Where did the Universe come from?
Part 1: Einstein’s Big Blunder
100 years ago, Albert Einstein published three papers that rocked the world. These papers proved the existence of the atom, introduced the theory of relativity, and described quantum mechanics.
Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?
His equations for relativity indicated that the universe was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.
Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced a ‘fudge factor’ that ensured a ‘steady state’ universe, one that had no beginning or end.
But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” He referred to the ‘fudge factor’ to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career.
As I’ll explain during the next couple of days, Einstein’s theories have been thoroughly proved and verified by experiments and measurements. But there’s an even more important implication of Einstein’s discovery. Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began with the Big Bang.
That’s right — time itself does not exist before then. The very line of time begins with that creation event. Matter, energy, time and space were created in an instant by an intelligence outside of space and time.
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book “The World As I See It” that the harmony of natural law “Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”*
He went on to write, “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”*
Pretty significant statement, wouldn’t you say?
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s installment: “Bird Droppings on my Telescope.”
Respectfully Submitted,
Perry Marshall
*Einstein quotes are from “Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology” by Max Jammer
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/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
My question to all you, is being that none of you can explain where God came from just maybe He might be in that tiny part of your brain that is yet to be found. Why don’t you do an experiment on that that your so afraid of finding the truth?
Mr. Marshall,
If the Big Bang is all the beginning, and that the universe is expanding as shown and described by the Red Shift, then when does the universe going to end and how. Anything that begins must end. So what’s the answer ?
The universe will inevitably come to an end and there are many papers about this.
OK, let’s answer that:
Even though I already alluded to my oversimplification of this several times, I’ll attempt to clear it up for everyone’s sake and my sanity.
DNA is no more a code than I have hair on my head and three legs. It would more correctly be analogous to a pattern or a recipe. You asserted (on infidels) that random patterns in nature cannot generate codes: yet it was admirably demonstrated by others and by example that this is not the case – the snowflake being the canonical example. Interesting you later appear to have included this on your site with the description of chaos theory.
You have arrived at this error by induction; an interesting demonstration of the Salem Hypothesis if ever I saw one. You’re an engineer and engineers seem to find it difficult to think in abstract terms – this is what makes them good at being engineers. You see the word “code” applied to DNA and instantly jump to a conclusion – by slothful induction to name the mistake – about how that came about.
DNA isn’t code although it may be code like. A bird is not a plane but they can both fly so we might say a plane is birdlike. Analogy is not equivalence – you’ve fallen hard into that trap.
If one randomly jumbles a designed code, then chaos naturally ensues; the message is lost. However, since DNA is not directly analogous to a designed code, mutations within it don’t automatically mean that information is lost, only modified. These modifications can move down the generations without necessarily destroying anything.
Take your random mutation generator. Your argument does not follow because (a) The code you start has already terminated and, therefore not subject to revision. (In life this would be an organism.)
(b) You’re not using real random numbers.
(c) Your mutation model is progressive on the same “organism”. DNA doesn’t work like that. What you’ve modeled there is more akin to a cancer than it is to inheritance.
I’m preparing an extensive paper on this now.
Science works from deduction (based on evidence) not induction based on what the thinker wants it to.
Dear Nec:
All snowflakes are unique, like fingerprints, that is evidence of design,
However it is a pathetic and desperate case of special pleading to try and compare snowflakes , or salt crystals etc. with DNA. Cut a snowflake in10 pieces , you have 10 snowflakes, cut a salt crystal in 10 pieces you have 10 salt crystals, damaging a single DNA molecule and you will often cause death.
DNA is not a code, it is a media that stores and transfers a code. Most evolutionists who are scientists accept that there is information stored in DNA but argue that mutations and chance are responsible for the creation, existence and exponential growth of this information. This is also special pleading of a high order because it asks us to assume the code created itself before natural selection could possibly “steer” it. It is not as pathetic as the snowflake argument but ridiculous in its own right.
You claim that science is based on deduction based on evidence which is an idea developed by creationists in Post Reformation Christian Europe but you don’t have any evidence to base your deduction on so your are simply arguing from metaphysics and your deeply held religious beliefs.
If I am wrong give me evidence of where the DNA in the very first cell came from as all the empirical evidence we have suggests it has always been DNA and existed from the creation of the first living cell. The idea of RNA worlds is not science at all. it is pure metaphysics, a desperate attempt to support a popular religious view.
You can prattle on forever about how this gene combined with that one [which happens} and one was damaged by mutation [which happens} but that does not explain the creation of novel and specifically purposeful information and it is a textbook example of special pleading to simply ignore the origin question.
