said He created the world in 6 days about 6ka ago and nothing in science can refute that, if it could then God is a myth.
I certainly believe that Jesus wrote the biotic code but your refusal to accept that water is water puzzles me,do you think the land was real,the trees,the animals,you and I? If the water was allegory so was the rest. I don’t think you carefully thought this out,no offense.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I on the other hand have no problem at all with light before the sun, the Bible says so and God cannot lie. It is not necessary to bring God down to our level.
That being said Khristi unless you want to also say the Bible is untrue when it says there will be sun in heaven ,no light in heaven other than Jesus , then you are contradicting yourself. The Bible does teach that so it puzzles me why people have a problem with simply believing it.
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
” Given that Romans 1 says that he revealed himself in his creation, then to propound a young earth philosophy is to say that God lied in his creation”
That makes no sense. Romans 1 says that the things which are made are enough to convict you, it has nothing to do with the beliefs of all the prophets, all the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself that Genesis is true as written.
It is referenced over 200 times , more than any other part of scripture and never as anything but literal history.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
at 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Here is Jesus Christ confirming Genesis 1 and 2 as well as the flood, if that does not convict you then “science” is your authority , not scripture. Why believe He is coming back? If the flood is a lie so if His return
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
There is nothing in operational science that refutes the Bible, quite the contrary.
What damage ? Did people go to hell because they made mistakes in science? Apparently Khristi you are totally unaware that the men who gave us modern astronomy, telescopes , the whole bit, were men who believed Genesis was literal history. They were ALL theologians!
If you really wnt to get geeky Ptolemy’s system worked rather well, it was very complicated though. Fred Hoyle the famous mathematician said that we really don’t know he was wrong , it is a matter of perception. Ptolemy was not a Christian , Newton ,Kelvin , Galileo etc etc were Young Earth Creationists!
Forgive the emotion but it perturbs when Christians have this anti-Biblical attitude and don’t even realize that all the laws and all the major branches of modern science as well as most of histories greatest inventions were the brainchild of Young Earth Creationists you disdain so.
The damage in science was when the church accepted secular ideas that contradicted the Bible, like the Bing Bang. How many people go to hell because they hear people tell them that they can ignore all the “mistakes” in Genesis and all through the Bible that refer to the realities of biology, geography,astronomy , paleontology,and history and just “trust Jesus “?
If I did not believe the Bible I would be an atheist. If the Bible is wrong about the “real” world why believe in some space dude?
“There is very little information in Genesis 1 (only 31 verses) relative to the enormously complicated event that it encompasses. God did not intend the Bible to be a science or a history book – yet he gave us great truth in both his word and his creation. ”
Khristi, Genesis needs no interpretation, the study of creation does. Any theory about the past, secular.YEC, or “theistic” evolutionary” is not truth , it is a story we made about the past, hower “scientific” that story may be it is not fact, it is not truth in and of itsself. Jesus is the truth and He is a Young Earth Creationists, it baffles me why a Christian would want to disagree with Jesus
God gave us sound minds and told us to study His creation . To claim Genesis is untrue because it does not describe how God can call matter and life into existence .is absurd. As if we could ever grasp that? We are not evolving Khristi, evolution is the Big Lie! .Why stop with Genesis ? If it is a lie so are all the other books of the bible that refer to it and all the prophets,all the apostles, and Jesus Christ Himself believe that lie.
Psa 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
I am sorry you have these doubts, how can you be sure the resurrection and eternal life are not “mistakes” or just simpleton stories meant to pacify “primitive” people?
Jesus said scripture cannot be broken and every major doctrine in Christisnity is based on Gen 1-11.
Why we are here
Why we wear clothes
Why we marry the opposite sex for life
Why there is death and suffering
Why there is sin
Why Jesus had to die
That without blood there is no remission of sin
We do not understand how the universe was created ,the Big Bang is a story, not a fact. It seems quite evident that “science” in your eyes has authority over scripture and that goes directly against the teachings of Christ.
I find it sad you have it in your mind YEC don’t do science, without them you would not have science as we know it. Newton was a full time theologian and wrote much more of God than science yet he was the greatest scientist who ever lived. Read the gravestone of Louis Pasteur. You cast dispersion on men of science who were and are men of God and hold up atheists ,why?
