The Big Bang, Evolution, and other Myths

[RickyVernio]

I don't like the word creationist because (in my view, at least) it has a whole bunch of negative connotations. It kind of implies that there's a two-party system in which members subscribe to one of the two available doctrines because, all things being equal, they like it better than the other. I don't like the phrase intelligent design either. It seems to imply that even though most of the proponents of the concept figure there's got to be "some sort of higher power out there" who's responsible for creating, or at least kicking off, everything you see around you, we've outgrown the biblical account thanks to the development through the dark and taxing centuries of scientific and philosophical thought.

The limits of man's imagination are pretty obvious. Each new idea consists of building blocks, elementary parts, components of the conceptual model. We can't visualize anything from scratch, the way Our Lord did when He created us.

Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Theory of Evolution are really theories: in order to obtain empirical data to support them, you'd have to have a time machine and be able to live for a few million years. That's not the point, though. I got curious as to what prompted their authors (the British gentleman and the Belgian priest) to come up with their ideas - what inspired them - what were the conceptual building blocks, so to speak, of their hypotheses? I thought about it for a while, and came to some pretty amazing conclusions. That's when I decided to make a videostory about it.

I titled it The Big Bang, Evolution, and other Myths. Find it on YouTube.

Another term I resent is Christian literature - well, not the term itself, but what most people today seem to imply when they use it (including some publishers of the same). In my view, Christian literature is not a collection of "highly moral," "educational," "inspiring" (in the educational sense) stories dumbed down for "the masses" whose purpose is to reassure the reader and improve his or her spiritual self-awareness - nothing selfish like that. Christian literature, in my view, is simply literature written by authors whose view of their neighbor, the Universe, and God is unmistakably Christian. Alexandre Dumas, the author of The Three Musketeers, is obviously a Christian writer despite his shortcomings, real or perceived; and Kurt Vonnegut, I'm sorry to report, isn't (even though I like him a lot).

Well, there it is, as Emperor Hadrian used to say.

 

[Naraoia]

Don't "think about it", read On the Origin of Species. It's a pretty amazing book once you get through the flowery Victorian language, and it's free.

 

[RickyVernio]

Thinking is good for you.

The language isn't too flowery (compared to some other pieces penned by the gentleman's contemporaries).

 

[TomZzyzx]

I don't like the word creationist because (in my view, at least) it has a whole bunch of negative connotations. It kind of implies that there's a two-party system in which members subscribe to one of the two available doctrines because, all things being equal, they like it better than the other. I don't like the phrase intelligent design either. It seems to imply that even though most of the proponents of the concept figure there's got to be "some sort of higher power out there" who's responsible for creating, or at least kicking off, everything you see around you, we've outgrown the biblical account thanks to the development through the dark and taxing centuries of scientific and philosophical thought.

The limits of man's imagination are pretty obvious. Each new idea consists of building blocks, elementary parts, components of the conceptual model. We can't visualize anything from scratch, the way Our Lord did when He created us.

Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Theory of Evolution are really theories: in order to obtain empirical data to support them, you'd have to have a time machine and be able to live for a few million years. That's not the point, though. I got curious as to what prompted their authors (the British gentleman and the Belgian priest) to come up with their ideas - what inspired them - what were the conceptual building blocks, so to speak, of their hypotheses? I thought about it for a while, and came to some pretty amazing conclusions. That's when I decided to make a videostory about it.

I titled it The Big Bang, Evolution, and other Myths. Find it on YouTube.

Another term I resent is Christian literature - well, not the term itself, but what most people today seem to imply when they use it (including some publishers of the same). In my view, Christian literature is not a collection of "highly moral," "educational," "inspiring" (in the educational sense) stories dumbed down for "the masses" whose purpose is to reassure the reader and improve his or her spiritual self-awareness - nothing selfish like that. Christian literature, in my view, is simply literature written by authors whose view of their neighbor, the Universe, and God is unmistakably Christian. Alexandre Dumas, the author of The Three Musketeers, is obviously a Christian writer despite his shortcomings, real or perceived; and Kurt Vonnegut, I'm sorry to report, isn't (even though I like him a lot).

Well, there it is, as Emperor Hadrian used to say.

Actually there is plenty of evidence that suggest that the universe came into existence out of nothing (a big bang) some time ago. The evidence being, (1) The Second of Thermodynamics, (2) The Universe is Expanding, (3) Radiation from the Big Bang, (4) Great Galaxy Seeds and (5) Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Since the universe had a beginning it is one big effect that needed a cause. The Christian world view states that God was the cause of the universe comming into existence.

