maxit2: Even though Uncle Albert is considered one of the most intelligent man. I don't think his theory of special relativity has really impacted on today's world.
Perhaps the future maybe ?

So his theory should be scrapped off the list and replaced with those of Achimedes, John Dalton and the likes. These guys made more practical and useful contribution to science than the over hyped uncle Albert.

In some ways we use relativity.......like in discovering extrasolar planets for instance.

JeffreyJamez: Anyone who believes that Big Bang Theory should have his or her head examined..

The person who came up with that idea was high on some serious weed!!..... everything in the world came from a dot?!!.......even a baby would look and you and shake It's head

Lol...the question we should ask is where does the dot came from?What and who brought the dot into existence?

lastmessenger: Remove Big Bang and the theory of evolution and I will be fine.

Micro-evolution is important in antibiotic development.....and bacterial,viral or parasite research.....especially when it comes to vaccines.

Big bang may eventually prove that a Creator created the world(who set off the bang?).

macsika: Wow good... I might agree with some of them but as for the big bang theory, even if I'm tied with a nuclear bomb and thrown into the pacific ocean, I will never believe that bullcrab story.


The big bang theory and Evolution, none accurately and comprehensively explains the Origin of Man and water, not animals, I mean man and water. Especially the concept of life and death, how was the first man formed and why are others not formed that way. All those rubb!sh archaelogical stories of Australopithecus, Homo habilis,Homo Erectus mumbo-Jumbo.


Creationism has a much better explaination. God created the Universe, and everything in it.

Wrong. When you look at all these theories with an open mind, the Creationist theory is no different if not crazier than the others.


To each his own believe though .

If Hiv/Aids made the list evangelist Ebola needs to top the list.

BIG BANG THEORY
Where Did Everything Come From?

What is the proof?

Islam tells us Allah is both The Creator & The Evolver, of all that exits. We know Allah did not evolve us from monkeys, and we know all things are from Allah. Please share this information with those who deny the existence of God. They need it.

There is a popular theory referred to as the 'Big Bang' theory. It tries to explain the existence of the universe in an evolutionary manner having an initial beginning with an immense explosion of some gases or solid mass. Some say there first was a void or ’nothingness’, or perhaps, some gases which exploded then from this everything in the universe simply began to evolve to the stage that we see now. There has never really been any solid evidence for this idea of 'something out of nothing' concept. Nor for that matter, the evolutionary theory itself.

We would like to explore the idea of creation from a purely logical standpoint using simple terminology without religious hype, emotional pre-convictions or superstitions.

What if someone called a 'scientist' tells you his 'theory' of how cars are made is like this:

A salvage yard on the south side of town blows up and all the metal pieces fly into the air and fall back down in one place forming a brand new Chevrolet Caprice automobile.. with no left over parts.. and the motor is running..

Or what if his theory for how a chair is made is:

An explosion occurs in a forest and the trees go flying into the air and then suddenly they combine with some flying cloth to make a beautiful chair... and then it lands in a furniture showroom complete with matching table and lamp...

He further explains that:

An earthquake in California's 'Silicon Valley' causes the computer chips and circuit boards and other various parts to fall out of their boxes and off of their shelves and just come in place together as they are rolling around on the floor and form the most advanced technical computers existing on the earth?...

Or what of his 'Medicine Theory'? He now claims that:

A gas leak in a pharmacy warehouse causes a terrific explosion. All the different chemicals and substances just smash into each other in exactly the correct amounts to produce a miracle drug which cures everything form cancer to heart and liver disease, old age and warts?...

Wait... there's more to this one:

It is all in one formula, packaged in the bottles with labels and ready to sell with no mess left on the floor?...

Now after all this exploding and excitement this 'scientist' tells you of a great place to relax and have something to eat. It is his favorite place and he calls it: "Burger Blast"! He says:

You just go in and sit down and suddenly a 'blast' from the kitchen occurs and immediately a burger lands right in front of you with all the trimmings.. just the way you like it complete with fries, a drink and even your favorite dessert?...

AND...

