AiG Weekly News: Did God use the big bang to bring the universe into existence?

The answer is no, of course.  This article points out that the order of creation in Genesis differs from the order of creation in the big bang theory.  They both cannot be true so Christians must choose which to believe.  I have often joked that God uses the big bang — “God says bang and things were created”.  I probably should not say this, even as an obvious joke.

Click the link here to read the article yourself:  AiG Weekly News


8 Responses to AiG Weekly News: Did God use the big bang to bring the universe into existence?

  1. Matt says:

    Heh. Those silly AiG people, always good for a laugh.


  2. Tom says:

    Hi Matt,

    Check out this post. It is about an upcoming Ben Stein movie. Let me know what you think.>


  3. Matt says:

    I think Stein is setting up a movie based on bad arguments and dishonesty – such as the assistant producer of the film outright lying to those he interviews. Not exactly a big help towards their credibility.


  4. Tom says:

    Please explain what you mean by the assistant producer lying to those he interviews?

    This is a new claim to me so I want to know more about what you are saying.


  5. Matt says:

    The account given by one person interviewed for the project:


  6. Dan says:

    Scientist assume the general public, such as myself, have no clue or are
    less educated or inquisitive then they are.

    They all have lied to us for our entire lives. The so called “sharpest minds” are lying to
    themselves and everyone else. There are holes in your Big Bang theory. There is NO evidence at all for Evolution (macro) and scientists insists they are all right in there theories which they are not. 140 years ago they used to bleed people to cure them and the Bible in Leviticus 17:11 says that blood is life, that was over 2800 years ago.

    Scientist religion of naturalism is so flawed. Lets start with Big Bang and how come no scientist in the world can answer the logical questions posed. They want to force feed us illogical theories.

    Lets see of this is true for big bang theory,

    big bang problem #1: Missing antimatter problem. (baryon number) How much in the universe, ZERO. One exception is not an answer either.

    big bang problem #2: Monopoles problem. Batteries have +/- and at high temperatures greater then the core of a star can create singular poles and the big bang started at infinite temperature and that would be hot enough. Guess how many we find ZERO.

    big bang problem #3: Singularity point problem. The Big Bang DOES NOT even explain the origin of the universe. How did that singular point get there?

    You said “The theory is based on the mathematical equations,” Really?

    big bang problem #4:Known physics breaks down in this situation. General relativity powerful gravitational fields) and quantum mechanics (very small situation) exists separately but there is NO physics currently that can explain both situations at the same time which is what the Big Bang requires. Known physics cannot describe that (big bang) situation so big banger’s take it on BLIND FAITH that if such physics is ever discovered that it would even allow for the theory of the big bang.

    big bang problem #5: Population 3 stars there should be these type of first stars everywhere all over the universe. Any guess to how many are out there…ZERO! All stars have trace amounts of the heaver elements.

    Now I will admit I had help (like Dr. Jason Lisle) for these points but science cannot explain there theories they try to teach the kids. Not mine because we are homeschooling our kids. These are things with no evidence, just assertions based on ignorance.

    We don’t need a PHD to smell a rotting fish now do we.

    It all starts with a scientist’s presupposition and that is why most are mislead into wrong assertions.


  7. Tom says:

    Hi Dan,

    Great comments, thanks for weighing in. I especially like the part where you point out the faith that is required by those who believe in the big bang.

    I also appreciate your point about presuppositions. I have tried to make that point also in previous comments. No human being can be unbiased (meaning having no presuppositions) so we all start with our presuppositions and those will influence how we evaluate the evidence that is presented to us.


  8. Dan says:

    To clarify there are two types of science, one we benifit from.

    1. Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.

    2. Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see.

    So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid
    change during Noah’s Flood.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: