Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith

Saying the earth is 6000 years old, or the story of Noah is such that god flooded the earth all of it... these are all damnable heresies. And im a Christian. God doesn't play games and plant false evidence to contradict what we can see with our eyes. Thats the only way those things could be true, god playing games. And, I do believe in miracles so its possible god is playing games. I just have too much respect for god and truth to think that. I believe when god performs miracles, he leaves evidence for it that is observable. He doesn't contradict evidence

See above

The universe is expanding - this is a verifiable fact. Trace this expansion back in time and you get to a single dense beginning 13.8 billion years ago. If not the Big Bang, then how does one explain the expansion?

Kermos wrote:

Faith is proof of things not seen; in other words, that which you say/think but not see is what you believe.

I want to give you an idea of who I am. I was an evolutionist, but Christ changed me into a Christian.

Christians can believe in evolution, most do I think, becoming a Christian doesn’t necessitate ending belief in evolution by any stretch of the imagination.

Many scientists believe the beginning of Universe was about 13.8 billion years ago. A subset of those scientists believe an infinitesimally small, densely packed, super-heated region (point) exploded as the Big Bang, and other scientists believe that nothing exploded as the Big Bang.

The mechanics aren’t completely worked out, but Big Bang Cosmology is the scientific consensus.

Regardless of alternative models, such as a cyclically oscillating Universe, I am focusing on the beginning, that is, the origin of the Universe.

I believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old.

You are trying to sell us on a deceitful God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and seeking intellect, while creating a universe with the false appearance of tremendous age, placing a preponderance of overwhelming evidence of evolution having occurred as some kind of hoax. Your concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept; it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage the concept of evolution could ever hope to do.

For me, and not for scientists of the Big Bang persuasion, "faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen" ([Hebrews 11:1](https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm)) applies because my assurance of things hoped for is my Lord and my God Jesus Christ's triumphant return while scientists are not hoping for the Big Bang since scientists believe the Big Bang is an event of the past.

I’m pretty sure Christians “of the Big Bang persuasion” define faith that way also, the rest of this paragraph does not make any sense.

Scientists believe the Big Bang Theory is science. I postulate that the Big Bang Theory is based on faith. I propose scientists of the Big Bang Theory are more accurately identified as philosophers of the Big Bang Philosophy or Evolution religion, and I write this because of the difference between science and faith. Can any of you scientists rationally explain away this postulate as wrong?

Sure, the Big Bang is science because it is a scientific theory based on scientific observations, philosophy and science are two different things. Just because faith is involved in science, that doesn’t mean it isn’t science. One of the founders of modern physics, Max Planck said: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with"

LiveScience presents an excellent explanation of the term science at [www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html](https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html) with an essence of the scientific method including (1) hypothesis, (2) repeatable observation and experimentation, and (3) conclusions. This is pertinent to this thread.

Yes, LiveScience provides a pretty good rough overview of the scientific method, and that method is the process by which scientists arrived at Big Bang Cosmology.

Your post is unfounded and based on a contrived presumption that the theory of evolution in some way contradicts Christian faith, and it doesn't. The theory of evolution does not in any way eliminate the mystery of life, question the existence of God, or bring into doubt any of the basic tenets of Christianity. I certainly can’t say the same thing about your postulated God of deception.

As far as science is concerned, what you are contending requires a direct refutation of the most general principles of most of our physical and biological sciences. As a unifying theory of biology, evolution holds true. Its mechanisms are by no means completely understood but the evolutionary framework is absolutely central to science.

The theory of evolution is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of a profoundly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research.

Flat out denial of the theory of Evolution requires the concomitant denial of an astounding range of scientific disciplines, not just the disciplines of geology, paleontology, archeology, radiometric dating, genetics, and zoology but also such fundamental disciplines as physics, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics, biology, botany, microbiology, and meteorology, and many others. Because of the interrelated aspect of the sciences, you can't really propose that the theory evolution is false without being fundamentally anti-scientific. You can contend that the theory of evolution is incomplete, nobody claims it is complete, but you can’t really deny evolution and still be talking about science. If you could in fact, deny the theory of evolution, it would, in effect, unravel the world of science.

