God created the world in 7 days? or Big Bang?

[Person012345]

Then I am condused by Helito's quote response to my question...

There IS varying levels of evidence and proof FOR the big bang, but nothing is concrete.

False.

edit: Although it depends what you mean specifically by "concrete", certainly by any normal usage then false.

[Dussault duke of Ravenschanze]

Haven't read all 35 some pages so don't kill me NSG..

Why is it that only the Christian God is the one who could create the world? I mean there are tonnes of religions in the world, and even more dead ones. So really who gets to say that any of those were anymore Right or Wrong? For example I seem to remember that Gaia from the Greek Pantheon just kinda popped into existence from nothingness (Chaos) just before popping out Oranos and Pontus. A little broad, but quite similar to the current theories of the Big bang.

(Atheist by the way)

[Person012345]

Haven't read all 35 some pages so don't kill me NSG..

Why is it that only the Christian God is the one who could create the world? I mean there are tonnes of religions in the world, and even more dead ones. So really who gets to say that any of those were anymore Right or Wrong? For example I seem to remember that Gaia from the Greek Pantheon just kinda popped into existence from nothingness (Chaos) just before popping out Oranos and Pontus. A little broad, but quite similar to the current theories of the Big bang.

(Atheist by the way)

How exactly is that "similar to the big bang"?

[Australian rePublic]

w

What's more unbelievable: a spec of matter suddenly exploded for seemingly no reason and created everything ever?

Or intelligent design?

Intelligent design. By far. The Big bang theory is even more believable (since that's not what it says) because it actually has EVIDENCE. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Observable indicators that correlate with the idea. Intelligent design has MY BOOK SAID SO to support it.

What evidence?

[Divair]

w

Intelligent design. By far. The Big bang theory is even more believable (since that's not what it says) because it actually has EVIDENCE. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Observable indicators that correlate with the idea. Intelligent design has MY BOOK SAID SO to support it.

What evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#O ... l_evidence

[Person012345]

w

Intelligent design. By far. The Big bang theory is even more believable (since that's not what it says) because it actually has EVIDENCE. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Observable indicators that correlate with the idea. Intelligent design has MY BOOK SAID SO to support it.

What evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#O ... l_evidence

[Person012345]

ninja'd

[Hasuut Inu Tlomaq]

IMHO no contradiction between Big Bang and creation...what was before the Big Bang? And who/what set it off?

7 days of 24 hours, though--no way. If one believes in a creator deity, by definition that goes to "intelligent design" ut too often ID is a code word for young-earth creationism and all evidence points to the opposite. Read the writings of Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross, or check out the Reasons to Believe website for a good view of a billion+ year process consistent with both science and Christian belief.

[Person012345]

IMHO no contradiction between Big Bang and creation...what was before the Big Bang? And who/what set it off?

7 days of 24 hours, though--no way. If one believes in a creator deity, by definition that goes to "intelligent design" ut too often ID is a code word for young-earth creationism and all evidence points to the opposite. Read the writings of Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross, or check out the Reasons to Believe website for a good view of a billion+ year process consistent with both science and Christian belief.

What created god?

If you assert that the big bang must necessarily need an explanation, then on what basis? Because I'm fairly sure that basis could apply to god. Beside which, you don't get to pull an explanation like "god dun it" out of your ass with no evidence and have it taken seriously.

[Farnhamia]

IMHO no contradiction between Big Bang and creation...what was before the Big Bang? And who/what set it off?

7 days of 24 hours, though--no way. If one believes in a creator deity, by definition that goes to "intelligent design" ut too often ID is a code word for young-earth creationism and all evidence points to the opposite. Read the writings of Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross, or check out the Reasons to Believe website for a good view of a billion+ year process consistent with both science and Christian belief.

I'm not a cosmologist so I'm just remembering stuff I've read, but prior to the Big Bang there may either have been a singularity which expanded very rapidly (one has to lose the idea of an explosion). Or there might have been a quantum vacuum in which ripples occurred that led to expansion. Anyway, I'm pretty sure no anthropomorphic supernatural being was involved.

[Czechanada]

IMHO no contradiction between Big Bang and creation...what was before the Big Bang? And who/what set it off?

7 days of 24 hours, though--no way. If one believes in a creator deity, by definition that goes to "intelligent design" ut too often ID is a code word for young-earth creationism and all evidence points to the opposite. Read the writings of Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross, or check out the Reasons to Believe website for a good view of a billion+ year process consistent with both science and Christian belief.

There's no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.

Time and space are inexorably linked. If you do not have space, you do not have time and vice-versa.

[Dussault duke of Ravenschanze]

Haven't read all 35 some pages so don't kill me NSG..

Why is it that only the Christian God is the one who could create the world? I mean there are tonnes of religions in the world, and even more dead ones. So really who gets to say that any of those were anymore Right or Wrong? For example I seem to remember that Gaia from the Greek Pantheon just kinda popped into existence from nothingness (Chaos) just before popping out Oranos and Pontus. A little broad, but quite similar to the current theories of the Big bang.

(Atheist by the way)

How exactly is that "similar to the big bang"?