 

[RickyVernio]

Actually there is plenty of evidence that suggest that the universe came into existence out of nothing (a big bang) some time ago.

Yes. How long has it been since you last read Rev. 13? Maybe you should re-read it.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Yes. How long has it been since you last read Rev. 13? Maybe you should re-read it.

Please tell me what Rev 13 has to do with the Big Bang?

 

[RickyVernio]

Seriously, dude. It's self-explanatory. I'm not suggesting you aren't familiar with either; thinking just a little bit might help, though.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Seriously, dude. It's self-explanatory. I'm not suggesting you aren't familiar with either; thinking just a little bit might help, though.

So explain it to me or maybe you just made it up.

 

[RickyVernio]

You crack me up.

A couple of weeks ago I was buying groceries at the 24-hour supermarket on East 86th Street. The place was empty; just me and two night workers; one of the workers working the cash register. As he counted out my change, the other guy, who was going to take a break, said:

"Yo, TJ, I'll be back."

I smiled and said:

"Is that a threat?"

He smiled back, pondered, and said:

"No, I always call him TJ."

If I believed in evolution, I'd assume it has reversed itself.

Explain what, dude? Goodness.

 

[TomZzyzx]

You crack me up.

A couple of weeks ago I was buying groceries at the 24-hour supermarket on East 86th Street. The place was empty; just me and two night workers; one of the workers working the cash register. As he counted out my change, the other guy, who was going to take a break, said:

"Yo, TJ, I'll be back."

I smiled and said:

"Is that a threat?"

He smiled back, pondered, and said:

"No, I always call him TJ."

If I believed in evolution, I'd assume it has reversed itself.

Explain what, dude? Goodness.

I don't believe in evolution either. But I do believe God created the universe with what is now known as The Big Bang.

I asked you to explain haw Rev 13 has anything to do with The Big Bag, just like you said it did.

 

[RickyVernio]

The Big Bang "theory" is a by-product of the Evolution "theory." Think about it. From something ridiculously small and primitive to big and complex; consider the epoch when the Big Bang idea came into existence. Watch the video (it's fun; it's not a lecture: it's a story):

(I can't post links just yet; so please go onto YouTube and search for "big bang evolution and other myths": it pops up right away ...

... and then re-read Rev. 13.

I assure you I'm not trying to play games with my readers/viewers; everything's pretty straight-forward (and fun; and dramatic).

Showing that the Big Bang fairy tale is wrong isn't really my purpose here; a child could do that. I'm far more interested in the dramatic aspect: how did all those ideas (the Big Bang, Evolution, and some others) get into people's heads; why; why then (and not earlier); and why they're so popular today. Now THAT story is truly breathtaking (I'm not kidding you); as well as comical.

 

[TomZzyzx]

The Big Bang "theory" is a by-product of the Evolution "theory." Think about it. From something ridiculously small and primitive to big and complex; consider the epoch when the Big Bang idea came into existence. Watch the video (it's fun; it's not a lecture: it's a story):

(I can't post links just yet; so please go onto YouTube and search for "big bang evolution and other myths": it pops up right away ...

... and then re-read Rev. 13.

I assure you I'm not trying to play games with my readers/viewers; everything's pretty straight-forward (and fun; and dramatic).

Showing that the Big Bang fairy tale is wrong isn't really my purpose here; a child could do that. I'm far more interested in the dramatic aspect: how did all those ideas (the Big Bang, Evolution, and some others) get into people's heads; why; why then (and not earlier); and why they're so popular today. Now THAT story is truly breathtaking (I'm not kidding you); as well as comical.

It doesn't matter if The Big Bang Theory is a by-product of The Evolution Theory, it's the best scientific proof for a creator of the universe.

I don't have the time to watch a two hour video. I'm asking you, for the third time, to tell me what Rev 13 has to do with The Big Bang. Or I'll just have to believe you have no idea what your talking about.

I told you before that there is plenty of proof for a Big Bang. If you can't show me I'm wrong then maybe you could get a child to do it.

The reason evolution is so popular today is because some people do not want to acknowledge that there is a God.

 

[RickyVernio]

It doesn't matter if The Big Bang Theory is a by-product of The Evolution Theory, it's the best scientific proof for a creator of the universe.

I don't think there's a proof, scientific or otherwise, of the existence of God; and no proof of His non- existence, either. That's one of the fundamental points about faith.