I’m sorry, but I think your post betrays a lack of understanding of both science and Christianity. I cannot accept your contrived conflict between religious truth and scientific truth because to do so I would have to believe in a self-contradicting God; and that is something I simply cannot accept.

Hmmmm, the oldest confirmed fossils are about 3.5 billion to 3.77 billion years old, consisting of microscopic bacteria and mounded structures called stromatolites.

Yeah but GODDO made fake fossils and all science is a load of bollocks and it deffo was a magic bloke what did it all 6000 years ago.

And custard monsters on the planet Foo Foo have fifty kilometre penises that ejaculate magic sperm into the FooFooian stratosphere, which GODDO harvested and used to create our solar system and planet Earth ...Yes GODDO is a mega-trifle that absorbs black holes and FooFooian semen, and shits solar systems and all life.

Yes the Big Bang was a colossal GOD fart.

Have faith FLRW.

Can any of you scientists rationally explain away this postulate as wrong?

You didn’t provide anything for us to refute, all you did was equate scientific findings with faith while providing no reason to justify such categorization.

Do you know where the big bang theory came from? Do you know why the scientific community accepts it? Do you understand the difference between arriving at conclusions via the scientific method, and faith?

Perhaps if you give us something to work with other than vague assertions we can help you understand where we’re coming from.

So it's fake science. You cannot go back in time.

If a ball rolls across your foot and you noted what direction it was moving in and what speed it was moving, would you not be able to tell where it was 5 seconds before you first saw it?

Also even if the big bang theory requires faith, its still based on the best available evidence

linate wrote: Saying the earth is 6000 years old …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

I admitted that mine is faith in the opening post of this thread.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. You have no good evidence for the Big Bang.

If a skeptic asked for the strongest evidence for the Big Bang, I'd focus on the observations that are difficult to explain any other way. None of these, by themselves, "prove" the Big Bang in the mathematical sense, but together they form a remarkably consistent picture.

1. The expansion of the universe (strong evidence)

In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble found that nearly every galaxy is moving away from us. The farther away a galaxy is, the faster it recedes.

This isn't because Earth is the center. It's because space itself is expanding, so every distant galaxy sees the same thing.

If the universe is expanding today, then running the clock backward implies it was once much smaller, denser, and hotter.

2. The Cosmic Microwave Background (the "afterglow") (arguably the strongest single piece)

In 1965, astronomers accidentally discovered faint microwave radiation coming from every direction in space.

The Big Bang predicted decades earlier that if the universe began in an extremely hot state, it should leave behind cooled radiation filling the cosmos.

That's exactly what was found:

1. It has almost exactly the predicted temperature (2.725 K).
2. It is extraordinarily uniform.
3. Tiny fluctuations in it match predictions for the seeds of galaxies.

This is often called the afterglow of the early universe.

3. The abundance of the light elements

The Big Bang predicts that during the first few minutes, nuclear reactions should produce very specific amounts of:

1. hydrogen
2. helium
3. deuterium
4. small amounts of lithium

When astronomers measure ancient gas clouds, the abundances closely match these predictions.

This agreement was calculated before the measurements became precise.

4. Galaxies evolve over time

When we look billions of light-years away, we're looking billions of years into the past.

Young galaxies look:

1. smaller
2. less organized
3. more actively forming stars

Nearby galaxies are generally older and more mature.

This is exactly what we'd expect if the universe has evolved over billions of years.

5. Multiple independent measurements agree on the universe's age

Different methods give roughly the same answer (about 13.8 billion years), including:

1. the expansion rate
2. the cosmic microwave background
3. the oldest stars
4. radioactive dating

Agreement among independent methods greatly increases confidence.

What doesn't the Big Bang explain?

A common misconception is that the Big Bang explains why the universe exists.

It doesn't.

The theory explains:

1. how the universe evolved from an early hot, dense state,
2. how it expanded,
3. how matter formed,
4. and how structures like galaxies developed.

It does not explain:

1. what, if anything, happened "before" the earliest moments,
2. why there is something rather than nothing,
3. what caused the Big Bang (if that question even has meaning).

Those remain open questions in cosmology.

How strong is the evidence?