Dear Forrest,
I have read your reply and your recent response to Perry with a great burden on my heart. Whatever our differences might be and even regardless of who may be correct, Jesus prayed for unity amongst us. Unity does not require that we all think alike, it requires grace.
Jesus called us to make disciples and I ask you, “Are you making disciples with this attitude?”
I find the argument/discussion very interesting, but the tone is counterproductive. What would Jesus have said if he were here in person? What comes to my mind is how he treated the Pharisees – “You did not even offer to wash my feet.” There is no respect for Jesus in the way that you treat others – remember the “least of these” comment.
No one is saved by Biblical knowledge. We are saved by faith in the cleansing blood of Jesus. All three of us believe that Jesus died on the cross to save us from damnation; Paul said that we are free of condemnation based on our belief in Jesus as Savior, so why can’t we hold a conversation free of condemnation?
You quote Scripture to serve your purpose, so I will remind you of Jesus’ own words “It is better to have a millstone around your neck and be thrown into the sea, then to cause any of these to falter,” or what about “do no judge that you may not be judged … why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own?” or “if you say, ‘you fool’ (to a brother or sister) you will be liable to the hell of fire”.
Intellectual arrogance, judgment and condemnation are sins, and present stumbling blocks to the unsaved. How many have read this bickering and laughed and turned away?
I assure you that Jesus you will question you for your attitude toward others far more than on your opinion of the age of the earth or whether the flood was global. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their treatment of people, not for their doctrine. Saul’s knowledge of Scripture as a “Pharisee of Pharisees” did not prevent him from persecuting Jesus. Take great care in how you treat others and how you represent Christ.
If you want to proceed with a respectful conversation, I would be pleased to engage, but I will not continue in a manner that will allow non-believers to be turned away and laugh at us all.
In Christ,
Kristi
Hi Khristi:
Unity is a wonderful idea but the only way it can exist if we have the same beliefs. The God I worship created a perfect world with no pain or death of humans or animals and the God you worship created death and suffering from the beginning and then lied to us about that as well as that there were no thorns or thistles before the fall .They cannot be the same God, one of us is wrong.
I an not interested in telling people what they want to hear, only what God’s word says and yes I do lead people to Christ. Today as most every Saturday I go sould winning, today we lead no one to the Lord but in the long run my little church is responsible for many thousands of souls saved . Last week the kids went on a 2 day trip and led 58 precious souls to Christ.
What exactly do you tell someone who says that they want no part of an ogre who used the death of billions of animals to create life and then lied about a global flood and thorns and thistles and why Jesus died etc. etc.? Just believe the parts of the Bible you claim are true? Just trust Jesus?
The Mormons trust Jesus , they will not be in heaven unless they convert.
I tell people that God’s word is true from Genesis to Revelation and then defend my faith. It I believed I could not trust the first verse of the Bible as you do I would never bother with the second. If the Bible can’t be trusted in the most documented part, Genesis 1-11 , that contains all the major doctrines of the Christian faith why believe Jesus walked on water or that there will be no sun in heaven?
The creation museum has a chapel and people come to Christ there an average of 3 every day, how many times do you suppose that happens at the Field Museum?
If Jesus were here He would ask you what part of the scripture cannot be broken do you not understand . He had little patience for those who did not know the scriptures and no offense, but that would include you.
Mat 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
Mat 16:2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
Mat 16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
He called them hypocrite for not knowing the Bible and claiming to be godly people. If you can say we are not saved because we know the Bible with no qualifier it makes me wonder if you have read it. Again no offense but I am not a person who sugarcoats things a lot.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
We have to have more than just head knowledge of the Bible, we have to have Jesus in our hearts but Jesus held to the authority of scripture, and commanded us to know it. He said Adam and Eve were created in the beginning, not billions of years later, He was a YEC’s and that is all I need to know. However I find the scientific arguments for a literal Genesis very compelling but more importantly the Biblical argument is bulletproof.
