Do Christians believe in Bing Bang or theory of Evolution?

Is true that many people who are not scientific ,they believe in Christ becoz they dont understand that ..creation of Universe and evolution of life is different from that described in genesis.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the star

The stars,sun,moon created before the Earth..

Light(Day and night ) before the existence of Sun

What makes an organism live...a soul.. i guess...

What about a virus..?(Does it die and revive several times)

What about hermaphrodites( both male and female sexual organs )



Did we have all animals on Noah ark?Obviously no..they must have evolved...

even the Bible does not reject evolution..

Big Bang cannot be called the truth...but what s described in Genesis is BS

Update 2:

you cant believe in both..

Update 3:


25 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    What about the big bang?

    Even the idea that the universe is expanding is under attack by some astronomers.

    by Werner Gitt

    In his book, A brief history of Time, the well-known British physicist, Stephen W. Hawking, identifies the ultimate question behind everything. ‘Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.’1

    In the last chapter of his book he says:

    ‘We find ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of what we see around us and to ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?’2

    Hawking concedes that the important question of why the universe exists cannot be answered by means of equations and theories.

    ‘Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?’3

    Nevertheless, he concludes his book by limiting himself to the equations, instead of looking for their Author.

    ‘However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable … by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all … be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.’4

    Like so many other astronomers and physicists, Hawking tries to explain the universe without acknowledging its Creator. But Isaac Newton (1642–1727), possibly the greatest physicist of all time, and a predecessor of Hawking in the same chair at Cambridge University, firmly believed that the solar system was created by God.

    The idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Many present-day cosmologists describe the cosmos in terms of evolutionary development and most of them accept the so-called big bang theory.

    According to this theory, the universe began about 10 to 20 thousand million [10–20 billion—Ed.] years ago as an inconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast energy) which has been expanding ever since. The most important observation supporting the concept of an expanding universe is the ‘red shift’ of light from distant stars.

    This inferred expansion cannot be observed directly, but light coming from distant galaxies seems to have longer wavelengths (i.e. gets ‘redder’) as the distance increases. This is attributed to either the Doppler effect (that the wavelengths of light are ‘stretched out’ when galaxies move away from one another) or the relativistic stretching of the space between the stars as the universe expands. The big bang theory suggests that the cosmos was originally compressed into a hot and dense ‘cosmic egg,’ and as the universe aged, it expanded.

    Space does not permit a full discussion of the evidence for and against the big bang. However, many discoveries made in recent years with improved instruments and improved observational methods have repeatedly shaken this theory.5 Interpretations of the available facts in terms of currently held cosmological models very quickly lead to unresolvable inconsistencies. There is an increasing number of astronomers who raise substantial arguments against the theory.

    If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).

    The more progress they made with their cartographic overview of space, the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model was strongly shaken by this discovery.

    It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain enough mass to explain the existence and distribution of these structures. But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead, the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of matter (‘dark matter’) was postulated. Without any direct evidence for its existence, this ‘dark matter’ is supposed to be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass.

    A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects on its popularity. He refers to the:

    ‘… warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.’6

    Another critic of the big bang theory, Halton C. Arp, was attached to the world-famous Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, USA, and to the Las Campanas Observatories in California. He explains the reasons for rejecting the big bang model in a notable article, ‘Der kontinuierlicher Kosmos’ (The continuous cosmos).

    ‘Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely, depending on assumptions about factual observations. The current idea of a big bang has been the standard model for about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of the light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive motions, is increasing.’7

    In other words, even the idea that the universe is expanding is under attack by some astronomers.

    Arp continues his criticism of the big bang theory and calls for it to be rejected by the scientific community.

    ‘In my opinion the observations speak a different language; they call for a different view of the universe. I believe that the big bang theory should be replaced, because it is no longer a valid theory.’8

    Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn University, Germany, writes of the demise of the big bang theory in his book, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall (The Demise of the Big Bang).

    ‘The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the end of time … This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream “natural philosophers.” But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives.’9

    Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of explaining why the universe exists.

    ‘There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.’ He later continues: ‘The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.’10

    It is a great pity that many Christians are willing to ‘re-interpret’ the infallible Word of God to fit a fallible, man-made theory like the big bang. Such ideas are ultimately devised to counter the biblical record, which is firmly against cosmic evolution over billions of years. Those who urge trying to harmonize the big bang with Scripture find it only natural to go on to other evolutionary ideas, such as a ‘primitive earth’ gradually cooling down, death, and struggle millions of years before the Fall, and so on.

    My considered opinion is that as long as we try to explain the universe apart from the Creator and without regard to biblical affirmations given by him, we will continue to be dazzled by a succession of ingenious cosmological ideas, none of which will remotely resemble the truth.11

    This article was adapted from Dr Gitt’s book Stars and their Purpose: Signposts in Space.

    Stars could not have come from the ‘big bang’

    Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

    But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

    But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form—and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.

    Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’1


    Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.

  • 1 decade ago

    with overwehlming evidence Big Bang has become a fact now while as Evolution is still a theory. Evolutionists are frustrated because they are not finding the information regarding the missing links. I read in a scientific Journal recently that it would be not too far when the "Theory of Evolution" will be removed from science books and scientists have to find some alternative.

    Big Bang and other like that scientific facts are givenin Qur'an in great detail and here is the example...

    Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

    (Al-Qur'an 21:30)

    The Biblical verses you have produced have so manu serious scientific errors e.g.

    1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:

    (I think it is from Genesis)

    this verse indicates that moon has its own light while as we know that moon has borrowed light. Qur'an indicates moon as "Munner" which means reflected light that is scientifically correct.

    I can go on and on but I know you wont read the long mail. If you want to share something more with me, I will be rejuvenated...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    some "Christians" would believe in the theory of the big bang that follows the evolutionist standpoint on creation. But many believe that God litterally made the world in 6 days. Yes i have heard of the day-age theory and it does not make sense. As a matter of fact the evolutionary system does not make sense.

    For example:

    in the theory of evolution it states that a spinning period came from nothing, then just decided to explode, and then the earth just happened to form and while it was raining on earth for millions of years the rain falling on the rocks created amino acids and there was life.

    So basicly we all come from rain and rocks if you believe the theory of evolution.

    I have also heard that some say the universe is infinite, ever expanding and contracting, this too is nonsense, because (this might get a little complicated) if the universe was infinite and time was infinite we would never get to this point in time. Because if this point exists then it would mark the end of that infinite point of time before us. Which by my understanding of the word infinite would not compute.

    There are other ideas out there besides evolution for existance.

    Evolution has so many flaws, i won't list them all if you want to discuss more feel free to e-mail me.

    Think about what you believe, does it make sense? Creationism makes sense, God makes sense.

  • 1 decade ago

    The theory of evolution and Christianity are not necessarily exlusive. Who's to say that God didn't program the evolutionary process? If you allow that hypothesis, creationism and evolution get along. God theoretically created the first man, but it doesn't say God didn't create others through evolution. After all, decendants of Adam and Eve found wives and husbands elsewhere.

    So Noah didn't carry every existent animal on the ark. Who's to say God didn't make more after the flood? Read the passages carefully. It says Noah put animals of each type that inhabited the earth on the ark. It didn't say God didn't add more later.

    The Big Bang and Creationism are not exclusive of one another. Except for getting it in the right order, the bible version essentially describes the big bang version.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago


    By definition, a Christian is someone who BELIEVES IN Christ and His teachings.

    Jesus taught that the Genesis account of creation is correct. In fact, Jesus himself stated that everything in the Universe (by the way, Uni means: one, verse means: spoken sentence) was created in 6 days, and man was created on day six.

    So, although most people who claim to be 'Christians' state that they believe in some form of evolution or big bang (as described by evolutionists), how could they be true Christians if they reject the teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament on these matters?

  • 1 decade ago

    You can belive in christ (like be a christian) and not belive the fantasy writen in much of the bible. Besides, does it say at the start of genesis "this is a true story of how the earth was created"?.

    No it doesent it says "this book (genesis) was written to record the story of a people's faith and to help keep that faith alive.

    Oh yeah, I'm a christian, and a Horticulturist by trade (plant scientest). In 1:11 it says how God made trees that bared fruit. The fact is trees that yield fruit (trees that flower, thus producing fruit) are called Angiosperms and these didnt exsist untill some million years after the first trees on earth; Gymnosperms (trees like conifers).

  • 1 decade ago

    I am a Christian, my feeling is simply this, God and science can work hand in hand. God created evolution, time has no meaning for God what is one year or twelve and half billion years, we do not know how long one day is considered when it comes to God. Did anyone stop and think that God created the creation story in Genesis, because we could not understand how God created through evolution. I don't care if I am right or wrong this is what I believe. God created evolution, because through evolution he creates life.

  • 1 decade ago

    I believe in Creation but not Evolution.

    As far as Big Bang goes did anything Big Bang? good question but if anything did manage to Big Bang before the Earth was created then then who do ya think had the power to cause that?

    My answer is God

    We know that God spent 6 days creating the Earth and rested on 7th day, what happened before he created Earth well I do know he had the power to create several stars and then decide to say bang causing them to split off.

    id he do that with the stars I do not know but he has the power to do what he wants in creation of things.

    All I know is he certainly created those stars and he can create anything with snap of fingers if he wanted to.

  • 1 decade ago

    As a Biblical Scholar, I can say that there is far more evidence for creation than evolution. The books listed under Sources below will give you more information.

    As far as the virus, God designed it to go into a hibernative state similar to the Grizzly Bear. The creature never dies, but instead goes dormant for a time. Likewise, hermaphrodites are a corruption of the original DNA code, but nothing worse than somebody born blind or deaf.

    Source(s): Behe, Michael J - Darwin's Black Box Comninellis MD, Nicholas - Creative Defense
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    real Christians doesnt believe in evolution they belive what the biblie tells. if it says that all animals were in the ark then all animals must be in the ark. remember the original language of the bible is hebrew and greek so you have to look at its real meaning first before you give your conclusion. God is so powerful that he can do anything, ask a zoologist/botanist he will tell you that cross polination between flowers produces different specie same with animals. one cell cannot live if it doesnt have a complete system for survival even for a few seconds, meaning for that cell to live he must have a complete set of system already for his own survival he cannot wait for a year to complete his nose, or his brain or his blood otherwise he dies instantly. God is God he can do ANYTHING. The only thing He cannot do is forgive the unrepentant.

  • 1 decade ago

    I am a degreed Theologian...a Christian...and have been studying the Word of God for 35 years, including the original languages of the King James Version...which is the ONLY reliable English Bible in the English tongue. But you confuse me with your question, because you ask if "Christians" believe in the Big Bang theory or Evolution...two choices which true Believers don't believe in at all. True believers believe in "Creation" of all things BY Jesus Christ...Who also even at the present moment is controlling and holding everything together "by Whom all things CONSIST." God is still in control of everything today...and when I say "God", I mean "Jesus Christ"...because it "pleased the Father", that in Christ all things consist. We could go on and on and on and on about these things from God's Word, but here is where I tie it off. You have your Bible...BELIEVE WHAT IT SAYS...and quit doubting and questioning God and His Word.

    Source(s): The written Word of which I mean the King James Version.
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.