Evidence of Biblical creation?

Question

Lots of people go onto the science section just to answer "god did it" every time Big Bang comes up.
Now I have an extremely good grasp of the evidence for the big bang and that evidence is of exceptional quality.
If you believe 100% in a creationist start to the universe, show me hard evidence that I can check please.
And don't use ID because in most cases it based on an incorrect interpretation of evolution.
Good luck.

TROLL: Consider this a court case. I have evidence for the big bang, where is the evidence for the other side.

michele s. Thanks for the reply. Evidence for big bang try, Cosmological redshift, CMBR, WMAP data, Flatness of space ect

♪DogsDie In HotCars♪
Thanks for the reply. If you believe because you have faith, that's fine and I understand but others have attacked the cosmological model on yahoo answers and I want their evidence as they don't believe the evidence I and others are giving.

Keep them coming.

HotDockett.
You have entirely confirmed my point because you're just ranting not giving me hard testable evidence. I would also point out that Big Bang theory does not in ANY WAY violent the laws of physics. If it does can you please explain which ones.

amansscientiae
No it's a cosmology question but there does not seem to be a cosmology section ! I'm not bashing religion, just pointing out then in many of the cosmology questions people answer with a very strong religious bias and I would just like to see the evidence that they claim to have.

Irv S
Thanks for you answer. In answer to you questions
a. what caused the initial singularity?
Not some thing that is covered by the Big Bang. Could have been god, might have been some sort of quantum effect which is possible physically but very unlikely.
b. what guided the breaking of symmetry as they occurred?
This is currently being tested but it looks like that symmetry holds at the Tev level. In which case, and this is how i understand it, the breakdown is caused by the drop in energy density much the same way that as the forces separated. However this is still be comfirmed.

Answer 1

It's really just a matter of faith...

Once you have a relationship with God, you'll just 'know' and you won't really be able to explain it rationally. Until then, both science and a belief in God are both theories, and it's up to you which theory you believe.

Answer 2

On the BB theory. The evidence is..the cosmic background radiation..its wavelength is about 2mm. Anyone know the temp of that radiation?(show working please)..the observed redshift (maybe some of you could show how the H const relates to the age of the universe since BB) and the H/He ratio which relates the window( time, size, age and temp of the universe) in which the fusion could take place considering it would occur between the time when the strong/coul forces crystallized out and when the universe had cooled below the necessary temp. (I worked this out in a previous article..anyone on here?)
Finally, the BB time itself is a period at which the GUT does break down that does not invalidate its existence.
There is good evidence that there are at least eleven dimensions of spacetime and seven of these are compacted below 10^-35m. At/Pre BB three of these crystalised out (string theory attempts to explain this). But the implication as I interpret it is that pre BB, the mass/energy of the universe would have been evenly partioned among these dimensions and actually would have been cooler and paradoxically(!) of greater volume and smaller density (thus escaping the infinities prob at the mom of BB)
My best guess is that this 'eleven space' existed indeterminitely (no time -so no before) without causality as this only begins with the nascent universe.
GOD is not needed for TOE
Jeez I just blew away Aristotle, Aquinas and Anselm with cosmology. If there wasn't a god b4..there is now!

Answer 3

The Biblical creation story is a nice story. It is not a theory because, as such, it cannot explain the observations.

Also, what people use (especially in North America) is a translation of a translation of an adaptation of a... I'd be surprised that what does get quoted here as "Biblical text" is anywhere near what the original text says.

Creationism is itself a recent creation designed to get religion back in schools because religious leaders know very well that if you can poson a mind before puberty, chance are good that it will remain poisoned for life. Intelligent people who learn science end up asking so many questions about their religion and that can be annoying.

However, the Primeval Atom hypothesis (created by a Christian priest and later named "Big Bang" by its opponents) is silent as to how creation took place and why there was a creation.

It simply describes how the universe evolves from an initial state where the energy density is boundless and cools down as it expands. It is very good at explaining what we observe in space (e.g., the forces, the matter, the primeval mix of hydrogen and helium, the microwave background radiation...)

Evolution (of species) is something very different.

Answer 4

Many Christians like myself have no problem with a big bang, or God working in an evolutionary process. Day is used figuratively for a period of time in many scriptures, and the day/age theory of the creation believes there can be millions to billions of years between the days. The order for the creation parallels the same order science gives. First comes the heavens (stars, etc.), then an empty earth without form, then land followed by oceans, then plant life followed by the first intelligent life in the sea, then comes birds (which according to science are descendants of dinosaurs), then mammals, then a more specific wild animal, and finally man. It's actually amazing that it gives an order 3,000 plus years before science confirms that same order. Adam is not created until after the seventh day, and the day/age theory believes the man created on the sixth day is not the same as Adam who is first mentioned after the seventh day. That allows for cave men, and explains where Adam and Eve's children found wives, since there were people before them. As far as intelligent design, when some Christians latch onto a world that is 6,000 years old, the thought of "not intelligent" comes to my mind. They need to be convinced that science is not the enemy, that science actually corroborates the biblical order. Likewise, non-religionists need to explain how Genesis came up with the same order as science, considering how that might relate to intelligent design. Now, creation scientists come up with things that regular scientists will not agree with. Before you fully accept what you have been taught, you need to see what regular scientists say on that subject. Also, if you got any of that from Kent Hovind's ministry, he is a fraud and has intentionally misrepresented science at many fronts. He just a con man taking people's money who has lied about all kinds of things, including his education. He got his doctorate from a mail order diploma mill that has no faculty and questionable standards. He and his wife got prison because they were committing tax fraud, putting money in many banks in less than 10,000 deposits so it would not be reported to the IRS.

