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?

[Curious]

OK. This response is probably full of holes. I have tried to understand this as much as I could because it sounds interesting. The physics alone as an academic exercise are interesting, but as I said, much of it is well beyond me.

I'm going to deal only with the stuff that I can understand at least enough to try and explain it. I could try and explain other stuff, but I haven't the time to complete a degree...
As far as I can tell, the White Hole model has three holes in it:
1) The White Hole in space.
Just like a black hole needs space-time in order to exist, so does a white hole. Space-time must have been pre-existing for the white hole solution to make any sense. From what I have read, it appears that space-time existed (always) before the white hole event in just enough capacity to hold the ball of water. And then upon collapsement of the water, God himself expanded space-time ahead of the White Hole's event horizon so that its ejectorate matter would have something to be ejected into. This would be like God squishing a water balloon and then blowing it up faster than the material within in it could react. In any case, God's magical powers are required, which defeats the purpose for coming up with a logical explanation.

The problem of the pre-existing water wouldn't be so bad if Creationists could just say God did it, and leave it at that. But the existence of the oxygen in the water before the creation event is a problem for those who wish to maintain a scientific basis for the creation event. Stars are made up of hydrogen (& its variants) and helium. All the other heavier elements are products of the nuclear reactions within them, including oxygen.

2) The anisotropy of CMBR
WHM explains CMBR if only because radiation would be produced and CMBR is the remnant of the explosion, but only the BB model explains the peculiar anisotropy of the CMBR (1 fluctuation out of 100,000). The WHM doesn't have this subtle fluctuative power -- either the ejectorate matter would be too uniform for this value (in which case formation of the earth would be impossible) or else too variable because water itself is made up of inherent impurities (deuterium, tritium, etc.) that would affect its detonation.

3) The gravity
I am also curious about the negative gravitational aspects of the WHM. As the mathematical opposite of a black hole, I would expect the white hole to exhibit what you might call anti-gravity --or a repelling force. Not just the force of the explosion (because the Big Bang claims that also), but a true anti-graviton producing event. Setting aside the problem of water forming a thermonuclear explosion when compresssed quickly enough (which I suppose is possible), this explosion would have to happen at the instant the water was at its most dense, when the strong nuclear force collapses or whatever happens in a supernova. I would not expect anti-gravity to be the result of such a thermonuclear explosion, but what do I know.

From what I have read, a WH's event horizon is such that matter must be propelled outward at a rate roughly equivalent to the rate a black hole sucks in matter. But, unfortunately, once it is out of the grasp of a white hole -- when it collapses -- the gravity we now know would affect it normally, and it would not have a chance to experience the type of expansion that is currently happening. The "shock wave" of a momentary white hole seems to me inadequate to explain both the Hubble observations and the idea of a stationary earth here in the center. Beyond the event horizon, I don't think the gravitational effects would be strong enough to propel matter far enough away to continue on, let alone be accelerating.

What part of genesis are you referring to here?

[Goat]

Where does it say that it began with a vast explosian of light ?? Nope. it began with god saying "Let there be light", but that isn't an explosian at all. And, god formed the earth by having his spirit go above the water, and he seperated the earth and the water from pre-existing materials. This is symbolic of creating order from chaos.

Really! Perhaps I misunderstood or maybe you are basing your argument on the base translation only. Study the Torah in the original language and try to find the true meaning for yourself. Would you, I wonder, challenge a brain surgeon without at least studying the subject of brains in some depth first? Why does everyone believe they can slag off the bible without actually studying it first? Oh yes, because it seems pretty straightforward. There is a reason for this.
BTW it says so in Genesis, right at the beginning.

Please, show me where it says that 'there was light' implies there was an explosion.

[McCulloch]

Read Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis, before there was light, there was something. In modern cosmology, before the Big Bang, there was nothing, not even space or time.

In Genesis, Earth comes prior to the sun and the stars. In BB, Earth is later than Sun.

These are not trivial differences.

The true message of Genesis is not in the translation that you refer to. Genesis is coded. Test everything (even the word).

It matters not how it is translated, you still get the same thing. In order to uncover any alleged coded message, you must go beyond mere translation. Do you have the super decoder ring that helps to find the encoded message in Genesis 1-2?

[Curious]

Read Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis, before there was light, there was something. In modern cosmology, before the Big Bang, there was nothing, not even space or time.

In Genesis, Earth comes prior to the sun and the stars. In BB, Earth is later than Sun.

These are not trivial differences.

The true message of Genesis is not in the translation that you refer to. Genesis is coded. Test everything (even the word).