No one works at "Burger Blast", it just runs itself, automatically cleaning itself and as you leave it scans your billfold for a valid credit card and charges your bank account for what you have eaten?...

Now the question is: "Are you really going to accept any of this as 'fact'?"

Of course not!

We wouldn't believe a new car is made from flying junk; chairs don't fall down from exploding trees; earthquakes do not produce computers and blasting burgers don't rain down on us from above.

Question: So how come we don't challenge a theory of something coming from nothing and then colliding in the cosmos to make the universe? Is it because of its tremendous magnitude that we have so little comprehension about it, that we are willing to accept any theory from a few telescope 'peeping Toms' to tell us that it came from 'nothingness'? Or just some gases colliding and then... 'Poof'!? Instant Universe? How?

Let us now come to our main subject:




Creation or Explosion?

We can turn our attention to the earth and the heavens and make observations on our own without a 'genius' scientist telling us what we are seeing. And then the idea that nothing is sustaining the heavens and the earth! - 'It just runs itself'? How?

Think about the stars, the sun, the moon and the countless solar systems and galaxies in the universe.
Who or What created them in the first place?
They continue to function and move with the utmost precision and accuracy.
Who does this? Who keeps them gliding along on their courses and orbits preordained for them?[b][/b]

You know I don't like imagining stuffs like that. Because the truth is 'you wouldn't have missed anything'. I asked someone one time that imagine a world of just two colours-black and white'. He said it wouldn't have been beautiful. But I said 'no'. You know why? You wouldn't have noticed...

Science has, and is still making the world a better place! I wonder when our leaders will realise this and stop placing priorities on sports and politics!

In as much as i agree with you, but science still reveals in many cases that organisms are evolving.

macsika: Wow good... I might agree with some of them but as for the big bang theory, even if I'm tied with a nuclear bomb and thrown into the pacific ocean, I will never believe that bullcrab story.


The big bang theory and Evolution, none accurately and comprehensively explains the Origin of Man and water, not animals, I mean man and water. Especially the concept of life and death, how was the first man formed and why are others not formed that way. All those rubb!sh archaelogical stories of Australopithecus, Homo habilis,Homo Erectus mumbo-Jumbo.


Creationism has a much better explaination. God created the Universe, and everything in it.

EITHER BIG BANG OR EVOLUTION

SCIENCE CAN NEITHER PROVE OR DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

macsika: Wow good... I might agree with some of them but as for the big bang theory, even if I'm tied with a nuclear bomb and thrown into the pacific ocean, I will never believe that bullcrab story.


The big bang theory and Evolution, none accurately and comprehensively explains the Origin of Man and water, not animals, I mean man and water. Especially the concept of life and death, how was the first man formed and why are others not formed that way. All those rubb!sh archaelogical stories of Australopithecus, Homo habilis,Homo Erectus mumbo-Jumbo.


Creationism has a much better explaination. God created the Universe, and everything in it.

you believe in that fairy tale by the Jews? C'mon you and I know that the story is baseless.

Kudos to dat micheal faraday for inventing electricity,na so I go dey carry atupa up nd down for night.

JeffreyJamez: Anyone who believes that Big Bang Theory should have his or her head examined..

The person who came up with that idea was high on some serious weed!!..... everything in the world came from a dot?!!.......even a baby would look and you and shake It's head

dnt doubt physicist, u never can tell. Wat u're seeing today if u were tld abt it years back that it is possible u'll never believe it. The airplanes, telephone, electricity, cars, etc. this whitmen reason far different frm us.

Another good post on nairaland. Excellent one OP.
Kudos to the mod for bringing this to the front page.

ayusco85: This are the scientist that make science students ve sleepless night.

See legends.

lekkie073:
u don't have to believe......use ur brain......or has it been colonized by a certain pastor?

TheBigUrban2:


Bloody creatard.

sylaz: NHh
Creation has a much better explanation? don't confuse better for simple.. Creation has a much simpler explanation not a better one..

I am posting this article...not because I think that you guys must beleive in creationism....but to show you that the thinking over creationism has changed over time....it is far more complicated than just seven days.

