Why shouldn't you agree with the big bang theory but creationism?

Answer 1

This depends on which perspective you wish to choose.

From a purely scientific perspective, the big bang has a number of serious problems, in that it does not match observations, nor has it shown a capacity to be correct in its predictions. Increasing numbers of evolutionary scientists are themselves seriously questioning the big bang. Perhaps they will develop another theory, or perhaps they will seriously modify the original model. In any case, the big bang as it stands is looking increasingly 'shaky' as a scientific model.

On the other hand, although astronomy from a creationist perspective, is a relatively 'young' field in recent times, it walks on the shoulders of such greats as Coppernicus, Keppler, and Galileo.

From a biblical perspective it is quite clear that God 'stretched out the heavens' in the beginning. This is indeed an apt description of what has been discovered. The key statement of Genesis 1:1 still stands as the definitive creationist standard from which all else is to be judged. Certainly with this standard, as well as the understanding of the biblical time-frame, it is clear that the scientific observations which indicate a 'young' universe fit this. Since a universe billions of years old is also a central part of 'big bang thinking', evidence for a young universe also undermines the big bang itself. -1. Rapid Disintegration of Comets: means they cannot be 5 billion years old or they wouldn't exist. Around 100,000 years is postulated as a maximum, although they could certainly be much younger. -2. Saturn's Rings are aged much less than claimed by evolutionary theory:

This is based on relatively recent observations which show a decay rate of the rings which would mean that they would not still exist if the universe were as old as claimed by evolutionary theory.

- 3. Missing Supernova Remnants If the universe were as old as the big bang predicts, there should be a lot more SNR's. Instead the missing SNR's under the various stages through which they pass are what would be predicted under the creation model. In our galaxy, the three stages of the SNR's predicted under the two models point very clearly to which is right scientifically: Evolution/Big Bang Creation Actual found

First Stage: 2 2 5

Second Stage: 2260 125 200

Third Stage: 5000 0 0 Source: Scientific paper by Keith Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, pp. 175-184, 1994. Although it is obviously possible that some third stage SNR's may yet be found, it is obvious that observers cannot have missed 5000. Thus the big bang model fails the test of a good scientific theory, the ability to make correct predictions. Instead the actual evidence fits the creation model of a young universe much better.

Answer 2

Here are some arguments for Creation or against Evolution.

These point to Divine Creation:

• The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  
• The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  
• The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).

• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of Creation

Also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.

See: Problems in Evolutionary astronomy

And: Evidence of a young Earth

e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation

Answer 3

Many of those who reject the cosmological theory known as the 'Big Bang' do not even understand what it is they are rejecting, completely confusing it with the Theory of Evolution. If that describes you and if you do not wish to learn more about our origins, then why not believe in creationism?

Belief in creationism suits those who look for simple solutions or those who reject any possibility that the biblical creations story is merely an allegory. Not everyone needs to know what really happens, and for them a mythical story of creation is sufficient.

Answer 4

The big bang theory is supported by scientific evidence and observations, while creationism is based on religious beliefs without empirical evidence. The big bang theory explains the origin and evolution of the universe based on physical laws and principles, while creationism relies on the idea of a divine creator. Science is based on evidence and experimentation, while creationism is based on faith.