Even many liberal scholars who kowtow to atheistic interpretations of science as you do are honest enough to admit it is not because of an argument from scripture, they agree that Genesis , and throughout the Bible says the creation was in 6 solar days they just refuse to believe it .
I disagree with them but i respect their integrity. I have more respect for a convicted atheist than a fence sitting Christian. I would respect you if you siad that the Bible does teach a 6 day creation but I believe “science” instead.
What a sad thing it is to me to see so many try and claim the idea of a literal 6 solar day creation is new when it was the ONLY accepted teaching of God’s people since the beginning of time. If it took thousands of years to “learn” the Bible was wrong about creation how long will it be before we learn the rest of it is wrong? I can tell you that. By 2014 Islam will be the world’s dominant religion , it just passed the RCC and by 2050 all of Europe and Russia will be Islamic States as well as Canada and we will be toast.
The only thing that can save us is obeying God and spreading the Gospel .The Gospel is the good news of Christ’s atonement for our sins. We won’t do that by compromising . As long as we teach children the Bible is just true for morality and salvation and not true when it touches on the real world like history , astronomy, biology, paleontology, geology etc. You might as well buy your kids and their kids a Quran because Christianity will be a death sentence and the weak faith that is so prevalent today that says to go ahead and compromise the Bible but just “Trust Jesus” is not the dying faith they will need.
The millstone is going to be around the necks of those who teach children the Bible is not true where it touches on the “real” world.
Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Do you believe Moses? Moses taught that God made heaven ,earth , and ALL that in them is in 6 days.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Jesus said Adam and Eve were created in the beginning, you say that is a lie.
“How many have read this bickering and laughed and turned away? ”
Why are you bickering? Why not believe what Jesus said? What Moses says?
Why did Jesus tell that in the latter days we would turn from sound doctrine. No where in the over 200 references in the Bible to Genesis 1-11, far more than anyplace in the Bible , does it even remotely suggest Genesis is not literal history and absolutely true from every standpoint, including where it talks about science. The Jews were teaching a 6 day creation in the days Jesus walked the earth, why did He not call them vipers for that?
Define non-believer? If a person is seeking truth and sees one person who says that they know what God really meant to say and Genesis was written for stupid people who lived a long time ago and would not understand “science” they might decide you were a non-believer.
People, young people in particular, are a lot smarter than old people give them credit for. A recent survey showed the more they attend Sunday school the less likely they are to keep the faith. They want answers , they want to believe the Bible is true, not just the parts you claim are.
God has commanded us to do two things, preach the Gospel to every creature and warn those in sin of hell. Few Christians are even aware He commanded the latter. No where did He say to “reconcile” man’s fallible beliefs by taking a pair of scissors to the Bible.
Forrest,
Revelation 17:15 “And he (the angel) said to me (John), “The waters that you saw… are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages.”
If at the end of time, the angel of Revelation described to John “waters” as people, then why could waters not be peoples, multitudes, nations and languages at the beginning?
Genesis 1:2 “the earth was a formless void” tells me that it was not a sphere (formless) and that, in fact, there was no mass (void). What could “water” be in a formless void? I would bet that this verse has the most disparate translations of any in the Bible because no one knew what to do with it! still maintain that the Spirit of God was programming life as it swept across the deep.
God said that we were known to him before the creation of the world. That is this moment, this verse. We are given an insight into the moment before creation. The scientists can´t see back that far, but we can here in Genesis.
Water in the Bible is rarely H20. Yes, Moses parted the Red Sea and the waters of the Nile turned to blood, but even the woman at the well was offered Living Water after Jesus had asked her for something to drink. Do you take Isaiah 43:2 literally? I cling to that verse but I live a long way from a river. I dare say that there are more references to water as something other than H20 in the BIble. And the angel in Revelation gives us a very interesting definition of waters. What if the waters of Gen 1:2 are the same as Rev 17:15? This is not a scientific question, it is a purely Biblical interpretation.
We have discovered that time is relative. Those six days of creation are God’s days. With light traveling away from the center and slowing into mass, the relative time difference would be enormous to us. God is outside of time – a thousand years is like a day to God. A discussion of time and God is non-sensical.
