August 25, 2007
-
Big Bang Theory
Ralph Alpher, the provider of the model of the “Big Bang Theory,” just met the Provider of the model of the creation theory. Here is the link: LinkDo you think that something as complicated as the world could just pop into existence without a creator?
Comments (132)
No.
its complictated, dan.
please learn things.
One time my brother, who has Autism said to me, “I don’t get it. If someone dropped an atomic bomb, a bunch of flowers wouldn’t pop up. So how can the Big Bang be possible?”
The kid has got a point.
That’s the problem. God is an Autistic child.
HA!
That theory will never get ousted, will it?
I have more faith in the Big Ban theory than I do with the theory of “God” putting everything in its place.
MEOW IM A CAT
No.
God had no part in creating Creationists.
Yes. It is more complicated than that, as someone above mentioned.
Beh, too sides that will never agree anyway. I will believe in my theory. You may believe in yours. =)
Only a creator could have created something so vast and complex
He kind of looks like Dave Thomas.
“Do you think that something as complicated as the world could just pop into existence without a creator?”
because we don’t understand something… it must have been created by a omnipotent creator?
No. It takes far more faith to believe that, then a Creator always existing and creating it.
I don’t think either are right. A giant bang didn’t create the world, nor did a sky wizard.
We’re all wrong.
I believe both Creation theory and Big Bang are compatible.
No.. It is far beyond to our understanding..
Plausible, me thinks.
Has anyone ever considered that since we will never truly have an answer it could be possible that both theories are correct in premise?…
Yes. I think the Big Bang makes a lot more sense than some ultimate being snapping his fingers. I also don’t see why God, as awesome as he is supposed to be, couldn’t have just set up the Big Bang himself, and set it so science and evolution would happen on their own.
I don’t think it is possible for God to be who and what men think and have taught. The god they have taught, a wizard in the sky, someone who demands bloodbaths to punish people or satisfy some sense of perverted justice, who commands some to kill others for religious reasons, who teaches people that some are chosen and the rest deserve to die, that says you have to believe this and only this to get into the exclusive elitist club of said chosen – is far less likely than the big bang.
That said, God is, though he is not the god people have taught. He is……well, Gd simply is…..
Of course not..
That’s just silly..
i kinda don’t believe in any of the theories. there hasn’t been a theory that i have yet to believe. but i can’t come up with a theory of my own.
besides the creation theory says that god put everything in its place etc. etc. and nothing has changed since he’s created it. but. that has been proven wrong because the galaxies keep on moving farther and farther apart.
You have such a way with words, Dan.
yes.
noooope
Both theories have flaws.
The thing that is so complicated to me is that God would create so many simple people.
No. Get this. It’s the idea behind Deism.
In the laws of physics, for something to be in motion, there needs to be something there to push it into motion. To ignite the flare, so to speak. This is Aristotle’s famed “Unmoved Mover” idea.
In atheism, people just accept that there are certain impossibilities that simply don’t make sense. In religion, people answer an impossibility with an impossibility – a force that exists beyond the realm of our possible world.
But I think the idea of a creator makes the most logical sense since you can’t just leave an impossibility as an impossibility.
-David
“its complicated, dan.
please learn things.”~freckles67
I lol’d.
To answer your question, I think it’s more likely than not that reality started without a God.
Evidence for the Big Bang seems pretty clear from Astronomy, Cosmology, and Astrophysics. I’m not sure if Creationists have reasonable rebuttal.
The argument from incredulity, that the universe can’t have just popped into existance, is just as applicable to God. Yes, any model for the origins of the universe and its inhabitance carries large amount of uncertainty. Adding God to the equation builds an extraneous step. Instead of having to trace history back to the point to just the event of the universe’ creation, it’s having to trace things back to the universe plus God. God adds no explanatory power. Having an all-powerful creator only sweeps all the mystery and the uncertainity that’s already here under a rug.
“Only a creator could have created something so vast and complex”~TH1SL1F3
I knew it was a matter time before someone said this.
Interesting that Creationists believe that it’s impossible for something as amazingly complex such as the universe to spring into existence or to be eternal, but it’s easily believed that god, an amazingly complex being, always existed.
no
And to say that, “It couldn’t, because it’s too complex” means to say that the creationist argument *requires* the subjective vantage point from which the universe is damned to a state of perpetual inconceivability.
Many phenomena seem like complexities to those without knowledge. Complexities still to those with knowledge, but certainly not enigmas. The Christian Creationist relies on this uncertainty; the moment science attempts to explain it away, the myth which had hitherto dominated is thrown into jeopardy. The Christian injects god into gaps in knowledge, and so when science fills those gaps, there is no room for a creator-god. This is what constitutes hostilities.
“In atheism, people just accept that there are certain impossibilities that simply don’t make sense.”
Sounds like Christianity and how they try to explain the Trinity, how god came to exist, and most of Genesis.
absolutely not
Maybe.
Yep. Though I think saying the world ‘popped into existence’ is a massive understatement. The Big Bang, if it happened, was the most massive explosion, ever
“Do you think that something as complicated as the world could just pop into existence without a creator?”
Even if you could prove that there was a creator, what does this necessitate? Who’s god? YOUR god?
Given the thousands of creation myths, you would then be forced to pit faith vs faith and irrevocably become caught in the crossfire of damnation threats, creation myths, and afterlife possibilities. Proving that your god is THE god is not so simple as proving that god is a necessary variable for existence. And I say that because, as everyone *really* knows, “creation science” is rooted just that motive. If anything, all you do is confound your situation more by trying.
“One time my brother, who has Autism said to me, “I don’t get it. If someone dropped an atomic bomb, a bunch of flowers wouldn’t pop up. So how can the Big Bang be possible?”
The kid has got a point.”~Completely_Compelled
Was his point that he’s a fucking idiot?
Because we don’t know how this world come to existence for sure we can’t assume their must be a creator behind all of this. Sounds like a sci fi movie.
“Sounds like Christianity and how they try to explain the Trinity, how god came to exist, and most of Genesis.”
It is a lot like it. You can’t explain how God came into existence, for instance. Because, according to physics, there would be nothing to “push” him into existence. I’m saying that religion is a logical belief, as much as atheism is.
-David
captain jaq
I don’t think either are right. A giant bang didn’t create the world, nor did a sky wizard.
We’re all wrong.
Even this case of you saying that we’re all wrong?
Being nice to all sides of a debate is nice, but being nice to the point of sacrificing one’s intellectual integrity.. well, is to me, generally unaccetpable. It’s okay to disagree! =)
I have never understood why God isn’t given credit for the Big Bang. Maybe both points are correct. I personally think God created the world and universe, and the big bang was a part of that.
You know what doesn’t sound correct? The Bible’s version of it.
I’ll echo freckles67: please learn something. Clicky.
Haha, I just found this family guy clip: origins for rednecks.
Direshark
In the laws of physics, for something to be in motion, there needs to be something there to push it into motion. To ignite the flare, so to speak. This is Aristotle’s famed “Unmoved Mover” idea.
Shoving this dielma from the universe to God solves nothing. It adds a step whose existance is less than certain. Occan’s Razor seems to be a good rule of thumb here.
In atheism, people just accept that there are certain impossibilities that simply don’t make sense. In religion, people answer an impossibility with an impossibility – a force that exists beyond the realm of our possible world.
I think it’s even to say too much to call it an impossiblity. More broadly, I’d like to classify it in the “I don’t know what’s going on” category. It is perfectly acceptable in science to say “I don’t know” and keep it that way pending further evidence
But I think the idea of a creator makes the most logical sense since you can’t just leave an impossibility as an impossibility.
It’s better to leave presently unanswerable questions unanswered than to insert any random (and potentially stupid) explaination.
Jiffipop
I have never understood why God isn’t given credit for the Big Bang. Maybe both points are correct. I personally think God created the world and universe, and the big bang was a part of that.
You know what doesn’t sound correct? The Bible’s version of it
Yes! Thank you! God and science aren’t necessarily muturally exclusive! Stephen Jay Gould would be proud!
