0
Creation
Whether you believe God created the world or the universe is the result of the Big Bang, ask questions here about the creation of the beautiful and wondrous earth we live on.
2,055 Questions
How did God create the big bang?
The question is illogically formulated. According to those that believe in God,there was no Big Bang. The concept of God and creation is such that Godwilledcreation into existence. According to creationists God didn't create or cause the Big Bang because, not being mentioned in the Bible/Torah, it never happened.
According to scientists, there is no empirical evidence forthe concept of God. Subsequently, there are no theories that include or rationalize a God-like creation. While some even talk about the concept of a'god' particle that started the process, this is more of a media term than a recognized scientific acknowledgement for the concept ofGod.
What should a scientific test be?
A scientific test for Creation should be fair. There are only 2 choices to explain creation:
_Creation by Evolution
_Special Creation by God.
There are no other real choices, and if one is disproved then it must be the other. It all depends on ideology, but unfortunately some hold to one ideology regardless of facts. It is all a process of elimination:
-scientific facts can be used to prove creation,
but
-evolution cannot be proved by scientific facts
One of the two absolutely basic tenets of Science is that any scientific experiment should be able to be replicated. This means being done again exactly the same way as the first and getting the exact same result. As this would be impossible - it would mean "de-creating" everything first to prove an idelogical theory - it means there can be no scientific proof for Creation.
The second of the two absolutely basic tenets is that Science can only deal with the "here and now", the present time. Science cannot explain where matter for the Big Bang originally came from and what things were like before any 'Big Bang'. Any attempt to do so means Science is dealing with Religous matters.
This means there can be simply no scientific test at allfor creation.
What is a scientific view on creationism?
The scientific view on creationism is that it is not supported by empirical evidence or scientific consensus. Evolutionary theory, supported by a vast body of evidence, is widely accepted by the scientific community as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Creationism, which posits divine intervention as the origin of species, is considered a belief system based on faith rather than scientific inquiry.
Is creationism an official scientific theory?
Regardless of what its supporters claim or would like to believe, they are a very tiny minority. 99.9% of scientists accept the current mainstream views such as the Big Bang theory and the thmodern evolutionary synthesis, and have in the process invalidated creationism as a viable alternative.
How long has the Creation hypothesis been supported?
In some form or another it has always been supported. It kind of took a back seat to other scientific theories such as geology and evolution around the 1800s, but has made a strong comeback in the last 30 years or so. Nothing supports it. It is not a scientific theory.
Where did the dense singularity originate that existed before the Big Bang?
In a universe model, the term 'where' in context of a singularity has no meaning. Our understanding of spacial geometry, which we use to estimate where we are, depends upon our positional relationship to our known universe. But if the universe is infinitessimally small, then there is no measurement of position, because everything is in the same place.
.
In a multiverse model, in which there are several universes coexisting in adjacent parcels of space at the same time, then the term 'where' is definable, but not measurable. In this case, we could say that the singularity is so many billion/trillion/quadrillion light years from the next closest universe, but we have no means of measuring distances that large.
Story explaining how the world was formed?
Here's one: Genesis ch.1. Day by day, God created the universe and its contents.
God created the universe out of nothing (Exodus 20:11, Isaiah 40:28; Rashi commentary to Genesis 1:14; Maimonides' "Guide," 2:30).Note that the Torah, in describing the Creation, deliberately employs brevity and ellipsis, just as it does in many other topics. See the Talmud, Hagigah 11b.
- On day 1: God created the universe in general, light, and this Earth. The light was not the same as that of the sun. Rather, it was light that God created before the sun, and which emanated from a point in space without any physical source; like what we might term a "white hole."
- On day 2: God created the separation between the Earth and the upper atmosphere.
- On day 3: God separated the continents from the oceans, and created plants.
- On day 4: God created the sun, moon, and stars.
- On day 5: God created birds and fish.
- On day 6: God created animals and people.
- On day 7: God ceased creating, thereby creating the concept of rest.
See also:
Should the big bang theory be taught in public schools?
While the Big Bang Theory is not the only cosmological model for exploring a causation for our existence, it does provide a context and organization from which each individual my understand and come to grips with their own rationale for why and how organic life is possible. It is also a great exercise in logic, and logical thinking is a useful tool in any life pursuit.
Why do scientists hypothesize that earth is about 4.5 billion years old?
Scientists have concluded from abundant evidence and the analysis of that evidence, that he earth is about 4.5 billion years old. This is more than merely a hypothesis, since they have the evidence for their conclusions.
