Do you believe God created life the earth, and universe? Or how do you think the Universe was caused? Or How do you think God created it?
Actually the original question was. Why do you believe god and oddly 3 out of the first for Answers are from Athiest shooting down the Christian belief of Creation. . . they have nothing to do with why they belive in God. . . . . So why don't you Atheist let the Christians have there say without slaming them. . . . . To address a section of the question
Do you believe God created life the earth,
Evolutionists theorize that life sprang from non-life early in Earth's history. This supposedly happened when a bolt of lightning struck the “prebiotic soup,” the term for the oceans that evolutionists believe were teeming with chemical compounds that would eventually form the building blocks of life. However, this speculative scenario is constantly being refuted and then replaced by new ones, which in turn get shot down.
According to Antonio Lazcano, professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and president of the International Society for the Study of the Origins of Life,
“…those trying to discover the origins of life and study the earliest stages of biological evolution have an uphill quest: Over and over it happens that a theory or explanation believed to be well established has to be abandoned or rethought in the light of new findings” (Lazcano 2003: 452). The most famous of these scenarios is the experiment by Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago. In the 1950's, he made a concoction of the chemicals that were believed to have comprised the "prebiotic soup" out of which life theoretically sprang. He passed an electric charge through this mixture in imitation of lightning, and discovered that amino acids did indeed form in the chemicals. The find wasand sometimes still istrumpeted as proof of the evolutionists' scenario of the formation of life.
"But nowadays," Lazcano points out, "geoscientists tend to doubt that the conditions of the prebiotic environment were as reducing as Miller and others had assumed" (ibid.). In chemistry, "to reduce" means to remove the oxygen from. In other words, the conditions Miller created in his laboratory did not match the actual conditions of the early Earth.
Other hypothesized scenarios have replaced Miller's experiment.
One of them is based on the fact that RNA has catalytic properties (that is, properties which speed up reactions that would otherwise take place very slowly). Evolutionists believe that RNA formed by chance from various compounds floating in the prebiotic soup; once formed, RNA then bridged the gap between the first proteins and the first DNA strands. "However," Lazcano points out, "it is now generally accepted that RNA is a frail polymer unlikely to have undergone prebiotic synthesis and accumulation" (ibid.). In other words, RNA is too fragile to have been formed by itself from various compounds floating in the prebiotic soup.
Some evolutionists have claimed that there is fossil evidence for the first one-celled life-forms in extremely ancient times. If these discoveries were indeed fossilized life-forms, Darwinism would receive a huge boost. "But," Lazcano notes, "several authors have contested the biological origin of the structures and chemical signatures described" by the proponents of this theory (ibid.).
Another theory holds that the first life-forms were highly similar to modern "extremophiles," the recently discovered one-celled organisms that dwell in extremely cold or scalding hot conditions. Proponents of this theory claim that the ability of scientists to sequence the genomes of living organisms allows them to reach such a conclusion.
"But," cautions Lazcano, "as more and more completely sequenced cellular genomes have become available, their analysis has shown that an extensive amount of horizontal transfer of genes occurred, leading many to wonder whether we will ever untangle the weblike phylogenies of early cell evolution" (ibid.). Lazcano is referring to the discovery that strands of DNA can pass between different species of primitive life-forms, thus refuting the Darwinian picture of an evolutionary tree sprouting outward and upward from an original, one-celled organism. Instead, the species of life on Earth form an extremely complex web, with new species originating not through Darwinian evolution but through the horizontal (and sometimes lateral, or sideways) transfer of genes from one species to another. It is thus impossible to use the sequenced genomes of various species to trace the alleged evolutionary history of life back to a single, common ancestor.
A. Lazcano, "The Never-Ending Story," American Scientist vol. 91, no. 5 (2003). Author: Stephen Caesar, M.A., Associates for Biblical Research (Mr. Caesar holds his master's degree in anthropology and archaeology from Harvard University. He is the author of the e-book The Bible Encounters Modern Science, available at www.1stbooks.com.
Copyright © 2004, Associates for Biblical Research, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.
The big bang is usually defined as a random, chance event. Some instability supposedly developed in an original “kernel” of mass energy, and the universe then ballooned outward. However, Scripture clearly rules out such an accidental origin. A modified view of the big bang theory says that when the explosive event happened, it was directed by God. This is called theistic evolution and is an attempt to compromise the Bible with long-age evolutionary theories. It is rejected by many creationists because of its conflict with the order of events in Genesis. The following chart contrasts some of the chronological discrepancies between the Bible’s creation account and the big bang theory.
