Can any creationist explain what the Big Bang Theory says?

This question is directed toward the creationists who don't believe in the big bang theory. I was wondering if any of them could explain to me what the big bang theory says.

Update:

The reason I ask is because creationists always seem so sure that the Big Bang Theory is wrong.

I'm wondering if maybe they have a better understanding than I do and have discovered flaws that I (and nearly all physicists) have missed, and if they could explain those flaws to me.

Update 2:

problem: Yes, I did.

Update 3:

Cuchlain: Any version will be fine.

Update 4:

Cuchlain: I'm not stating that there is a uniform theory on relativity. I am saying that most physicists believe that there was a rapid expansion of space and time very near the beginning of the universe. They may disagree on details, but the basics of the theory are well agreed upon (unless I was mislead by my physics professors).

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    I just finished reading ZERO, by Charles Seife. I would recommend it for a less Physics oriented explanation of the big bang.

    As for an explanation, which one do you prefer? As you are no doubt aware, there are several theories as to the origin of matter and energy.

    ***

    Here is a good explanation, not a religious based discussion, but an even handed discussion of the irregularity of the big bang theory

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bblimit.html

    As you seem well versed in this, why do you believe that there is agreement between physicists on this? Your statement "(and nearly all physicists)" causes me to wonder what you believe about it; are you saying that there IS a uniform theory of relativity? (yes, there has recently been a new unification theory proposed, but certainly not commonly accepted, yet)

    ****

    Thanks - you could say that most creationists (very few who agree), "believe that there was a rapid expansion of space and time very near the beginning of the universe. They may disagree on details, but the basics of the theory are well agreed upon". Oddly, I believe we have reached d'accord, oui?

  • 1 decade ago

    I can't explain it, and I don't really know if there is anything wrong with it. I do know that when it was first proposed, many atheist scientists didn't like it because it sounded too much like creationism. Before the Big Bang theory, they thought the universe was eternal. Now, it's an accepted theory, from what I hear. Why are scientists so afraid of anything that may look like creation? Isn't science a search for truth, even if you don't like the truth that you find?

  • 1 decade ago

    Did you know that the Big Bang is a theory developed by a Catholic priest?

  • 1 decade ago

    The Big Bang was the thunderous sound of G-d's Voice saying 'Let there be light!'. Gen. 1:3

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

    read Arno Penzias ?

    I would not worry about what creationists believe... or disbelieve...

    I love little bunnies, grilled, with horseradish sauce... yum...

    EDIT: Cuchlain, arguing with Vishal (vis a vis what he already *knows*) is like trying to teach a pig how to sing, it is pointless and annoys the pig...now, if you had an AM in your avatar versus making reasonable arguments... well... that would have been different... also, regular pissing on believers would elevate you to a status of a credible interlocutor... since you do not sport the AM flag nor do you urinate on believers, I would advise saving your breath...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Creationists! What do they know about Big Bang? I think you are knocking at the wrong door. They don't even believe in it.

  • Hogie
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Your question makes no sense. If a creationist didn't believe in the big bang theory, then why would you ask them to explain it?

    Big bang: One moment there was no matter in the universe, then the next moment there was matter, and lots of it.

    So, how did it happen? All by itself? "Poof?"

    .

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They have only the pulpit science they learned in church, if they knew all the facts they would accept the big bang because it makes sense

  •  Anon
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    You are a born Hindu...so lets see what Hinduism says about Big-Bang..

    Before Bigbang there was no time and matter..it is after BB that time and matter started

    The Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda describes the origin of the universe as:

    "Then was not non-existence nor existence: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. Darkness there was at first concealed in darkness this. All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. Thereafter rose DESIRE in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent. Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The devas are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not" - (Rig Veda 10.129.1-7)

    But the Rig Veda's view of the cosmos also sees one true divine principle self-projecting as the divine word, Vaak, 'birthing' the cosmos that we know, from the monistic Hiranyagarbha or Golden Womb[original research?]. The Hiranyagarbha is alternatively viewed as Brahma, the creator who was in turn created by God, or as God (Brahman) himself. The universe maintained by Vishnu (The god of presence) and destroyed by Shiva (The god of destruction). These three constitute the holy trinity of the Hindu religion. Once the universe has been destoyed by Shiva, Brahma starts the creation once again. This creation-destruction cycle is called Yuga which is the highest measuring unit of time in the Hindu religion.