Most cosmologists consider the evidence for an early hot, expanding universe to be about as well established as any theory in astronomy. Individual details—such as the nature of dark matter, dark energy, or what happened in the universe's earliest fraction of a second—are still active areas of research. But the combination of:

1. the expansion of space,
2. the cosmic microwave background,
3. the predicted light-element abundances,
4. and the observed evolution of galaxies

makes the Big Bang model the best-supported explanation we currently have for the universe's large-scale history.

Also even if the big bang theory requires faith, its still based on the best available evidence

SkepticalOne wrote:The universe is expanding - this is a verifiable fact. Trace this expansion back in time and you get to a single dense beginning 13.8 billion years ago. If not the Big Bang, then how does one explain the expansion?

You have a leap of faith that the Universe is expanding at a rate that traces back in time 13.8 billion years ago to a Big Bang, not scientific fact.

You have no good evidence for the Big Bang.

The case against a 6,000-year-old Earth is very strong from both mainstream science and from many biblical scholars. Interestingly, these are two independent lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion: the Earth is much older than a few thousand years.

## Scientific Evidence

### 1. Radiometric dating (the strongest single line of evidence)

Radioactive elements decay at known rates that have been tested in laboratories for over a century.

Scientists can date rocks using several independent methods:

* Uranium → Lead

* Potassium → Argon

* Rubidium → Strontium

* Samarium → Neodymium

The remarkable fact is that when multiple methods are applied to the same rocks, they typically agree.

Earth's oldest rocks date to about **4.0 billion years**, while meteorites consistently date to about **4.56 billion years**, indicating the age of the solar system.

For the Earth to be only 6,000 years old, every radioactive decay system would have to be wrong in exactly the same way.

---

### 2. Tree rings

Some living bristlecone pines have over **4,800 annual rings**.

Dead wood overlaps with living trees, producing continuous chronologies exceeding **12,000 years**.

A 6,000-year-old Earth cannot accommodate a tree-ring record that extends roughly twice that long.

---

### 3. Ice cores





Scientists drill through Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

Each year typically leaves a recognizable layer, much like tree rings.

Some ice cores preserve over **800,000 annual layers**, along with volcanic ash, atmospheric gases, and climate changes that align with other dating methods.

---

### 4. Plate tectonics

Continents move only a few centimeters per year.

At their measured rates:

* The Atlantic Ocean required over 100 million years to open.

* The Himalayas continue rising today after tens of millions of years of collision.

* Coral reefs and sedimentary rock layers record immense spans of time.

Compressing all of this into 6,000 years would require continental movements so rapid they would have released enough heat to melt much of Earth's crust.

---

### 5. Light from distant galaxies





The James Webb Space Telescope observes galaxies billions of light-years away.

If a galaxy is 10 billion light-years away, its light has been traveling approximately 10 billion years.

A young-Earth explanation would require light to have been created already in transit, raising theological questions because it would imply a universe containing records of events that never actually occurred.

---

### 6. Fossil succession

Fossils appear in a consistent order worldwide.

For example:

* Trilobites

* Dinosaurs

* Mammals

* Modern humans

No rabbits are found in Cambrian rocks, and no dinosaurs are found with early trilobites.

This orderly sequence is difficult to reconcile with a single global flood depositing all fossils at once.

---

### 7. Independent methods agree

Perhaps the strongest scientific point is not any one method but that dozens of unrelated methods converge on the same conclusion.

Examples include:

* radiometric dating

* ice cores

* tree rings

* coral growth

* lake sediments

* plate tectonics

* lunar rocks

* meteorites

* genetic mutation rates

* astronomical observations

These methods rely on different physical principles, yet they consistently indicate an ancient Earth.

---

# Biblical Evidence

Many Christians—including Catholics, Orthodox, and a large number of Protestants—do not believe the Bible requires a 6,000-year-old Earth.

### 1. Genesis does not explicitly state Earth's age

The Bible never says:

> "The Earth is 6,000 years old."

That conclusion comes from adding together genealogies.

---

### 2. Biblical genealogies often skip generations

Genealogies in Scripture frequently omit names.

For example, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel according to Gospel of Matthew intentionally skips several kings that appear in the genealogy recorded in First Book of Chronicles.