No mutation studied on the molecular level has been shown to not destroy information ,much less create it. Information does not arise by itself from matter.
How obvious can it be your argument is purely religious. I can’t imagine a University on earth where you could stand up in front of the biology department and announce bio-information is a lie without being laughed to scorn and silenced.
So what if infidels says it is a myth ? Can you name any biology schools that would agree with your contention that DNA does not store and transfer genetic information? That would be something to see !
Is horoscope paranormal or it has sientific explanation?
I know of no scientific basis for the horoscope. Don’t know if it’s paranormal.
According to the Bible it is a demonic practice,sorcery. In ancient Israel it was a death penalty offense.
Are there any new findings based on the Big Bang theory ? If so do they prove the existance of God or against His existance?
Mike,
Read this site closely and you’ll find some interesting answers to that question.
Hi,
I recently became unemployed and this serials have brought fun to my life (yes, God is fun.)
I firmly believe in God, and I disbelieve institutions.
However, I don’t think that anyone’s statement that the universe had to have a creator is proof for anything. Russell explains that scientifically and philosophically (as well as dialectically) if you say that everything has a beginning then God must have a beginning. If you say God doesn’t need a beginning, you cannot use the argument that everything has a beginning to prove God’s existence.
So what does this first mail prove?
That Einstein was a bit paranoid. He really feared his discoveries could be used by religious fanatics and fundamentalists to prove something that cannot be proven.
Thank you Mr. Marshall.
Logically there has to be something that did not have a beginning. It can’t be the universe, because of entropy – if it was infinitely old it would be burned out by now. Also see http://evo2.org/incompleteness
After the smoke settled from our local group; gravity, electromagnatism, weak and strong nuclear force emerged. For us they have always existed, there never was a time they didn’t exist. We the scientific community only have reverse engineering to work with. This work has been in evolution since humanity could think with brain power. We humans seem to be caught in the zone of beginning to end,very exciting and unending zone. We are in the genome and quantum age. I’m completely consumed with these two subjects and left very little time to frolic around in the speculative zone. But I do need time for fantasy and fiction. Speculation always keeps us producing new solutions and algorithms.
“Only time will tell”, as President Clinton use to say, what our species will create or discover next.
Paradise Holding:
Who is we?
Most of the greatest scientist in history were Bible believing Christians, all of the major branches of science were founded by conservative Christians and the lion’s share of the greatest inventions from the printing press ,the steam engine , telegraph,radio,internal combustion, electrical generation and motors, modern rocketry, powered flight , computers, magnetic resonance imaging , laser technology etc. etc etc.
When you make a statement that all the scientific community agrees with one religious philosophy it tells us you are either so brainwashed you have lost touch with reality or you are trying to brainwash us and are not very good at it.
What evidence do you have that humans were ever anything but humans or that at some remote period lacked the ability to think? You are preaching your false religion, not science.
Why would a scientist care what some dirty old man with no training in science has to say about it? Why would anyone?
There are tens of thousands of top flight scientist would believe God created the world by speaking it into existence so again, who is we?
Paradise:
When you claim there was no beginning you are denying the most proved law of science. You present no evidence to base that conclusion on so we must conclude empirical science does not agree with your religious beliefs.
Why would anyone care what you said next?
dear sir,
can i read how Einsteins look for the reality?
i following vegan, as i get this idea after had amazing dream, i look sun twice. as showed by this sun, a space where i do not see bright will initiate the shine move and fill this space. but by common eyes, the light is hidden as gas molekul hidden to common peoples.
earth and all galaxies material just come from empty space filled by light or unformed material or energy. i think that earth had gravitation just because earth absorp “light” from universe. after earth do not absorp light then all gravition of earth will finish.all galaxies material will become star, bright, then release it’s gravitation to radiation, where then it’s become totally light, or unformed material or energy. supernova or star explosion then explained.
as my explanation, red star just a beginner step of star. it’s will become full coloured star with continues spectrum of light without peak.
as i see, there is much people do research as scientist do, but less people try to prove by spiritual way. i want the prove of both way, so i am very happy when i get your site. for along times ago, i excited by our ancient method to create all calendar in the world, so amazing and i read, they use spiritual method, as mayan ancient done.
can i learn much regarding scientist way to prove this from you, sir? please share to me. i very interested to Einstein’s blunder.
good day
Prior to t=0 there is no such thing as time. Time itself begins literally at the point of the Big Bang.