“It’s better to leave presently unanswerable questions unanswered than to insert any random (and potentially stupid) explaination.”~huginn
Especially knowing in advance that the creator explanation will become a conviction, something of a sacred truth, something immoral to doubt — as it once was.
“It is a lot like it. You can’t explain how God came into existence, for instance. Because, according to physics, there would be nothing to “push” him into existence. I’m saying that religion is a logical belief, as much as atheism is.”~Direshark
You think that you can just decree that your god is beyond physical laws in order to skirt giving a physical explanation for your god’s existence? And then you call that shit logic?
People like to posit god as being in some sort of metaphysical realm and is therefore beyond a physical explanation, and must be accepted on faith. But you have as much evidence for this supernatural realm “beyond” physics are you do for your god: none at all. You know how people say that if you lie, you have to keep lying? Well, Christians have invented the nature of another world to justify a prior invention: their god. Reason is by nature incompatible with faith, and so god must be elevated to a position beyond reason in order to convince those who will be convinced.
If god is beyond logic, belief in him doesn’t qualify as logic, nor does irrationality. If he exists in this metaphysical realm, perhaps Christians can supply the atheists with their means for acquiring this knowledge claim, since it would be by nature contrary to our very idea of knowledge by virtue of its otherworldliness. Evidence supporting your knowledge of metaphysics, and why that knowledge is possible in a physical world, is also lacking.
“You think that you can just decree that your god is beyond physical laws in order to skirt giving a physical explanation for your god’s existence? And then you call that shit logic?
People like to posit god as being in some sort of metaphysical realm and is therefore beyond a physical explanation, and must be accepted on faith. But you have as much evidence for this supernatural realm “beyond” physics are you do for your god: none at all. You know how people say that if you lie, you have to keep lying? Well, Christians have invented the nature of another world to justify a prior invention: their god. Reason is by nature incompatible with faith, and so god must be elevated to a position beyond reason in order to convince those who will be convinced.
If god is beyond logic, belief in him doesn’t qualify as logic, nor does irrationality. If he exists in this metaphysical realm, perhaps Christians can supply the atheists with their means for acquiring this knowledge claim, since it would be by nature contrary to our very idea of knowledge by virtue of its otherworldliness. Evidence supporting your knowledge of metaphysics, and why that knowledge is possible in a physical world, is also lacking.”
Whoa, no need for hostility here. You may have mistook what I was trying to say.
A god is a logical cop-out, but it is a rational one because it explains something that no one has the answer to, and currently seems impossible. Call me naive, call me ignorant – but I think the question of how the universe truly came into existence will never be answered by science. If it is, I’ll gladly convert away from my deistic view into atheism.
I’m simply saying that atheists have as much evidence that the universe sprang forth from nothing that religious people have for believing that there was some pushing force. Nothing. Now, I’m not saying Christians, I’m simply saying the religious, anyone who believe in whatever “Unmoved Mover” they believe in.
Consider this – if the beginning of the universe is impossible, which it seems to be, then some people answer this impossibility with an impossibility. What’s wrong with a hypothesis? Of course, it’s an impossible hypothesis, but it’s just a matter of preference of whether you’d prefer to have an impossible hypothesis than nothing at all and waiting for science.
I can’t tell you that some sort of Unmoved Mover has for all absolute certainty created the universe. But, likewise, you cannot tell me that it came from nothing, with all absolute certainty. There’s just no evidence for either view, it is preference.
-David
i’d say that if their is an answer, you’d have to layer it many times with the “who created the creator?” question and so on for the ones who created them and such.
Huginn: “It’s better to leave presently unanswerable questions unanswered than to insert any random (and potentially stupid) explaination.”
Is it? Often times the way the scientific method works is to come up with the best possible explanation as a hypothesis, regardless of how stupid it is, and test it. Many hypothesis’s are stupid from the beginning and are proven false, but others surprise as being true. This is truly a matter of opinion, as I stated above.
The scientist in our example can lean three different ways – “Well I personally lean towards the idea of an impossible creator. The beginning is clearly impossible and so something impossible must answer for it!” or “An impossibility for an impossibility is still an impossibility! I believe the universe sprung forth from nothing because of Occam’s Razor. To give the idea of a God just seems less and less likely to me” or finally “I dunno and I really don’t lean either way.” Note that the last choice is, in fact, not atheism – that’s agnosticism.