This shows biblical genealogies are often theological or literary rather than exhaustive family records.

---

### 3. The Hebrew word "yom"

The Hebrew word *yom* ("day") can mean:

* a 24-hour day

* daylight

* an unspecified period

* an era

For example:

> "In the day that the Lord God made the earth..."

This verse summarizes all of creation using "day" in a broader sense.

---

### 4. The literary structure of Genesis 1

Many biblical scholars note that Genesis 1 has a highly structured pattern:

Days 1–3 establish realms:

* Light and darkness

* Sky and sea

* Land and vegetation

Days 4–6 fill those realms:

* Sun, moon, stars

* Birds and fish

* Animals and humans

This symmetry suggests the chapter is making theological claims about God as Creator rather than functioning as a modern scientific chronology.

---

### 5. Early Christians were not unanimous about six literal days

Long before modern geology, theologians offered different interpretations.

For example, Augustine of Hippo argued that creation was not necessarily spread across six ordinary solar days and cautioned Christians against making scientific claims from Scripture that could be disproven.

This shows that non-literal readings did not arise simply as reactions to modern science.

---

### 6. The "day-age" possibility

Some Christians understand each creation "day" as representing a long epoch.

While this view has its own challenges, it demonstrates that belief in biblical authority does not require a 6,000-year-old Earth.

---

## Bringing the evidence together

Science overwhelmingly supports an Earth about **4.54 billion years old** and a universe about **13.8 billion years old** through many independent, mutually reinforcing methods.

The Bible, on the other hand, does not explicitly give the Earth's age. Whether it requires a young Earth depends largely on how one interprets Genesis and the biblical genealogies. Many faithful Christians—including the traditions of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and numerous Protestant denominations—accept an ancient Earth while affirming that God is its Creator.

For many people, the strongest overall case is the convergence of evidence: dozens of independent scientific disciplines point to an ancient Earth, and the Bible itself can reasonably be interpreted in ways that do not conflict with that conclusion.

Ive provided plenty of evidence. Even if i use faith, its based on the best fit for the evidence

Now, repent of your heresy. Or tell us why you have such contempt for truth, and why you choose to remain in your sin.

You have a leap of faith that the Universe is expanding at a rate that traces back in time 13.8 billion years ago to a Big Bang, not scientific fact.

You have no good evidence for the Big Bang.

Thats not a leap of faith, friend. It is an inference to the best explanation. Applying general relativity and thermodynamics in reverse, an initial hot dense state best accounts for the expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background.

You didn’t answer the question (I am genuinely curious). How does your ideology explain the expanding universe?

Sidewalker wrote: Christians can believe in evolution, most do I think, becoming a Christian doesn’t necessitate ending belief in evolution by any stretch of the imagination.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

But, I respond to your incorrect belief/faith about Christians, here.

Actually, distinct incompatibility exists between Cosmic Evolution (13,800,000,000 years) and Christianity (6,000 years).

Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:14), and the Word of God says “in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy” (Exodus 20:11) as part of the Ten Commandments.

Christians believe Christ. Christians believe the beginning of creation week (Genesis 1:1) is about 6,000 years ago. The calculation is based on Biblical record from the beginning until the birth of Christ added to the about 2,000 years after Christ’s birth.

Therefore, a person who claims to be a Christian yet does not believe the above Word of God (Christ) references to the creation account, then that person is not a Christian.

Christians understand six days is not six billion years, not six weeks, not about 14 billion years, but six days that the Word of God says God made Heaven and Earth.

Sidewalker wrote: The mechanics aren’t completely worked out, but Big Bang Cosmology is the scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus does not equal scientific fact, so you need to show scientific fact, Sidewalker, for your Big Bang.

Sidewalker wrote: You are trying to sell us on a deceitful God …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. You have no good evidence for the Big Bang.

Sidewalker wrote: I’m pretty sure Christians “of the Big Bang persuasion” define faith that way also …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. You have no good evidence for the Big Bang.

