Creationism vs. The Big Bang

I will start by defining what I am arguing for: Creation in 6 days, as follows:

01. The first day of creation, God created the time, light, the heavens and the earth.

02. The second day of creation, God created the sky and seas.

03. The third day of creation, God created the land and plants.

04. The fourth day of creation, God created the sun, the moon, the stars and the planets.

05. The fifth day of creation, God created the fish and the birds.

06. The sixth day of creation, God created animals of the land and man.

This debate is not about whether God exists, but which model is scientifically satisfactory.

I will organize the argument by first raising issues with the big bang model, and the describe the science behind 6-day creation.

1. The Singularity

Think about what the singularity is - every known star, planet, black hole, nebulae and more beyond the observable horizon all crushed into a ball smaller than an atom. Sounds a lot more ridiculous than a God, doesn't it? But it's not only ridiculous intuitively, but there is also no physical way for it to exist. Physicists and mathematicians agree that the current laws of physics do not allow for such an object. IN mathematics, a singularity is considered to have a breakdown of theory, and a sign that you need to check your work.

2. Something out of nothing

There is currently no explanation for where the matter for the singularity came from. The laws of physics prevent matter from being created, so it couldn't have just spontaneously happened. This presents a massive problem for the Big Bang. Multiple other explanations have been created to explain this "miracle". The law of entropy basically tells us that as energy gets converted to heat, entropy (disorganization) increases. So, a universe would eventually reach the most disorganized state possible, but a cyclic theory says that eventually the universe gets reorganized into a singularity. How? Scientists aren't really sure. They speculate that gravity could cause it, but not even gravity can reorganize things. If somehow this did happen, it still wouldn't solve the 'something out of nothing' problem. Our universe wouldn't have to deal with it, but if you go far enough back in time, one universe would've had to come from nothing. This is called an infinite regression. Some atheists argue that time, also is a loop, and the last universe will also be the first. But then where did we come from? If something has no definable beginning, it can't exist.

3. The Horizon Problem

The universe is too young to allow for light to cross the universe. However, this would be necessary to allow for the uniform temperature. The universe is at least 93 billion light years across. How ever, it's only 14 billion years sold! So, the radius of the universe is 46 BLY. Unless matter can suddenly travel faster than light, how did it get to where is did in only 14 billion years? Obviously, it cannot. Therefore, an expansion-based model is impossible. This also shows that it couldn't be uniform in temperature, even if light and matter was faster in the beginning, because it wouldn't have been long enough for uniformity of temperature.

The creation theory has none of these issues.

Does Creation theory have a singularity?

There would be no expansion problems with creation, as matter was placed where it is in place, not expanded there - so no uniformity issues. All causes were clearly defined - God caused it to happen.

Does Creation have a beginning problem? 

I would like to start by saying that God is not made of matter, and does not obey time, so he doesn't obey physics. However, this argument does not hold water against most atheists, and its sort of a loser excuse, so I will try and find other reasons he doesn't need a creator. First, He has a consciousness. Therefore, the very possibility of his existence gives a reason and because that guarantees his creation and/or eternal existence. Also, since he is outside of time, He doesn't necessarily need a beginning at all.

In conclusion, Creationism makes a lot more sense, and in fact takes less faith than the Big Bang to believe in. 

Sources:

I have read many books on this subject over several years and cannot cite them all. All the gaps that these sources don't cover have been filled in by these books, and I have added detail using those books as well as plain logic. Good luck.

Here again I like to be straightforward, concise and plain.

Starting with what the opposing side put forth since no description was given on the topic, they stated:

"This debate is not about whether God exists, but which model is scientifically satisfactory."

Now here is the definition of the scientific method upon using Google search engine.

"a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

So what satisfies or fulfills the use of science for us looks like is covered in this definition. What else is there to meet approval or acceptance?

So we notice there in the definition observation and  experiment. See we observe the experiment. We're able to test what we measure empirically to solidify the facts.

So with all the opposing side had to say , to satisfy scientific backing of their case, it would include these other elements just mentioned.

What else did the opposing side had to say?

The bottom line of course. I try to get that bottom line.

"In conclusion, Creationism makes a lot more sense, and in fact takes less faith than the Big Bang to believe in. "

It takes just about as much faith because in either model as you call it, in either instance of each event called the beginning, neither one of us was there to witness, observe what happened .

There's no record of it we can replay over and over or test and retest for clarification and verification.

Do you follow?

Something making more sense can be subjective. Now if you're talking about straight consistency, consistent with what? Is it the facts, is it the natural laws?

Between which of the two models holds the most consistency with what we understand about the facts of physics, matter, causality?

What we understand about God in the beginning of EVERYTHING existing that would include logic, natural laws that would include the law of causality and all physicalities, God made everything. Being that, there was something made out of nothing (non-existence).

The "big bang" mirrors the same . Before there was a singularity of an explosion, there was non-existence.

So each case would require faith because these cases are not based on evidence. The rules didn't exist yet as they do now in which we would assess evidence. We can't assess it the same as the foundation is set aside as the predecessor. Just like the dawn of man emerging is different than how he develops now.

On top of that without us witnessing the experience, we don't have evidence. Evidence is what is given through the physical world and reality to our detection where those physical elements are evident to us by sense.

So therefore one model is not really more of science. Science didn't exist before it existed. It didn't have a role . After everything was put in place, man came along with a method to understand what's before them or in the presence of them as it exists in the progression of time, not prior to the existence of time.

Why one believes in one model versus the other has many factors including exposure, upbringing, society, culture and maybe the personality, thought process and tendencies. A person may be more open minded, optimistic, close minded, skeptical or cynical.

That's pretty much all there is.

So now the BOP is on the PRO to prove that it is, in fact possible to complete a comparison of the models and to prove that it is possible to have a theory of creation that is not completely speculative. I am no longer trying to prove the universe was created in 6 days, the CON has made a claim that I cannot prove anything at all. Since there is admittedly more evidence for the Big Bang, I will show how we can rely on modern-day techniques to get cold-hard facts about the creation of the universe. I will aslo include a section on how this applies to 6-day creation.

CON's argument:

P1: The definition of science is that it includes: "systematic observation, measurement, and experiment(ation)"

P2: We did not observe the creation of the universe

C1: Therefore, we cannot give a fully scientific explanation of the creation of the universe no matter what model we use.

First, we can in fact see the beginning of the universe, sort of. Light cannot travel instantaneously, so when we look at far away objects, we are, in fact, looking at the past. The galaxy GN-z11 is (currently) approximately 32 billion lightyears away [1, 2, 3]. However, we see it as it was 13.4 billion years ago. The current theory is that the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago [2], so we see the galaxy as it was 400 million years after the Big Bang. For the universe, this is blink of an eye! In fact, we are seeing this galaxy as it has elapsed only 2.89% of the current age of the universe. We could reasonably conclude that this galaxy fulfills the 'observation' part of CON's claim. However, there are other ways we can "observe" the beginning of the universe. How about cosmic microwave background radiation [5]? This is casued by light being emitted when the universe was cooling - the same reason a melting piece of metal glows red. We can also see "redshift" of galaxies, caused by them receding from us at a prodigious rate [6]. So, we can see indirect evidence of a sudden creation from a singularity. Furthermore, to fulfill my burden to prove it's possible to compare the two models, both of these pieces of evidence point towards a big bang: If Earth was created 6,000 years ago, then it couldn't have possibly been so hot at the time of its creation. And if the galaxies were "snapped" into place in a single day, they would be moving towards us due to gravity, not away from us [7]. All of this evidence shows how we can observe the universe when is was just 389,000 years old - although there is a chance we are seeing as it was just microseconds old [8]. So what's left? We still cannot repeat an experiment, which would still invalidate the claim that creation science is science. So we'll show how we can experiment to learn even more about the Big Bang.

Scientists have, in fact, recreated cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) in the lab [9]. They cooled atoms to the point where they acted as sound waves. "One can think of the Big Bang, in oversimplified terms, as an explosion that generated sound, Chin said. The sound waves began interfering with each other, creating complicated patterns. “That’s the origin of complexity we see in the universe... [9]" They successfully demonstrated those same interference patterns in their experiment, showing how the very first nanoseconds of the big bang unfolded. Furthermore, we are detecting gravity waves rippling out from the event, using proprietary gravity wave detectors [10]. Therefore, we can also do experiments to validate our theory.

CON has claimed that "without us witnessing the experience, we don't have evidence". I think I have provided ample evidence to refute this claim. That's all, so over to you.

1: Farthest Galaxy Yet Smashes Cosmic Distance Record | Space

2: Hubble Team Breaks Cosmic Distance Record | NASA

3: GN-z11 - Wikipedia

4:The big bang | Institute of Physics (iop.org)

5: Evidence-for-the-Big-Bang.pdf (uwa.edu.au)

6: Redshift - The expanding Universe - Higher Physics Revision - BBC Bitesize

7: (22) Why I am no longer a creationist - The Big Bang, Redshift, and Science - YouTube

8: Incredible Technology: How to See the Big Bang | Space

9: Ultracold Big Bang experiment successfully simulates evolution of early universe | University of Chicago News (uchicago.edu)

10: Next Generation Gravitational Wave Detectors Should be Able to see the Primordial Waves From the Big Bang - Universe Today

"So now the BOP is on the PRO to prove that it is, in fact possible to complete a comparison of the models and to prove that it is possible to have a theory of creation that is not completely speculative. I am no longer trying to prove the universe was created in 6 days"

Well move the goalpost when you couldn't score on the other one.

"the CON has made a claim that I cannot prove anything at all. "

Please quote where I made that claim. If you can't quote it, you fail to prove that as well.

"Since there is admittedly more evidence for the Big Bang, I will show how we can rely on modern-day techniques to get cold-hard facts about the creation of the universe. I will aslo include a section on how this applies to 6-day creation."

What do you mean by "more evidence "?

Which has been proven period? Is it the big bang or God that caused the big bang ?

"First, we can in fact see the beginning of the universe, sort of. "

You can see deductive research perhaps. Even that is just the basis on what you're TOLD. The average person is not a scientist that has done the research or applicable experimentation themselves.

Every instance you say "we see" this, "we see " that, I don't see anything but the information you're telling me.

It's just deductive conclusions based on theory or thought. The reason why it's crucial that we have to be there to witness it is because a lot of things we think happened a certain way are completely wrong. 

Those things we find out that were wrong can be verified today as there's a present day empirical measure. For example based on what people thought, whatever it was, had the position that the sun and perhaps the other planets revolved around planet earth .

This is just what people have thought based on what was available. Now extrapolate that to something where we have no present day empirical analysis because of no record of any kind.

We have a present day record of celestial orbital activity .

"CON has claimed that "without us witnessing the experience, we don't have evidence". I think I have provided ample evidence to refute this claim. That's all, so over to you."

How do we know what happened how it happened in the beginning of all existence without being there?

All this is controversial because we don't know, isn't that right?

You mention the term "evidence " but what kind of evidence is there that still leaves me with a "I don't know" at the end of day?

Let us not conflate evidence with theory or an extensive deductive hypothesis.

If I could visit the beginning of time and how it happened, what if I told you everything you thought was true was wrong?

Would that be impossible if I had a way of visiting the dawn of all things?

I think you knew you couldn't prove exactly the spark in the beginning so now you move to arguing the best premise or guess .

It's interesting, your best guess can still be wrong so what does "the best" really mean here?

That's why this just remains a back and forth in a circle dialogue that doesn't go anywhere. You'll be scratching your head all day.

Still scratching your head.

So much for a challenge.

This was an easy one folks.

These two models side by side at the end of the day, one is not any more proven scientifically than the other .

The idea of science didn't even exist before it existed before anything ever that was created to exist.

The natural laws that we understand now and explain through science weren't there before they were there to kick start everything including fully operating laws. So how are you going to use science to explain a framework that exists now when there was none to explain it with?

The use of science is to explain how things work in the natural world. Before the world was , there was no "how things work " so it's folly to try to address it the same or explain by science . 

There were no scientific rules to make a basis from, it was the foundation. Now we can apply a basis within time of operations, volume, matter and space. Not outside of it. It's outside our knowledge, record, senses, understanding, outside of logic. 

We can explain how a man develops and prove it with the start of sexual reproduction. But how about the first man? The first man was the beginning, the foundation. Therefore we have the theory of evolution. What we know are perhaps from antecessor to ancestor to successor and descendant , the reproductive circle of life.