Big Bang Or Big Hoax?
|
|||||||||
Jessica See | May 17, 2009
Any honest scientist will tell you that the theory of evolution is only a theory, and nothing more.
For many years, evolutionists have tried very hard, often resorting to imaginative concepts, conjecture and assumptions to prove their point.
Let us take a look at the basis of the evolution theory and let the logical thinking person decide if it is even remotely scientific! The theory postulates that billions of years ago, there was a Big Bang and non-living things over a long period of time became living things. Does that sound logical to you – that masses of unaccountable atoms of gases violently “kissed” each other in a Big Bang and non-living things turned into frogs, princes, princesses, kings and queens. It comes across more like a fairy tale than science!
Furthermore, the theory of evolution teaches this: Some 15 billion years ago (actually it ranges from 13.7 to 15 billion years), there was a Big Bang involving hydrogen and helium gases. After this Big Bang, for 400 million years or so, the agitated atoms of these gases expanded in all directions. Galaxies and planets began to form, and that was the beginning of the universe. The cooling period apparently took 200 million years. Then the earth was formed some 4.5 billion years ago.
At the beginning, there was no living thing on earth at all. Then some 3.8 billion years ago, a single living cell emerged and from that one cell, over a long period of time, millions of simple and complex species were generated. Antelopes evolved to become giraffes because of their constant stretching for leaves on tall trees. Bears became whales because they kept jumping into the water for food. Then some 56 million years ago, monkeys emerged and 21 million years later, apes evolved from monkeys and then humans came into the picture 1.64 million years ago.
Does that sound like science to you?
There are many unanswered questions for this theory:
Where did the gases come from?
How on earth do we know there was actually a Big Bang?
What scientific evidence is there to support this theory about a phenomenon which supposedly started billions of years ago?
If antelopes evolved into giraffes, bears into whales, monkeys to apes, apes to humans, why do we still have these animals in their own forms and none in the “intermediate” form? Do you see any half- ape, half- human walking around, apart from on the movie set?
Someone once illustrated it this way. He took a common ball point pen and started breaking it up into its parts – the body, the spring inside, the ink holder, etc. He then put all the parts into an empty box and started shaking the box. After some time, he asked the audience, “What do you think are the chances that, when I opened this box, you will see a perfectly assembled ball point pen?” You and I know the odds are almost nil; how much more unlikely that a perfectly formed human body or any other element of nature – a flower, tree or animal – came about from an accidental Big Bang?
To me, the theory of evolution is the greatest hoax in history and it’s time we stop teaching this fairy tale to our children as science.
Who is God?
If you ask me or any Christian about the origins of the universe, our answer will be, “God created it.” Then you may ask about the origins of God and the answer will be, “Nobody, because God is self-existing simply because He is God.”
Whether you agree with these answers or not is irrelevant, because the point is: the issue is now brought to a conclusion.
Let’s compare this to the evolution theory. If we ask, “How did the universe came into being?” the evolutionist may reply, “There was a Big Bang of the atoms from the hydrogen and helium gases.”
Then we ask, “Who created the hydrogen and helium?” and he may reply, “They were just there.”
But if we pursue the matter further and insist, “How could that be? You are supposed to get to the source or origin. Who created the gases?”
Then the evolutionist may have to say, “I guess they are also self-existing.”
Now we are all on the same level playing field. I believe that God is self-existing because he is God, but you believe that gases are self-existing. So really the choice presented to any seeker is whether it is more logical to believe that God is self-existing or gases are self-existing, whether God created all things or uncreated chemicals evolved into all beings.
The God that I believe in is the God of the Holy Bible. According to Genesis, the first book in the Bible, God spoke, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Now this light is not merely the sunlight which actually came about on the fourth day. This light is pure energy, the life force of God which came from His breath and spoken word. This is the fundamental creative force of all things and only the Bible gives this information. Without this energy force, nothing else can be created. And science supports this as it has been proven that every matter has energy.
The computer you are touching now is not what it appears to be. If you put it under the microscope, you will see numerous atoms rushing around at top speed, not visible to the naked eye. It is so filled with energy that if you can tap into its power, the energy that is locked in this piece of hardware in front of you, can drive a train for many miles. In fact, physicists have discovered that an atom is composed of more elementary subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc) and they are all impregnated with energy. Quantum physics has discovered that matter is 99.9999999% empty!
Our sight and hearing are made possible because of energy waves. These are light and sound waves that come into contact with our sensory faculties.
According to the Bible, it is in God that we move, and live, and have our being. All the energy comes from Him and even a strand of our hair contains energy.
Next, consider the logical process of creation. After light or pure energy was created, God created space. There is no other literature in the world where you can find the origin of space, except in the Bible.