Perry, is that a fact or an assumption? Most scientists accept that there are 3 spatial dimensions and a 4th non-spatial dimension. What proof is there that this 4th dimension came into existence at the “Big Bang”, as against the possibility that this 4th dimension existing prior to the formation of the universe?
There are too many flaws in the atheistic point of view as against the short creationist point of view. As you rightfully said, it creates more questions than answers.
Question, who/what formed the ‘primary cause’ (creator)? Whatever did would then truly be the REAL ‘primary cause.’ If there is a ‘creator’ of that ‘creator’, what created that one? Each step back goes to posit that there had to be a continuum of time even before the ‘Big Bang’ occured. Then maybe the Christian Bible is right in saying that such a Cause (creator) had no beginning.
Setting religion aside, the ultimate question today, in referring to the LHC in France/Switzerland, is this: If the Collector does prove the Big Bang theory to be accurate, where did the original material to start the Big Bang come from? The point that most scientists are overlooking is that they are using existing material to try and prove their theory. They are using a giant machine to duplicate what may have been the beginning of the universe and possibly life itself. So then, where did the original material originate from? If they prove that the atom is not the smallest compound then it does open anothe can of worms. Would it not mean that even what they think is the smallest material of the universal building block is now redundant? That there may even be something smaller than that at the origin of all things?
In the acceptance that the universe is still expanding, which most scientists have observed thru their studies, then why is it that our own planet appears to defy that observation? Why isn’t the earth moving further away from the sun in the same rate of expansion as the rest of the universe? Some specific ‘law’ or ‘force’ is keeping it where it is. Is it a gravitational ‘law’ from the sun itself that is keeping this planet in the ideal location? Why hasn’t the theory allowed for earth to have moved away from the sun, thus creating a cold and inhospitable planet?
There are too many topics to cover that science and scientists cannot answer. Why is it that of all the creatures that ‘evolved’, humanity is the only one that seeks a spiritual aspect to our lives, whether that spirituality is covered by religion (including atheism) or science. Both of these poles are based on ‘faith’. Why haven’t any other animals or plants been seen worshipping, whether at the altar of a creator or the altar of science?
Why is it that scientists shy away from the fact that there is a metaphysical/paranormal activity that is running parallel with our lives? Why are they silent on this topic? Isn’t there some scientific theory to prove what causes the paranormal to happen?
Why is it that the genetic code and the building block of all life is based on the binary principle? Is this what you are refering to when you say that the DNA structure is digital? Or is it more the case of art imitating life, our fabricating digital mimics of the truest analogous form, the binary code that is the base of all life forms, whether carbon based or otherwise?
The example of computers, and anything else that we have created, is an apt one. Why is it we prefer to call ourselves ‘gods’ (creators) and yet refuse to accept that there may be a higher ’cause’/’god’ over us? If we left anything we created over any period of time (the 4th dimension) without any input from us, why is it that these creations refuse to evolve to a higher level? Instead they fall into decay (devolution) and redundancy. This appears to parallel the life of all carbon based creatures. We have not seen a single evolution of any life form within the last 100,000 years. Is this saying that we have reached the pinnacle of the evolutionary process? Instead, we hear on many ‘scientific’ agendae the terms ‘nature’s cruel tricks’, ‘a chance evolution’, ‘nature’s joke’, and this is what we are to accept as fact.
I was an atheist and an evolutionist, but after seeking for these answers I have had to change my stance. Many of my colleagues have been silent in their acknowledgement that science is proving that there is another side – the side of creation. They do not want to appear as anti-establishment. True faith is not blindly following the words of the crowd. True faith is studying the relevant facts, sifting out the theories from the facts and accepting the truth for what it is – the unvarnished, simplistic truth.
You ask, is that a fact or an assumption?
So far as I know it’s a fact. Relativity says that time and space are intertwined so that the forward movement of time proceeds with the expansion of space.
Congrats on seeing the light.
Dear Drew :
What flaws do you find in the creationist view, what do you call flaws and who decides? When you are talking about the past you have left the realm of empirical science and entered as world of speculation. No deduction from evidence will override historical record and only the creationists have one.
The Big Bang is an atheistic theory popular with compromising Christians, it is anti-Biblical, it directly opposes the clear teaching of scripture.
It is also poor science, most of the people who “believe” it have never even heard of its very real FLAWS like the flatness problem anti-matter etc.
