The Big Bang....

[rocky_923]

I'm not new to these boards i just don't post very often. I have recently started my own search for truth and was hoping this board could assist. This may have been addressed in another thread, but I was unable to find a match in my search...

While the big bang is just a theory, it is a widely accepted theory. It is a theory with convincing evidence to support it. The big bang implies a beginning of the universe and time-space it's self. If we go past this beginning we have nothingness.

So, in order to create the big bang does this not require some sort of intelligent mind outside of time-space to create something out of nothing?

[axeplayer]

its like peanut butter and jelly.

Evolution without the Big Bang is like a fish without a bicycle.

Or, to put it more formally: If god created the universe, humans and apes still evolved from a common ancestor.

DanZ

no. thats not it. if God created the universe then the Genesis account is accurate. (because Genesis says God created the universe). If the Genesis account is accurate, then so is the fact that God created man seperate from animals, plants seperate from animals, and plants seperate from man. So you see? God creating universe = evolution is wrong.

[micatala]

no. thats not it. if God created the universe then the Genesis account is accurate. (because Genesis says God created the universe). If the Genesis account is accurate, then so is the fact that God created man seperate from animals, plants seperate from animals, and plants seperate from man. So you see? God creating universe = evolution is wrong.

You are making a BIG assumption here, namely "If God created the universe, then Genesis is accurate."
I'm sorry, this does not follow at all, unless you are already making the assumption that Genesis is accurate, regardless of any evidence or whatever other assumptions you make.

God could have created the universe in infinitely many different ways. Neither the existence of God, nor the idea that He created the universe or any part thereof leads to the conclusion that the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 are true.

[axeplayer]

You are making a BIG assumption here, namely "If God created the universe, then Genesis is accurate."

It does, afterall, say in Genesis that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." if God created the universe (heavens and earth)
then that would validify the Genesis account, correct? Its not that hard to grasp, guys. Its like this, if I wrote that I build a certain building, and then it was discovered that i did in fact build the building, then my claim of building the building would be correct. [/list]

[jwu]

It would validify exactly that part of the genesis account. That doesn't mean that the rest happened literally as described.

[Curious]

You are making a BIG assumption here, namely "If God created the universe, then Genesis is accurate."

It does, afterall, say in Genesis that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." if God created the universe (heavens and earth)
then that would validify the Genesis account, correct? Its not that hard to grasp, guys. Its like this, if I wrote that I build a certain building, and then it was discovered that i did in fact build the building, then my claim of building the building would be correct. [/list]

What if somebody said you built the bulding using nothing but sour cream and hazelnuts. If it was found that you did in fact build the building would this mean the rest was also true?

[The Happy Humanist]

no. thats not it. if God created the universe then the Genesis account is accurate. (because Genesis says God created the universe). If the Genesis account is accurate, then so is the fact that God created man seperate from animals, plants seperate from animals, and plants seperate from man. So you see? God creating universe = evolution is wrong.

You are making a BIG assumption here, namely "If God created the universe, then Genesis is accurate."
I'm sorry, this does not follow at all, unless you are already making the assumption that Genesis is accurate, regardless of any evidence or whatever other assumptions you make.

God could have created the universe in infinitely many different ways. Neither the existence of God, nor the idea that He created the universe or any part thereof leads to the conclusion that the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 are true.

There is also this to consider: Proving that some form of intelligence had to create the universe (forgetting for the moment that this is impossible) doesn't prove it was the Abrahamic God. It could have been the Creator God of the Inuits. Or Quetzalcoatl. Or the Deistic god. So while it may be true that "God created the universe," this does nothing to validate the statement that "God made Man in His image."

[galvis]

IF YOU VISIT .........www.spiritist.org
YOU WILL LEARN ABOUT THE BIG BANG CREATION OF THE EARTH WHO
WAS DESIGN, BUILTED BY JESUS CHRIST ON A MISSION BY GOD.
JESUS IS THE GOVERNOR OF THIS PLANET, HE CAME TO US TO SPREAD THE CHRISTIANISM IN EARTH.

GOD IS ALL LOVE AND HE LOVES ALL RELIGIONS.

[The Happy Humanist]

IF YOU VISIT .........www.spiritist.org
YOU WILL LEARN ABOUT THE BIG BANG CREATION OF THE EARTH WHO
WAS DESIGN, BUILTED BY JESUS CHRIST ON A MISSION BY GOD.
JESUS IS THE GOVERNOR OF THIS PLANET, HE CAME TO US TO SPREAD THE CHRISTIANISM IN EARTH.

GOD IS ALL LOVE AND HE LOVES ALL RELIGIONS.

And if you visit http://humanisteducation.com, you might learn a thing or two as well. (In fact, I recommend this site for everyone).

[steen]

no. thats not it. if God created the universe then the Genesis account is accurate. (because Genesis says God created the universe). If the Genesis account is accurate, then so is the fact that God created man seperate from animals, plants seperate from animals, and plants seperate from man. So you see? God creating universe = evolution is wrong.

Ah, but if the Big Bang is right or wrong, doesn't necessaarily mean that the Scientific Theory of Evolution is right or wrong. You are trying to make the two the same based on your firm belief in a 3rd point. A&B both being different from C doesn't mean that A=B.

So be careful with your claims here.

[steen]

Galvis, "Because I say so" creationist postulations don't impress us very much. Do you have any evidence for your claim, or are you merely saying that your wishful thinking MUST be a fact, just because you want it to be?