I urge you to read the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis for yourself, and you will no doubt, concur that it is only logical to believe a personal God created everything. You will also conclude that it is indeed absurd to believe that this entire universe, in all its complexity, can come about by pure chance, all by itself and without a Designer!
Answered with help and permission from Pastor Rony Tan’s book on “Questions on Genesis.” www.lighthouse.org.sg
Filed Under: Miscellaneous
|
|||||||||




















Jessica. I liked your article on the whole, but there’s a clear error in the following para :
“There is no other literature in the world where you can find the origin of space, except in the Bible.”
The creation of the universe is mentioned in detail in the Quran. See this article for more commentary : http://islam.about.com/od/creation/a/creation.htm . In fact there are many more scientific facts in the Quran than in any other Holy Book, as stated by Maurice Bucaille, in his book “The Quran and the Holy Bible in the light of science”. What’s more, all of them are in full agreement with modern science. Here’s the Amazon link to his book (btw, i’m not an Amazon affiliate) : http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Quran-Science-Maurice-Bucaille/dp/8172311613/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242884121&sr=8-2 . I would urge you to read it objectively.
Here’s a Youtube video is about the creation of the universe in Islam : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqXibqzDQCk.
While I respect your opinions and beliefs, I must totally disagree with your reasoning.
The main problem is that you are comparing Science and Religion. These are nothing alike, and are not comparable or compatible, any more than “the feeling someone gets listening to music” and “chocolate cake” are comparable or compatible.
A fairly standard definition of Religion I found on a dictionary web site is: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
The same web site defined Science as: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences; systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Modern Science (in the last 500 years or so) is based on the “scientific method”. In this, someone observes something or thinks of something, and tries to find out more about that. After getting the information readily available, they come up with a “theory”. Such a theory could be “the sun falls into the ocean at night and rises out of the ocean in the morning.” Then that person tries to gather evidence that backs up or refutes the theory—he or she tries to gather all evidence. If evidence refutes all or part of a theory, then that theory may be changed or rejected entirely. If it is changed to fit the new evidence, then it lives on. As time goes on, other people hear about the theory, and they are free to gather evidence to prove or disprove the theory. If this goes on for a long time, sometimes the theory is referred to as a “law”. This does not mean “without doubt” or “absolutely correct” or “perfect”, it means that so far nobody has proven it wrong. Science is not about right or wrong, about good or bad, about faith or trust or doubt. It is about proof. If a theory is found to be flawed, that theory can be changed and improved so that it does not go against existing proof. Science is not fixed—it changes as knowledge changes. Science is useful in explaining, understanding, and predicting many things.
Religion is based on belief and feeling, and cannot be proven or explained by trying to use scientific words or ideas or concepts. Just because someone says something or because something is written in a book does not make it “true” or proof of anything.
One more way of thinking about it… Science starts with an idea (beginning) and tries to figure out a true story (ending) about it. In religion, the “true story” (ending) is fixed, but people still try to come up with ideas (beginnings) to back it up.
FOR YOU: Please consider reading more about the big bang. There is a lot of evidence that makes sense when you put it together. I do not know if it is the actual truth, but the evidence as it is currently known makes sense. Believe what you want to believe, and use what you find useful.
FOR ME: I will continue to study religions, and my faith may increase or decrease. I will believe what I want to believe, and use what I find useful.
Let’s get 2 things straight.
#1 The Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Natural Selection (evolution).
#2 As the bumper sticker so rightly says “Evolutions IS just a theory… like Gravity.”
Have a good day.
What scientists could be honest if they believed evolution were a theory? In fact there are none. Nor is honesty a prerequisite for proof.
Evolution is no more a theory than, as another respondent wrote, gravity.
While there are scientists who ponder where the first ‘bang’ came from they will clearly state everything after that is physics.
But you know arguing with creationists just gives credence to faith-ists seeking to convert (weak) rational thinkers into doubters who will then turn to you for answers. Because you have them right? And you have proof, right? I particularly long to see a caveman riding a dinosaur by the way.
Scientists need not be aethiests but you insist that creationists know no other option than to believe. Of that kind of zealotry the world has already seen way too much.
My oh my… Jessica just opened a can of worms…
1) Jessica needs to read and find out more about science (not wiki)
2) This reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s teapot in space…
Good day, i think we all just needed to be nice… that’s all that matters…
Respect!
This is a great article. For those who want to have more knowledge about the theory of evolution and how it can be contradicted scientifically, not just as a matter of faith, please read “The Evolution Deceit The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism and Its Ideological Background” by Harun Yahya here is the html link http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php and pdf can be downloaded at http://us1.fmanager.net/api_v1/select_mirror.php?dev-t=EDCRFV&with=mod=file,id=14615