Genesis

Avesther

Avesther

New Member
Genesis = Beginnings

An opportunity for us to explore and learn how the non-creationists view the beginnings of it "all".

There are plenty of non-creationist theories, we don't need to rehash them. But what does Mr. Bill, Eon, DV and Ghandi believe about the beginnings of the universe.

You guys believe something, and you base it on some form of education, so let it out. Don't go googling for ideas that are similiar to how you think it all started, that is part of forming your position. You all have positions, just spew it. If you need to reference a source that was vital to your formation of your position, thats fine. Thats providing evidence as to why you believe what you believe. Searching the interent and rehashing somebodies elses ideas is not stating your position.

Some thoughts to consider:

  • Which came first, matter or the physical laws that govern matter? Did the both come into existance at the same time in perfect harmony? Are they dependant or independant of each other?
  • Do you believe we are living in the one and only expansion of the universe? Or have there been many expansions and contractions?
  • What is the physical boundaries of the universe? What are the physical boundaries of the (for lack of better words) the ether that the universe is expanding into?
These are just some of the things I am interested in your Point of View on. So when (if) you answer, touch on some of these topics as well.


--- EDIT ---

If others want to talk about creationism, please start a new thread. I want to explore what non-creationist believe about Genesis. This isn't about abio-genesis, or evolution. I want to explore the beginnings of the universe from their PoV (Point of View).
 
Last edited:
Okay. I can only tell you what I believe to be true AND what I can remember of it. I am not a scientist - not a hard scientist anyway. My fields of study are history and warfare.

That said, here's how I believe the universe to have been created.


In the beginning of my understanding was a point singularity of matter. And that matter reached a critical mass and exploded. This explosion created mostly hydrogen gas - the simplest element we know - which was spread by the explosion as ejecta, out into the nothingness of space.

Now, in the areas closest to the centre the first clumps of hydrogen gas began to aggregate. These aggregated clumps eventually grew dense enough to develop gravity fields, and at the core something wonderful started to happen. As the clouds of hydrogen gas grew denser and denser the centre compressed and compressed until it formed a star. At the heart of the star a reaction caused the ignition of the hydrogen gas, which started a nuclear fission furnace. This began creating more complex molecules like Iron, Helium and so forth and the star began to develop into layers. Some of the clumps of hydrogen not in the core were blasted farther out into space by the formation of the star, whilst yet others who were large enough to have their own mass settled into orbits around it. The first planets were gas giants.

Eventually these stars grew old and began to die. Some of them merely burned out to cinders, but others became unstable as they grew old until finally they exploded. At the moment of this titanic and collosal explosion all the elements we know were created - this new material was blasted in all directions as the stars died.

And so it continued - with nebulae forming from the ruins of old stars, and hydrogen gas continuing its congress through space. Stellar nurseries were created, and some of these contained not just hydrogen but also the other elements that had been created through fusion. Later planetary systems had less massive suns and more varieties of elements, and some of these created the first rocky planets, Asteroids, comets and Oort clouds.

On Earth a combination of events created a fertile breeding ground for amino acid chains. These chains were simple chemical reactions, but they became the first single-celled organisms as they grew in complexity. Through a process of continuing evolution more complex organisms grew and competed. Initially these organisms were pretty sad creatures by todays standards, but the harsh conditions hardened the survivors and culled the weak and unsuited.

Please note that I have no answer for what created the matter that formed the singularity. Neither do I know what provided the initial energy. From what I can see this could be an eternally cycling chain of events - after the heat death of the universe it will all decay again to hydrogen gas, as it cools it will contract. We know that certain masses of matter cause unstable reactions - look at the formation of black holes!
 
Last edited:
I would like to point out to eon that explosions are always always always a breaking down of elements (nuclean chain reactions result in neutrons leaving an atom) and a destruction of matters (duh). I fail to see how in any physically possible way that simpler atoms became more complex atoms.

Also, where did your singular point of matter which exploded come from? Matter can not be created or destroyed according to the (1st,2nd,3rd?) law of thermodynamics. You cannot cling to science if you concede that matter has been created without becoming oxy-moronic.
 
Actually through experiments with Nuclear Weapons we KNOW that these complex atoms are created from the explosion. Nuclear Fission doesn't just destroy - it also creates, for just a second we create the conditions found at the heart of a star - and we've been able to track what actually happens in detailed experimentation.

As for my singular point of matter - consider what we know about Black Holes.

1. They consume EVERYTHING they meet and add it to their mass.
2. They travel around the galaxy.
3. They are increasing in number as new ones are born.
4. There is no known way to "kill" a blackhole
5. When two Blackholes meet, they combine to form a new blackhole twice the size.