And hey, I lean towards the idea of an Unmoved Mover, but I’m also with the “I dunno” people. This is very obviously not a question of who’s right and who’s wrong – it’s a question of whether you’d prefer to have a theory. Note, that if you are atheist, you too have an unproven and potentially stupid theory. Since something coming from nothing makes no sense at all, you are paralleled to the religious by asserting that you know the unknown, whereas they have their own ideas which also don’t make sense.
This is kind of difficult and almost pointless to write out, but I think you understand what I’m saying.
-David
-David
Awh man, I posted my name twice. I’m not egotistical, it was an HONEST mistake.
-David
-David
-David
I go with the “God spoke and BANG it happened” theory.
Direshark: I am not claiming that nothing came from nothing.
“A god is a logical cop-out, but it is a rational one because it explains something that no one has the answer to, and currently seems impossible.”
On what planet is that logic? Simply offering explanations for things that aren’t explainable *does not* make an assertion true or logical in the slightest respect. In order for a claim to be logical, it *must* conform to the laws of logic. Being a comforting, satisfying explanation does not constitute that conformity.
“I’m simply saying that atheists have as much evidence that the universe sprang forth from nothing that religious people have for believing that there was some pushing force.”
I have said it many times, and I will even say it again: atheism is not the advocation of any scientific theory regarding the origin of the cosmos. It is simply the negation of theism, and in that respect may also serve as a negation of creationism, but *not* as an advocate of an alternative theory.
There is an enormous body of physical evidence in support of the big bang. Before that, people believed in the literal interpretation of genesis (more than do now, at least). Take note that the scope of the role that god plays in the universe is gradually being reduced. When we have an explanation for the most basic origin of the big bang, then we’ll probably need an explanation for that too, and theists will no doubt opportunistically interject their theologies into that gap until it’s filled in once again by science. If that never happens, the theistic view still does not obtain rational status.
There’s been a lot of ground traveled toward explaining cosmic origins with the breakthroughs of quantum mechanics. Wish I understood that field better.
“Call me naive, call me ignorant – but I think the question of how the universe truly came into existence will never be answered by science. If it is, I’ll gladly convert away from my deistic view into atheism.”
Well feel free to think that. I believe it will, and I hope it happens in my lifetime so as to see that arrogant grin wiped off every creationists face.
“Consider this – if the beginning of the universe is impossible, which it seems to be, then some people answer this impossibility with an impossibility. What’s wrong with a hypothesis?”
I don’t quite follow exactly what your conclusion states. Clarify it and I’ll get back to you, despite the fact that you didn’t respond to any of my points.
In short, no answer is far better than a religious one.
“Supernatural answers sound deep, but the truth is they aren’t even superficial.”~Nietzsche
Is it? Often times the way the scientific method works is to come up with the best possible explanation as a hypothesis, regardless of how stupid it is, and test it. Many hypothesis’s are stupid from the beginning and are proven false, but others surprise as being true. This is truly a matter of opinion, as I stated above.
An explaination shouldn’t be taken serious merely because it’s an explaination. Scientifically, hypothesis are considered on its fragile scientific merits and even then it isn’t offered as a de facto fact in the body of scientific knowledge.
I grant that “God” can be furthered based on its supporting physical and spiritual evidences, but to accept an explaination because it is an explaination is, in my opinion, taking a remednous and uncessary leap of faith. Sure one may land on solid ground, but more likely than not, a shot in the dark misses its mark.
…Note, that if you are atheist, you too have an unproven and potentially stupid theory. Since something coming from nothing makes no sense at all, you are paralleled to the religious by asserting that you know the unknown, whereas they have their own ideas which also don’t make sense.
I have my own reasons for holding to Atheism, so my criticms of holding an explaination for explainaton’s sake doesn’t apply here. If you want to further pursue this point or am curious for my personal reasons for atheism, feel free to message me. I fear that posting my reasons here and now would open a can of worms with which I would be too lazy to follow-up.