Chaos being the void and the lack even nothingness, and Gaia being the world and Oranos being the Sky (and universe beyond in technicality). Having Gaia appear as she does and then creating Oranos is similar (albeit in a much reversed order) to the creation of the universe from the lack of even nothingness.

[Czechanada]

You see, the religious argument is going all wrong about it. They're trying to make the evidence fit the premise, and thus have zero validity.

The Big Bang Theory is a result of "This is the evidence; What conclusions can we draw from it?"
Seven Day Creationists say: "Here is the conclusion; What evidence can we find to support it?"

[Merriwhether]

Neither, because both propose hat you can instantaneously create something from nothng. Neither is better than the other.
I myself believe in an infinitely old Universe. Which law of physics, after all, says in no uncertain terms that the Universe, which is presumably exempt from some of the laws it administers (hence singularities), has to have had a beginning and an end.
As soon as someone comes up with a feasible way by which to explain how the Universe began (not nothing to something), then I might reconsider.

[Alternate Universe 912]

I know someone who is a stanch "young earther".

Personally, I have trouble believing that the Earth is less than 10 or 20,000 years old when we have not only radiocarbon dating but also erosion and tree ring data that place many geographic features as older than that, and astronomers can see individual stars that are more than 20,000 light years away. I suppose it can't be ruled out that much of what we call "the observable universe" could actually be an illusion created by God to hide his existence so we would have to take it on faith, but that just seems too weird. Of course quantum physics is often just as weird.

As for intelligent design, I'm very open to the possibility that God just got bored one day and caused the Big Bang.

I'm also open to the possibility there were other big bangs, we just don't know about them, and that life only evolves on 1 in a googol habitable planets, and we just evolved by chance because there are that many universes, or that God occasionally uses loaded dice.

[Immoren]

Neither, because both propose hat you can instantaneously create something from nothng. Neither is better than the other.
I myself believe in an infinitely old Universe. Which law of physics, after all, says in no uncertain terms that the Universe, which is presumably exempt from some of the laws it administers (hence singularities), has to have had a beginning and an end.
As soon as someone comes up with a feasible way by which to explain how the Universe began (not nothing to something), then I might reconsider.

Quantum physics suggest that something inevitably comes from "absolute vacuum".
iirc.

[Person012345]

How exactly is that "similar to the big bang"?

Chaos being the void and the lack even nothingness, and Gaia being the world and Oranos being the Sky (and universe beyond in technicality). Having Gaia appear as she does and then creating Oranos is similar (albeit in a much reversed order) to the creation of the universe from the lack of even nothingness.

I'm not seeing it.

[Kanaria]

Lots of people disagree on wheter or not god created the world or the big bang.Personally I am more of a Big bang guy because I am abnostic but must religious people depending on their on their religion belive their gods created the world and not the big bang.There is not a lot to prove that the big bang happened ot that gos existed exept the bible wich is not really a reliable source.

so God created the world in 7 days or did the bigbang happened?

There's a ton of evidence for the Big Bang.

^ this

[Tyriece]

Now i know how much everyone wants to seem smart on here so they choose the big bang (probably not knowing what it is) However the theory is full of flaws. Of course the 7 days thing is full of WAY more flaws. How ever, the big bang is one of the more popular theory's, but i want to point some things out about the big bang and hopefully people on here will be more open to other ideas and not jump on the bandwagon.


It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.
Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn't apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.

(Source http://www.howstuffworks.com/)

[Person012345]

Neither, because both propose hat you can instantaneously create something from nothng. Neither is better than the other.
I myself believe in an infinitely old Universe. Which law of physics, after all, says in no uncertain terms that the Universe, which is presumably exempt from some of the laws it administers (hence singularities), has to have had a beginning and an end.
As soon as someone comes up with a feasible way by which to explain how the Universe began (not nothing to something), then I might reconsider.

The evidence shows us what's feasible. Not "I don't understand that". The laws of relativity are what indicate a beginning, not to mention the plentiful evidence of the big bang. The steady-state universe was discredited a long time ago, so what form of "infinite universe" are you talking about?

[Chinese Regions]

w

Intelligent design. By far. The Big bang theory is even more believable (since that's not what it says) because it actually has EVIDENCE. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Observable indicators that correlate with the idea. Intelligent design has MY BOOK SAID SO to support it.

What evidence?

Galaxies are moving away from one another.

[Immoren]

It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing.

Not necessarily from nothing, but from single point.

Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Gravity can't organize things?

[CTALNH]

God created the world in seven days?

[Samuraikoku]

God created the world in seven days?

Not even the Emperor is able to do that.

[Farnhamia]

Now i know how much everyone wants to seem smart on here so they choose the big bang (probably not knowing what it is) However the theory is full of flaws. Of course the 7 days thing is full of WAY more flaws. How ever, the big bang is one of the more popular theory's, but i want to point some things out about the big bang and hopefully people on here will be more open to other ideas and not jump on the bandwagon.


It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.
Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn't apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.

(Source http://www.howstuffworks.com/)

No one says the Big Bang theory is perfect. Of course there are critics and criticism. The point is, the Big Bang theory is derived from observational evidence. Creationism is derived from "holy texts."