Answer 5

heres fact If you believe in the big bang then you must also believe we evolved from apes right ? If that was the case then why are not apes still evolving. I am not trying decieve you but let you in on a little reality. I am a survivor of death and seen the truth. there is a God there is a heaven and there is a Hell. Earth is only a place where we can choose where we want to spend eternity. No one really dies only the earthly body does the spirit life force within you lives forever . Jesus is the only way to enter heaven if you want hard evidence let me send you an e-mail . I assure you you will believe in creation

Answer 6

You misunderstand what the debate is about.
Evolutionists and creationists have *exactly the same* evidence, which exists in the present.
Each side has different assumptions and interprets the evidence within a different worldview.
I have looked at the evidence across many fields and have found that the creationist interpretation of the evidence is invariably better.

Please provide an example of where you think the evolutionary explanation is superior.

Here is an example: the rocks and fossils. We see the earth covered in vast amount of sedimentary rock, laid down by water, containing billions of dead things.
This is exactly what one would expect to see from the creationists point of view - a result of the Global Flood. Further, there is much evidence that the rocks were laid down quickly (the fact that animals were buried rather than being eaten, tightly folded strata, polystrate fossils, etc).

Further the fossils that we find show statis of type, and extinction - exactly as predicted by creation. They absolutely do not show a transition of one kind of animal to another.

This just scratches the surface.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3007/

If you really think creation is unable to explain the observed evidence then I doubt you have seriously considered what creationists actually say.
I recommend a site such as http://www.creationontheweb.com/
or http://www.answersingenesis.org/

And if you think that evolutionists have good evidence of the Big Bang then you clearly haven't even read what secular evolutionists have to say about it!
Concepts such as inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc have been invented to try and make it work - many people only put up with it because they would rather believe anything than accept that creation might be true.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3051/
But that's not a scienctific position - that's religion :)

Answer 7

As an atheist myself I'm probably not best placed to answer this, and I'm not sure whether hard evidence exists but there are a handful of theories.

I've recently read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins , and in it he cites some of the most popular arguments for creationism as:

- The Thomas Aquinas "Proofs" - 13th Century theory. Basically there must have been a time when nothing existed. As physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence (eg. God)

- The Ontological Argument - "...Is it possible to conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Even an atheist can conceive of such a superlative being, though would deny its existence in the real world. But, goes the argument, a being that doesn't exist in the real world is, by that very fact, less than perfect. Therefore we have a contradiction and, hey presto, God exists!". (Genius...)

Doesn't really answer your question but worth posting for the LOL factor. Apologies to all "believers" for my blatant cynicism

Answer 8

Wow! Michele s., you actually believe that a woman has one more rib than a man? Really? You REALLY believe that???? C'mon, you can't be serious.

Earl d. - The Big Bang was not, repeat not a fusion explosion. It wasn't really even an explosion, it was an expansion.

"The trouble with most folks ain't so much ignorance, as knowin' so many things that ain't so." Josh Billings, early 20th century humorist

Answer 9

Nice Question - I have over 4,000 pages of data.
100 scientific evidences for a young Earth. Eg Height of mountains on the moon indicates less than 20,000 years old... cos all rocks flow to flatness.
Decay of Earth Magnetic field means we would have been on molten lava less than 50,000 years ago.
Quantities of salts in sea.
The singularity to diverse temperatures demands more faith than any Christian ever had!
Renowned Researcher and Cosmologist Roger Penrose has calculated that the chances of situations permitting suns to form is less than on in ten to the power ten to the power 30.
1 followed by a million (say it five times) zeros.
Picture this number.
1 million zeros - 1.58 miles Village size.
1 million million - 1.58 million miles - Moon Orbit size
1 million million million - Encircles our local star group
The final figure encircles our galaxy 400,000 times and requires a light beam to travel for over 300,000 years to trace just one circuit.
Your Faith is Amazing - I have seen the dead raised with my small faith. Wow - if only I had yours. Smile.
Footnote.. dead raising is easy.. I know of thousands in last 3 decades. What is amazing is lack of media interest.

Answer 10

in response to azteccameron1 question about temp of the microwave background. The equation for temp is
"max Wavelength*temp=2.93*10^-3"

so from this we have 2.93*10^-3/2*10^-3=temp

so temp = 1.465 Kelvin

Answer 11

One of the few things that are constant, thats the idea of mad creationists, who with nothing but their blind faith,say that gOD did it!!!
When i say prove it!
I get vilified as some demon worshipper.
It's no good expecting a book written so long ago is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth,cos it aint!!!
Look to science for the answers. we are living in the 21st century. the dark ages are long gone.