If you’re refering not to my atheism in particular to the common stance of secular humanist with regards to the Big Bang, then I would answer that there is a body of evidence and support behind the Big Bang and that the theory isn’t held firm just because it’s one possible explaination.
This is kind of difficult and almost pointless to write out, but I think you understand what I’m saying.
I get the gist of it, I think. I’m pretty sure I’ve misrepresented you since I don’t think any reasonble person would hold to what I thinkyou’re holding to. Regardless, this is all a pretty trivial point since explainations for the origisn of the universe don’t really have any real-world impacts. It’s like one of those pretty things philosophers dream up just to pass time.
“On what planet is that logic? Simply offering explanations for things that aren’t explainable *does not* make an assertion true or logical in the slightest respect. In order for a claim to be logical, it *must* conform to the laws of logic. Being a comforting, satisfying explanation does not constitute that conformity.”
Nah, I’m not saying it makes the assertions true. I’m simply saying arriving at that hypothesis, or theory – that if something is impossible, then something impossible exists – is not an irrational idea.
“I have said it many times, and I will even say it again: atheism is not the advocation of any scientific theory regarding the origin of the cosmos. It is simply the negation of theism, and in that respect may also serve as a negation of creationism, but *not* as an advocate of an alternative theory.
There is an enormous body of physical evidence in support of the big bang. Before that, people believed in the literal interpretation of genesis (more than do now, at least). Take note that the scope of the role that god plays in the universe is gradually being reduced. When we have an explanation for the most basic origin of the big bang, then we’ll probably need an explanation for that too, and theists will no doubt opportunistically interject their theologies into that gap until it’s filled in once again by science. If that never happens, the theistic view still does not obtain rational status.”
Fair enough! I see your point that it might eventually be possible to prove the nontheistic view. I think it’s impossible…well, maybe. But then again, you think it’s impossible to prove some sort of supernatural existence. I somewhat do as well. But hell, if some divine intervention began to happen on Earth tomorrow, that would prove something. Though that’s the totally nonscientific way of looking at it. Once again, we’re at somewhat parallel views of this, but “this” is something that is completely indeterminate due to the uncertainty of not only the future but of the nature of reality itself.
Ultimately, I think it still comes down to justified opinions on both sides. I guess what I’m trying to say, is that neither explanation tops the other, and even if one did, it wouldn’t matter because sometimes the explanation that is less-well received and documented is sometimes the truth.
-David
“If you’re refering not to my atheism in particular to the common stance of secular humanist with regards to the Big Bang, then I would answer that there is a body of evidence and support behind the Big Bang and that the theory isn’t held firm just because it’s one possible explaination.”
No, I believe in the Big Bang. I am somewhat rational, sometimes.
-David
no, i mean seriously, how could it all have worked out so perfectly…the probability that everything would fit perfectly is so slim..
No.
However complicated our universe may be, it is still relatively unsophisticated compared to someone who can design it.
So the real question is, can someone as complicated as the creator of our world just pop into existence without a creator?
If your answer is yes, then you can answer yes to your own question, too. Either way, creationism loses because using the complexity of our world’s design as an argument will only lead to the inevitable checkmate that is the origin of the creator Himself.
You should post my answers to your stupid theologian questions, because I seem to be the only one with the right answer, every time.
But imnrdh is pretty close with “No”
Of course not….could anyone throw a big box of Legos up in the air and have them come down forming a castle?
“Of course not….could anyone throw a big box of Legos up in the air and have them come down forming a castle?”
If you do it infinite times, it could happen
Of course not.
My take on it — “God said it and ‘BANG’ it happened”
idc..i dont worry about it,im just ganna live my life before i die!:]
thats not even what it the theory says. the sequence was not Big Bang, then complicated universe. theres billions and billions and billions of years of evolution you’re completely ignoring by saying it “popped into existence.”
these posts about the big bang and evolution always call for huge paragraphs of ctrl c +ctrl v. And in the end I have only one comment to make.
people have too much time…stop copy and pasting darn it.
oh yea and to answer your question dan
I believe that it is logical that a creator spoke matter into existence and placed it all together to form the galaxy.
