Science Must Acknowledge a Creator to Hold to the Big Bang

We are told, by the definition of The law of conservation of mass/matter, that “matter cannot be created nor destroyed, although it may change form.” It has been noted that “Matter can become energy, and energy can become matter, but always according to e=m2.” And it is noted that, the “Law of Conservation of Energy states: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.”

So there is a problem with the Big Bang.

Where did all of the matter/energy originate from, since the Big Bang could neither create nor destroy matter/energy?

Simple answer: A Creator.

Even now, there are those which desire to claim “another universe whose collapse appears to have given birth to the one we live in today”. Man can continue to grasp straws from the great unknown, but science returns to their own FACTS that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It is merely simple to understand where the idea of the Big Bang originated from:

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Throughout His creation, He is said to have spoken things into existence (ex. “God said”).

Just like when God spoke to Moses, concerning the 10 commandments, whereas Moses, the prophet looking unto God for His wisdom, heard His words, the people below, which murmured and disbelieved the very God which had released them from Egypt, only “saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking”, and they only wanted to hear Moses and not the voice of God.

So, as Christians, we hear the Words of God through Scripture as He spoke into existence the matter/energy and all that is, while others only hear the sounds and take what they see as the Big Bang.

Sorry science, (although I completely disagree with your ideas contrary to Scripture concerning the creation of all that is) without a Creator, you have no Big Bang.

FAITH A Four Letter Word

Faith:
Hebrews 11:1: the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Encarta.com: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
Dictionary.com: confidence or trust in a person or thing, belief that is not based on proof

It appears some believe faith to be a four letter word that they will have no part of. So today, I am questioning faith with the idea of, can anyone actually live life without such? I am not narrowing my idea of faith to only saving faith or even religious faith, but simply faith as it stands in anything.

Does every person at least have some type of faith in something or someone, even if they deny such? I believe the answer is yes.

Is there not a sense of faith in believing that ones mother and father are actually their biological parents? Unless there is a DNA test that proves undeniable evidence that such are, is it not based on trust in a person without actual proof? One may say that the evidence points to that, ah, but the evidence though may point to such may only be leading one away from the truth.

I know children that look like their parents, but their parents are not their biological parents. There are cases that children do not even know they have been adopted till their teen years when they are told of such. Men have signed birth certificates stating they are the father when they are not the biological father. Yet all these children do not simply “think” these people are their parents, they “believe” and have “faith” that these are their parents without requiring or requesting logical evidence or proof.

Theists are often criticized for having faith that indeed a Creator (whom we call God) created this universe. We are often scoffed by saying we have no evidence and it leaves too many unanswered questions.

On the flip side, when questions as to the origination of the Big Bang, of what set all this in motion, we are given answers like “We don’t know yet” or “Maybe matter and energy has always existed”. Some may claim evidence to the “after effects” of the Big Bang, but not the “start” or the “cause” of the Big Bang. Does this not fall in line with the Biblical definition of faith? “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” No one saw the Big Bang, but there is hope and they believe evidence of that not seen exist to prove it happened.

There could be many more examples, but I just don’t see where it is possible for anyone to live life without some type of faith whether small or great in someone or something without requiring or demanded “show me the evidence first”.

So I Came From a Tadpole

I recently infrequently started visiting an atheist blog and some time back I spent a couple of weeks conversing back and forth with an atheist. Admittedly I don’t know all the info surrounding atheists, but one thing is for sure, they do not believe in a Creator.

The Big Bang seems to be considered the “beginning” and evolution seems to be the means by which man now exists. But reading this article here got me thinking.

According to Wikipedia, the Big Bang “is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.” Although, “Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.” The read is interesting and seems to favor a sci-fi movie theme. How they can easily discount a Creator but are unable to explain where all the matter came from to “start” this random operation to actually produce intelligent design is beyond my human ability to comprehend, and their ability to figure times that it took such and such to develop leaves me highly wondering exactly how much credibility can be put in such an unknown.

So one has the option of believing Genesis 1, that God created the heaven and earth, where the atheist asks, “Then explain to me this God”, or to embrace the Big Bang which I ask, “Explain to me this something from nothing”, or simply not give a hoot. Even as one has the option of believing by faith the Genesis 1 in that God has created mankind, or one may hope in the theory that mankind was randomly created from nothing which became something over millions and m…(hold on, let me get my calculator) time.

As for evolution, there is talk of micro and macro types. Microevolution speaks of changes that stay within a species. Macroevolution speaks of changes which move one species to becoming another species. Most Christians would find it acceptable and observable to agree with microevolution, but when it comes to macroevolution the evidence is lacking. Although there are fossils that science would love to conclude that macroevolution exist, the notable proof that there are “missing links” shows that it is yet a hope and not a fact. It is often argued with viruses and moths as to the proof of evolution, but in both cases they remain viruses and moths; neither macro-evolve into some new species. The eye is a very detailed piece that speaks highly against such random chance as found in macroevolution thoughts.

Back to the article: They claim that Global “Warming will end some species”. My question is this: If evolution, as in macro, is true, then why are species dying instead of simply converting to a new species or adapting to the change in climate to survive? Surely if everything has evolve from nothing, and we are all connected to the same gene pool, and species have been evolving AND so has the climate over millions and millions of years why is it that we are not seeing evolution causing great change within species to convert to new species today?

One might believe they came from nothing, but I have faith I came from something.

God, the great I AM.