I don't have the time to watch a two hour video.

That's your reward, then. Being a very busy man, I mean. (This may be somewhat unChristian, but I normally have neither time nor patience for folks who claim they don't have time. How a grownup could expect anyone to debunk a fairy tale that's been hammered into people's brains for nearly a century in three lines is beyond me.

I'm asking you, for the third time, to tell me what Rev 13 has to do with The Big Bang.

Sorry. I don't think you're really interested. I don't want to waste my time trying to explain anything to you. As soon as you're really interested, try me again. I might have just enough time to give you a pointer or two.

Or I'll just have to believe you have no idea what your talking about.

What one believes is one's own choice.

I told you before that there is plenty of proof for a Big Bang.

Look up proof when you get a chance. (Hint: it takes less than two hours to look something up).

If you can't show me I'm wrong then maybe you could get a child to do it.

You're too busy, obviously; and whatever's keeping you busy is obviously more important than the Big Bang's weak points.

The reason evolution is so popular today is because some people do not want to acknowledge that there is a God.

You really should read Rev. 13. Oh, I know, I know: no time.

I may have mentioned this earlier: that's your reward.

 

[TomZzyzx]

It doesn't matter if The Big Bang Theory is a by-product of The Evolution Theory, it's the best scientific proof for a creator of the universe.

I don't think there's a proof, scientific or otherwise, of the existence of God; and no proof of His non- existence, either. That's one of the fundamental points about faith.

I don't have the time to watch a two hour video.

That's your reward, then. Being a very busy man, I mean. (This may be somewhat unChristian, but I normally have neither time nor patience for folks who claim they don't have time. How a grownup could expect anyone to debunk a fairy tale that's been hammered into people's brains for nearly a century in three lines is beyond me.

I'm asking you, for the third time, to tell me what Rev 13 has to do with The Big Bang.

Sorry. I don't think you're really interested. I don't want to waste my time trying to explain anything to you. As soon as you're really interested, try me again. I might have just enough time to give you a pointer or two.

Or I'll just have to believe you have no idea what your talking about.

What one believes is one's own choice.

I told you before that there is plenty of proof for a Big Bang.

Look up proof when you get a chance. (Hint: it takes less than two hours to look something up).

If you can't show me I'm wrong then maybe you could get a child to do it.

You're too busy, obviously; and whatever's keeping you busy is obviously more important than the Big Bang's weak points.

The reason evolution is so popular today is because some people do not want to acknowledge that there is a God.

You really should read Rev. 13. Oh, I know, I know: no time.

I may have mentioned this earlier: that's your reward.

Just as I thought, no substance to your claims.

You also don't pay attention to what I've said. I didn't say there was a proof for the existence of God. I said there is proof for the existence of a creator of the universe, which we Christians call the God of the bible.

I've asked you three times and now a forth time to explain you views to me and you say that I am not interested? It's not that you don't want to wast you time, it's that you have nothing to show?

People on this forum can explain there own views. They don't send people off to other sites to explain there views for them. If they can't explain there views on this forum then they are not taken seriously.

And buddy, I don't think you can explain your views...

 

[RickyVernio]

Just as I thought, no substance to your claims.

If it makes you happy to think that, more power to you. Good luck learning anything at all.

You also don't pay attention to what I've said.

That is simply not true. I always pay attention to what people say to me. I never ignore people except for sport.

I didn't say there was a proof for the existence of God. I said there is proof for the existence of a creator of the universe, which we Christians call the God of the bible.

Since we're both Christians, what's your point? Or do you doubt the validity of the First Commandment?

I've asked you three times and now a forth time to explain you views to me and you say that I am not interested?

I've published a whole bunch of articles on the subject, but I find that folks react better when points are supported by visual imagery. I don't like it; but there it is.

It's not that you don't want to wast you time, it's that you have nothing to show?

You contradict yourself. I have one hour and twenty minutes of material to show. Only you have no time to watch it.

People on this forum can explain there own views.

Yes. And?

They don't send people off to other sites to explain there views for them.

That, I think, depends on the topic's size.

If they can't explain there views on this forum then they are not taken seriously.

I can explain my view of the New York Rangers' chances of winning the Cup this year. Yes, I can.

And buddy, I don't think you can explain your views...

Thinking is good for you. Think some more. Hope you have time enough for it.

 

[Extrinsic]

I don't like the word creationist because (in my view, at least) it has a whole bunch of negative connotations.