Excerpt below...

I would like to say emphatically that there are not just two interpretations of the origin of the universe: an (atheistic) “evolutionary” one and a Biblical “Creationist” one! It is important to realize that there are a wide variety of interpretations held by Christians. If you look at the writings of well known evangelical Christian writers (such as F. F. Bruce, Francis Schaefer, C. S. Lewis, R. C. Sproul, etc.) you will find that all of these people agree on the foundation Christianity – the person and work of Jesus Christ – but they do not agree on the exact interpretation of Genesis. For controversial issues St. Paul offers important guidelines in the 14th chapter of his letter to the Romans. First, in Romans 14:5b he says, “Let each person be fully convinced in his own mind”. Christians are to use their minds! From this chapter of Romans we can see that true believing Christians are going to be of different minds over some topics. But verse 3 of the same chapter commands Christians not to regard fellow believers who are convinced of other viewpoints on non-essential doctrines with contempt. Rather they should “...pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another” (verse 19). In approaching a controversial topic I think there is an important need for humility.

Here then is a list of just some of the differing interpretations of the start of Genesis. The positions are not independent and there can be a lot of overlap (e.g., someone emphasizing the “Historico-Artistic” interpretation might hold to all or parts of any of the other views).



“God made everything pretty much as it is now in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago” - the so-called “Creationist” position (a bad name! – I, and many writers on the subject prefer the name “Young-Earth Creationist” for this position). This is the position of the Creation Research Society (CRS), the San Diego based Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and a number of other “Creation Science” organizations. I have a lot of respect for people who hold this view because they are strongly committed to the Bible, but I don't believe it is the interpretation the Bible requires of itself, and it certainly clashes head-on with science. This viewpoint is something of an “American” view and has been much less common among Christians in Europe. The “Creationist” movement as we know it originated in the USA among Seventh Day Adventists (see the detailed history by R. L. Numbers, “The Creationists”, 1993, University of California Press, $15). To get around the apparently overwhelming scientific claims for an old earth, the ICR holds to an “appearance of age” theory where the evidence for an old earth is an illusion created by God. Many challenge the theology of this theory since it requires God to be deliberately deceptive, while the Bible says, “God cannot lie”. There are many books that discuss the biblical problems with the Young-Earth Creationist interpretation (see bibliography; “The Fingerprint of God” has a good section on this).



“Day-Age Theory” - interprets the days of Genesis as geological ages.



“Gap Theory” - postulates that there is a gap between the initial creation (in Genesis1:1) and subsequent events (starting in Genesis 1:2). The gap is presumably billions of years long.



“Days of Revelation Theory” - postulates that the 6 days of Genesis 1 were the six days over which God revealed things to Moses.



“Theistic Evolution” and “Progressive Creation”. These are perhaps the most popular positions among scientists who are Christians. They say that things happen the way science says that they do, but that God is still in charge and able to intervene as he wills. There are many theories in these categories. Opinions differ as to when and how God intervenes. “Intelligent Design” positions (see below) belong in this category. Theistic evolution is pretty much the official position of the Roman Catholic church.



“Concordist Viewpoint” - Emphasizes areas in which the Bible and science agree and assigns different (Biblical or scientific) explanations to different things.



“Genesis is purely theological”. (i.e., it is not necessarily meant to relate what actually physically happened). This is a broad category covering a wide range of positions. I think this position takes a too low view of the Bible and I personally believe that the first few chapters of Genesis are vitally important theologically, but that there is more to them than that.



