big bang vs. creation

flameofgod · Post by **flameofgod** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:08 pm

which one is real the big bang or the biblical creation of the world. i believe the big bang is more legitament then creation i mean at least there is some evidence for the big bang.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52750

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:20 pm

Perhaps God just created the world in a way that looked like it started with a big bang. After all, the rivers that God created on the world had riverbanks and sediments and everything that a river would have if it had existed for a long period of time. Things just LOOK like they are really old.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52751

flameofgod · Post by **flameofgod** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:25 pm

but then you have to think about the big crunch which says that a black hole compressed everything and then when it disipated it caused all of that matter to escape. and that the world was created the exact same way as before so that would mean that the universe is infinatly older then that

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52753

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:27 pm

flameofgod wrote: but then you have to think about the big crunch which says that a black hole compressed everything

Or . . .
You could think of Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52755

flameofgod · Post by **flameofgod** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:31 pm

but there is no outside source to varify that. im not saying god is not real im just saying that we may think of him in a way we should not maby he made the big bang and evolution.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52756

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:35 pm

I'm not sure we can really say the big bang is verified either when you take into account that the observations we see to hypothesize the big bang come from light that God created about 10,000 years ago.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52757

flameofgod · Post by **flameofgod** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:38 pm

but we can varify that the universe has been around for over 10000 year. we know that for a fact. so if god did create the universe then the biblical telling can not be correct.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52759

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:43 pm

Job 38:3-4
3 Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.

4 “ Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52760

flameofgod · Post by **flameofgod** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:49 pm

you are backing your agruments with quotes that have little or no crediblity no matter how well you may make a point it means nothing if it can not be backed by a credable source

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52761

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:57 pm

I realize that the first books of the Bible were not meant to be a science textbook. That is not the purpose for which they were written. But I also see scientific "knowledge" to be constantly updated and revised, and things we thought to be true turn out to be mistaken.

P.S. I hate it when people just answer a question with a Bible quotation, but it sprang to my mind, and I couldn't resist.

P.P.S. Welcome to the forum.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52762

flameofgod · Post by **flameofgod** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:01 pm

fair enough but just because the bible dones not undergo revision does not mean it is right or that it does not need revision. for instance all all the book in the bible were writtin down hundereds of years after the event and many things were lost in the traslation.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52763

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:41 pm

flameofgod wrote: fair enough but just because the bible dones not undergo revision does not mean it is right or that it does not need revision. for instance all all the book in the bible were writtin down hundereds of years after the event and many things were lost in the traslation.

The Bible hasn't gone through revisions? The same Bible from back in the day is the same Bible all Christians all over the world use? I say unto thee, nay, for the Word of the Lord hath changed through the passage of time, with the appearance of new sects, and with changes in political climates. Evidently, the good word wasn't originally recorded as 'perfectly' as it should have been.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52765

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:43 pm

It has been said the sum of the universe is always stable, the 'big bang' could not have 'created' the universe, it is impossible scientifically. The ingrediants must have always been there in energy or matter, the big bang only explains the 'evolution' but not its 'creation'

I accept however scientific evidence of the evolution of the solar system, galaxy and universe, quantum mechanics however I'm completley lost.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52767

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:44 am

Stasi wrote:
flameofgod wrote: fair enough but just because the bible dones not undergo revision does not mean it is right or that it does not need revision. for instance all all the book in the bible were writtin down hundereds of years after the event and many things were lost in the traslation.

The Bible hasn't gone through revisions? The same Bible from back in the day is the same Bible all Christians all over the world use? I say unto thee, nay, for the Word of the Lord hath changed through the passage of time, with the appearance of new sects, and with changes in political climates. Evidently, the good word wasn't originally recorded as 'perfectly' as it should have been.

I do know they have found ancient copies of some of the books, such as Isaiah, and when they were compared with what we have presently, there were very few differences.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52768

flameofgod · Post by **flameofgod** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:32 am

it is true that for the big bang to happen that the metter would already have to be there but the big crunch would explain that. it says the universe is a cycle. they universe is created then it is destroyed, and that continues on endlessly. that means that the material that made the universe has always been here because the universe has always been here.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52769

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:18 am

flameofgod wrote: that means that the material that made the universe has always been here because the universe has always been here.

at least there is some evidence for the big bang

So the fact the universe is there constitues your evidence? The same can be said of those who believe in creation.