Scientists realised nearly two hundred years ago that the earth must be at least a few million years old. Early in the nineteenth century, Charles Lyell examined the great volcano of Etna on Sicily and studied the historical records of frequent eruptions. He noticed that each time it erupted, a new layer of lava would be added, causing the mountain to grow at a measurable rate. By knowing the height of the volcano, its approximate rate of growth and the frequency of eruptions, Lyall determined that the volcano must be several hundred thousand years old. At the edge of the volcano, under the first lava flows, he found fossil shells that were virtually identical to the shells of molluscs still found in the Mediterranean Sea. From this, he deduced that the fossils were geologically recent, that a hundred thousand years was geologically short and that the age of the earth must be immense.
In 1862, Lord Kelvin announced that he had calculated the time it would take the world to cool down from its molten state. He calculated that this was between 20 and 400 million years, but later refined his calculations to within the range 20 to 100 million years. With the subsequent discovery of radioactivity, it was soon realised that the uranium present in the earth could have prolonged its cooling for as long as necessary to harmonise with other methods.
Samuel Haughton, an Irish geologist, calculated that sediments were deposited on the ocean floor at the rate of "one foot in 8,616 years". He then calculated a minimum duration of around 2000 million years. Unwilling to accept such a long period, he scaled it back, by a factor of 10, to just 200 million years.
In the early years of the twentieth century, Rutherford established the age of a rock as 500 million years, by measuring the amounts of radium and helium present. Strutt soon realised that some of the helium would have escaped as the rocks were crushed for analysis, leading to false short estimates of the ages of the rocks - they were really even older than the initial estimates.
In the late 1930s and early 1940s, using the new techniques and the world's most advanced mass spectromoter, Alfred Nier dated some rocks at up to 2570 million years old.
The oldest things so far found on earth are zircon crystals found in Western Australia, that are more than 4 billion years old.
Some Young-earth Creationists have incorrectly claimed that Noah's Flood could have altered the rates of decay for radioactive elements found in rocks on the earth, so that the earth is really only a few thousand years old. However, any effect from a Flood on the earth would not have affected rocks on the moon or in outer space. Zircon rock collected from the surface of the moon has now been identified as more than 4.5 billion years old. Material from meteorites has also been dated to approximately 4.5 billion years old. These figures support the calculations for the age of the earth.
What is the reliogious theory about how the earth started?
The was just floating in space with nothing on it then God created it and put every living thing on it from plants and oceans to animals and humans Answers vary widely from religion to religion. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all share a common belief that was one creator (Christian-God, Jew-Yahweh, Muslim-Allah) who spoke the earth into being.
What do creationists say about carbon-dating?
the creationist claim is actually very true, here is a chapter from my SCIENTIFIC book:
Carbon Dating
Many evolutionists believe this to be the proverbial nail in the coffin to the creation of the world, believing that this is the most solid evidence against creationists. In this section I am going into a bit of science so hold on. If this is only going to bore you and make you put down this book, by all means skip to the end, don't worry it will be under a big title labeled conclusion, you can't miss it. For those of you that have taken a chemistry class or two and want to know the intimate details, by all means, read on.
The premise:
The premise is that, cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere create speeding neutrons that collide with nitrogen atoms producing carbon 14. Further, the decay of these atoms into carbon 12 is progressing at the same rate as the creation of these atoms.
All things should absorb these atoms of carbon 14 their entire life, maintaining the same ratio of Carbon 14 to carbon 12 as the atmosphere. Once the animal/thing dies, it's carbon 14. This ratio, (1 to 1 trillion) will begin to change, the number of carbon 14 atoms diminish while the number of carbon 12 atoms remain the same. This carbon should decay at a steady rate, thus scientists can track it back like a clock, determining the approximate age of the artifact. The smaller the ratio is, the longer the animal as been dead.
Percent 14C Remaining
Percent 12C Remaining
Ratio
Number of Half-Lives
Years Dead(Age of Fossil)
100
100
1 to 1T
0
0
50
100
1 to 2T
1
5,730
25
100
1 to 4T
2
11,460
12.5
100
1 to 8T
3
17,190
6.25
100
1 to 16T
4
22,920
3.125
100
1 to 32T
5
28,650
T = Trillion
The Problem
Dr. Willard Libby first experimented with carbon 14, assuming that the ratio of one carbon 14 to one trillion carbon 12 atoms has always been the same. This "assumption" was based on the fact that the earth has been billions of years old. As any REAL non-bias scientist will tell you, all the calculations can be right, but if they are based on a wrong assumption then the product will be wrong. And as my chem. 3a teacher always said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In Dr. Libby's original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby's calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).
If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real indeed, as the ratio of carbon 14 and carbon 12 is not constant.
The first problem with this is that the magnetic field around the earth is weakening, (don't worry it always has been, recycling your water bottle won't help) allowing more cosmic rays into the atmosphere, and producing more c14 than in the past. Also, volcanoes, floods, decaying plants from floods,( and if the bible is true, there was a big one), can all greatly increase the carbon 14 in the atmosphere, ruining any chance of getting an "accurate ratio".