You want to count generations? then tell me, who was Cain afraid of when he was cast out? Gen 4:14 “anyone may kill me” (anyone is not an animal) or v17 – where did his wife come from? clearly there were people out there, but they did not have the life breathed into them by God. If you tell me that Adam and Eve had more children and that Cain married his sister, I would have problems with that because it directly conflicts with the law that was later given to Moses, but it also draws into question the counting of generations.
What’s with Gen 6:4? There are people referred to in Genesis that are unaccounted for (pardon my grammar). Even Gen 2:8 says that God “put” the man in the garden – he did not form him there. God is not revealing everything to us; he does not have to explain himself to you or me.
You can count back to Adam and Eve, but that doesn’t take you to the beginning of time. It takes you to the point when God breathed spirit into us and we began to have relationship with him. God put Adam in the garden, he did not create him there.
That is because the spiritual life that God breathed into Adam is different from the physical life that already existed. God said that if Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they would die. What happened? They eventually died a physical death, but they died an immediate spiritual death that only Jesus could restore. Jesus restored our spiritual life, but, until He returns, we still die a physical death. We are the only creatures on this earth with the ability to know God and have a relationship with him, because God created us that way, Jesus restored us to it and the Holy Spirit renews us.
Romans 1:20 “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made”. Isn’t that an invitation to understand God’s eternal power and divine nature through the things he has made? Would the things he has made reveal billions of years if they are only thousands? There is an inconsistency there and God is unchangeable, i.e. consistent.
So what are the waters in a formless void? Why is the Spirit of God hovering over them? God brought order out of chaos, partially via the code of DNA, which he programmed before the creation of the world (Gen 1:2)
Blessings,
Kristi
Hi Perry,
Just finishing my thoughts, I couldn’t reply the last message.
Yes whatever percentage it is never will be 100% of course, but those differences leads to the division among the Christians. The smart guys from the top of the many Christian churches, lead their sheep by those differences, those interpretations.
For me and you its easy to say that flow, discharge or whatever has the same meaning, because e research and don’t accept any explanation as truth, but we analyze and keep open mind about it.
Bible is not science, its symbolic, complex and a very old book. And its not the truth, but there is truth inside it. We, as civilization, can not say that one civilization’s ancient book is better then other. All has timeless pearls, as past teachings specifically of its culture.
Anyway, I am comfortable with looking at nature’s and learning every day and finding God, the Father every-time on my own.
Hi Perry:
The reason I said you were not a Christian is I read your response when that questioned was asked of you by someone else and you did not give a straight answer. If I misunderstood I apologize but please clear the matter by stating whether you are or not plainly. The answer you gave was at best evasive.
Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Perry, correct me if I err, but did you not tell me you based your beliefs in great ages on your studies as an electrical engineer? The speed of light , etc.? From that I would have to surmise that your authority is not the Bible but man’s opinion about the past and your knowledge of science. Btw I am not arguing about the speed of light changing and that is a very minority view among creationists and I suggest you read “Starlight and Time ” by Russell Humphrey’s. His theory is based on relativity and it has produced incredible ,accurate predictions not seen since Newton’s day ,another “Chestnut” . His accomplishments are way beyond those of Hugh Ross in science in terms of scientific awards and patents for inventions so calling him stupid would only imply religious bigotry on your part. Chestnuts I think was your “Christian” way of referring to scientist who disagree with your position and hold to God’s word as their ultimate authority and not their human intellect.
Am I correct? If you came to believe, as I say you would have to were you to study the subject , that the church always taught a young earth [ and you came to believe the Bible really does support only the YEC position ,that Christ Himself was a YEC’s, you would denounce the Bible and Christ Himself?
It seems to me you would but I could be mistaken.
As far as time invested I have read Ross extensively and see no evidence what so ever that you have studied the creationists position. The speed of light changing is very dated and I am certainly not advocating it. {It may have changed but even so it would not be a good argument} The Big Bang refutes the word of God so it seems relevant if you allude to being a Christian that you should not try and silence those who disagree with you. It seems to me you are .afraid because you react with anger and name calling when I have tried to be respectful.
