well if any of u r familiar with the law of conservation and mass, then u know that it states that matter cannot be created from nothing, or completely destroyed. so evolutionists say this, then turn around and say the big bang created the universe as we know it. WTF!!?!?!?!the universe went from non existent to existent in a fraction of a nanosecond! and where did the bigbang come from? nothing? nope, because if the law of conservation and mass is true, then the bigbang isnt. simple...
you people are thinking inside the box and are constantly clinging to your own opinions and thinking about what others have to say. i am a Christian and i do believe in evolution. what if god created the big bang? that he designed living things to evolve and stem from early ancestors. that he created most of you are approaching this topic with either science or religion but sometimes in order to solve something like this you need to attack it from both angles.
you also have to realize that the being bang theory isn't completely proven to be true it is still being researched to this day. thats why its only a theory...
I dont believe in God, and i dont believe in the big bang. They are both pretty out there. I really dont know what to think of how we first came to be. I believe in evolution, but im mainly talking about the very start. Like how like first got on earth. It leads me to believe that the first bacterias came to earth on a comet or meteor. I really dont know. Its so mind boggling.
@Hojoko: I think we could go into more depth on that one, because you don't strike me as the typical separatist (for want of a better term...I'm tired.)
I think one of the main dangers here is that since scientific theory and theology have been portrayed in diametric opposition for so long, that one learns to equate the two on several levels. And I think this is problematic.
Several people on these forums have made posts that specifically imply that they're aware that saying "both" should not constitute a "sitting on the fence" answer, but rather more a "complementary" view. As I've expressed it in its simplest terms, Big Bang theory can describe "what" and "when", whereas the story of creation can explain "how" and "why" if so required.
In this way one doesn't come to a fork in the roads, so to speak. This, of course, also requires a certain interpretation of the Bible, but hey, man's mind is limited :P
Now I'm a fairly ardent Christian, and quite frankly I believe that it takes more faith to say that there isn't a God than to accept him. As an engineer, when I look at the universe I see many many different systems working in near perfect unison on many many different scales. I mean look at the life cycle of a star. Look at the design of the solar syste,. I hate to quote family guy but "do you have any idea how complex your circulatory system is?" I mean even on the atomic level the universe displays an incredible deal of complexity. I personally find it a greater leap of faith to believe that this incredible amount of complexity "just happened" than to believe that something created us. I mean SOMETHING must have had a design, this sort of stuff just doesn't happen. Thats personally why I believe in God.
@TenaciousC: No problem. There are a number of other people on this board who would have expressed it just the same way
@donosld: Although I think I can see where you're coming from, I don't know whether faith is the best word here. Moreso perhaps you think that those who are atheist might be "missing out on something"?
This is a kind of argument that has also been dealt with multiple times on the board, but there hasn't really been much of a to-and-fro specifically on the perspective that you've raised. Again, many people (like me) will say 'well that's the way it is! ' and leave it at that, though that leaves this out:
When I look at the patterns we observe and the way systems run, and how equilibria form, I also appreciate much from it. But exactly what is it that I appreciate?
Throughout all this, I must remember that I am the one observing, and there is absolutely no way that I can imagine that I could remove myself from this perspective that contains an "I" in it (Moe would say this is "experiential knowledge".) This is why when I see things that are so complex that I cannot comprehend them, I have to first remember that I am finding my own limitations in my own descriptions borne from my own consciousness.
So rather than believe that things "just happened" and leave it at that, to say this is actually to acknowledge, either implicitly or explicitly, that "we are limited", and to leave it at that. And, believe it or not, I find this way rather liberating, and that's just the way my personal preference happens to be.
ok only morons belive in the big bang because think about it...the big bang could not have created itself and or a dense star to be left...but god defies the laws of time gravity and space...he is what he is its something of the beginning and aways will be
The big bang happened but it was god that made it happen. time is weird, we can still see the big bang we can see it to a 10th of a second after the bang, even though it blew up a long long long time ago. if there is et life the first sign of life to them is going to be the first thing on television. Hitler and the 1936 olympics.
Big Bang < Expansion of galaxies < New galaxies form < matter density exceeds critical density - Universe begins to reverse < matter is crammed into another hot ball of energy and matter (Big Crunch) < Another Big Bang... and so on.
I think this is a pretty plausible theory, but like all other theories about the origins of the Universe, it cannot be proven.
@Skyla, while science has predicted the "Big Crunch" for a very long time, recent observations with newer telescopes actually defeat this theory. Telescopes are finding HIGHER levels of redshift as time goes on. This means that the universe's expansion is actually accelerating. This seems to defeat the theory of the "big bang" due to the fact that if the "big bang" did occur the universe's fastest rate of expansion would occur at the second of it's conception, and it would slowly decelerate from that point onwards. So rather than prove the "Big Bang" theory, recent discovery's have actually broken major holes in the logic behind it.
i think theres a decent scientific/religious explanation to this. theres a quote from the bible in genesis chapter 1: verse 1
"in the begging god created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void." this is the big bang, the creation of the earth, the solar system, everything. god has the power to just snap his fingers and do what he wants but he probably created the earth though a method that is scientifically provable.