It is dishonestly promoted because these fatal flaws are glossed over and no mention is made by its proponents of the fact that there people that predicted the background microvave who do not accept the Big Bang. I doubt 3% of its followers even know there are other and better explanations for the b.m.r or that they are strong evidence the Big Bang is bad science. Not to mention it is based on the purely religious assumption there is no God and the earth is no place special. Often falsely referred to as the Copernican theory [Copernicus was a Young Earth Creationist} and vocalized as ” anywhere you look from any point in the universe it looks the same”. This is a lie and its supporters are brainwashed into believing it . First of all the only way to know that would be to go everywhere in the universe and look and secondly the empirical evidence is firmly in conflict with that religious belief. It appears the earth is in a VERY special place. I suggest going to http://haltonarp.com/ , he is not a Christian but he was once arguably America’s top astronomer and one time assistant to Hubble himself. He had the keys to 2 of Americas top observatories , Mt Carmel and Mt. Palmer I believe , and was one of the prime interpreters of data from the space telescope.
He was blackballed and forced to become Germany’s top astronomer because he dared to provide empirical evidence the so called Copernican theory and therefore the BB were garbage science.
The reason the Big Bang is popular is the atheists can take solace in the fact it denies the words of Isiah that the earth is in a very special place without having to admit the existence of God that there was a beginning as entropy teaches us.
Christians are often sheep who are easily herded and have this erroneous idea that because a high ranking member of the Catholic Church was involved with the creation of this “theory” it is therefore Christian. It is sadly amusing that I find a lot more atheists that understand how anti-Christian the BB is and they find it hysterical so many Christians support it.
It all comes down to compromise , the BB is garbage science.
sir i am agree with your thought that spirits are more powerful man, as it is already understood that spirits travels in different dimension and we move in different and spirits move with the speed of light so they can travel from one dimension to another , it is similar to the Sir Einstein theory for time travel in past and future. sir i want to ask you that every galaxy occurred from the big bang explosion and is it right that sun is a star and it is expanding and it will engulf every planet and then after it will shrink due to its high nuclear energy as a star do and it will be converted in to small nucleus and after that it will either explode ( i.e. Big Bang Theory take place) or become a black hole, as like star phenomena.
The Big bang is based on an anti-Biblical assumption that the earth is in no special place. It completely contradicts the chronology in Genesis.
The BB was , is , and always will be a pagan idea . There are other explanations for the background radiation and scientist who disagree with the BB predicted it as well.
There is tremendous empirical evidence the earth is near the center of the universe and all sorts of problems with expansion. The universe may or may not be expanding yet it is presented as fact.
Is it not hypocritical to accuse evolutionists of claiming a metaphysical idea like evolution is fact when compromising Christians do the same?
If we can’t pick up a Bible and read where it says that God created the sun, moon and stars on day four and simply believe it what really separates Christianity from the pagan religions? If we need a “scientist” to tell us that for all of human history the Bible has deliberately and completely misled all of God’s people and only the pagans understood that what reason to you give a non-believer to convert?
It amazes me that people who are trying to evangelize have made creationism, the belief that Genesis is what it says it is , the history book of the universe are enemies of the church. Don’t believe those wackos, they think that the Bible was divinely inspired and is actually true but trust me, I am a scientist and you can ignore the Bible and still be a Christian.
That does not make much sense Perry. Jesus Christ was a Young Earth Creationist, all the Prophets were Young Earth Creationists , all the Apostles were Young Earth Creationists , and all the Church Fathers {at least before 1800} were Young Earth Creationists but you treat anyone who still is as an enemy of the church, therefore an enemy of God and it embarrasses you that such people share your faith. I do not share your faith Perry , I worship the God of the Bible who created everything perfect, there was no death before sin, not even a thorn to prick your arm. The God of the Bible says that sin brought death into the world, your God says that death brought man into the world.
We do not share a faith, we do not worship the same God. Christians have always been Young Earth Creationists so why are people with such different religions , who do not worship the same God called by the same name.
If I am wrong then show me a single church father who preached millions of years before 1800. It is sad to here you talk about Bible believing Christians as wackos and trying to distance yourself from them. That is fine if you want no part of our beliefs but you need to make it clear that we were always here and your religion did not exist with the name Christianity until about 200 years ago. One of us is wrong. So why not tell us who the true believers are and why?
Why would you worship a God who deceived everyone for all of time and then an atheist philosopher had to point it out to us?
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Joh 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
Joh 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Jesus Christ made it plain that to believe Him you have to believe Moses and Moses compiled the history book we call Genesis .
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
You cannot reconcile the Bible and the BB, atheists know that, you don’t seem to , or you refuse to admit it,even to yourself.
Forrest,
When you are ready to read and discuss “A Biblical Case for an Old Earth” by Snoke I will be happy to engage with you.
