Big bang theory?

[PennyKay]

Simple question:

What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?

 

[tarasan]

Simple question:

What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?

i think its the same as everyone else. except the 6000 years creationist, think it happened 6000 years ago.

 

[David M]

Simple question:

What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?

Most often: There was nothing and it exploded.

 

[YmirGF]

Simple question:

What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?

The question is in error as it presupposes that creationists have (1) understanding and (2) are in a position to comment on the Big Bang Theory. I would say the premise fails on both counts.

 

[HonestJoe]

What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?

To be fair, probably little more limited (and flawed) as that of any other random layman.

 

[Know it all.]

Simple question:

What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?

The big-bang is in-fact a direct scientific proof of a creation day and that is big evidence of a creator.

I say the religions have the "Creator" mixed up away from reality and science points to a more correct exposure of that real creator.

Even the point before the big-bang is viewed as a "singularity" as in one-unit which is the idea behind one God.

(Using "God" is an inaccurate name for the creator but that name works in simple human communications.)

When Steven Hawkings declared in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," then Hawkings is using the "universe" as a direct synonym for "God" as God creates from nothing and the Universe creates from nothing so the two are just different names for the same thing.

:bow:

 

[tumbleweed41]

The big-bang is in-fact a direct scientific proof of a creation day and that is big evidence of a creator.

I say the religions have the "Creator" mixed up away from reality and science points to a more correct exposure of that real creator.

Even the point before the big-bang is viewed as a "singularity" as in one-unit which is the idea behind one God.

(Using "God" is an inaccurate name for the creator but that name works in simple human communications.)

When Steven Hawkings declared in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," then Hawkings is using the "universe" as a direct synonym for "God" as God creates from nothing and the Universe creates from nothing so the two are just different names for the same thing.

:bow:

Interesting, except the "point before the Big Bang" is not the singularity, the singularity is our Universe, continually expanding from that original point.
And, as Hawking further states in The Grand Design, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
He is not saying there is no God, he is saying the necessity of God can not be shown.

 

[Meow Mix]

The big-bang is in-fact a direct scientific proof of a creation day and that is big evidence of a creator.

I say the religions have the "Creator" mixed up away from reality and science points to a more correct exposure of that real creator.

Even the point before the big-bang is viewed as a "singularity" as in one-unit which is the idea behind one God.

(Using "God" is an inaccurate name for the creator but that name works in simple human communications.)

When Steven Hawkings declared in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," then Hawkings is using the "universe" as a direct synonym for "God" as God creates from nothing and the Universe creates from nothing so the two are just different names for the same thing.

:bow:

Actually this argument is too presumptive and untenable. You equate "God" with "universe" in the early Big Bang epoch, but in doing so you strip the word "God" of its meaning.

Gods, as they're normally conceived, are not required. If you call the early BB epoch "God" then you might as well call a pair of socks "God."

 

[tumbleweed41]

.... then you might as well call a pair of socks "God."

My God has a hole in the toe.

 

[outhouse]

The big-bang is in-fact a direct scientific proof of a creation day and that is big evidence of a creator.

this is false and only your imagination. There never was a creator of anything.

God creates from nothing and the Universe creates from nothing so the two are just different names for the same thing

this is your lack of education speaking, nothing more

 

[Onlooker]

Simple question:

What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?

It seems to be the same as everybody else: ex nihilo.
Lambda CDM model- from singularity an abrupt appearance of expanding space time ......etc.
Torah model- ..."now the earth was formless and empty" (hebrew, not easily translated into other languages, but one interpretation is: "the earth was tohu and bohu"). The hebrew tohu and bohu is interesting. Tohu being created out of nothing, and bohu creation out of created objects [building blocks][and "earth" being the "universe" in this sense].

Both seem to converge on ex nihilo

 

[Engyo]

Simple question:

What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?

Isn't it a TV show?

 

[Know it all.]

... You equate "God" with "universe" in the early Big Bang epoch, but in doing so you strip the word "God" of its meaning.

Gods, as they're normally conceived, are not required.

This is in fact my intention to expose that the traditional and orthodox claims of "God" are severely incorrect and their meaning is very wrong.

Science gives new meaning to the thing we call as "God" as like the Big-Bang gives us a new explanation of the creation day.

 

[David M]

Gods, as they're normally conceived, are not required. If you call the early BB epoch "God" then you might as well call a pair of socks "God."