It takes more faith to believe that everything came from nothing than it does to believe that an all-knowing Creator made it all. The idea of everything coming from nothing is mathematically impossible. The chance would be 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. Like it or not folks, we were created.
Personally I think there are just too many variables for the universe and our world to be accidental.
Of course not. God created the world. He created everything. And it’s so much easier to believe than things as complicated as human beings, and beautiful sunrises and animals, could just spring into existance. Not likely. This world has a design. There’s nothing random about it.
The kid has got a point.”~Completely_Compelled
Was his point that he’s a fucking idiot?-Yosiph
You Cooolld As Ice, man. Cold!
With the big bang theory, I don’t get where it originated or what was before it. I’m not saying that no one has ever thought about it or that creationism doesn’t have tough questions to answer either, but the big bang theory to me doesn’t really answer what it is set out to answer.
Yes.
It makes more sense than “God” simply popping into existence. That was a ridiculously loaded question , Dan.
Things didn’t just pop into place… Things are changing constantly. And elements don’t just go together however they want to, they combine with other elements to form molecules according to their Chemical Properties. You say that complicated things have to have been created, but atoms do it by themselves all the time.
“One time my brother, who has Autism said to me, “I don’t get it. If someone dropped an atomic bomb, a bunch of flowers wouldn’t pop up. So how can the Big Bang be possible?”
The kid has got a point.”~Completely_Compelled
“Was his point that he’s a fucking idiot?”
That… Was the greatest thing ever. I’m going to treasure it forever
i dont know, cos its weird and confusing, i believe in god and everything but there were no dinosaurs in the bible and yet we have evidence for them on earth, so im unsure maybe there was a big bang.
There are so many levels of belief that simply saying that you believe one or the other isn’t fair. There are so many shades of gray in between. I’ll send you a link when I can find what I want to show you.
It’s possible, not probable.
sometimes….
“Of course not. God created the world. He created everything. And it’s so much easier to believe than things as complicated as human beings, and beautiful sunrises and animals, could just spring into existance. Not likely. This world has a design. There’s nothing random about it.” — kissthewake
That’s someone that never took probability and stochastic process. The entire world (down to the atomic level) is random.
I tend to believe the more logical theory that has peer review process and supporting evidence.
definitely
theres more proof to the big bang than there is to creationism.
No, something cannot come from nothing, end of story.
hello_insanity, as some of the previous commenters were begging Dan, please learn.
According to the Creation theory, God didnt simply snap his fingers, it was a six day process, completed with a day of rest at the end.
ChIcKaRoO831, where exactly in the Creation theory does it say that nothing has changed since God created it?
Personally, I find it it very difficult to be proud of myself as a human, judging that we are merely, super monkeys.
But then again…its very plausible you know…over billions and trillions of years for some fish to gradually grow yet another fin…and eventually, God knows (no pun intended)how long later. That fish with its newly acquired fin becomes different kind of fin.
Its so cool how these things work.
I clamor for these ppl who inanely on d subjects of evolution n d big bang as derisable impossibilities to actually READ d theories. There wasnt a monkey n then a human after an eye blink. There wasnt a ball of energy n then trees n dinosaurs. It took billions of yrs to occur.
I love d suggestion dat christians just cite god as d ultimate answer to anything. Well, they do, a lot, for a lot of things. Its reminiscent, if not akin, to d parental Draconian motto of “BECAUSE I SAID SO.”
Yosiph’s foreseeable “faith” war is dead-on. Wherein we’d have a celestial battle royale, which Don King would promote, doubtless. Tsunetomo in Hagakure advices us to hear of all ways to be more n more in accord w our own. Maybe we should try that here.
“It takes more faith to believe that everything came from nothing than it does to believe that an all-knowing Creator made it all. The idea of everything coming from nothing is mathematically impossible. The chance would be 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. Like it or not folks, we were created.”~ShortyTheChileHead
Didn’t realize your ass was a fucking math major.
Granted that you Christians make faith a big part of your belief, you can’t refute something by claiming that it requires faith to believe in. Not to say that *this* does. Faith is only required in the face of unknowns. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, so for you, it would take faith.
I think a problem is that we are adding a few unintentional prejudices against these theories. Those believing in a God creating the world automatically think those opposing are trying to break the spiritual fiber in society. They get defensive. I think those believing in Big Bang then take along with the simple idea of a God creating something then add so much extra, like living sacrifices, pergatory (sorry for spelling), and the general gut feeling they get they don’t like about religion. They get defensive. I think there are a few people truely looking at this question straight and true, without any unconnected interference.
My 2 cents.
No, I am a firm believer that everything is here for a reason:)
biased question, dan dear.
Guns fire because someone pulls the trigger.
Canons fire because someone lights a fuse.
Bombs explode because someone pushes a button.
If the Big Bang occured, then it occured because “someone” caused it.
umm…yes and no
it is very complicated.
do you think someone can just breathe and create things?
it is just as far out as the big bang theory
One question… where did this “creator” come from. didn’t the creator pop into existence?
“‘Do you think that something as complicated as the world could just pop into existence without a creator?’
because we don’t understand something… it must have been created by a omnipotent creator? ”
And because we can understand the mechanics behind in it means that it couldn’t have been?
How do you explain Love, Passion, Inspiration, Thought, etc.?????
Totally. How does anything else come into existence? I’m a painter- and an atheist- the ideas POP into my head, quite elaborately formed, the creation/painting analogy sucks.
Yoshiph… those numbers were put out by CARL SAGAN. Not by me or ANY creationist.
“Granted that you Christians make faith a big part of your belief, you can’t refute something by claiming that it requires faith to believe in. Not to say that *this* does. Faith is only required in the face of unknowns. You don’t know what the **** you’re talking about, so for you, it would take faith.”
Okay, you just talked in circles and made absolutely no sense. It wasn’t even a good argument. I didn’t say that my belief doesn’t take faith. I said your belief takes more. And you have to have those billions of years to hide behind, otherwise you got nothin’. Simply looking at the limiting factors of the earth takes away those billions of years. And no evolutionist I’ve ever seen, even Richard Dawson, has been able to refute the limiting factors of the earth.
“Totally. How does anything else come into existence? I’m a painter- and an atheist- the ideas POP into my head, quite elaborately formed, the creation/painting analogy sucks.”
I write. The ideas pop into my head. But it’s still my head and I still have to be there to create it. Stories and songs don’t just create themselves out of nothing.
No
If you call millions of years of evolution “popping” intop existence…. well, yes.
However I also believe that evolution could have been guided by the hand of God, and that creationism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive ideas.
This has been an interesting topic to read the response of other bloggers. Thanks Dan
BTW. I believe the world and we were created by Him and for Him.
no! how can a bang create all this beauty…we are unique and wonderfully made. our every cell is special, if you’ve ever seen a baby born, or someone die….we are so….precious,fragile…how can the grass, the wonderful trees,the air thats just what we need, the water….chow
depends???
do you think God could have been all that was and died? his death is what could have caused the big bang? thus in such a event our God may have been made by such an event??
Oh, I believe in the Big Bang Theory. God said it, and Bang! it happened. That pretty much sums it up.
I don’t understand how so many people can believe the evolution process/big bang theory. 1, in evolution, if creatures keep evolving, how is it that humans can give birth to baby humans? If the evolution process was true, we’d still be evolving from whatever “lower form of life” we started from, and we’d continue evolving into something more. Whatever. You athiests are crazy to believe such things! They make no sence!
It makes much more sence that somehow, every thing, down to the tiny bacteria and the atoms were created for a specific purpose. There is no way, just by sheer happenstance, that the earth is the only planet that could support human life. If you have ever studied any science, even just physical science or biology, you can clearly see that the way oxygen, water, everything, it wasn’t just “there”. God created it. ALL OF IT! God, who was, and is, and is to come, put all things (me included) here for a reason, and while we (or I) may not be sure what that reason is yet, he has a purpose for us/me.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” –Genesis 1:1
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” –John 1:3
There is no plausable way that something as complex as humans, the world, galaxies, and everything beyond, could just appear. There is a greater power, an omnishent, omnipotent, omnipresent God, who created it all.
btw, you should all read Ken Ham’s story. Google him! (Also go to http://www.answersingenesis.org) He started out as an athiest, like it seems many of you are, and while trying to scientifically prove creationism wrong, he came out proving creationism is right. He has a Creation Science Museum http://www.creationmuseum.org/ in Kentucky, and it’s the most amazing museum I’ve ever visited. It’s soooo well done! PLEASE go!!!