Okay Perry I am ready to discuss the book ” A Biblical Case for an Old Earth”
Normally I would find it necessary to actually read a book to judge it but the author made that unnecessary . As I have made clear there is no argument from the Bible for millions of years. It is a compromise and a direct denial of God’s authority and the words of Jesus Christ and in a very real way a direct denial of His very deity. The first word’s of this so called “Biblical” case prove it is no such thing and just another rehash of the scripturally and logically absurd day age theory. As far as I am concerned you misrepresented it to me as an argument from the Bible when it is an attack on it.
The first word’s:
First sentence:
“At the very outset, let me say that my experience in science has affected my interpretation of the Bible.”
My source for that is Amazon where I went with the intention of purchasing the book and have confirmed it’s accuracy completely.
Do you argue these are not his words or that I am wrong when I say the Bible is not his authority ? Do you believe the Bible is the word of God as it claims, do you believe the Bible? There is no question Snoke4’s is a compromiser, I am not.
Lets forget David Snoke and deal with the Bible as he clearly upholds his authority in the changing ideas of men. I can think of no reason to doubt the critics who say it is just another New Age rehash of the compromise position of the great turning point and unless you can show me this argument from the Bible or that it even existed in Christianity before the Great Compromise of the late 1700’s early 1800’s then it is simply another story of why “science” requires me to believe that God mislead His people for all of history save the last 200 or so years and we needed atheist philosophers like Hume and Hutton and a crooked Lawyer named Lyell to tell us what God really meant to say, but didn’t.
“At the very outset, let me say that my experience in science has affected my interpretation of the Bible ”
My Bible says:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
My Savior said:
Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Mat 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.
Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
He also said:
Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Dr. Snoke denies the flood and the words of Moses. I believe my Savior.
From Wiki:
His book, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Baker Books, 2006) was described in a review by Law Professor David W. Opderbeck, in the American Scientific Affiliation’s Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith as “succeed[ing] admirably” in “establish[ing] that the ‘day-age’ view is a valid alternative for Christians who hold to biblical inerrancy”, but as “less persuasive” at “argu[ing] for a concordist understanding of the Genesis texts and modern science.”
Questioning the truth of scripture is not valid and this man is in no way qualified as a Hebrew or Biblical scholar, here is one who is:
Dr Ting Wang earned his M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary in California (Escondido) and his doctorate in Biblical Studies at the Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion (Cincinnati, Ohio). He now lectures on biblical Hebrew at Stanford University in California,
Many in the church say that the New Testament is all that matters, or act as if this were true. But Dr Wang explained why the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is important for Christians today:
‘The Law is a schoolmaster pointing the way to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Jesus Himself said that if one does not listen to Moses and the Prophets, one will not understand the New Testament, for one will not believe even if someone rises from the dead [Luke 16:31]. Indeed, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus explained that the Old Testament essentially taught about Him [Luke 24:27].
‘Moreover, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that He did not come to abolish the Law and Prophets, but to fulfill them—that until heaven and earth disappeared with a roar, nothing in the Old Testament would become obsolete [Matthew 5:17–18, cf. 2 Peter 3:10]. Jesus explicitly said, “Scripture cannot be broken”? [John 10:35].
‘God has elevated above all things His name and His Word (Psalm 138:2), and the person He esteems “trembles”? at His Word (Isaiah 66:2). And despite the fact that the heavens continuously declare the glory of God, how else but from the Old Testament would we learn details about Creation and the Fall?’
Here is another:
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.
Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984. Copy held by the author. Note that Prof. Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is historically true; he is just telling us what, in his opinion, the language was meant to convey.
Dr. Wang is an exception in not only does he know that Genesis was meant to be taken literally but also believes it is true. Sadly most do not but the fact Genesis is historical narrative in style and that there is no poetry in the entire book is a given with Hebrew Scholars. It is only those whose faith is not in the Bible but the accomplishments of man who find it necessary to make the baseless claim the Bible teaches millions of years or even allows for the possibility much less that the Big Bang agrees with scripture.
So Perry I must say I am very confused why you wanted me to read that book as you must know he is arguing that the Bible can’t mean what it says and that God’s people were misled by Moses for 3 and a 1/2 thousand years, 6000 if you believe Moses compiled Genesis from previously existing texts as many scholars do.
When you honestly look at it there is very little difference in the arguments of cults like the Jehovah’s Witness, Brethren of Christ and at least one major division of Christianity I will leave nameless that the mean Catholics changed the Bible. No one changed the Bible and for all it’s history until very recently the idea of millions of years was pagan heresy to God’s faithful and for at least half it still is.
