systemstrike_7 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 540 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/07/1987 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Well, no, because in the Bible the earth was created first, then the sun, moon, and stars were created. In the Big bang theory, the earth is an insignificant spec of rock in some corner of the universe, and is supposedly quite young compared to the universe itself. In the Bible, light, and the earth, are the two oldest things "in" the universe. Everything else was made after the earth. So the Big Bang theory, and christian Biblical creation are like polar opposites really. Actualy, God created the heavens and the earth, some believe that the heavens are the universe and it says he created the heavens above the heavens, the world in the begining, was all water then he created land, . As far as being created in sequence, I believe that it may not be far off, cause if you look at the chain theory, and genesis, they have simularitys. I do believe genesis whole heartedly, look at the very begining In the Begining God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form, and void and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of waters, On the 4th day the sun, moon, and stars became visable, where created let the firmanent of the heavens devide the day from the Night, well the earth was being formed, and then starts, and sun and moon where created, well this could actualy fit the big bang theory aswell, The only gap would be the 3rd day where land sea and plantlife where created, which, honestly I believe is true, if it where a product of creation, makes sence, land sea and plantlife, hmm well oviously you need sun for plantlife and moon, but what if it's refering to algea? or all plantlife in general. Like I said I believe all the facts are neutral depending on the interpritation of evidence. Honestly it is impossible to know, I mean we know genesis is true by the Word of God, and knowing Jesus personaly, but if we where to see evidence of this, without beliving in God, I believe easily you get the big bang, apply a creator, and it makes more sence though. You guys are tugging at my emotions!!! Very understandable and a very good post Josh13. I look forward to reading more posts. Keep tugging guys!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 Just because there are two explanations does not mean they are equally likely. Let's say we run into some grass in a field. I hypothesize that the grass grew their naturally because the conditions were right; there were enough nutrients, water, sunlight, etc. You hypothesize that it was grown on an alien spaceship then transplanted there. Are the explanations equally likely? Of course not. Evidence counts. Ya see, this is exactly what I'm trying to say, Now, hypothesize, "life comes from life" vs. "life came from nonlife, and evolved into all life" God is life, so therefore life comes from life would prove it's self more valid by observation. Ya see the evidence is equal to both depending how you look at it. You look at evidence and see it how you would want to see it. Evidence? Life comes from life is more valid by evidence, and fact, than amino acids developing into a protien molicule, now it's the same all the way around. it depends on the one interpriting the fact. Now as far as your analigy, I honestly dont believe in aliens, and I do believe the grass grew naturaly, because a creator designed the conditions right, the same creator that gave life, so there for evidence? 50/50 depending on how it's interprited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus Admirer Posted January 8, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 75 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) I don Edited February 13, 2007 by Jesus Admirer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdrehfal Posted January 16, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 207 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 16, 2007 Well, no, because in the Bible the earth was created first, then the sun, moon, and stars were created. In the Big bang theory, the earth is an insignificant spec of rock in some corner of the universe, and is supposedly quite young compared to the universe itself. In the Bible, light, and the earth, are the two oldest things "in" the universe. Everything else was made after the earth. So the Big Bang theory, and christian Biblical creation are like polar opposites really. Well... Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. So technically the expansion of space occured first and 'space itself' is the oldest. This is also 'In the beginning' so we're talking about the creation of TIME here, most likely as well... To be honest as a creationist the Big Bang theory doesn't really seem unreasonable to me, as a scientific way of describing the way God created the universe... But each to his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts