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

[Chinese Regions]

[/spoiler]

As I said, we can't fully understand his will.

remember, he gave us nice things like dogs (most are nice), rabbits, and orange trees. Many of the things he made are great and useful. We owe our lives to him.

I don't know why these people are still discussing this with you. All they need to do is take a quick look at your nation's motto “Prosperity through rewarding ability and reason” and know you are just fucking with them, lol.

Do you believe he's an omnipotent god, that he can do anything? If so the universe would be full of good things. The universe has good and bad within it, therefore god can only be good if he's not omnipotent, doesn't exist, apathetic or imperfect in his morality.

[Samuraikoku]

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/)

I'll take "okay, it's the hypothesis we got, and we have to correct the flaws" to "God did so because it's written here and that's that." any day.

[Jessjohnesik]

The whole 'god created the world in seven days' thing is utterly absurd.

[CTALNH]

God created the world in seven days?

Not even the Emperor is able to do that.

Indeed!

[Chinese Regions]

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/)

It does not violate thermodynamics, if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it wasn't created perhaps it was the energy from previous universes, the Big Bang actually says nothing on the creation of the universe, it just explains why
galaxies are moving away from another, there is no reason to assume god did it.

[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/)

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."

I understand, however this thread really is pointless (even tho this is all anyone talks about on NS). Comparing the 2 theory's is irrelevant to each other. It is like saying what bird fly's faster a falcon or a cheetah. I am more of trying to point out there are WAAAAY more options then just god or science, the world (outside NS) is not that black and white.

[Farnhamia]

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."

I understand, however this thread really is pointless (even tho this is all anyone talks about on NS). Comparing the 2 theory's is irrelevant to each other. It is like saying what bird fly's faster a falcon or a cheetah. I am more of trying to point out there are WAAAAY more options then just god or science, the world (outside NS) is not that black and white.

What option is there other than science? Seriously, what?

[Samuraikoku]

I understand, however this thread really is pointless (even tho this is all anyone talks about on NS). Comparing the 2 theory's is irrelevant to each other. It is like saying what bird fly's faster a falcon or a cheetah. I am more of trying to point out there are WAAAAY more options then just god or science, the world (outside NS) is not that black and white.

A falcon that isn't a bird, and doesn't fly?

[Farnhamia]

I understand, however this thread really is pointless (even tho this is all anyone talks about on NS). Comparing the 2 theory's is irrelevant to each other. It is like saying what bird fly's faster a falcon or a cheetah. I am more of trying to point out there are WAAAAY more options then just god or science, the world (outside NS) is not that black and white.

A falcon that isn't a bird, and doesn't fly?

With a little work, that could fly.

By the way ... viewtopic.php?p=14010247#p14010247

[Khadgar]

I understand, however this thread really is pointless (even tho this is all anyone talks about on NS). Comparing the 2 theory's is irrelevant to each other. It is like saying what bird fly's faster a falcon or a cheetah. I am more of trying to point out there are WAAAAY more options then just god or science, the world (outside NS) is not that black and white.

What option is there other than science? Seriously, what?

Magic.

[Tyriece]

I understand, however this thread really is pointless (even tho this is all anyone talks about on NS). Comparing the 2 theory's is irrelevant to each other. It is like saying what bird fly's faster a falcon or a cheetah. I am more of trying to point out there are WAAAAY more options then just god or science, the world (outside NS) is not that black and white.

What option is there other than science? Seriously, what?

Steady-state theory, The Ekpyrotic model, The big bounce theory, Plasma cosmology. Should i keep going? (EDIT) Did not see you said other then science. These are all science related theory's, how ever there are some religions out there that use the scientific method based on observation to try and explain things just like this.

[Farnhamia]

What option is there other than science? Seriously, what?

Magic.

Okay, but besides that?

[Samuraikoku]

Magic.

Friendship.

The Force.

[Farnhamia]

What option is there other than science? Seriously, what?

Steady-state theory, The Ekpyrotic model, The big bounce theory, Plasma cosmology. Should i keep going?

I see, you meant, more options than just the Big Bang or God, not science or God. I apologize for not being able to read your mind.

[Alimprad]

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?

actually the big bang theory has already been proved wrong, all ill say is at least the 7 days stood the test of time longer than 7 days

[Tyriece]

Steady-state theory, The Ekpyrotic model, The big bounce theory, Plasma cosmology. Should i keep going?

I see, you meant, more options than just the Big Bang or God, not science or God. I apologize for not being able to read your mind.

I read your post wrong and edited my response above.

[Khadgar]

Magic.

Okay, but besides that?

Solipsism.

[Modioperandi]

FOR SCIENCE!!!

[Farnhamia]

What option is there other than science? Seriously, what?

Steady-state theory, The Ekpyrotic model, The big bounce theory, Plasma cosmology. Should i keep going? (EDIT) Did not see you said other then science. These are all science related theory's, how ever there are some religions out there that use the scientific method based on observation to try and explain things just like this.

And those religious explanations come down to "God used the [insert scientific theory of choice] to create the universe" and then topple into the Chasm of Fail. If a scientific theory explains something adequately, adding God to it in reality adds nothing, except perhaps some comfort to a person who is uncomfortable with a universe that does not know who he is or care.

[Tsuntion]

actually the big bang theory has already been proved wrong, all ill say is at least the 7 days stood the test of time longer than 7 days

Yes yes, very funny. Would you care to elaborate on the claim in your post that matters here -- that is, that the theory of the big bang has been proven wrong? Your answer to that will probably be no, but it's worth a try. I am genuinely interested in the finding something that disproves that theory.

[Tyriece]

Steady-state theory, The Ekpyrotic model, The big bounce theory, Plasma cosmology. Should i keep going? (EDIT) Did not see you said other then science. These are all science related theory's, how ever there are some religions out there that use the scientific method based on observation to try and explain things just like this.

And those religious explanations come down to "God used the [insert scientific theory of choice] to create the universe" and then topple into the Chasm of Fail. If a scientific theory explains something adequately, adding God to it in reality adds nothing, except perhaps some comfort to a person who is uncomfortable with a universe that does not know who he is or care.

You do realize that there is more then just 1 or 2 religions in the world right? What about religions were there is no gods or gods are not important like Buddhism? When it comes down to it, religions are just philosophical ideas that groups of people share. I would advise you do some research on just what religions are out there.

[Immoren]

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."

I understand, however this thread really is pointless (even tho this is all anyone talks about on NS). Comparing the 2 theory's is irrelevant to each other. It is like saying what bird fly's faster a falcon or a cheetah. I am more of trying to point out there are WAAAAY more options then just god or science, the world (outside NS) is not that black and white.

Creationism isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis.

[Tyriece]

actually the big bang theory has already been proved wrong, all ill say is at least the 7 days stood the test of time longer than 7 days

Yes yes, very funny. Would you care to elaborate on the claim in your post that matters here -- that is, that the theory of the big bang has been proven wrong? Your answer to that will probably be no, but it's worth a try. I am genuinely interested in the finding something that disproves that theory.

I actually did answer that if you care to look one page back. Not that it is wrong, just that it does not document creation of the universe, more of just how its sustained.

[Farnhamia]

And those religious explanations come down to "God used the [insert scientific theory of choice] to create the universe" and then topple into the Chasm of Fail. If a scientific theory explains something adequately, adding God to it in reality adds nothing, except perhaps some comfort to a person who is uncomfortable with a universe that does not know who he is or care.

You do realize that there is more then just 1 or 2 religions in the world right? What about religions were there is no gods or gods are not important like Buddhism? When it comes down to it, religions are just philosophical ideas that groups of people share. I would advise you do some research on just what religions are out there.

Did I say that all religions do that? No, I said that those religious explanations that use the scientific method to try to explain things always seem to come down to "God did it using science." I would imagine that religions that don't have deities don't bother with the question.

[Ifreann]

I understand, however this thread really is pointless (even tho this is all anyone talks about on NS). Comparing the 2 theory's is irrelevant to each other. It is like saying what bird fly's faster a falcon or a cheetah. I am more of trying to point out there are WAAAAY more options then just god or science, the world (outside NS) is not that black and white.

Creationism isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis.

Creationism, as far as I can tell, is a very strange kind of headache.