God said He would preserve His word, if we were that confused for that long God broke His word and God cannot lie.
.
Forrest,
I will not discuss a book with you that you have not read.
Snoke says, “At the very outset, let me say that my experience in science has affected my interpretation of the Bible.” You condemn him for saying this.
ALL our life experiences affect our interpretations of the Bible. Augustine said, “God wrote 2 books, the Bible and the book of nature.” If there is any truth to his statement, one will most certainly affect the interpretation of the other. Your own life experience infinitely colors your own interpretation of the Bible.
Quite a few early church fathers believed the Bible endorsed slavery. Most of us today believe that the Bible, through its teaching of equality, implicitly condemns slavery. Are you going to tell me that our interpretations of the Bible are not supposed to change? That we are somehow obligated to have the same opinions as theologians had 1500 years ago? That new knowledge is not allowed to spur us to re-interpret what we read?
Surely you do not believe that.
I believe that with the progress of Biblical scholarship, the discovery of older scrolls, the recovery of ancient commentaries once thought lost; the Internet and all the information sources now available; with science and biology; with 2000 years of Church history, then the possibility of understanding more and more about what God has for us grows with every passing year.
After you have read Snoke’s book, I will discuss this with you.
Perry my last response was by e-mail so I thought it was private.
I will repeat . There is no point in discussing a book that is about a subject other than presented. It is just as obvious from your reply that you do not believe the Bible is the word of God and that “science” is smarter than God.
There is no argument from scripture and you have continuaously ignored a book you claim to have read, the Bible.
You cannot show me from scripture that the BB and millions of years is anything but heresy so you tell me of a book you hope will convince me to disregard God’s word as you do. Jesus Christ said if you dismiss Moses you dismiss Him.
I believe Moses, you do not.
I will pray for your soul.
BTW if you ever own up to the fact the book you presented as a BIBLICAL case for the old earth was nothing of the sort I will accept your apology.
Forrest,
I believe that an old earth is entirely Biblical. I am not dismissing Moses or anyone else. The book you refuse to read – because you think its title is an oxymoron – makes an excellent case for this.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Perry
No Perry we are not agreeing to disagree, I a right , you are wrong.
The reason you are wrong is you are dodging the question as compromisers have always done.
Just as with your favorite author “science” is your authority. it the popular interpretation goes against scripture scripture takes the fall.
Perry unless you can show me from scripture ALONE that the earth was not created in 6 literal days and that the genealogies can be stretched to billions of years and that Adam was not created on the 6th day and the sun , moon and the stars were not created on day 4 then you are being untruthful,willfully or because you have been deceived.
You claimed that you believed the Bible supports an old earth, if so explain how anyone could possibly get that idea from Mark 10-6 ,Genesis 20 8-11 and the fourth day of creation
I want to believe you are an honest man but there are only 3 possibilities, either you are deluded and deceived by Satan, you are deliberately lying, or Hebrew and Christian scholars for thousands of years , including all the apostles, all the prophets, all the Church Fathers,Josephus , and the vast majority of Hebrew scholars on this planet were or are are idiots.
The fact is Perry I believe the Bible is the word of God and it does say the universe was spoken into existence about 6000 years ago .
This does not fit with the popular idea it cooled over billions of years However you claim that the Bible supports it but we both know it does not. Never have you argued from scripture and neither does your favorite author.
If I believed that the Bible was not correct about its history and whenever it touches on science , geology, paleontology etc. I would be an atheist. Why would I worship an ogre that condemned billions of creatures to death and then told me desath was a punishinment for Adam’s sins.
If there was death before sin there is no God of love. We do not worship the same God and one or both of us is wrong.
Forrest,
Can you show me from scripture ALONE which books are scripture and which ones aren’t?
Forrest
Both God and St Augustine disagree with your claim to be right and that everyone else who doesn’t agree with you is wrong.
God gets angry (even wrathful) when people do not ‘look at His creation’ and see His character (Rom 1:18-20). Science is just that: Looking at and studying nature, at deeper and deeper levels. If either the novice or the research scientist is honest in their looking, investigating and studying nature, he/she will be amazed & they will see the character of the designer in the design (i.e. we see characteristics of an ‘inventor’ in his inventions’).
Saint Augustine, in the “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” (See entire text below)
+ Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, … , kinds of animals, shrubs, stones …
+ It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian…talking nonsense on these topics
+ If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions … how are they going to believe …
+ Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those [non-believers].
Forrest – PLEASE STOP THIS NONSENSE! Please do not share your foolish opinions with anyone scientifically minded. We should be removing barriers to faith instead of erecting big barriers.
Perry – Thank you for doing such a great job in helping people see the ‘designer behind the design’ and the ‘creator behind the creation.’
Jim Runyon
***************
Romans 1:18-20niv: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all … men …, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]”
The Big Bang or Creature will not exist to produce a giant materials to Creat a Universe… Impossible? How they can manage to creat a Universe! Who & How? Did they buy a materials in hardware to put on the sky? You laugh !!! How they can manage to creat a Universe. I tell you my Explanation & computation: After the life Span of Eternal PLain was recycle into Universe. The Giant materials of Universe came from the Eternal Plain. Now we are live on the present of this Universe. After the Life Span of this Universe will recycle into Eternal Plain and the Giant materials Came from the Universe as the proved & evidenced my explanation and computation: 0.01 / 0.01 = 1 / 1% = 100 x 1% = 1 / 1% = 100 x 1% =1 Thank you & Good luck and may the Supreme of Love and Truth of Cosmos will Blessed you all.
Best Regards,
1872553496
The Big Bang or Creature will not exist to produce a giant materials of Universe.
I believed that the materials of Universe Came from the Eternal plain. Because the past Eternal Plain has a Life span in order to recycle again into Universe and this present Universe will recycle again into Eternal plain in the future, after the life span of Universe. As the proved and evidenced of my computation: 0.01 / 0.01 = 1 / 1% = 100 x 1% = 1 / 1% = 100 x 1% =1
Thank you and goodluck and may the Supreme of Love and Truth of Cosmos will Blessed you all.
Best regards,
1872553496
Dear Mr. Marshall,
I am one of those persons that do not need proves for the existence of God,
I do believe it.
Yet, I am interested in the scientific side of the issue and my question is:
Can the scientists today give a scientific explanation of what has existed before of the Big Bang and what could have triggered the Big Bang?
Sincerely
Sara
The closest that you can get to that, that I know of, is String Theory – which is a mathematical model that hypothesizes the multi-dimensional environment that gave birth to the Big Bang. It is not possible to look beyond the Big Bang empirically, it’s an observational brick wall.
Any interpretation that you have of this data always brings you to the question “WHY and HOW was it set up that particular way?”
Perry,
Actually the observational brick wall, which does not allow observation of the Big Bang, is just beyond the WMAP data for the first light of the universe . However, many scientific explanations exist for what came before the Big Bang. But they are all hypothetical and inconsistent.
Is very well known that Albert Einstein express this:
“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.”
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings”
You can research for these references in many ways, so please don’t try to use Einstein quotes to prove an idea contrary to him.
Marc,
I am a molecular biologist and can assure you that DNA is literally coded genetic information.
Your statement above that:
“DNA is no more a code than I have hair on my head and three legs. It would more correctly be analogous to a pattern or a recipe. You asserted (on infidels) that random patterns in nature cannot generate codes: yet it was admirably demonstrated by others and by example that this is not the case – the snowflake being the canonical example.” IS FALSE.
Nobody at infidels was able to demonstrate a natural arising code.
DNA is digital code and this quality of DNA has been published in the journal Nature (see “The Digital Code of DNA” by Hood and Galas in Nature; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html).
Decades of scientific research have demonstrated that DNA is code, not a code-like, material that contains information.
The fields of bioinformatics and biocomputation have also established that DNA is a digital code with not only informational and language aspects but also programming capabilities.
The scientist and former atheist, Francis Collins, who oversaw the sequencing of the human genome, describes DNA as code with language properties and wrote a book entitled, “The Language of God”.
Without the coding information in DNA, it would not be possible for me to generate recombinant proteins in the lab. Without the coding information in DNA, I would not be able to construct mutated proteins in order to understand the function and mechanism of action of the normal protein. Destroying protein function by mutating the coding in the reading frame of DNA is an excellent method to study normal protein function.