It matters not how it is translated, you still get the same thing. In order to uncover any alleged coded message, you must go beyond mere translation. Do you have the super decoder ring that helps to find the encoded message in Genesis 1-2?

I have already given more than enough information for someone of average intelligence to begin the search. You are either an idiot, bone idle, or a time waster. I cannot be bothered with any of the aforementioned. Goodbye, and goodluck.

[otseng]

Good responses ST88.

In any case, God's magical powers are required, which defeats the purpose for coming up with a logical explanation.

God's magical powers would have been required for all of the six days of creation, so it definitely would not appeal to naturalists.

All the other heavier elements are products of the nuclear reactions within them, including oxygen.

Though the heavier elements would be made from stars, I don't think it would preclude God from supernaturally creating oxygen (water) before the stars were made. And speaking of heavier elements, I've always wondered how naturalists explain the existence of heavy elements on Earth. I think I might just create a new thread about that.

WHM explains CMBR if only because radiation would be produced and CMBR is the remnant of the explosion, but only the BB model explains the peculiar anisotropy of the CMBR (1 fluctuation out of 100,000).

This is definitely beyond my understanding to reply to. So I'm not able to offer any meaningful answer to this.

I am also curious about the negative gravitational aspects of the WHM. As the mathematical opposite of a black hole, I would expect the white hole to exhibit what you might call anti-gravity --or a repelling force. Not just the force of the explosion (because the Big Bang claims that also), but a true anti-graviton producing event.

I would not know the cause (apart from God) of the anti-gravity force. But, does the BB have an explanation of the cause of the "explosion"?

The "shock wave" of a momentary white hole seems to me inadequate to explain both the Hubble observations and the idea of a stationary earth here in the center.

I don't grasp your meaning of "shock wave".

Beyond the event horizon, I don't think the gravitational effects would be strong enough to propel matter far enough away to continue on, let alone be accelerating.

I'm not sure what caused the expansion (before crossing the event horizon and after).

I think one basic "problem" with the WHM is trying to know what was supernaturally caused and what was naturally caused. To be consistent with Genesis 1, not everything could've been naturally caused. But, since God also formed the laws of physics, some things could've naturally resulted from the laws of physics.

[otseng]

I have already given more than enough information for someone of average intelligence to begin the search. You are either an idiot, bone idle, or a time waster. I cannot be bothered with any of the aforementioned. Goodbye, and goodluck.

Moderator note: It is a violation of the rules to attack another poster. Please review the rules and abide by them.

[Curious]

I have already given more than enough information for someone of average intelligence to begin the search. You are either an idiot, bone idle, or a time waster. I cannot be bothered with any of the aforementioned. Goodbye, and goodluck.

Moderator note: It is a violation of the rules to attack another poster. Please review the rules and abide by them.

I did not attack another poster. I made the valid observation that the poster belonged to a particular group. I quite reasonably assumed Mculloch is either an idiot, bone idle or a time waster. He wastes his time pontificating when he would be better served spending time studying the subject to be able to speak with authority on the subject. If, on the other hand, he has gone crying to you, I could assume he is both idiotic and bone idle.

[otseng]

I have already given more than enough information for someone of average intelligence to begin the search. You are either an idiot, bone idle, or a time waster. I cannot be bothered with any of the aforementioned. Goodbye, and goodluck.

Moderator note: It is a violation of the rules to attack another poster. Please review the rules and abide by them.

I did not attack another poster. I made the valid observation that the poster belonged to a particular group. I quite reasonably assumed Mculloch is either an idiot, bone idle or a time waster. He wastes his time pontificating when he would be better served spending time studying the subject to be able to speak with authority on the subject. If, on the other hand, he has gone crying to you, I could assume he is both idiotic and bone idle.

This will be your final formal warning. Any further rule violations will result in disciplinary actions. Also, note that publicly challenging a moderator action is itself against the rules:

13. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

You are free to PM me privately. But the next action by a moderator will result in probation.

[Curious]

I have already given more than enough information for someone of average intelligence to begin the search. You are either an idiot, bone idle, or a time waster. I cannot be bothered with any of the aforementioned. Goodbye, and goodluck.

Moderator note: It is a violation of the rules to attack another poster. Please review the rules and abide by them.

I did not attack another poster. I made the valid observation that the poster belonged to a particular group. I quite reasonably assumed Mculloch is either an idiot, bone idle or a time waster. He wastes his time pontificating when he would be better served spending time studying the subject to be able to speak with authority on the subject. If, on the other hand, he has gone crying to you, I could assume he is both idiotic and bone idle.

