i have reciently wanted to know other peoples theorys on how the world was created, i know about the big boom and god creating the universe in 7 days and all that stuff but can there be a differant way the earth was created?????????

-Maria

Personally I believe the world was created through thought and through thought matter came to be.

thanks for replieing(sp?)

Eveything in our Universe was created by vibrations from the Primordial Vibration caused by a Super Nova (Big Bang)

There is no big bang ..it is just a myth

the GOD is created the universe in 6 days..and nobody can know how !!

in our holly book GOD tell us about the creation of the universe ..the heaven ..the earth..etc

What is this holly book?

My theory (though hardly mine) is that energy has been around eternally and always will be. No creator God or Big bang, just endless eternity with its constant vibrational changes and manifestations that we are all part of.

I have no idea, but I think I had something to do with it.

There was once a princess who was all alone. She was very bored since it was unsafe for her to go outside and play with the other children who lived outside of the castle. Her father was not cruel but very concerned but sometimes there is little difference between the two or at least she thought. Her mother though would set up all the toys her father brought her in a corner room which had a good view of the outside world. The girl would play all day and then look outside and pretend all the children she saw were her friends. When it came for her next birthday she told her father she wanted a very big cake, really huge, and if she could invite the other children to come and eat it with her. The father of course said no but that he would have the baker make a big cake indeed and on it would be little figures of many children.

So the baker got the order and began to make the cake. It got so big that it came out of the oven and he had to special order a huge oven just to make it in. He had time and the money to do so because once he told the girl's father of his problems he said money was no object. So then the cake was made in the special over and it was not an ordinary cake at all. Some say it was in the shape of an ordinary cake with many layers but others believe it was round. Either way the cake was made and on the day of her birthday it was presented to the princess.

On it were many figures of children, in all colors, and each one all different. She could not eat any of them though and had to set them aside as she began to eat their world. When she was done she ran to the window and looked outside. Setting up the figures of the children she began to name each one and then give it the personality of one of the real life children she saw outside from what little she knew about them from studying them for many days and months. Finally the little figurines came to life and she had friends all of her own.

This is my theory on how the world was made and more importantly what happens after we die. Well maybe not but I was bored.

And your theory has equal merit with the theories that are forthcoming



fullywired

according to the bible.


God said let there be light and bang the universe was born.



According to science there was nothing and then bang there was light and the universe was born.


bang is for emphasis

The Big Bang Theory is the best explanation to date about the origin of the universe. The 'Steady Staters' (Those who believe the universe has no beginning or end) failed and the notion was crushed in the 1960s. This came from cosmic microwave background radiation.

There are only a very small minority of few people left that adhere to the steady state universe, and most them grasp in futility to the concept and hope that evidence that provides a contrary position will simply disappear. Even under limited evidence, a theory that posits an infinite universe can easily be proven incorrect.

If there was an infinite universe, then quasars should be observed everywhere. This isn't the case (They are only found at extreme distances from us), which is one important reason why the Big Bang Theory is correct and an Infinite universe theory is wrong.

THe BIg Bang theory isn't the best explanation. Don't know who fooled you into believing that. Besides, the "theory" has changed so many times. It's more pseudo-science than anything.

I don't think so, when God said "Let there be Light" and there it was, Lucifer was born

Yes it is, according to every physicist who works in an accredited research university, and just about every astrophysicist and cosmologist out there.

Just another creationism versus evlution thread, trot the usual answers out .there ought to be a prize for the first original post


fullywired

Did someone before me explain it as the Primordial Vibration?

Were they there when the universe originated?

According to every theologian, pastor, and priest, God created the universe.

Why should we take the words of physicist over theirs?

Also, not every physicist believes as you claim. Many Christian physicists believe God created the world/universe.

I don't think so .Your definitely on the short list


fullywired

Because physicists deal with science and what they observe through acquired data. Theologians who don't concern themselves with science follow what has been taught to them and don't use science to back up their claims.

And if you know anything about the theory or catholicism then you would know it was proposed by Lemaître, who was a catholic priest. Pope Pius even claimed the Big Bang was proof God created the universe and accepted the theory.