In otherwords, the same evidence supports both theorys, And both are equally believable/unbelievable

might also add that in a universe that had always been there, We are part of this and always have been. It would make us' the concience of the entire universe, the universe then is now self aware, never dieing self aware concience - kinda like a god.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52770

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:07 am

If you read a history book about something that happened before you were born, such as world war 1, or maybe even something way before, will you not believe it as it is history? So why do people reject the Bible's truth while they'll accept pretty much anything else?

The big bang is a big joke. I mean come on, the big bang? Sounds like something a 8 year old made up. The theory itself also goes against many physics laws, such as creating matter from nothing. Only a super natural force such as God could possibly create something from nothing.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52771

Clueless · Post by **Clueless** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:09 pm

how can evolution be true anyway? over millions of years we gained organs that evolved in us over time? how could we live if our lungs didnt work completely? what about our hearts? or what about some animals that have special organs they need to life. like giraffes "In the upper neck, a complex pressure-regulation system called the rete mirabile prevents excess blood flow to the brain when the giraffe lowers its head to drink." how could such a complex thing like that be evolved over time if the animal would have died without it. if all the blood was able to rush to the brain, it would have died. our bodys are so complex, it would be crazy to say that it just randomly evolved that way. we were designed, we were created.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52777

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:31 pm

Clueless wrote: how can evolution be true anyway? over millions of years we gained organs that evolved in us over time? how could we live if our lungs didnt work completely? what about our hearts? or what about some animals that have special organs they need to life. like giraffes "In the upper neck, a complex pressure-regulation system called the rete mirabile prevents excess blood flow to the brain when the giraffe lowers its head to drink." how could such a complex thing like that be evolved over time if the animal would have died without it. if all the blood was able to rush to the brain, it would have died. our bodys are so complex, it would be crazy to say that it just randomly evolved that way. we were designed, we were created.

I like your observations, however I don't see them supporting 'creation'. Your argument is directed at disproving evolution, therefore giving the reader the impression the only alternative left is 'creation' without support for it. Your example actually gives more credit to evolution IF it could be demonstrated if the giraffe could survive without the 'rete mirabile' by laying down to drink or lowering the head slowly, had a shorter neck etc. etc.

Lungs for example are developed in frogs and I'm sure in there development they don't work completley.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52782

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:51 pm

scherzo wrote: I like your observations, however I don't see them supporting 'creation'. Your argument is directed at disproving evolution,

Yeah, I think that was her point. There are definite problems with the theory of evolution as an explanation for the orderliness that is found in life

therefore giving the reader the impression the only alternative left is 'creation' without support for it.

She was giving the reader the impression that her opinion is that creation is the only alternative left. She didn't say that she had observable support for creation.

Your example actually gives more credit to evolution IF it could be demonstrated if the giraffe could survive without the 'rete mirabile' by laying down to drink or lowering the head slowly, had a shorter neck etc. etc.

But the giraffe doesn't survive without it. What you are saying is that if the giraffe wasn't a giraffe, evolution would be demonstrated.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52824

Clueless · Post by **Clueless** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:04 pm

yeah, thats what i was thinking. you're saying if the giraffe could change then it would be able to survive without it. the fact is, if it didnt have the rete mirabile then it wouldnt be able to survive. and so what if im only disproving evolution? the proof for creation is in the bible, and you wouldnt count that as a valid source. is there another theory other than evolution or creation? if those are the only 2 theorys then if i could disprove one of them what other choice is there?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52826

sweetness · Post by **sweetness** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:58 am

Red Squirrel wrote: If you read a history book about something that happened before you were born, such as world war 1, or maybe even something way before, will you not believe it as it is history? So why do people reject the Bible's truth while they'll accept pretty much anything else?

The big bang is a big joke. I mean come on, the big bang? Sounds like something a 8 year old made up. The theory itself also goes against many physics laws, such as creating matter from nothing. Only a super natural force such as God could possibly create something from nothing.

You dismiss a theory because you say it goes against many physics laws and then declare that only a super natural force such as god could be a possibilty?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52847

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:10 am

Didn't you know one of the forum rules is to disregard almost everything Red says in a discussion?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52878

sweetness · Post by **sweetness** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:14 am

Haha... everything makes so much sense now

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52882

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:20 am

Yeah, it's been scientifically proven that positions Red argues for suffer as a result of his involvement.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2955, old post ID:52885