DNA contains coded (lacking material body, mass, form, or substance) information. For instance, I can sequence the bases in a sixty base cDNA (producing a 20 amino acid peptide) polynucleotide by polymerase chain reaction. I then submit this sequence into a server for analysis, thus converting the A, G, C, and T code into 1 and 0 bit computer code. I can send the cDNA sequence information in bit code to a colleague thousands of miles away, and after receiving the cDNA sequence he can decode it back to nucleotide bases. The colleague then takes the DNA sequence and has it synthesized into a polynucleotide. The polynucleotide is then cloned into a T7-driven transcription vector and subsequently transcribed/translated in a reticulocyte lysate to produce a peptide, the same one that I produced in my lab using the same coded information. The information encoded by DNA is thus not dependent on the material for delivery and is thus immaterial and distinct from matter.
dear sir
plz answer this question bible says tht the in the begining wasthe word the word was with god and the word was god
then the scientist says that before creation there was big bang .. tht big bang could be said as vibration .
in the hinduism also thereis great discussion tht there is vibration in the form of holy name of god
what will u say for this?
I think all of these religions are pointing to a truth, that the universe first existed as an idea in God’s mind.
I believe that souls exist.
hellow sir
you all discussed about the evolution of life and its survival on this earth.I just wanted to know about the extinction of it.yes you are right sir i wanted to ask you about 21st december 2012 .Can u please give some information about it sir?
Many people think that 12/21/2012 will be the rapture for which Jesus said that of two men standing in a field, one will be taken and one will be left. So it is best to stay indoors that day. The Mayan Long Count calendar ends on that day and that is assumed to mean extinction. But scientifically that is not the case.
In a worst case scenario, there could be some extreme solar flares at about that time. A description of what would happen as a result was written in New Scientist a while ago. Just google New Scientist solar flare. Here is a excerpt:
“The incursion of the plasma into our atmosphere causes rapid changes in the configuration of Earth’s magnetic field which, in turn, induce currents in the long wires of the power grids. The grids were not built to handle this sort of direct current electricity. The greatest danger is at the step-up and step-down transformers used to convert power from its transport voltage to domestically useful voltage. The increased DC current creates strong magnetic fields that saturate a transformer’s magnetic core. The result is runaway current in the transformer’s copper wiring, which rapidly heats up and melts. This is exactly what happened in the Canadian province of Quebec in March 1989, and six million people spent 9 hours without electricity. But things could get much, much worse than that.”
But much more intriquing is the possibility of a nearby Type 1a supernova. If one were to happen within 3000 light-years from earth, our ozone layer is expected to be destroyed. In fact if you do the numbers since they happen in galaxies like ours 2 to 5 times a millenium, on the average life should be wiped out by such supernovae every few hundred thousand years. The earth has been fortunate.
But our fortune may be in danger for there is a white dwarf, T Pyxidis, just 3260 light years away that will eventually supernovae. It has been accreting mass from a binary star companion and every 20 years or so it has novaed- blown of some mass. Scientists say that at this rate it may be a million years before accretes 1.38 solar masses and supernovaes. But the novas have stopped since 1967. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2795981/Supernova-may-wipe-out-the-Earth.html
Even if there is a supernova, I do not think it means extinction. It is a bit too far to eliminate our ozone later. And being in the southern hemisphere sky, it will probably just enlarge the hole that is already there. But it would be a gamma ray bust equivalent to nearly 1000 solar flares, and from the first link above that will melt high voltage transformers and probably destroy every unshielded transister in the world. That will be a disaster but not extinction.
If so, we will see T Pyxidis getting brighter and brighter for about a week. So we will have amble time to prepare. But it will peak for a month and fade away over many months, certainly a worldwide disaster when it finally happens.
Richard
Perry,
Out of all the arguements on the existence / nonexistence of God yours makes the most sense to me. I had been a believer since a child, then after studing ‘evolution’ started to become a nonbeliever (sort of). Now I am definately a believer. Thanks for your explanations.
There are those who will never believe in God, no matter what the evidence, or, in His intentions or desires to have a loving communion / relationship with we, his creation.
As for me I want to travel the universe with my God, my creator, my saviour. As for those not likeminded, I pray for, and, hope that they will not find the universe too lonely a place to live in.
In the meantime debate is good, but, let us also divert our attention to pursuing and maintaining truth, justice and compassion in the world. To the christian these are expected by God; to the athiest, these are expected by a God who does not exist.
regards
dan m
Hi there guys
We read that in the centre of the Milky way galaxy is a black hole. We are also told that the gravity or density of this black hole is so great that even light will not pass through it.
My question is, if the mass of the black hole of our centre of galaxy is so dense than why doesn’t our galaxy get drawn into it or collapse unto it?
Vasudevan,
The centripetal force and centrifugal force, action-reaction force pair associated with circular motion, are in balance in the galaxy. The force of gravity of all the mass including the black hole within a particular orbit of a star is just balanced by its acceleration towards the center of mass such that a stable circular orbit results. That means that stars very close to the black hole are moving very fast.
Richard