This will be your final formal warning. Any further rule violations will result in disciplinary actions. Also, note that publicly challenging a moderator action is itself against the rules:

13. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

You are free to PM me privately. But the next action by a moderator will result in probation.

If Mculloch HAD gone crying to you I could understand this response. If he had not, then this response would seem unreasonable, as Mculloch could be reasonably seen as being uneducated in the subject (as I said). I do find it remarkable though that you find "no greater worth" in the Bible's message than does the casual peruser.
My point is "Don't say the Bible doesn't say X unless you can show why it doesn't say X".
I gave a reason and a means of validation of my claim. I find it implausible that anyone would even attempt to refute this claim without knowledge of the subject. I could assume, quite reasonably, that any such detractor be an idiot, bone idle, or a time waster. I also could rightly assume that anyone who restricts my right to say such is an obscurer.

[McCulloch]

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.

Genesis has been translated into many different languages, some of them like English, many different times by teams of scholars with expert knowledge of the Hebrew language. None of them, to my knowledge have translated it this way. Perhaps you could provide a little insight into where the vast number of sages have missed this.

They are entirely compatible. Gematria. Positive and negative forces. Universe from a vast explosion of light. Pretty close to each other really. All the religious bull there to preserve scientific knowledge within the scripture. Ignore it if you want. Do you really believe we only realised stuff in the last few thousand years, that's like believing God only gave a means of redemption in the last 2 thousand years.

They are only compatible if you do not look at the details of either story.

Details, shmetails. Religion is not about detail, it is about retail. Genesis, in the right context, is similar to big bang theory in many ways if studied correctly. Knowledge is best preserved by fanatics, even if they don't know what they are preserving.

If studied correctly! Everyone and there dog has an answer to how Genesis should be studied correctly to make it agree, somewhat post hoc, with the prevailing nonsense.

Let's start from the beginning shall we? Who first said that the universe began with a vast explosion of light? Oh yes, it is in Genesis. Then both theories agree.

There is nothing in Genesis about an explosion. Also, Genesis has water and other chaotic stuff in existence before light.

Ok, how did this explosion come about, Oh yes, The Torah states that this was due to the action of opposing forces. Both theories are still in agreement.

I missed the reference in the Torah where it stated that this was due to the action of opposing forces.

BB theory seems like a rip off to me. BB theory does not, and can not, account for the formation of the earth and does not attempt to. BB theory tries to explain cosmogenesis. The difference between BB theory and Genesis concerning the creation of the universe is in respect to why and not to how.

That too.

Where does it say that it began with a vast explosian of light ?? Nope. it began with god saying "Let there be light", but that isn't an explosian at all. And, god formed the earth by having his spirit go above the water, and he seperated the earth and the water from pre-existing materials. This is symbolic of creating order from chaos.

Really! Perhaps I misunderstood or maybe you are basing your argument on the base translation only. Study the Torah in the original language and try to find the true meaning for yourself. Would you, I wonder, challenge a brain surgeon without at least studying the subject of brains in some depth first? Why does everyone believe they can slag off the bible without actually studying it first? Oh yes, because it seems pretty straightforward. There is a reason for this.
BTW it says so in Genesis, right at the beginning.

Read Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis, before there was light, there was something. In modern cosmology, before the Big Bang, there was nothing, not even space or time.

In Genesis, Earth comes prior to the sun and the stars. In BB, Earth is later than Sun.

These are not trivial differences.

The true message of Genesis is not in the translation that you refer to. Genesis is coded. Test everything (even the word).

It matters not how it is translated, you still get the same thing. In order to uncover any alleged coded message, you must go beyond mere translation. Do you have the super decoder ring that helps to find the encoded message in Genesis 1-2?

I have already given more than enough information for someone of average intelligence to begin the search.

I get your point. In order to understand the message of Genesis, I must first learn a new language. Hebrew. Since I am not a linguistic expert and I was not raised with a knowledge of Hebrew, I can expect that my mastery of the language will be less than optimal and that I will be prone to making the kinds of mistakes that someone not native in a particular language is prone to make.

Therefore, it would be far more reasonable for me to rely on the expertise of someone who knows the language and has known it from birth. My Jewish friend Denise, reads Hebrew fluently, is familiar with the Torah and has spoken English all her life. She cannot find what you are talking about in Genesis either. As mentioned above, neither have many teams of scholars and experts in Hebrew tasked with translating Genesis. What reasonable hope then would I have of finding what these people all have missed? What reasonable expectation should I have that what I find would be more accurate and more valid than what these people who will always be my better with regard to the Hebrew language have found?