In the 1990's a group known as the RATE group was put together to determine the age of the earth. This team included:
- Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
- Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
- Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
- John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
- Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
- Steven Austin, PhD Geology
- Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
- Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies
This team's purpose was to collect "censored evidence" that evolutionists had been hiding/covering up. These men took ten coal samples, each from a different strata that had been labeled to be millions of billions of years old. Since coal is made from compressed living plants etc. you would think it would be perfect for the job.
Careful not to contaminate the samples, the carbon dating found the coal to have a significant amount of carbon 14. This was a significant discovery, because half life of carbon 14 is relatively short, (5,730 yrs old). There should be no carbon 14 in these samples after about 100,000 years. The average age of these samples, according to evolutionist "science" only came to 50,000 years. However using a creationist pre-flood ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 reduces the age to 5,000 years, just about dead on the the biblical age of the earth.
Conclusion: Yes you just saw the words "dead on to the biblical etc." don't panic, you should have read along, now look at what you've missed. For the scientists now asleep, we had a beautiful read without you. Please turn the page for the summary.
Okay, we just learned that since you need a starting ratio for carbon dating, and since nobody knows what the starting ratio was, probably because there weren't any scientists around 6 thousand to several billion years ago. And the best you can do with this technology of carbon dating, is operate it on an assumption, an assumption that if wrong, badly distorts the outcome, thus carbon dating is pointless, unless you want an inaccurate age of a recent item, like whether or not the 1980's magazine you got is original.
Is the bacterial flagellum evidence of irreducible complexity?
Answer
No, because the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex, although some creationists have trumpeted this as a fact that would undermine the Theory of Evolution.
Michael Behe's (he authored Darwin's Black box, becoming a principle founder of the modern intelligent design movement) analogy of the mouse trap being an example of something irreducibly complex is in itself fallacious because it could be adapted for the use of something else. During the Dover School District Trial (evolution vs creationism), one of the witnesses testifying on the side of evolution wore a tie with a mouse trap as a tie pin thus showing that a mouse trap can still be function with pieces removed!
The concept of irreducibly complexity with regards to the bacterial flagellum is likewise fallacious because if you remove parts from it, it is still functional. The type III secretory system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components. Whether the bacterial flagellum evolved from the type III secretory system or from another bacterial system, the existence of the type III secretory system proves that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
Furthermore, the whole concept of "irreducible complexity" fails to disprove evolution because evolution can, in fact, produce things which are irreducibly complex. Take the analogy of a stone bridge as an example. A bridge is built by first creating a wooden scaffold and then layering rocks on top until finally the keystone is put in place. At this point, an irreducibly complex system is created. Likewise, evolution could, theoretically proceed by a similar route, creating something redundant and then removing some of those redundant parts.
in Hawaii they call it pigeon talking dakine means "everything or the kind"
Is Odontochelys semitestacea evidence of evolution?
A recently discovered 220-million year old fossil, Odontochelys semitestacea, is further evidence of evolution. This new species of turtle had a fully formed shell on its underside, but only a small partial shell on its back, extending from its backbone.
Scientists had long debated how the turtle shell evolved. As well as a partial shell, Odontochelys semitestaceaalso had ribs that had begun to widen, thus demonstrating that the fully developed shell of later turtles evolved from the ribs of earlier species.
Odontochelys semitestacea is one more piece in the jigsaw that shows conclusively how life on Earth evolved from earlier species.
Explanation of evolution of a gas?
Gas is not alive and cannot evolve.
If you mean Gasoline, it is made of hydrocarbons found in crude oil found in the earth's crust. This came to be after plant matter decomposed and was crushed under immense heat and pressure over millions of years underground.
Gas is a state of matter like liquid or solid. Atoms that are hot enough to break the bonds holding them together become gaseous.
How did humans begin to be and if humans were created who created their creators?
humans were made by God and we just have to trust that He is with us all the time and he has been alive forever and always will. God created us humans and the bible has everything that god has told us. But there are secrets that god kept that we are not ready to receive.
Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, which are fundamental particles in the physical world. Souls are a concept related to spirituality or consciousness and are not typically associated with atoms in the scientific sense.
It doesn't. Where did you get this question? It is loaded and leading.
There is no modern controversy over evolutionary theory in science, only in the minds of creationist who bring their nonsense, devoid of all science, into the public square. There are not two ways of knowing the physical world ( " two ways of knowing " sounds right out of the post modern playbook ) but only the one way of empirical investigation. The scientific method.
Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution by natural selection explains much about this fact. There is no equal weight of opinion here. One side, the scientific side, has the evidence. The other side, the creationist side, has nothing but ideology and political attempts to get their " viewpoint " into the public schools and the public discourse.
Who proposed chemical evolution?
The concept of chemical evolution was proposed by Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin in the 1920s. Oparin suggested that life on Earth evolved from simple organic compounds through a series of chemical reactions in a reducing atmosphere.
