I've decided to make this thread in order to address random questions that won't really fit in other.

First one. If you are one of the theists who believe that the big bang theory is wrong because you say you don't see how something can be made from nothing, can you elaborate how that is not the same stance that is taken by creation theory?

I'm a theist who believes that in the beginning God said, "let there be light..." and there was light... Sixty seconds after that word was spoken light had travelled 186000 miles in every direction, and kept going. I think that would be a pretty big bang.

That's one of my favorite quotes . . .

"I believe in the Big Bang . . . God spoke . . . and then BANG!"

I've decided to make this thread in order to address random questions that won't really fit in other.

First one. If you are one of the theists who believe that the big bang theory is wrong because you say you don't see how something can be made from nothing, can you elaborate how that is not the same stance that is taken by creation theory?

As Frank Turek said, "I believe in the Big Bang. I just know WHO BANGED IT!"

But something from nothing, & something from SOMEONE are two different things alltogether.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that the Universe hasn't always existed... because the energy is in a state of constant decrease. So, if it has always existed, going back for an eternity... it would have burned itself out an eternity ago.

Now, to say that there were a couple atoms, or neutrons (or whatever you choose) floating around in space, & happened to eventually "bump into each other, causing a massive reaction"..... well, that theory is self contradicting.
If there was no Universe UNTIL the reaction of these particles colliding, what were they floating around in? There was no space. Nothing at all. Which would mean these atoms / particles would have been crammed together all along, & would have exploded on their own, LONG BEFORE they actually did...

So the "bang by chance" story doesn't work.

Every reaction has an original action, or cause. Going all the wasy back to the one "cause" that just has always been there, & has always existed. (God.) The "Uncaused Cause" so to speak.

Yeah, it's a Supernatural explanation.... but it's the only one that actually MAKES SENSE.

There's no other "logical" explanation for the Universe.

I've decided to make this thread in order to address random questions that won't really fit in other.

First one. If you are one of the theists who believe that the big bang theory is wrong because you say you don't see how something can be made from nothing, can you elaborate how that is not the same stance that is taken by creation theory?


I think the bigger question is this:

How does the Big Bang prove something came from nothing naturally? It shows that something occurred and that the universe is temporal, and it does indicate that something did come from nothing, but what here shows that it occurred naturally?

If anything, the Big Bang is the most damning evidence against atheism, as it shows something occurred that has no natural explanation.

I've decided to make this thread in order to address random questions that won't really fit in other.

First one. If you are one of the theists who believe that the big bang theory is wrong because you say you don't see how something can be made from nothing, can you elaborate how that is not the same stance that is taken by creation theory?

Like daughter said, we're not necessarily opposed to the theory of the Big Bang. What we disagree with is what caused the Big Bang.

Secular science appears to suggest "it just happened". But explosions on that scale don't seem to have ever happened since then, in all the billions of years scientists tell us the universe has been around.

Looking at the theory of the Big Bang, it's almost as if the universe was spoken into existence (I wish I could remember who originally said that).

Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

I don't believe in the Big Bang (as commonly understood) because it doesn't seem to have happened. I used to, but I began to research it and found that I couldn't honestly come to the conclusions that I wanted to. It was hard (breaking my own worldview) but if I wanted to remain honest with myself I had to abandon my position in light of the evidence.

We have to be ready to abandon our old predispositions in light of new evidence. Unfortuntely, when copernicanism was proposed by Galileo, those in authority were not willing to abandon their assumptions about the world. They were too attached to their own beliefs to accept the truth.

We must be ready to change our particular worldview if the evidence calls for it. To do anything else would be to live in a lie.

a couple of random questions

Do you think creationism should be taught in schools? If so, to what degree?

Do you consider yourself a moderate or a fundamentalist?

a couple of random questions

Do you think creationism should be taught in schools? If so, to what degree?

Do you consider yourself a moderate or a fundamentalist?
Do you think children should be taught theories as if they are facts?

Do you think children should be taught one side of an argument without so much as a reference to the other side?

Do you think children should be taught theories as if they are facts?

Do you think children should be taught one side of an argument without so much as a reference to the other side?

Something has to be taught and what they teach in school is what there is the most evidence for. Also, it is not taught as a fact in school it is taught as a theory, at least where I went to school.

Children's parents teach them the other side of the argument, for the most part. How would you teach creationism? "God did it."?

For the most part what is taught in school as fact has verifiable evidence behind it.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It DOES in fact have everything to do with removing God from the hearts and miinds of men (ok, and women too -- :D )

Something has to be taught and what they teach in school is what there is the most evidence for. Also, it is not taught as a fact in school it is taught as a theory, at least where I went to school.

Children's parents teach them the other side of the argument, for the most part. How would you teach creationism? "God did it."?

For the most part what is taught in school as fact has verifiable evidence behind it.


Actually, as science & archeology continue to discover "new" things, Evolution keeps becoming less & less credible.
There's one single HUGE stumbling block that NO evolutionist or scientist can deny, nor can they find a way around it.... That is; DNA.
DNA dictates that NO species can reproduce after anything BUT it's own kind, & a species CAN'T "become" a new, different species. DNA is the determining factor of species, & does NOT change.
You can't cross breed 2 separate species, because good ol' DNA won't allow it.
DNA is the reason that People have always been, & always will be people. Dogs will ALWAYS be dogs & so on. (Yes, monkeys & apes too.... they'll always be, & always have been monkeys & apes.)

I have always wondered why only one supposed breed of apes "evolved"? & why didn't OTHER species OTHER THAN apes "evolve" into a more intelligent, "new" species?
Nothing about evolution makes ANY SENSE. It requires a great deal of imagination, and going against scientific TRUTHS to come with evolution on that scale.

I just don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist.....

I have a reply to this but will not post it because this is one of the few threads that has rules against debate that I've been to and I do not wish to break the forums rules.

Something has to be taught and what they teach in school is what there is the most evidence for. Also, it is not taught as a fact in school it is taught as a theory, at least where I went to school.

Children's parents teach them the other side of the argument, for the most part. How would you teach creationism? "God did it."?

For the most part what is taught in school as fact has verifiable evidence behind it.

So what concrete evidence is there for evolution? It's a theory, nothing more.

How would you feel if your children were taught the politics of the party you oppose, and it was argued that it was perfectly acceptable because you can always teach the other side?

The other point is that schools shouldn't be teaching any theory as if it were fact. Theories should be recognised as theories.

I've decided to make this thread in order to address random questions that won't really fit in other.

First one. If you are one of the theists who believe that the big bang theory is wrong because you say you don't see how something can be made from nothing, can you elaborate how that is not the same stance that is taken by creation theory?

Creation came from something - God. He is the uncaused-cause.

Order never resulted from chaos (big bang).

Creation came from something - God. He is the uncaused-cause.

Order never resulted from chaos (big bang).

Thank you for phrasing it this way.