I just looked, I have different demi-gods on either foot.

 

[YmirGF]

This is in fact my intention to expose that the traditional and orthodox claims of "God" are severely incorrect and their meaning is very wrong.

Science gives new meaning to the thing we call as "God" as like the Big-Bang gives us a new explanation of the creation day.

The question is in error as it presupposes that creationists have (1) understanding and (2) are in a position to comment on the Big Bang Theory. I would say the premise fails on both counts.

I rest my case.

 

[David M]

It seems to be the same as everybody else: ex nihilo.
Lambda CDM model- from singularity an abrupt appearance of expanding space time ......etc.
Torah model- ..."now the earth was formless and empty" (hebrew, not easily translated into other languages, but one interpretation is: "the earth was tohu and bohu"). The hebrew tohu and bohu is interesting. Tohu being created out of nothing, and bohu creation out of created objects [building blocks][and "earth" being the "universe" in this sense].

Both seem to converge on ex nihilo

The hypothesis of Steinhardt and Turok (as well as being potentially testable) does not require ex nihilo creation of our universe.

 

[outhouse]

i think creationist have a hard enough time dealing with reality and logic to even start to comprehend the big bang.

it isnt even funny watching them trip over reality, its sad really.

even educated people are still two dimensional creatures living in a multi dimesional universe. This concept flys right over creationist heads and they just have no concept of anything ressembling reality.

the more complicated something is the more they reach for ole magic man to come bail there small brains out

 

[Kwebb]

There seems to be many agnostics in here. I don't like conflict but as a creationist I will try to give my opinion. I love Science, and the scriptures. I am no expert and I don't have the answers to how the universe began... no one does, only faith in something wether it be in God or accident. I personally believe that the primordial atom theory (big bang) is accurate.

Scriptures do support the fact that a day of creation was more than 24 hours, and they also support the idea that Adam and Eve were not the only people on Earth (in their day). You are going to ask me to support this by telling you where in the scriptures it supports it, but I am in the process of writting a book about this subject so I am not going to give away the information at this time. Oh and by the way, it also tells us when Dinosaurs existed, but you have to combine science with the scriptures to see it because the scriptures don't use the name "dinosaur"... and no I am not refering to the book of Job when it talks about the leviathans.

Bottom line is that I believe God exists and created the universe... how? I don't care... how long did he take? I don't care...

We all believe in something... even if it isn't a belief in God. There is a design to the Universe, and where there is a design, there is a designer.

 

[McBell]

only faith in something wether it be in God or accident.

I just love the way creationists cling to their false dilemmas.

Scriptures do support the fact that a day of creation was more than 24 hours,

Fact?
PLease present the source for this "fact".

and they also support the idea that Adam and Eve were not the only people on Earth (in their day). You are going to ask me to support this by telling you where in the scriptures it supports it, but I am in the process of writting a book about this subject so I am not going to give away the information at this time.

Cop out.

Oh and by the way, it also tells us when Dinosaurs existed, but you have to combine science with the scriptures to see it because the scriptures don't use the name "dinosaur"... and no I am not refering to the book of Job when it talks about the leviathans.

Another claim you will refuse to support?

There is a design to the Universe, and where there is a design, there is a designer.

Ah, yet another claim you will refuse to support?

 

[Thief]

There seems to be many agnostics in here. I don't like conflict but as a creationist I will try to give my opinion. I love Science, and the scriptures. I am no expert and I don't have the answers to how the universe began... no one does, only faith in something wether it be in God or accident. I personally believe that the primordial atom theory (big bang) is accurate.

Scriptures do support the fact that a day of creation was more than 24 hours, and they also support the idea that Adam and Eve were not the only people on Earth (in their day). You are going to ask me to support this by telling you where in the scriptures it supports it, but I am in the process of writting a book about this subject so I am not going to give away the information at this time. Oh and by the way, it also tells us when Dinosaurs existed, but you have to combine science with the scriptures to see it because the scriptures don't use the name "dinosaur"... and no I am not refering to the book of Job when it talks about the leviathans.

Bottom line is that I believe God exists and created the universe... how? I don't care... how long did he take? I don't care...

We all believe in something... even if it isn't a belief in God. There is a design to the Universe, and where there is a design, there is a designer.

Welcome to the forum....
And good luck with that book.

Been here quite some time and have been making similar discussion from the start.

But as you can see.....