Big bang and Genesis 1 similar?

I know but I found it a bit strange the way you kind of all jumped on him. Personally I don't think it was a hard question, but all too often when it's a creationist asking, you get a rough ride.

HI Mike,I wasn't jumping on him, I was truly trying to understand exactly what he wanted to discuss.Don't you think that it would be a good idea to start a thread off by explaining why you take a particular stance? He claims' after all' to 'definately disagree' with his teacher, yet he doesn't tell us what it is he disagrees with. If he had explained this then we would all know exactly what he wanted to discuss. All too often, there is a distinct lack of ability to explain anything when a creationist asks a question.If it isn't a hard question, perhaps you could elaborate on what Messenjah actually wants to discuss?Brian.

'All too often, there is a distinct lack of ability to explain anything when a creationist asks a question.'I don't think thats necessarily true.'If it isn't a hard question, perhaps you could elaborate on what Messenjah actually wants to discuss?'Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth, so I think it best if you wait for him.

Thanks Mike, now you can see where I was coming from?I was only looking for clarification of what he actually asking.Brian.

'Thanks Mike, now you can see where I was coming from?'Fair enough, I'll keep my nose out, it prys too often.lol

HI Mike,Nah don't keep your nose out! LOLI appreciate your nose poking in, I also appreciate that I often come across as being harsh on creationists, but this was a genuine attempt to work messenjah's post.I could have guessed at what it was about, I think it is a comparison of Ancient Hebrew cosmology versus modern day astronomy's cosmological theories?No one knows except Messenjah.Brian.

I see some major differences between the Big Bang and the Genesis account (I'll list what I know):Genesis says "God created the heavens and the earth."It also says there was waters and land was separated from waters. The Big Bang would result in a hot molten blob in the beginning of earth's existence, with no water.On day 4, the Genesis account says that the sun, moon and stars were created. Note that there was light on day one, but not sun, moon or stars.Also, the earth was created on day 1, before the sun on day 4.David

Thanks, I was trying to compile evidences for my views vs. his but I figured out that is pointless.------------------
-chris

I have done this often myself. We creationists tend to bundle biological evolution along with long-age astronomy and geology etc. into one term. Well, a lot of us do - so does the site's name. If it were Creation versus Evolution Only, we wouldn't be discussing the big bang.I am going to have to concur with my colleague zeal4Him on this one. Genesis 1 and the big bang are like chalk and cheese. Here's a quick summary:BIBLE/BIG BANG

• Bible: Light created after the earth/BB: Plenty of light before earth
• Bible: Earth originally covered in water/BB: Earth originally ball of hot gases
• Bible: Atmospheric water (above the "firmament" separated from oceans after earth is created/BB: Both presumably in effect from beginning
• Bible: Sun and stars created after earth/BB: Sun and stars created long before earth
• Bible: Land raised up from seas/BB: Seas appear with water (am I right?)

That was a good summary. The only thing you left out is this:
Bible- In the beginning God created vs BB- in the beginning tiny spot of mass exploded for no apparent reason

quote:

---

Bible- In the beginning God created vs BB- in the beginning tiny spot of mass exploded for no apparent reason

---

Yep. Now we're down to just a few "no apparent reason"'s left. Before, everything from fire to clouds was "for no apparent reason". I'd say we've done a pretty good job, wouldn't you?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Actually the part you left out was "God existed for no apparent reason" or do you happen to have a reason why god would exist?

Why, hello there, balyons. I haven't seen you around here before. You're right - I should have included that one in my summary.

Jill, a new poster, writes: My arch-enemy replies (in a bid to usurp my powers): ------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

In reply to Jill: What would be the middle ground between "natural law is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth" and "God made all varieties of life by fiat"? "God made some life but not others"?"God works through natural law" isn't creationism, so it's not a middle ground, but rather a synthesis of personal faith in God and natural science as a lens for examining the physical world.I'm having a hard time understanding what you think such a middle ground could be, or for that matter, why you would want such a thing. What about creationism do you think is so great that it's worth saving? Or is this simply an undergraduate-level knee-jerk reaction to a presented dichotomy - "can't both be true?" (In this case, I don't think they can.)