Do you think the Big Bang theory and Evolution, back up the Bible version of creation?

Question

Hear me out, it's just a thought;
both claim the earth was void and dark and without form.
Both claim some kind of happening to create light, earth , sea.
both claim plant life first, then sea life, then animals, then men.
same order .
just a thought, but it seems to me science is just starting to find out (not all the facts yet) what the bible in a simple way thousands of years before science told us happened.

this is just a theory, not meant for any other reason then to explore a new possibility....what do you think?

Answer 1

Wilma! shouldn't you be fixing Fred a brontasaurus burger?

Answer 2

No. The Bible specifically makes these claims, which are in DIRECT contradiction with what we know scientifically:

1. Light existed before the stars (!)
2. Plants existed before there was a sun to nourish them.
3. Heaven starts where "the waters" end--even giving a huge amount of slack and assuming the writers of the Bible knew of the water vapor in the sky (yeah, right), there's still quite obviously no Heaven to be found immediately outside our atmosphere.
4. The whole of the universe came to be within a week's time (!!!)
5. Humans co-existed with all other creatures, including dinosaurs (!!!)
6. The moon gives off light (it doesn't, it merely reflects the sun's light)

And that's what I came up with in 10 minutes. Now let's look at what you specifically said in your question:

"both claim the earth was void and dark and without form"

Science has never claimed this--in fact, the Earth was red-hot for millions of years after its formation. Before its formation, "it" simply WASN'T. It makes no sense to say "that house was dark before it was built," so why say something like that about the Earth?

"Both claim some kind of happening to create light, earth , sea."

And science's explanation clashes STRONGLY with the Bible's. No divine "poofing" to be found in any peer-reviewed journal, no sirree.

"both claim plant life first, then sea life, then animals, then men."

Yeah, within a span of a few days, lol. That's sure not what the evidence shows. The Bible also says there were plants before there was any sunlight, which makes absolutely no sense.

"it seems to me science is just starting to find out (not all the facts yet) what the bible in a simple way thousands of years before science told us happened."

No offense, but it would only seem that way to someone who is grossly misinformed about the Bible and/or science. The Bible says the Earth doesn't move, for crying out loud.

You are not even close to the first person to think that the Bible was "ahead of us" scientifically--these arguments are many years old, and have likewise been soundly refuted just as many years ago.

Answer 3

Both claim "some kind of happening"? I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, but that's a little vague...

Wouldn't it have been a little more clear if evolution and the Big Bang were really in the Bible? And why was there such a long delay between the writing of the Bible and evolution becoming an accepted theory?

Answer 4

First, the Big Bang and Evolution have nothing to do with other; neither claim that the world was void and dark.

Modern physics only applies back to the instant just after the Big Bang (whose light and sound can still be observed).

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of biological life (ambiogenesis) but, in any case, the necessary ingredients for the biochemical reactions that define the transition between living and non-living molecules were present in abundance.

Answer 5

Actually, it is not a theory, just a supposition.

If you treat Genesis as allegory it works reasonably well. You could rearrange a bit.

The big bang starts with a phase where there is "light" (high frequency electromagnetic radiation) that condenses to matter.

The progression of life follows if you count cyanobacteria as plants.

I hate to burst your bubble, but I dealt with these concepts when I took my first college courses in astrophysics and biology and I'm sure I wasn't the first. If you don't have an agenda, science does not contradict the Bible. Just be cautious about confusing religion for science.

Answer 6

The Bible is a useful book for the metaphors and symbolic truth, but it never was intended to be a science book. It really doesn't matter if the Bible and science can be reconciled. Science works; its theories are useful because they have predictibilty and have led to discoveries and inventions that drive our postmodern world. The Bible is not one book, but a collection of books that were put of an oral tradition, then they were written down by different authors. This sacred text comes from a world of camels and sheep herdersj--there were not rockets, dvds, computers, cell phones, televisions, radios, automobiles or air planes. Our world is much more comlicated.

Answer 7

I see where you are coming from.It could have been a big bang or a little whimper.Whatever it was it was God that did it.Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Between verse 1 and 2 ,there could have been a billion years or not.What I'm saying is MAN tries to make us believe the earth is 6000 years old not the scriptures.After that billion years it seems God did some recreating because He tells Adam to REPLENISH the earth(Something needed replenishing?)When He created after that it was in 7 days if indeed those were ,24 hr days.(A day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years but a day Peter reminds us).
All I know is God did it.How he did it ,He didn't say but then Henry Ford didn't tell me how he invented the auto.Just that he did.I had to learn how by reading repair books etc. ,just like I read my Bible for answers.
I'm still looking for a "Chilton Manual" on the creation,but so far no luck.(Car guys will get that one)

Answer 8

The Big Bang theory, though unproven, could easily be the means God used to create the universe initially.

Biological evolution, though proven beyond any reasonable doubt, has nothing to do with initial creation. It merely describes ongoing changes in already existing organisms.

Answer 9

Although I don't think the biblical version of creation supports the theory of the big bang or evolution, I will say that both creationists and evolutionists have the exact same evidence to examine. The difference is tha the evidence is not testable or repeatable.
Scientists cannot create life in a test tube for example.
However both theories are explored from different presuppositions. Both have the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions based on their pre-supposed beliefs.


blessings :)

Answer 10

Its tooo simple the facts are already really in
It is getting people to grow up and out of the the fairytale land of the bible just go to any nasa website. we see stars born on pictures with the hubble telescope and others. No offense intended but people are going nuts over a bible full of folklore blurred stories over thousands of years and contradictions throughout the bible. God would have written the bible closer to what we see instead of mysticism and miracles and tinker bells written by men with no telescopes or algebra.

Answer 11

Murder, Rape,The Bible is a collection of papers and scriptures written by hundreds of persons in the long ago and translated from language to language umpteen thousands of times and filled with errors and omissions and whims of theocrats in powered to do so and should not be considered as "Devine" word due to its errors and mistranslations. The Bible is a guide to those who seek a religious understanding to the world we live in but is not the defining book of rules. Read it. it will scare you. Murder, Rape, Violence. Not the word of God, the words of men.