You may want to consider why it has negative connotations to you. Your subconscious may be attempting to tell you something.

It kind of implies that there's a two-party system in which members subscribe to one of the two available doctrines because, all things being equal, they like it better than the other.

This is the foundation of belief: preference, only things don't need to be equal or else evidence would be a factor which it isn't...well for theists it isn't anyway.

I don't like the phrase intelligent design either. It seems to imply that even though most of the proponents of the concept figure there's got to be "some sort of higher power out there" who's responsible for creating, or at least kicking off, everything you see around you, we've outgrown the biblical account thanks to the development through the dark and taxing centuries of scientific and philosophical thought.

I don't know where to start, you've outgrown the biblical account due to scientific and philosophical thought that you call "dark and "taxing"? Which is it, have you grown, or have you been darkened and taxed? Pick a side, you do know your computer wasn't created by god, right? And are you implying the Bible might be less than inerrant?

The limits of man's imagination are pretty obvious. Each new idea consists of building blocks, elementary parts, components of the conceptual model. We can't visualize anything from scratch, the way Our Lord did when He created us.

You're bothered by the limited nature of peoples imagination...you subscribe to a belief system that uses the same answer for every question ever asked. If you hadn't been conditioned to I'm not sure you'd be a theist...you seem a little too intelligent - just my initial impression.

Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Theory of Evolution are really theories: in order to obtain empirical data to support them, you'd have to have a time machine and be able to live for a few million years.

What!? I rescind my statement about your alleged intelligence. You have to be smoking crack, you have heard of fossils right? You're aware of how fossils are produced? Wow. The staggering ignorance of that statement has just fried several million of my neurotransmitters.

That's not the point, though. I got curious

You have all the answers, what is left to wonder?

as to what prompted their authors (the British gentleman and the Belgian priest) to come up with their ideas - what inspired them - what were the conceptual building blocks, so to speak, of their hypotheses?

Well if they weren't theists then they were likely testing a hypothesis and attempting to quantify the data obtained from the tests. They then published what they found. I realize you probably tuned out during science class but really?

I thought about it for a while, and came to some pretty amazing conclusions. That's when I decided to make a videostory about it.

I titled it The Big Bang, Evolution, and other Myths. Find it on YouTube.

I will watch it, I could use a laugh...by the way, the Gospels are all myth as is most of the Bible (example:the name "Noah" comes from the name of a Babylonian rain goddess), yet you have no problem with that. Evolution has some supporting evidence, but that's a myth, Intelligent Design, which you are likely in full support of (except the name), only makes sense to the uneducated, poorly educated, or superstitious and has nothing to support it - but that's all good because it supports the conclusion you like?

Another term I resent is Christian literature - well, not the term itself, but what most people today seem to imply when they use it (including some publishers of the same). In my view, Christian literature is not a collection of "highly moral," "educational," "inspiring" (in the educational sense) stories dumbed down for "the masses" whose purpose is to reassure the reader and improve his or her spiritual self-awareness - nothing selfish like that.

I absolutely agree that "christian literature" is not highly moral, or educational and should not lead anyone to infer that it is. I think a more apt name instead of "Christian Literature" would be something like "Myth and Wishful Thinking Scrawled on Paper by People with Unrealistic and Unfounded Beliefs" or just call it "Fiction."

Christian literature, in my view, is simply literature written by authors whose view of their neighbor, the Universe, and God is unmistakably Christian. Alexandre Dumas, the author of The Three Musketeers, is obviously a Christian writer despite his shortcomings, real or perceived; and Kurt Vonnegut, I'm sorry to report, isn't (even though I like him a lot).

Rhetoric aside, should all writing be characterized by the writers philosophical beliefs? I may be missing the point...I can admit that.

 

[RickyVernio]

You may want to consider why it has negative connotations to you. Your subconscious may be attempting to tell you something.

I have. It is a derogatory term devised by atheists.

I don't know where to start, you've outgrown the biblical account due to scientific and philosophical thought that you call "dark and "taxing"?

It is impossible to outgrown the biblical account.

You're bothered by the limited nature of peoples imagination...

Not at all. Others are sometimes bothered by it; hence the slew of fairy tales posing as the ultimate truth: the one currently in fashion is called "the Evolutionary Theory."

you subscribe to a belief system that uses the same answer for every question ever asked.

Every belief system does exactly that. I find the answer "Evolutionary cosmology did it" or "Evolution did it" highly illogical and unscientific.

you have heard of fossils right? You're aware of how fossils are produced?