I gave you a reference to the City of God by Augustine where he emphatically stated the Biblical position on the age of the earth as well as Luther’s and all you do is say you don’t “feel” the church fathers taught that and supply no evidence to the contrary. Is that an argument , or just a dodge?
I will make you a deal, even though I have read more than a dozen books on this subject, spent years studying the Bible and talked to dozens of Hebrew scholars, all who will tell you the same thing I am I will read this book on one condition. I want you to read Starlight and Time and or Refuting Compromise and give me the name of single Hebrew school that claims that Moses did not mean to convey a literal 6 day creation, not necessarily that they believe Moses was correct.
I would prefer though you suggest a book other than Snoke’s. The reason I never read it is it is not much of a biblical argument at all and he is ignorant, militantly so, of the creationist position. He has zero credentials in Hebrew or theology. Here is a bit of a creationist review of his book.
Snoke admits in the first chapter that he ‘never would have come up with the view that the earth is millions of years old if [he] had never studied science’ (p. 11), and though he claims to be making a ‘biblical’ case for an old earth, he presents the scientific case before the biblical case!
Throughout the book, he smears young-earth creationists, depicting them as people who ‘latch on to people with dubious credentials who tell us what we want to hear’ (p. 23), who accuse the secular scientific establishment of conspiracy to cover up young-earth evidence (p. 31) and engage in unethical scientific practices (p. 187). He accuses young-earth creationists of
‘… dismiss[ing] any input from science, adopting a young-earth creationist view even if all science says otherwise, and assuming that most scientists are either villains or brainwashed idiots’ (p. 120).
The only creationist book he cites is The Genesis Flood, which is over 45 years old. No mention of Refuting Compromise for example that refutes almost all his arguments.1 And the most up-to-date creationist article cited is from 1993. Clearly this is a man at the cutting edge!
He frequently makes assertions outside his area of expertise without citing sources, most notably regarding the Hebrew language and biblical exegesis. If the only places he used sources are where he cited them, he must have an enviable range of expertise outside of his degree in physics, indeed.
On the other hand Refuting Compoomise was written by a scientist who published in Nature at the age of 22, he is a chess master and often plays 6 games with with 6 opponents blindfolded simultaneously , and he is Jewish and speaks Hebrew fluently. He watched Ross make a fool of himself because he used to brag he was a Hebrew scholar by speaking to him in Hebrew at a debate.
Of course Dr. Safarti is a “Chestnut” despite earning his PhD about 8 years younger than Ross and publishing papers on superconductors in Nature at the tender age of 22.
It amazes me you would call a genius like that stupid and think Snoke’s is a theologian and has a clue about the creationists position. . He also wrote Jesus in Genesis, all Christians should read that book.
Forrest,
I am a Christian.
I have Starlight and Time.
Read Snoke’s book and then we’ll discuss.
Perry
Okay Perry , but if it turns out that AIG told the truth and Snoke attacked the now nearly 50 year old Book “The Genesis Flood” and by doing so created a straw man that ignored 5 decades of creationists research, much of which is the basis for the ID movement BTW, and that he really made his case not from the scriptures but his personal view and interpretation of science will that encourage you to discover what else you have been misled about?
I find it odd you would recommend such a book. You never said you read it yourself I can recall nor that you read Starlight and Time, only that you had it, did you read Snokes, are you going to read Humphreys?
I realize you don’t think that will happen but I know it will. I have never found AIG to be dishonest at all and they make few mistakes. They are under incredible scrutiny, Christians send them 95% of their hate mail and that is not an exaggeration nor is it unusual for creation ministries in general. The most vile despicable and hateful attacks they receive is not from atheists but “Theistic” evolutionists. If the only evidence I had was the personal character of these 2 sides I would not hesitate for a split second to side with the creationists. The kind of hatred I receive from “Christians” proves to me their view is not true.
On the other hand I have met most of the leading creationists personally . Try Mortenson, Ken Ham, Baumgardner, Humphrey’s , Menton, Riddle , Vardiman ,and quite a few others and they are all quite , unassuming, and except for Dr. Menton humble ,and all of them are true Christian gentlemen whom I have never heard or heard of engage in the name calling and hate speech of theistic evolutionists.
What might suprise you is the majority of leading creationists are former evolutionists, many of them former atheists.
The biology professor Dr. Gary Parker used to consider it a victory to make girls cry when he attacked their Christianity.
,
hello Perri
i am a Muslim and by came to visit your site some how. u seem to have in depth knowledge on the subject and it seems hard to debate with u. Having said that, i think a scholar of your caliber must have gone through the material on the subject present in other religions like Islam. i believe The Holy Quran to be a word of God and The Holy Quran does speak explicitly on the subject of creation of universe. So here is a direct question. Have you researched other sources of different religions on the subject or u have restricted your self to the biblical version of the subject matter? if yes then you have not given any references which would have strengthened your view point and would have also been acceptable to people of other religions. And if the answer is no then i think your research is not complete.
it is not to disregard you as a person. i deeply respect you as a human being and a researcher.
Ali,
Thank you for your remarks.
Why I embrace Christianity as opposed to other views:
http://evo2.org/faq/#christian
Perry
Dear Ali:
I would encourage you to read and study the Bible. The Qu ran is very contradictory about the subject of origins and the Bibles history is reliable.
Reading the Qu ran evolution makes more sense because it gives no reason for death and suffering other than Allah’s will.
The Bible teaches of a creator God that created us to fellowship with , to be with, to love. The Bible teaches of a God that loved us so much He let us choose to love Him or not .The Bible teaches our sin brought death in to the world and God loved us so much He took our place and gave Himself to be sacrificed on a cross to pay the debt so we could live forever with Him.
A God who loves all His children , Muslims , Hindus, Jews and Christians and wants all of us to repent and be saved. God is our Father and our Mother.
If the Qu ran is correct we either have to blame Allah for death or just say evolution did it.
According to Einstein’s equation mass of an object will increase enormously with increase in mass. Then, why mass of photon is not considered or can be observed at speed of light ? Also enormous amount of energy is needed to make a speed of light then, why photon can easily be sent by even a small torch ?Does it mean that torch have enomous energy?
Hi Perry
At the end of the day it is theorised that ‘Big Bangs’ happen all the time in other dimensions. Sure enough if the equations steer towards being 1 part in 10 -120 out, that universe will either blow apart to nothing, or contract and never become something. If these happen all the time, then some like ours will be spot on (hence the membrane theory they’re all trying to prove).
Personally I am agnostic. I feel there is no way that I can have blind faith in a God. At the same time there is no way you can say there isn’t. In fact looking at Wiki, I fall under the Ignostic bracket where the form of the deity needs to be identified before I can say either way.
As far as the Bible is concerned, I feel there are some righteous stories in there, and generally speaking, are good guides on how one should/could lead their life. However, most are just stories. I believe there was this brave individual Jesus, and that he gave his life for what he believed in and am genuinely humbled by that. But that doesn’t mean I should follow in the ways he taught.
This sounds like I’m on the fence, and I would love be proven that the big man in some form exists, but for now I’m going to have to remain perched on my fence.
Justin,
People can believe in millions of other big bangs if they want to, but if their view of the world requires that – and if there is no way to observe them (!!!) – that’s hardly a parsimonious theory, is it? Much less scientific. After all, isn’t science about counting real things with real numbers? Observing things with real eyes and ears and telescopes?
Why I embrace Christianity as opposed to other views:
http://evo2.org/faq/#christian
I hope you’ll read that section carefully, as well as the links – there’s a lot there.
Perry
Dear Perry,
Thank u for keep on updating me where did the universe comes from, Regarding Bingbang Theory its really unbelivable , but when comparing with religion, i think only Bible is focusing with science why not other religious Holy Book, I read Quran and it speaks very clearly about Bing Bang Theory, it really amazing 1400 yrs before the message sent through Muhammed(PBUH), he was not a scientiest, Quran is also not a science book, but it speaks science, In quran it says that how Universe made, it says that SUN,MOON,STATRS, everything were in one form, when Allah(the one & only God) saw and orderd it to burst into several pieces, BigBang Theory , so iwould like to request you to research Quran also and compare with science and kindly describe to this world dont focus only on Bible, i am not against with Bible, kindly refer Quran and other religous holy book with science and explain if there are any errors
regards
Anees
Very interesting views. I have to say they more or less mirror my own. I spent some time compiling a research paper for University on these and other facts, leading to the conclusion that current scientific theories for the existence of the universe and life on Earth require a God to be plausible. Both the universe and all the life on Earth are either the product of extreme unlikelihood (rather long odds to wager eternity on) or the product of intelligent design.