Creationists maintain that in the beginning God spoke and the earth appeared--he commanded and the heavens stood firm (Ps. 33:9)! All the many stars appeared suddenly and supernaturally in space. Scripture does not imply an explosion, although the universe must have experienced a sudden, “explosive” input of ordered energy. Perhaps some astronomical data that seems supportive of the big bang theory, such as redshift and background radiation, needs to be looked at instead as evidence of a rapid creation. Once secular variation of the big bang theory refers to an “inflationary” big bang, the suggestion being that the universe developed and matured very quickly in its first moments. In this particular theory, secular science seems to have taken one step in the creationist direction. Further developments should be of interest in this area of theory and research.
The big bang as it is understood today is an inadequate theory. There are many fundamental problems that are seldom mentioned in popular literature. Some of the “missing links” in the theory are:
Missing Origin: The big bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of an origin from a “quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum.” However, in the big bang theory, no vacuum existed before the explosion. Actually there is no consistent secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.
Missing Fuse: What ignited the big bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever bound as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from ever expanding outward.
Missing Star Formation: No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.
Missing Antimatter: Some versions of the big bang theory require the equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter-positrons and antiprotons, for example-are found in space.
Missing Time: Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the big bang theory to unfold. A short time span will not allow for the gradual evolution of the stars or life on Earth.
Missing Mass: Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, however, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are 100 times smaller than expected. In fact there are indications that the universe is accelerating outward instead of slowing down. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass or “dark matter” is “missing.”
Missing Life: In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?
Missing Neutrinos: These small particles should flood the earth from the sun’s fusion process. The small number detected raises questions about the sun’s energy source and man’s overall understanding of the universe. How then can science speak about “origins” with any authority?
Author: Dr. Donald B. DeYoung - adapted from Astronomy and the Bible: Questions and Answers, 2nd Edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 176 pp.
This page is located at: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/big-bang.html
All elements made together
Earth formed before stars
Plants formed before the sun
Birds created before reptiles, Sun formed on the fourth day, after the earth
Sun, moon, and stars formed together
Elements beyond hydrogen and helium formed after millions of years
Earth formed long after the stars
Plants evolved after the sun
Birds evolved from reptiles
Sun formed before the earth
Sun formed from older stars
Most of these debates focus on Christians attacking the big bang and evolution theories, forcing us to provide links to all the literature and evidence supporting them. For once, I'd like to see Christians explain the logic of their own "theory" and defend the validity of the Genesis account of creation and the flood.
Creationism is a very flawed explanation for the origin of the universe. The account in Genesis runs contrary to many scientific discoveries, and there is nothing scientific about the creationist account. In fact, much of it has been disproven.
In Genesis, God creates the earth and separates the waters prior to creating the sun, moon, and stars. Based on measurements of "heavy" elements on the Milky Way's globular clusters, radioactive material in the galaxy, and isotopes in the earth's rocks, we know that most stars are much, much older than the earth. Certainly the sun is, and what exactly held the earth in place as it waited for the sun to be created and revolve around is a mystery that Genesis and creationism fail to explain. In fact, we're to believe that the earth existed, alone, in space, with nothing else, until God threw in the rest.
The Genesis account also claims that God created grass and other forms of plant life across earth including fruits and seeds, etc. all prior to creating the sun. Again, how did plant life develop and survive on earth prior to the sun, on which all flora depend for survival?
According to Genesis, Adam provided names for every creature on earth. Apparently, Adam was able to locate species deep in lakes and oceans, in inmpassable rainforests, burrowed within the earth, or high up on mountains. Yeah right. You'd think Adam was God.
Why is the Genesis account so brief in its description of the "firmament" and "lights" but so detailed in its description of the earth? We've got fifty billion galaxies, filled with all kinds of celestial bodies including planets, moons, asteroids, nebula, clusters, not to mention black holes and dark matter...according to Genesis, all this was put in place to "light the earth" and provide "signs and seasons for days and years". The big bang describes, in detail, how galaxies formed and how matter was distributed, as well as explains the presence of elements and light. Genesis, however, claims that all this was made by God to light the earth, when it's distribution across the vast expanse of the universe clearly shows it wasn't.
Let's talk about the story of Noah and the flood. How did Noah gather two of every species on the planet? Sloths and penguins can't travel over land very well. Many animals, like koala bears, require a specific diet unique to the Australian ecosystem, some cave dwelling species require a specific level of humidity. How did Noah get all these animals to the ark?
Noah apparently had insects on the ark. The arthropod is the largest phylum of animals. How did Noah maintain the thousands of species of arthropods, which require vastly different ecosystems in which to survive?
