Genesis 1 and Big Bang

[otseng]

Split from another thread:

I agree that the BB is compatible with a creator although a creator is not necessary for the BB theory. But is the BB compatible with the God who inspired Genesis 1?

Actually, yes, I think the BB and Genesis 1 is compatible. At least enough for me.

Question for debate: Are the theory of Big Bang and the narrative of Genesis chapter 1 compatible?

[QED]

To reconcile the BB and Genesis 1, I refer to the book Starlight and Time, by Russell Humphreys.

Day 1

Gen 1:1-5 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

All the matter/energy in the universe started off as a huge ball of water 2 light-years in diameter. This is referred to as the "deep". By the sheer mass of this ball, it was basically a black hole with an event horizon half a billion light-years away.

The gravitational pressure causes the water to collapse and causes thermonuclear fusion and energy was released - "light".

How can this be reconciled with the relative abundances of light and heavy elements as measured in the spectral lines of distant/ancient objects like quasars? The production of heavy elements such as oxygen wasn't even possible despite the intense conditions in the primordial universe, hence their late arrival following the process of nucleosynthesis inside stars composed of lighter elements. All elements as heavy as oxygen were produced much later than the Big Bang in the interior of stars.

Day 2

Gen 1:6-8 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Evening, morning? Stars are usually associated with these concepts yet stars are still to come

God expands the ball of matter. The center part of the ball becomes the Earth. The outer parts becomes everything else. As matter is stretched out, the event horizon starts to collapse.

So the Earth should pre-date the rest of the universe? How come we can look back in time to a point older than the Earth -- and beyond?

Day 3

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Yet fruit is a development that follows the colonization of dry land by animals. It's an adaptation that utilizes the animals digestive habits to spread the seeds over greater distances.

Earth is formed at this point with land, seas, and vegetation. Stars are not yet formed.

So all the vegetation was made out of hydrogen?

Day 4

Gen 1:14-19 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: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 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. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 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. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The stars are formed on the 4th day. The event horizon starts to reach the Earth. As the event horizon passes through the Earth, a large amount of time (billions of years) pass beyond the event horizon, while only one day passes in the event horizon.

This event horizon is puzzling me. If the expansion is away from the supposed centre (Earth?) then it would create the appearance of an infinitesimally smaller universe than we see. Or have you ditched FTL expansion?

Day 5

Gen 1:20-23 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

God creates the sea creatures.

Yet no fossil remains of land or air dwelling forms can be seen in the same strata as Vendian biota. Only several hundred million years later do we see things such as wings.

Day 6
Gen 1:24-26 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

God creates the land creatures and man.

I know we've debated all this before. Why is it all so terribly disjointed? Could it be that the authors really didn't have a clue and were making it up as best they could? Why shouldn't any reasonable person see this instantly and reject the account as a stab-in-the-dark from yet another pre-scientific revelation factory?

[otseng]

You reconcile Genesis to the Big Bang theory by proposing a new theory which is compatible with neither.

I use the term Big Bang in the loose sense. The universe started billions of years ago (relative to stars) as something small and it expanded and continues to expand.

But, I will agree that the WHM is not the same as the BB theory.

Is it your own idea or are there a phalanx of geocentric creationist cosmologists who support it?

As I mentioned earlier, Humphreys was the originator of the model. So, I cannot take any credit for it. As for other cosmologists that support it, I only know about one other person. But, there could be more.

[ST88]

You reconcile Genesis to the Big Bang theory by proposing a new theory which is compatible with neither.

I use the term Big Bang in the loose sense. The universe started billions of years ago (relative to stars) as something small and it expanded and continues to expand.

But, I will agree that the WHM is not the same as the BB theory.

So, wait a minute... The only way that Genesis (WHM) and the Big Bang coincide is that they both began with a... Bang? Is that the argument here?

[otseng]

So, wait a minute... The only way that Genesis (WHM) and the Big Bang coincide is that they both began with a... Bang? Is that the argument here?

That's one similarity. Another similarity is that they are both expanding.

Both also address the same empirical evidence. They propose that the CMBR is a remnant of the Bang. And they both account for Hubble's law. As far as I know, these are the two major evidence of the Bang.

I also would think the WHM would fit within what Father Georges Éduard Lemaître (the father of the Big Bang theory) originally proposed.

[ST88]

So, wait a minute... The only way that Genesis (WHM) and the Big Bang coincide is that they both began with a... Bang? Is that the argument here?

That's one similarity. Another similarity is that they are both expanding.