It's entirely possible that the blackholes will consume the whole galaxy, and that the blackholes will combine as they meet each other. At that point all matter in the galaxy would be concentrated into a single singularity.
 
Is this how the singularity of matter that created this current incarnation of the universe come into being? From a gathering of black holes in the last incarnation of a universe?
 
I have absolutely no information on that - by definition it would involve the utter destruction of anything that might bear witness.
 
I have heard it said:

"Christians believe in the beginning God... Atheists believe in the beginning dirt."

I would like to note that the creation of complex molecules from nuclear explosions have the following characteristics:
1) They are the result of nuclear reactions from already complex atoms such as Uranium or Plutonium.
2) The complex matter formed are unstable element that quick break down.

E.g. No one has created iron and oxygen from blowing up a hydrogen bomb.
 
You are comparing apples to oranges.

Eon is talking about his THEORIES. Do you, or any other Christian describe Christianity as a THEORY? No, you believe it's a FACT, even in the face of an absence of evidence and proof. See the difference?

Scientific theories are open to being proven incorrect. You believe Christianity is foolproof. Again, see the difference?
 
You have faith in evolution, you have faith in Science. I believe there is substantial evidence on which to base my faith. Creationism is a creddible scientific standpoint (I don't care what you say, it is science, just Theistic science instead of Atheistic science, and you cant say one is better than the other because if there is a God then you should darn well take Him into consideration when making a hypothesis).

The reason why we think it is foolproof is because, just like gay-Lussacs Law, we have enough proof to extrapolate upon. God has shown Himself to each of us in a way we consider to be proofm, and thus we trust in the untestible parts of the theory just like you also trust in the untestible part of your theory.
 
I'm not exactly sure who you are talking to, but I for one, do NOT have faith in evolution, notsomuch as you mean Macro Evolution. Micro evolution, yes, that's easily explainable by science, but Macro Evolution has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

I disagree that Theism can be considered a science. How can you compare Theism by using the Scientific Method? You can't for one very simple reason: Faith. Faith exists outside the realms of reason, evidence and logic. I have to say that true Science is better than your postulated "theistic science" because it allows itself to be proven wrong. Are you open to the possibility that your theories are wrong? I believe you've already said that you aren't. You can't hold subjective theories and claim they are objective, it doesn't work.

You say that God has shown himself to you in a way you consider it "proof". What is your definition of proof and how has God given that proof to you? What is this "substantial evidence" that you have on which to base your faith.
 
A quick google search will reveal that countless websites also believe in the creation of complex elements in the heart of stars. If I'm wrong, I'm hardly alone in my beliefs, am I?

As DV said, the difference here is that this is what I believe to have happened. If confronted with superior evidence I will update my world view accordingly. Creationist science is not science because it starts with the ANSWER and tries to formulate questions that fit that answer. Evolutionary science starts with the Question and then tries to Answer it.
 
Eon said:
I have absolutely no information on that - by definition it would involve the utter destruction of anything that might bear witness.
Click to expand...

Of course it would, but we have no-one human who can bear witness as to the how this universe was created. So, what do you believe, that this is the first expansion or not?
 
Dark Virtue said:
That's an easy one.

I don't know.

There isn't enough information to base a logical answer on.

I've always thought this was an interesting creation story though: Enuma Elish
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in "others" creation stories. If I want Enuma's, I'd ask Enuma or read your link. I'm interested in your theories, your ideas, what you believe, what you think.

We form conclusions, ideas and hypotheses based on information we have on hand. And there is enough information to at least form a hypothesis, an idea, a suggestion.

How do you know there isn't enough information to base a logical answer? That statement alone suggests (logically) that you have researched it to some great depths. So based on your vast research (because you had to do it to determine there isn't enough information), what do you believe?
 
Last edited:
Why is "I don't know" not a good enough answer?

I don't believe in Christianity's version of creation because there isn't enough evidence to base a believe in a supernatural deity.

I don't believe in the "Big Bang" theory because there isn't enough scientific proof to reliable rest my belief upon.

I could go on and on, but the simple answer is no creation account is logically viable considering the information that is available.
 
I think it's rather more quality that we're after.

Personally speaking I have no idea whether this is the first expansion or not. In fact I'm not sure it's possible to prove either way (unless you inexplicably find some artifact that can survive a universe sized blackhole).
 
Well, if the singularity of matter that created the universe didn't come from a universe sized blackhole, then where did it come from?

---
 
I bear the honourable tiger back to my former answer.

I don't know. For all I know it was popped into the universe like a marble into a dryer by some higher being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top