Here are some of the things Noah would have had to deal with while on board the ark: pest control, sanitation & disposal of waste, fresh food, exercising/handling certain species, manpower for feeding (which is all Noah's tiny crew would have had time to do), ventilation, etc. It would be nearly impossible for Noah, his wife, and his sons and dauthers-in-law to maintain two of every species with the limited technology they had.
Where did the flood water come for the flood, and where did it go? The Bible does not present a valid explanation for either. If it was suspended by a canopy in the atmosphere, that canopy would raise the atmospheric pressure and the levels of nitrogen and oxygen to toxic levels. If it came from beneath the earth, it would have been superhot, and would have boiled Noah and his family alive.
If the flood happened across the globe, why do different mountain ranges show different levels of erosion?
How are the ice caps possible with a global flood? If the flood happened, it would produce enough water to life the ice caps off their base and break them up. It would be impossible for them to reappear in such a short time, given the earth's climate between now and when Young Earth Creationists say it started.
The list goes on. Your turn, creationists.
"who is God? where is God?"
The answers to those two questions depend upon what religious faith you accept as valid -- and there are many to choose from!
in my opinion
God created/caused our spirits (entities) along with the universe to come into being. God established the purpose for it all but doesn't involve Its self in the continuance or activities of same.
"Sin" is man's concept and is utilized by men to control other men. The human caused "negative events" that take place are circumstances that are considered by us in the non-life experience between incarnations as we evaluate the successes and failures we made as we attempted to achieve our goals during our incarnations.
The Bible (and similar religious books) is a necessary concoction created by man to control man and his environment. It was necessary because mankind, in its infancy, did not have the medical and technological knowledge to conquer and understand its environment so had to be controlled by superstitions which were found to save lives and further the survivability of the various human societies.
Why did God make the world?
in my opinion, God diversified Itself into Its many parts and charged those parts (entities) to go forth and acquire knowledge and experience and to then return to the Oneness of God.
The entities caused the creation of the universe and everything therein and individually choose to inhabit the physical bodies.
The entities may incarnate/reincarnate many times before gravitating back into the Oneness of God.
Speculation: 1 Is God necessary?
There has to be a Source from which the "big bang" sprang forth Creating the universe.
Speculation: 2 What is God?
God is the ultimate Cause.
God is the Creative Entity, Energy or Force from which all is derived.
Speculation: 3 Where is God?
God is in a state of awareness that is outside the universe.
God has morphed part of Itself into those entities (spirits) that inhabit the universe and the physical bodies within.
Speculation: 4 Why is God?
God Is because God Is.
God is eternal, existing independent of time or the universe.
Speculation: 5 Is God concerned?
God is not concerned with the daily functioning of the universe or matters within it. That is our domain and subject to our whim.
Speculation: 6 What are we?
We are the spirits (entities) of God.
God morphed into Us and we continue to create according to God's purpose.
Our physical bodies are simply the means we use to experience and function in the physical dimension.
Speculation: 7 Why are we?
We are for the purpose of gaining knowledge and experience.
In the end, we gravitate back into the Oneness of God allowing for the fulfillment of God.
Speculation: 8 Evolution
Evolution is simply a tool of Creation.
The entities often influence the direction of evolution along desired paths.
From my chosen path I stray, Yet my God any'er turns away; For I have learned -- and understand, That where God is -- is where I am!
So. . . . What caused the big band if Nothing existed including time and space. . . after all your scientist have stated neither can exist without the other. . . . Nebula is the ways of research copy and paste is normal. . . . gravity energy - this is something. . . . where did it come from?. . . The Big Bang theory is widly excepted by scientist in the feild, what field? Ok Semi1900 Receding moon would have been touching earth 2 billion years ago. Check up on your orbital dynamics... Assumes a steady rate of recession. Assumes the moon wasn't captured less than 2 billion years ago.
Erosion should've dumped at least 30 times more sediment in the sea. and all the continents would be worn to sea level in just 14,000,000 years. Ever heard of plate tectonics?
On Volcanism and Thermal Tectonics on one-plate Planets Solomon, Geophysical Research Letters, vol 5, no 6 June 1978 The Supercontinent Cycle Nance, Worsley, & Moody, Scientific American, July 1988 Not enough dissolved minerals in oceans. Dissolved minerals - the stuff moves in cycles, and as such most of the minerals are very close to their balance levels. Remember "carbon cycle"? The same general idea holds for everything else. Remember the space shuttle? Except for the last time, it has been landing on salt. Like from the oceans, remember? Other "geological clocks" that suggest a "young" earth- juvenile water (from volcanoes), oil deposit pressure, Stalactite Growth (limestone) Juvenile water is covered in those same computer models, and again nothing tricky is involved at all. Oil deposits themselves require a time well over 6000 years to exist, so try again. Stalactite growth - of some, perhaps. You are still identifying merely temporary features
The Formation of the Earth from Planetesimals Wetherill, Scientific American June 1981 The Steady State of the Earth's Crust, Atmosphere and Oceans Siever, Scientific American, May 1974 The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth Hart, Icarus, 33, 23-39, 1978 Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans Holland, Lazar & McCaffery, Nature vol 320, 6 mar 1986 Enhanced CO2 greenhouse to compensate for reduced solar luminosity on early earth Owen & Cess, Nature, vol 227, 22Feb 1979 How Climate Evolved on the Terrestrial Planets Kasting, Toon, & Pollack, Scientific American, Feb 1988 Climatic Changes of the last 18,000 years: Observations and Model Simulations COHMAP members, Science vol 241, 26 Aug 88, p 1043-1052
rnealw that copy and paste demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the Big Bang Theory, the Universe, and quantum mechanics, it can't be serious. You know I was going to ignore it it was poor.
Ok first off, The “kernel” of mass energy is defined as a SINGULARITY. A vacuum is refered as a space EMPTY in matter meaning nothing. But empty space is not nothing, it's a flexiable medium. A vacuums curvature contains gravity energy. Electrons and positron materialize and unmaterialize in a vacuum, at quantum level.
A singularity was a product from a vacuum fluctuation that distorted matter, volumn, time, density and gravity. The pressure of the vacuum caused it to expand.
As the early universe cooled, the temperatures became sufficiently low for element formation to begin.
Mass and energy are related by the equation E=mc2. If there is enough energy, photons can create matter-antimatter pairs. This is called pair production and is responsible for the mass in the universe. Everything in the universe is made possible when negative and positive energy interact.
Life in it's simplist form can be only bacteria. Radio waves aren't actually that long-lived. The VAST distant in space makes contact UNLIKELY. The planet must be able to support life, and this means a lot of things, for it to come into existance, and more to evolve to more complex forms.
Missing neutrons was a problem till 2002 it has since been resolved by new understanding of neutrino physics. As neutrinos have mass, they can change from the type that had been expected to be produced in the sun's interior into two types that would not be caught by the detectors used at the time. I look at this as a good thing, that they are able to solve problems they encounter.
The Big Bang theory is widly excepted by scientist in the feild, as credible. If you want to get a better explanation get a book or something. And even if it is not a valid theory the way creation came to be was through natruel processes.
Most scientist agree the Universe as we know it started with the Big Bang Theory. It was theroized from evidence. You might want to read up on it, so you can get a better explaination.
Secondly creation is entirely hypothetical. There is no evidence of God, or intelligent creation. These views conclude our Universe, life, and planet Earth is so complex, that it requires an intelligent creator.
There arises an immediate problem when this hypothesis is asserted: If complexity can not arise without intelligence, then who or what designed the creator? The creator could not exist if complexity requires intelligence.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years ago. Through astronomical observations the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. Star and planet formation takes millions of years, and gravity causes orbits.
The ancestor of life is thought to be a self-replicating molecule, new types of molecules would replicate when they didn't replicate exactly. Earth provided resourses, that life thrived off. Everything started out simple and increasingly became specialized and more complex through a meticulous but blind process called evolution.
My "opinion" is everything is the way it is and is self-generated. And the complexity we see today is the result of billions of years of natruel processes. Laws of Physics have their own cause, and life was bound to happen in any way in existance given certain conditions. It is hard for people to grasp.
God in my "opinoin" is mytholigy, a delusion to give humans answers with a why.
rnealw: First, discrediting particular scientific theories does not prove the alternative. How do you get from "plate tectonics is wrong" to "god must exist"? Further, all the 'holes' you cite fall into one of two categories: 1) It's not a hole, because the theory in question doesn't claim to explain it. The theory of evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, only how it developed and diversified. The big bang doesn't attempt to explain how the universe came into existence, just that it began as a small, dense, uniform space and expanded from there. 2) Possibly legitimate weaknesses in an existing theory - eg, plate tectonics and sedimentation. If it's credible, and discovered by a credible and knowledgeable researcher, they'll publish a paper about it, it'll get reviewed, and accepted into the scientific literature. Other scientists will read it, and the consenus will be amended to take the new facts into account. In time, people will propose alternate theories that satisfactorially explain this new phenomenon. The fact that this hasn't happened for these 'holes' (but happens everywhere else on an ongoing basis - it's how science progresses) tends to indicate that these issues are almost certainly illusory - made up by someone with an insufficient understanding of the science involved, because they intuitively make sense, not because they're an accurate reflection of the real world.