I know the current fashionable hypothesis. Some of the points stand to reason; others don't make any sense.

You have all the answers, what is left to wonder?

I have some ideas. I never said anything about having all, or any, answers.

They then published what they found.

Who hasn't.

I realize you probably tuned out during science class but really?

Don't go there. Certificates abound.

I will watch it, I could use a laugh...by the way, the Gospels are all myth as is most of the Bible (example:the name "Noah" comes from the name of a Babylonian rain goddess), yet you have no problem with that. Evolution has some supporting evidence, but that's a myth, Intelligent Design, which you are likely in full support of (except the name), only makes sense to the uneducated, poorly educated, or superstitious and has nothing to support it - but that's all good because it supports the conclusion you like?

Demagoguery won't get you very far. I'm not in the habit of fitting facts to ideas. You are.

Rhetoric aside, should all writing be characterized by the writers philosophical beliefs? I may be missing the point...I can admit that.

All writing IS characterized by the authors' level of spiritual awareness.

 

[InterestingUsername]

Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Theory of Evolution are really theories: in order to obtain empirical data to support them, you'd have to have a time machine and be able to live for a few million years.

That's not necessarily true. You seem to assume that to know something we need to experience it first hand, which is not true. Many claim this is true with religion stating that you will only find God through experience and not observable and measurable data, but this is not true in the scientific field. To observe in science is not to observe first hand, it is to look at the evidence and come to logical conclusions. To measure in science, is to measure the evidence and come to logical conclusions. Evidence does not have to be the original product. If that were true, then the existence of dinosaurs isn't even a theory, because we didn't witness it.
Anyway the fact is, with evolution, the evidence HAS been left here on the earth for millions of years. With the big bang, the evidence has been COMING to us for a much longer period of time. In fact, technically we are looking straight into a time machine considering how long it has taken for the light of the universe to reach us. So when we look into the sky, we are looking back in time. When we look at the sun for example, the fact it's light travels at a limited, finite speed means we are actually seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago. If we wanted to see what it looks like NOW, we would have to wait another 8 minutes. The furthest galaxies we can see in the observable universe, is 18,000,000,000 light years away. The light of these galaxies took 18 BILLION YEARS to reach us. We are technically looking at the universe before it was even a billion years old whilst looking at these galaxies. How amazing is that? Now, you are correct, in order prove ABSOLUTELY TRUE without a shadow of a doubt, you would probably have to witness it. But this is like saying for example, I wasn't born during the holocaust, so I don't know for sure it actually happened. But the fact remains that there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence that Hitler massacred over 10 million people, so I can logically assume it happened. Now, with scientific theories, we don't just assume the conclusion, cherry pick evidence and call it a fact. We look at the evidence, and then try and link it all together to create a theory or a law which has consistent predictive capabilities. Basically, if we couldn't observe evolution by natural selection in a majority of species on the planet, it wouldn't be a theory. This is why it's still a theory, because it CONSISTENTLY WORKS. This is why killing a bird, dipping another living bird in the dead bird's blood and sprinkling the blood as well as some other freaky stuff around your house like the bible says isn't considered a cure for leprosy, because it does NOT consistently work.

Technically, with your reasoning, we don't have empirical proof of what the bible says. You would have to get a time machine and go backwards in time to the point of Eve falling victim to the serpent's charms in order to conclusively prove that this actually happened.

But the bible's different, right? You KNOW it's true. You've experienced God and nothing else matters. Not even your own hypocracy.

 

[sfs]

The Big Bang "theory" is a by-product of the Evolution "theory."

The Big Bang is a by-product of General Relativity, and was proposed because of the equations of GR. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Think about it. From something ridiculously small and primitive to big and complex; consider the epoch when the Big Bang idea came into existence.

I've thought about it. Small and simple things become bigger and more complex all the time.

Watch the video (it's fun; it's not a lecture: it's a story):

No. I don't watch videos -- they're a ridiculously inefficient way of presenting information. And nothing you've written here gives any reason to think there's likely to be a great deal of substance there.

... and then re-read Rev. 13.

I just re-read it. It's obviously deeply rooted in the Jewish apocalyptic literary tradition, and it also obviously has nothing to do with either evolution or the Big Bang.

Showing that the Big Bang fairy tale is wrong isn't really my purpose here; a child could do that.

Right. A child can show that the world's physicists are wrong about physics.

 

[sfs]

By the way, you posted this in the formal debates forum. This is not a formal debate.