Lemaître, however, was smart enough to know that science and religion are not the same and saw Pius's concept of the theory as an embarrassment, because scripture is to salvation as science are to facts.

Lemaître wasn't just any old priest either. He was not only a member of, but also president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which means your post regarding Christian physicists false.

On a more personal note, every physicist i have had the privilege of working with has been both a Christian and proponent of Big Bang, at my current Research University.

This isn't an issue concerning physicists and theologians, because obviously not all physicists are atheists, and that is the comparison you are obviously trying to draw with your previous post.

Where do I pick up my prize then?

Theologians look at past events/documentation in great detail. They also look at science, but not just physics, or even astronomy, but rather all the sciences.

So you're clearly wrong in your statement that theologians don't concern themselves with science.

Just because you know some people who believe in the big bang and you believe in it doesn't mean it's a good theory or even worthy of being called a theory.

You should learn how to read before you post, because you clearly misread my post.

Key points are

Theologians who don't concern themselves with science
Keep in mind I broadened subject definition of theologians to those who don't concern themselves with science in my post.


Because you are equating people who are proponents of Big Bang with those who are atheists and against religion, and you are not accepting the Big Bang based purely on your religion, which is irrational. This type of thinking is considered wrong, even by your 'own side', specifically Lemaître, his colleagues, and even Pope Pius himself.

this holly book is the (Quraan)..

hi...do u know?? even this energy was created by the GOD..the GOD is the most and biggest power..it's nesessary to be a power rule the world..the energy will be end ..there is a begin and end of everything until the world..the universe..except our GOD who is strong..merciful.and has the ability for doing everything and create everything...the GOD has no beginning nor end..

Infinity is a hard concept to Grasp.

It can also be the simplest Concept, depending how one looks at it.I know the Father of My spirit, and he Has a Father and On and On, (Infinate spirit, al with unconditional love For his creation.

This infinate, Unconditional, Father son Love, with The Holy spirit (Mother), Is what createsSpirits, and worlds and is the same love which keeps tha atoms stable, Or Father's will, which is our will, It goes on forever. It takes an infinate spirit to Make an infinate Spirit. Yes The love unconditional Of Spirit that makes worlds has been around since Infinity, Or eternally.Us being apart of this process, and will continue on to infinity. My perception of infinity does not close back in on it's self, It continues with out end in Oposite directions, Creating anew with every New spirit created.
I'm rambling sorry, any hoo Hope you are well. God bless, LOve Omnaka

Personally, I believe the Big Bang theory, if the gods had anything to do with the creation of the universe they did things leading up to it.

I know how the 'world ' was made , it coalesced. the universe ? no one knows . yet. theory and opinion is all we have so far. some better than others.



I could agree with that !

I agree with that statement. I too think the big bang theory is responsible for creation. But to me then, this is evidence for God, or shall we say the first cause? The following quotes are from the Summa, of the cosmological works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who in my opinion, champions this arguement better than anyone before or since. I know, it is a little bit longer, but please read it.


Article III. Whether God exists.
Let us proceed to the third article. It is objected (1) that God does not exist, because if one of two contradictory things is infinite, the other will be totally destroyed; that it is implied in the name God that there is a certain infinite goodness: if then God existed, no evil would be found. But evil is found in the world; therefore it is objected that God does not exist. Again, that what can be accomplished through a less number of principles will not be accomplished through more. It is objected that all things that appear on the earth can be accounted for through other principles, without supposing that God exists, since what is natural can be traced to a natural principle, and what proceeds from a proposition can be traced to the human reason or will. Therefore that there is no necessity to suppose that God exists. But as against this note what is said of the person of God (Exod. III., 14) I am that I am. Conclusion. There must be found in the nature of things one first immovable Being, a primary cause, necessarily existing, not created; existing the most widely, good, even the best possible; the first ruler through the intellect, and the ultimate end of all things, which is God.
I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.


The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.


The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ooooh, Ooooh...I know.... Wing and a prayer!!!!!