In JESUS’ name!
><> Allison <><
I think both theories are compatible, actually.
Interesting comments. I like the one that says “I have more faith in the big bang theory”…. That is so wrong. Science is not something in which faith exists. At least not real science. Science is SUPPOSED to be based on fact, not faith. Scientific method is to propose a question, propose a possible answer based on FACT, test the possible answer and when it can’t be proven true, then throw it out or at least let it stay THEORY and not hang everything on it in faith.
On another note, the Bible, supports the Big Bang theory. God spoke and BANG! the universe was created… He did not create a formed earth at the first step, read the Bible folks and think about what it says and how it describes the first few steps. Remember that the Bible is God communicating to us idiots in a way we can understand, not the way He did it exactly.
^^That’s just it, Papa… Evolution and the Big Bang are NOT real science. They cannot be tested, no matter how many modern evolutionists will tell you it can. It’s never once been observed and tested. Evolution is a religion. Not a science.
Given 4.4 billion years, yes.
not really, no
Why not? I popped into existence without a creator. Of course I was drunk…
I agree with john.
“Do you think that something as complicated as the world could just pop into existence without a creator?”
“because we don’t understand something… it must have been created by a omnipotent creator?”
Well, since I’m a Christian, I obviously believe that God created everything we see and don’t see…but I think that it could coincide with something like the Big Bang Theory. I mean, what does the Bible say that God did when he created the world? He spoke…..I don’t know about you but I always figured that God would have a very big booming voice…..who knows.
I think the world was definitely created by God. I don’t really care whether the creation story of Genesis is true literally or metaphorically, or whether evolution is true, or whatever. I do know that there is no way something like this could have just come into being without something planning it all out. With all that we have, and all that has worked out so beautifully and perfectly? No way it was just an “accident.” I’m dealing with this battle in my physics class this year…on the second day of school my teacher told the class that there is no such thing as intelligent design. :/ I disagree, but hey…who am I to tell him that there is whether he likes it or not?
No, there’s no just black and white answer to that question. The answer would have to fall in some shades of gray?!?
I believe that God is Big, and he went Bang. I think that just about sums it all up.
I agree with john.
“Do you think that something as complicated as the world could just pop into existence without a creator?”
“because we don’t understand something… it must have been created by a omnipotent creator?”
* 8/26/2007 11:45 AM
* dumbsavant
so just because we do understand something, it can’t have been created by an omnipotent creator?
and science can never address the question of purpose
so i dont know why scientists even bother trying with it
it can tell you How things happen, but never why things happen
Who’s to say that God didn’t set the joint in motion?
There’s a lot of questions in this hurr world…
I choose to believe that God put everything in motion..
i don’t agree that he met the provider of the model for the creation theory, because i do not believe he isn’t real.
…but then again, i don’t know that he isn’t real. it’s impossible to completely know. people who are absolutely sure that god exists are ignorant.
so in answer to your question, it’s not impossible.
No. Definately not!
I just don’t understand how this whole galaxy and universe could come into existence without a creator.
People say, “The Big Bang happened, because it’s logical and has evidence, so there must be no God.” (or they at least think that.)
But then…. what created everything else?
The fact that the world is so complicated proves that no creator could come up with it.
Just using your own twisted logic back at you
I’m so tired of the endless sea of ignorant nitwits in this country. The big bang is STILL BANGING, all matter in the universe is expanding from a single region of space. The big bang theory is an attempt to explain the expansion of the universe, not the existence of the universe and it has nothing to do with a chemical explosion.
Something as complicated as the world didn’t “pop into existence”, protons and electrons are not complicated. Atoms formed over billions of years increasing the potential for chemical complexity….
grrr, why even bother…