    *********************************************************

    Most of present day physics, believes that the world started off with the Big Bang. To ask questions like "What was there before the Big Bang?" or "What happened 1 year before the Big Bang started?" are considered as irrelevant questions, because Time and Matter, became extant only when the Big Bang started. Thus in most senses, the Rig Veda in the above mentioned verses, conveys the same idea. The idea of the non-existence of Time or Matter. And in some ways it goes further, as it also mentions non-existence of a Creator, i.e. "What caused the Big Bang?" also becomes an irrelevant question.

    ***************************************

    Professor Arthur Holmes (1895-1965) geologist, professor at the University of Durham. He writes regarding the age of the earth in his great book, The Age of Earth (1913) as follows:

    "Long before it became a scientific aspiration to estimate the age of the earth, many elaborate systems of the world chronology had been devised by the sages of antiquity. The most remarkable of these occult time-scales is that of the ancient Hindus, whose astonishing concept of the Earth's duration has been traced back to Manusmriti, a sacred book."

    Ancient Vedic texts similarly predict the age of the universe.

    *******************************

    Alan Watts, a professor, graduate school dean and research fellow of Harvard University, drew heavily on the insights of Vedanta. Watts became well known in the 1960s as a pioneer in bringing Eastern philosophy to the West. He wrote:

    "To the philosophers of India, however, Relativity is no new discovery, just as the concept of light years is no matter for astonishment to people used to thinking of time in millions of kalpas, (A kalpa is about 4,320,000,000 years). The fact that the wise men of India have not been concerned with technological applications of this knowledge arises from the circumstance that technology is but one of innumerable ways of applying it."

    *******************************

    Count Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949) was a Belgian writer of poetry, a wide variety of essays. He won the 1911 Nobel Prize for literature. In his book Mountain Paths, says:

    "he falls back upon the earliest and greatest of Revelations, those of the Sacred Books of India with a Cosmogony which no European conception has ever surpassed."

    ********************************

    Huston Smith born in China to Methodist missionaries, a philosopher, most eloquent writer, world-famous religion scholar who practices Hatha Yoga. He has said of Hinduism:

    "The invisible excludes nothing, the invisible that excludes nothing is the infinite – the soul of India is the infinite."

    "Philosophers tell us that the Indians were the first ones to conceive of a true infinite from which nothing is excluded. The West shied away from this notion. The West likes form, boundaries that distinguish and demarcate. The trouble is that boundaries also imprison – they restrict and confine."

    "India saw this clearly and turned her face to that which has no boundary or whatever... India anchored her soul in the infinite seeing the things of the world as masks of the infinite assumes – there can be no end to these masks, of course. If they express a true infinity... And It is here that India’s mind boggling variety links up to her infinite soul.""

    "India includes so much because her soul being infinite excludes nothing... It goes without saying that the universe that India saw emerging from the infinite was stupendous."

    "While the West was still thinking, perhaps, of 6,000 years old universe – India was already envisioning ages and eons and galaxies as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. The Universe so vast that modern astronomy slips into its folds without a ripple."

    ***************************

    Dick Teresi, author and coauthor of several books about science and technology, including "The God Particle"

    "Indian cosmologists, the first to estimate the age of the earth at more than 4 billion years. They came closest to modern ideas of atomism, quantum physics, and other current theories. India developed very early, enduring atomist theories of matter. Possibly Greek atomistic thought was influenced by India, via the Persian civilization."

    ****************************

    According to Guy Sorman, visiting scholar at Hoover Institution at Stanford and the leader of new liberalism in France:

    "Temporal notions in Europe were overturned by an India rooted in eternity. The Bible had been the yardstick for measuring time, but the infinitely vast time cycles of India suggested that the world was much older than anything the Bible spoke of. It seems as if the Indian mind was better prepared for the chronological mutations of Darwinian evolution and astrophysics."

  • 1 decade ago

    Besides BANG! ? nope, can't say.

    Source(s): But I can tell you what The Nolte's theory is on Big Bangs, to be sure. :)
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.