Wow, very little of what you said actually addressed what I posted. But most what you posted is old news anyway. You're off on the recession of the moon arguement. See this article and its references, which refute that "young earth" claim http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
You're way off on the erosion of the continents arguement not supporting an older earth. See Young, Davis A. 1988. Christianity & The Age Of The Earth for a more in depth discussion.
You do a poor job of explaining the rest of your arguements, but for the salt in the oceans issue, salt is being removed from the oceans as quickly as it is being added by the world's rivers. No age can be calculated, save a minimum age based upon an assumption of initial salt content.
Much of the rest of what you posted is based on old information, and has already been refuted by scientists much smater than both of us http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
As I said, you didn't answer a single thing I posted about the order of creation in Genesis, Noah's flood, Adam's nomenclature, or any of the rest of it.
It's a typical creationist tactic. Attack the big bang and evolution rather than present a logical defense of creation...maybe that's because there isn't one.
To jaceb, I didn't come on here to argue but to answer a question that YES I believe in God, and the reason I said "for they do not know what they speak" is that I just completely TRUST in God ( not needing evidence or scientific answers) and yes I ask questions and want answers, but I don't worry myself wondering about things, I try not to stress and ask all the time " why" because as you see, everyone has their own answers, I just put my trust in God, I didn't mean to upset you jaceb.
P.S. When you have faith, you don't need answers, and so far by me having faith, I can do anything through God, he hasn't failed me yet. I do have up and downs, but I still believe.
No, I don't think god created the universe. Nor do I think anyone/anything created it. I think the universe simply exists uncreated. This position is not incompatible with big bang theory.
Note that the act of creation implies the passage of time - a time when something didn't exist, followed by a time when it did. However, relativity proves that time is actually an aspect of the universe rather than something separate from it. So, without the universe, there can be no time. If there is no time, then the concept of 'before' is incoherent. Thus, the idea that the universe was created is illogical, as it implies a time before time.
"for everyone who believes in god, please don't talk down on the others, for they do not know what they speak"
excuse me, but I think I DO know what I speak. I don't believe in god because there was never any evidince he was ever real. Why should I believe something a story book (the bible) tells me? Yes, I've read it. Only to try and figure out what compelles people to actually think that got existed. Don't you ever wonder? don't you want answers? or are you afriad to ask questions becuase you know that there is an explanation for EVERYTHING.
I dont belive in god I belive in science now only if I could spell it but besides that I belive the earth was created when an exploshen happend withch created the soler system and the moon was ceated when a astroid hit the earth and peaises of the earth got cot in its gravitashunal force and merged together to creat the moon we got here becose there was little organisims on the astroid that hit earth witch then slowly evolved into humans but thats what I belve some poiple belive difrent and they mite be rite we will never no hoos rite
Yes I believe in God, and I won't give a big lecture on why, just try to understand me when I say this- People are going to have their different opinions, and no one can get mad about that everyone is free to diffriate, but if you been through what I've been through and seen what I've seen, you would believe God to. For everyone who believes in God, please don't talk down on the others, for they do not know what they speak.
Everyone have a great day.
energy in the form of gravity comes from "nothing" itself, vacuum(nothing) is curved in shape, and curved shape has energy.
""Receding moon would have been touching earth 2 billion years ago. ""
There is no steady rate of recession.
The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth varies over time. It depends on changes of and on the Earth.
I love the big bang theory but tell me what caused the big bang and what caused the cause of the big bang and so on that's why I believe In God Creation is just too complex I believe In God but for that matter it doesn't have to be God who made the universe but just some higher power however I keep my faith in God
I am no religion. but,, I never doubt that there isn't "A GOD'. I just don't know. and untill you can prove that to me.. then I'll stay just they way I am.,, Why believe something where there is noo proff?... I believe nothing really in the Bible.. sorry.
I believe God with all my heart and everything in me. Read the bible, it will answer you questions no doubt about it. But This really isnt the best place to ask this question. To many people are to lost in this world so they dont believe.
but again my advice is to not ask anything like your asking here. because you will get many answers from many different opinions which will confuse you even more.
yes God created EVERYTHING AROUND YOU. they didnt just APPEAR one day. you should read the bible. it will answer some of your questions :)
I believe that we are all made of stardust. Literally. Really, I mean actual dust from exploding stars.
Could you present us a little research on that. . . . And credits on the research.
Yes, absolutely... No doubt about it.
He spoke it into existance.
god isnt real and the universe has no beginging or end
Yes. . . It's like Silverwings said.
AMEN TO THAT. god does not exist.
I totally agree with "shellya"!!