“Historico-Artistic Viewpoint” - emphasizes that we have to realize that the Genesis was addressed to people 3400 years ago in a form and in descriptive terms they would understand. Moses wouldn't have got very far if God had quoted from a modern introductory astronomy text to him! (“Say, God, what's a quark?”). A senior physicist, who had been chairman of a large physics department in the US (and who was, incidentally, not someone with a high view of the Bible), once said to me, “if we put what we now believe to be true about the origin of the universe into poetic language someone would have understood 3000 years ago, we would come up with something very much like Genesis 1 & 2”. The historico-artistic viewpoint would also emphasize that Genesis 1 is in the form of a poem. It has a very definite literary structure. Phrases and patterns of words repeat (e.g., phrases such as “Then God said...and it was so” or “...and God saw that it was good” or “and there were evening and morning...” But we must be careful to note that whether Genesis 1 is poetry or prose has nothing to do with whether it is an actual very literal description of what happened or whether it is allegorical or something. We must not make the distinction prose = fact; poetry = fiction.



“The Answers are not in yet”. This is part of my own viewpoint. I believe that God has not yet revealed everything to us in the Bible (see Deuteronomy 29:29 and I Corinthians 13:9-10,12) and I know that we don't know all the answers in science yet.



“Humanistic Evolution” this non-Christian approach solves the problem by regarding the Bible as a bunch of myths and ignoring it. However, the Bible is actually very different from ancient middle-eastern myths and is a historical book, well confirmed by archaeology (see suggested reading list, especially Josh McDowell's “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”). The Genesis account is sometimes compared to the Babylonian creation epic, the Enuma Elish, found on tablets in the Assyrian Emperor Ashbanipal's library (667-626 BC) but they are fundamentally very different. The Enuma Elish is about gods and goddesses bearing children, getting angry with each other, wanting vengeance and killing each other. The difference between this obvious myth and the Genesis account is most striking.



The main controversy has been between people at the two extremes (young earth creationists and humanistic evolutionists). “Creationists” attack the science of “evolutionists”. I believe that this sort of attack is very bad both scientifically and theologically. The “scientific” explanations offered by “creationists” are mostly very poor science and I believe this sort of thing actually hinders some (many?) scientists becoming Christians. It is true that there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory (a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job) and that these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses, but the real problem with humanistic evolution is in the unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations. It is the latter that “creationists” should really be attacking (many books do, in fact, attack these unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations).

While discussing controversies and interpretations of Genesis I should mention something that has been much debated in recent years but is not an interpretation of Genesis: what is called “Intelligent Design”. This movement, which is often erroneously confused with young-earth creationism, is just exploring the question of what evidence there is in the universe for design by an intelligence. This is really a general, non-religious question (although with obvious religious implications), and there is no opinion on the interpretation of Genesis.

Also worth mentioning under different viewpoints is the Islamic creationist movement in the Muslim world. The leading spokesman of this is the Turkish writer, Harun Yahya, whose work is widely read in the Moslem world. Yahya is non-committal about the age of the earth.

Although I’m writing this handout primarily for Christians, Genesis is, of course, a Jewish book. Jewish creationism includes a continuum of views about creationism, the origin of life, and the role of biological evolution that I cannot cover here.

It is worth noting that a number of important figures of antiquity interpreted the creation days of Genesis I as long periods of time. These include the famous 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, and many important early Christian writers including Irenaeus (a martyr in the 2nd century), Origen (3rd century), Basil the Great (4th century), Augustine (5th century), and Thomas Aquinas (13th century) [see “The Fingerprint of God”, and especially “Creation and Time” by Hugh Ross, for references]. This is significant because none of these Bible interpreters of antiquity can be said to have shaped their scriptural views to accommodate contemporary scientific views for an old earth, since this scientific evidence dates only from the 19th century.

D universe never came about through d big bang theory.those re assumptions made with hypothesis and observation.God in its infinite power spoke,and d earth came into being.U can't touch nd See air,but u believe it exist.so believe dis truth even if u weren't there wen d world was created.

emog17: dnt doubt physicist, u never can tell. Wat u're seeing today if u were tld abt it years back that it is possible u'll never believe it. The airplanes, telephone, electricity, cars, etc. this whitmen reason far different frm us.

Hogwash..... how can people even think like this...... smh

JeffreyJamez:

Hogwash..... how can people even think like this...... smh

use ur brain

Looking for more information on how life got here,read this book."Life,how did it get here,by EVOLUTION or by CREATION.published by JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.very fascinating.

emog17: use ur brain

I suggest you use yours because It's obvious you ain't......... that's if It's not a dot

JeffreyJamez:

Hogwash..... how can people even think like this...... smh

our mind is so clouded wt God and religion dat is why the blacks dnt think far like the white, we dnt see possibilities and dat is our greatest limitation when it comes to scientific discoveries. No Blackman has ever won a Nobel prize in science.

emog17: our mind is so clouded wt God and religion dat is why the blacks dnt think far like the white, we dnt see possibilities and dat is our greatest limitation when it comes to scientific discoveries. No Blackman has ever won a Nobel prize in science.

It won't be bad if it actually starts with you

date1816: "As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Anthony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher.



The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.

Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." (1)

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (2)

"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." (3)

The DNA research which Flew cites as a fundamental reason for his change of opinion has indeed revealed striking facts about creation. The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopaedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design. Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact.

Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. (4)

Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs. (5) Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:


"What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed… There's a huge intelligence there." (6)

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject:

A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. (7)

Creationist scientists and philosophers played a major role in Flew's acceptance of intelligent design, backed up by all these findings. In recent times Flew participated in debates with scientists and philosophers who were proponents of creation, and exchanged ideas with them. The final turning point in that process was a discussion organised by the Institute for Metascientific Research in Texas in May, 2003. Flew participated together with author Roy Abraham Varghese, Israeli physicist and molecular biologist Gerald Schroeder, and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane. Flew was impressed by the weight of the scientific evidence in favour of creation and by the convincing nature of his opponents' arguments, and abandoned atheism as an idea in the period following that discussion. In a letter he wrote for the August-September, 2003, edition of the British magazine Philosophy Now, he recommended Schroeder's book "The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth" and Varghese's book "The Wonderful World."( During an interview with the professor of philosophy and theology Gary R. Habermas, who also played a major role in his change of mind (9), and also on the video "Has Science Discovered God?," he openly stated that he believed in intelligent design.

The "Intelligence Pervading the Universe" and the Collapse of Atheism

In the face of all the scientific developments outlined above, the acceptance of intelligent design by Antony Flew, famous for defending atheism for many years, reflects a final scene in the process of collapse being undergone by atheism. Modern science has revealed the existence of an "intelligence pervading the universe," thus leaving atheism out of the equation.

In his book "The Hidden Face of God," Gerald Schroeder, one of the creationist scientists who influenced Flew, writes:

"A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom." (10)

Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior mind and wisdom. There is no doubt that the possessor of that knowledge and mind that pervade the universe at all levels is Almighty Allah. Allah reveals this truth in the Qur'an:

Both East and West belong to Allah, so wherever you turn, the Face of Allah is there. Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing." (Qur'an, 2:115)

I was reading the above and getting interested until they cited book of terrorism and its writer.

[color=#990000][/color] God is good

JeffreyJamez:

It won't be bad if it actually starts with you

im bragging. I'm nt bragging all im saying is that u should be open-minded. Theoretical physicists has really done us good. Most of the things we're enjoying today is applications of wat these scientists discovered. Before the invention of telephone if u're tld u can stay in Nigeria and talk to smbdy as far as u.s without any wire connecting both of u, u'll say it is witchcraft but u're enjoying it. It can be possible in science so start thinking.

bushdoc9919:

In some ways we use relativity.......like in discovering extrasolar planets for instance.

Wetin concern you with mercury venus or mars talkless of planets in outside d solar walls.
Via proper study of floatation ships can sail.

maxit2:

Wetin concern you with mercury venus or mars talkless of planets in outside d solar walls.
Via proper study of floatation ships can sail.

Extrasolar planets are planets that orbit around distant stars....like Gilese 581 for example

hmm

Am so happy today......
I was elected to the post of welfare director in my department!!!!
I go dey comment for evry post i see....

Back to d matter,God is good

bright007:
I was reading the above and getting interested until they cited book of terrorism and its writer.

you deny your Maker, but shall surely meet Him.

Babyboy1986: Ur head corret so?

No let me slap u o