Was their planets before the big bang?
well there is a fact that you need to know here , the big bang formed the whole universe we observe nowadays and as the great astronaut carl sagan said " what happened before the big bang is not affected with what happened after the big bang " so we might never know .
I'm not sure about disbelief in everything, but someone who doesn't believe in god/gods/or other all mighty powers is called an atheist. Agnosticism is the view that there is no way we can know the validity of the mentioned subjects of belief (to varying degrees), it is not the disbelief of them.
i will do further research into the subject and add to my answer any relevant information i find.
Supplementary answer
I agree that an atheist does not believe in any God. But the question also mentions karma, evolution, Big Bang. Not to believe in any of those things makes you an agnostic.
Someone who does not believe in anything at all is a skeptic. An agnostic is someone who is not sure whether god exists or not.
Answer to above^^^^
Not an Agnostic a Nihilist
Why must scientists keep accurate records of everything they do and observe?
Scientists must keep accurate records to ensure the reproducibility and validity of their work. Accurate records allow others to verify their findings and build upon their research. It also helps prevent errors and biases in data collection and analysis.
What do meteorites reveal about the solar system?
Meteorites provide valuable insights into the early formation of our solar system, as they are remnants of primitive material from the time when the planets were still forming. By studying the composition and age of meteorites, scientists can learn about the processes that occurred in the early solar system and how the planets evolved over time. Meteorites also contain clues about the presence of organic molecules and water, shedding light on the potential for life beyond Earth.
What is the God's Perfect Creation Theory?
God's perfect Creation is not man nor nature. It is God himself. God is so perfect that he was there since the beggining. He is the alpha and the omega which means the beginning and the end. Look at this statement..... "I am the Alpha and the Omega. Who was and who is to come." God doesn't even need to create himself.
Is the list of scientists who support creation accurate?
This question relates to the specific list formerly placed on the Answer to the related question, "Do any qualified scientists support the creation theory?" The list has been copied in large part from the website of Creation Ministries International, but may contain additional names. The original list appears now to have been copied to an extremely large number of sites across the web, and any attempt to list them all would quickly become out of date. The fact that the list appeared on WikiAnswers and such a large number of other websites makes it a matter of public interest to estimate the accuracy of the original list.
Some details collected by our community:
Kelvin and Romanes were not creationists. Other biologists have claimed that the statements made by these organizations that they signed were misleading and that attempts to get the organizations to remove their names from the list have been unanswered.
Several of the signers have also signed onto other unscientific lists, including one denying that HIV causes AIDS (for example, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells and Tom Bethel).
There are differing opinions about the qualifications of the listed individuals. A number of names on the list, including the one presented on this site, are known to be presented inaccurately. The TalkOrigins Project Steve FAQ contains a number of examples of such.
Only about 0.15% of American biologists support creationism when asked via confidential survey; this strongly refutes the proposition that biologists who support creation keep their views quiet to avoid any backlash. Examples of such backlash for simply believing creationism are nonexistent (as shown on Expelled Exposed and at Talk Origins).
The question is whether those named on the list have qualifications such that lay people should give weight to their opinions in the creationism versus evolution debate. A spot check of a few names on the list, based on information widely available on the internet did not find any medical practitioners from the lists with PhDs in a science-related field or employed as scientists in the normal sense. The spot check also indicated that the following names are of people who do not appear to fulfil the normal requirements to be defined as scientists, although some may be leaders in other fields:
- Dr. John Meyer received his Ph.D. from The University of Western Ontario. His specialities are in the areas of work attitudes, work motivation, leadership, and organizational change
- John N. Moore, M.S., Ed.D., (Science Educator) has a Doctorate in education
- Dr. John W. Moreland (Mechanical Engineer and Dentist) has a Bachelor of Science, Engineering Mechanics and Materials, and Doctor of Dental Surgery.
- Arlton Murray received a D. Sc. (Doctor of Science) in 1981 from the Sussex College of Technology, widely described as a "degree mill". He does not have a PhD or any other doctorate from a recognised university.
- Stanley A. Mumma (Architectural Engineering ) has Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering
- Prof. John Oller received his doctorate in General Linguistics.
- Saami Shaibani does not have the credentials he claims; he in fact was charged with perjury for claiming so in a court of law.
- Harold Slusher only has a degree from a diploma mill.
A project by the NCSE, Project Steve, has collected the signatures of over 880 scientists only named Steven, Stephen or another variant (of which about two thirds are biologists, unlike the creationist lists) who agree completely with the basic tenets of evolutionary biology. As Steves represent only 1% of the population, this means that, at minimum, about 88,000 scientists would be expected to sign this statement, as compared to the about 500 (many of whom are dubious in their scientific credentials) who have signed the statements supporting creationism.