Can they be expanding at the same rate? The secular (for lack of a better term) Big Bang model necessarily places the date of the singularity further back in time than does the WHM. But since the background radiation is inferential evidence for both, doesn't that mean that the rate of expansion (or at least the acceleration of the rate of expansion) would be wildly different. Because the Big Bang prediction leads to an at least predictably accelerating/decelerating rate of expansion, this would mean that the rates of the two theories coincidentally happen to coincide at this particular moment.

That is, the curve of acceleration/deceleration rate of expansion for the secular Big Bang model would be more leisurely from further back in time, whereas the curve for the WHM model would be more acute from more recently; in any event, they would be different. So would it be fair to say that the two curves are intersecting at this particular moment in astrophysical history?

Both also address the same empirical evidence. They propose that the CMBR is a remnant of the Bang. And they both account for Hubble's law. As far as I know, these are the two major evidence of the Bang.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but they both account for it because they both contain the same assumptions based on the same evidence. That is, expansion. Is expansion necessary in a WHM model? I would think not. A comparable explosion that happened less than 20,000 y/a (please ocrrect me if I'm wrong here), and that would have created as much space as space has been shown to have would have to have decelerated at an incredible rate quite early on, leaving the current rate of expansion virtually non-existent. Forgive me if I'm repeating past fallacies, I haven't been following this discussion with an astrophysicist's eye (I lost that one in a game of marbles).

[otseng]

Using QED's analogy, the water is already very deep now. But, I guess I'll have to swim out farther.

Let me first explain why it's called a White Hole Model. A white hole is the opposite of a black hole. A black hole is an object with an event horizon that nothing can pass out of, including light. Things are attracted into a black hole and can never escape from it. A white hole is an object with an event horizon that things inside of the event horizon are repelled out of it. Nothing can pass into the event horizon. Things can only pass out of it.

If we think about the Bang, it would seem like it should be a white hole. It certainly cannot be a black hole since by definition nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole.

And even this source says a white hole is more descriptive of the Big Bang:

The big bang is therefore more like a white hole which is the time reversal of a black hole.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... verse.html

The first question in the link above asks a good question, "Why did the universe not collapse and form a black hole at the beginning?" I would suggest that because it was a white hole.

Now about the event horizon. The distance of the event horizon is proportional to the mass inside the event horizon. The larger the mass, the greater the distance. But, in a white hole, since matter can only escape from the event horizon, the distance of the event horizon would collapse in a white hole. In a black hole, the event horizon can only increase since matter can only enter a black hole.

Time dilation occurs as one approaches an event horizon. Suppose someone approached an event horizon generated by object X. Suppose a clock is on object Y that is at some far distance. As the person approached the event horizon, the clock at Y would appear to go faster and faster. A person at Y would experience more time than the person approaching the event horizon.

In the WHM, the event horizon would collapse and pass through the Earth. Someone could experience 24 hours while going through the event horizon, while stars in outer space could experience billions of years.

There are no definite numbers given by Humphreys in terms of the age of the Earth or the stars. But it accepts the age of the stars of the BBT (over 12 billion years). It does not state the age of the Earth, but I would say less than 100,000 years.

[ST88]

And even this source says a white hole is more descriptive of the Big Bang:

The big bang is therefore more like a white hole which is the time reversal of a black hole.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... verse.html

That same link also states reasons why the Big Bang is not like the classic White Hole model, though it hedges more about it: tidal forces, singularities, Hawking Radiation. I admit that stuff is just out of my reach.

But I will say that the time issue is intriguing. I will post more when I have assimilated enough of this mind-rattling material.

[Greatest I Am]

Stephen Hawking has shown mathematically that as he states it, black holes ain't so black. He showed a small amount of mater or energy leaving black holes.

I will not debate anything here because of lack of interest at this time but thought this tidbit might muddy up things for you.

Not a gift I know

Regards
DL

[Curious]

Actually, Genesis (in hebrew) says that the universe was created by the divine positive and negative culminating in a vast explosion of light. Might not be of interest though if you are sure it is all a crock of shit.

[Goat]

Actually, Genesis (in hebrew) says that the universe was created by the divine positive and negative culminating in a vast explosion of light. Might not be of interest though if you are sure it is all a crock of xxx.

No, genesis, in hebrew, the world was created by seperating the earth from the water.. which is symbolic for creating order from chaos. The ancient hebrews felt that Darkness was it's own substance also, just as light was it's own substance, and not just the absense of light. You are putting 20th century concept into your interpretation of the ancient writing, now what is there.