My specific qualms, however, are with the Bible as it relates to current scientific evidence. I’m willing to admit that God can make the impossible possible, but the Bible appears to contain certain logical inconsistencies, and statements which contradict evidence for how things appear to have occurred.
Simple example:
Genesis 1
The Fourth Day
14 God said, “I command lights to appear in the sky and to separate day from night and to show the time for seasons, special days, and years. 15I command them to shine on the earth.” And that’s what happened. 16God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other [e] to rule the night. He also made the stars. 17Then God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth, 18to rule day and night, and to separate light from darkness. God looked at what he had done, and it was good. 19Evening came and then morning–that was the fourth day.
Notice that according to the bible, God created the moon, the Sun, and the stars on the fourth day (the Earth was already present at this point, created even before the first day where God commanded the light to shine). Current evidence points to the Earth being younger than much of the rest of the universe, so how is it that the rest of the universe was created after the Earth?
My conclusion, due to these and other problems with the bible is that it is not a perfect book, or rather, God allowed it to contain imperfections to fulfill this purpose:
1 Corinthians 1:27 (Contemporary English Version)
27But God chose the foolish things of this world to put the wise to shame. He chose the weak things of this world to put the powerful to shame.
JE,
The word for “create” is different on day 4 than it is on the other days, it’s something closer to “allow” or “permit” and I understand this to mean the earth’s atmosphere became sufficiently clear at this time for the heavenly bodies to be visible in the sky. This is consistent with what we know about cosmology and earth’s history. If we take this view then Genesis 1 is remarkably accurate.
Perry
Dear Perry:
The linguistic gymnastics to try and say the word for create meant something different on day 4 can only mean 2 things, either the great scholars of ancient history before 1800 were all pretty stupid or the argument is based on the fact the authority of man is often man’s changing ideas and not the word of God.
If you want to believe Ross is a Hebrew scholar at all, which he is not, or that he is a better one than the 47 pious and God fearing scholars who translated the Kings James version or Martin Luther or all the great Hebrew scholars of Hebrew in all of history I cannot stop you but there is no record of that reinterpretation before 1800 and you are also forced to believe that is a coincidence. Do you have any evidence of this belief being widely taught and accepted before 1800? I have searched and can find no mention of it a tall.
Kinda like the Gap theory, it is easy to trace it back to its source in 1812 but its proponents say it was the dominant view throughout history. Of course they are too busy to document that “fact”.
Forrest,
When you read the book “A Biblical Case for an Old Earth” by Snoke I will be happy to discuss it with you.
Dear JE:
Their is nothing contradictory at all about the fourth day. One needs to read the whole book before you decide to attack it. Jesus will be the the light in heaven.
Read the book of Revelation. Perry obviously has a very different explanation but if you understand the Bible and believe it is true it makes perfect sense
And this evidence you mention does not exist, you were not there at the creation, only God was. Just because your human reasoning does not want to accept that their is an intelligence so much greater than your self does not make Genesis illogical or contradictory. It is the history book of the universe.
Atheist has sold “science” on it philosophical belief that the earth is just an ordinary planet near an ordinary star, it is not, it is a very special place.
The scientific evidence fits when you start with the right presupposition.
To claim we are not a special place considering the evidence is illogical and contradictory, it is a religious belief, not a scientific or logical assumption.
Hi perry,
thanx for the information….hey i have one more doubt…i searched some plases but yet coudnt get clear……is the universe still expanding??????is the big bang theory reversable?????is researche on big bang yet under work?????
hope you would clear my doubts…take care
bye…
varsha
The universe is still expanding. Big bang is not reversible so far as I know.