Sidewalker wrote: Sure, the Big Bang is science because it is a scientific theory based on scientific observations, philosophy and science are two different things. Just because faith is involved in science, that doesn’t mean it isn’t science. One of the founders of modern physics, Max Planck said: “Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with”

Perhaps a definition of the word “theory” would help right about now:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Obtained from thefreedictionary.com/theory

In definition 1, “accepted” is a synonym for “believed”, so you arrived at “widely believed” which is faith, not fact.

You do not have a Big Bang as a natural phenomena observed by man.

You failed to present a “group of facts” regarding the Big Bang.

In definition 6, the highly Big Bang relevant keyword “assumption” is found. You Big Bang philosophers admittedly make assumptions, and an assumption is “belief without evidence” - your conjecture.

You have a Big Bang Theory, a.k.a. Big Bang Conjecture, a.k.a. Big Bang Belief.

The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Sidewalker wrote: Yes, LiveScience provides a pretty good rough overview of the scientific method, and that method is the process by which scientists arrived at Big Bang Cosmology …snip

You failed to provide facts for your statement. You succeeded in presenting your belief (faith).

Sidewalker wrote: …snip I think your post betrays a lack of understanding of both science and Christianity. I cannot accept your contrived conflict between religious truth and scientific truth because to do so I would have to believe in a self-contradicting God; and that is something I simply cannot accept.

You demonstrated a strong misunderstanding on your part. I did not ask you to accept anything. If you come back, then do make an effort to bring evidence related to the topic! The title of this thread says it quite well with “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

FLRW wrote: Hmmmm, the oldest confirmed fossils are about 3.5 billion to 3.77 billion years old, consisting of microscopic bacteria and mounded structures called stromatolites.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. You have no good evidence for the Big Bang.

SatanLucy wrote:

Sidewalker wrote: The universe is expanding - this is a verifiable fact. Trace this expansion back in time and you get to a single dense beginning 13.8 billion years ago

So it’s fake science. You cannot go back in time.

Poignant. I wonder why it was blocked content.

Double_R wrote: You didn’t provide anything for us to refute, all you did was equate scientific findings with faith while providing no reason to justify such categorization.Do you know where the big bang theory came from? Do you know why the scientific community accepts it? Do you understand the difference between arriving at conclusions via the scientific method, and faith?Perhaps if you give us something to work with other than vague assertions we can help you understand where we’re coming from.

I requested of scientists to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. The statement is self-explanatory. Are you a scientist? I engaged in this very conversation with scientists, and they knew precisely what the self-explanatory means.

Double_R wrote:

SatanLucy wrote: So it’s fake science. You cannot go back in time.

If a ball rolls across your foot and you noted what direction it was moving in and what speed it was moving, would you not be able to tell where it was 5 seconds before you first saw it?

You confused human observation (rolling ball) with the absence of human observation (Big Bang).

linate wrote: Also even if the big bang theory requires faith, its still based on the best available evidence

So says linate, who posted no evidence!

I think it’s best to define the term “evidence”:

Noun ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 obtained from www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

Notice, you are right back to belief/faith, or the absence thereof, the moment you talk about evidence.

Big Bang philosophers possess bad evidence.

Well, I guess Kermos won't be showing up at our Big Bang Club!

I posted two long posts of evidence. You didnt refute a single point of it. Even if my position is said to be based on faith, that doesn't mean all faith positions on this are equal.

. I think you might be mentally ill, otherwise your position here is completely irrational and sinful.

No one knows...That is a fact.

But we do know some stuff.

And some of the stuff that we do know rules out the 6000 hypothesis as a universal creation event.

"Big Bang" is simply a metaphor that represents a more logical hypothesis...Faith is irrelevant...Whereas confidence is based on sound scientific reasoning.

Nonetheless, in the absence of ears there wouldn't have been a bang...Just a significant moment.

So in homage to biblical mythology it's perhaps best to say...Once upon a time there was a significant moment...No faith required...No angst necessary.

The Big Bang Theory does not necessarily contrast Christianity. God could have started Creation from a single point of light--in reference to the first words of the Bible--and let the universe expand from that. The BBT can still reconcile with a Young-Earth worldview. God starts the universe from a singularity and adds to it in order with the six days of Creation.

FLRW wrote:

Well, I guess Kermos won't be showing up at our Big Bang Club!

You are always out at the club, aren't you? 🤔