Can you scientifically prove the Creation story wrong ?

Offer up some evidence to test and I'll be happy to give a go.

Can't prove it correct, either.

Either way (creation or 'big bang') it doesn't make any difference since we are obviously here.

There is a great deal of legitimate scientific evidence supporting the 'big bang' theory, which is the way that I favor rather than instantaneous creation, however (there's always a 'however', eh?).

To review, the 'big bang' states that our universe sprang into being from nothing as an infinitely small, infinitely massive, infinitely hot singularity which then exploded thereby giving rise to the stars and planets.

I, as a Christian, have no problem with that.

Why? you may ask. Very well, I'll tell you.

I know who made that singularity spring into being from nothing.

The 'big bang' (and even evolution,most likely) are only the tools used by God to create our universe and all the life within it.

IOW, creation is creation whether by explosions and planetary accretion or by instantaneous, fully developed creation complete with fossil records and apparent evidence of evolution.

If you view the creation story in genesis as allegorical then no--one can not disprove the creation story. If you view the creation story as literal--well one can never truly disprove anything. It is theoretically possible for the thermal motion of the molecules in the air to carry all the air to one side of the room causing you to explode in vacuum if you were sitting there. Not to worry, while you can't prove that it won't happen you can surmise via mathematics that the mean time for this occurances is somewhere on the order of 30 times the expected lifetime of the universe. Likewise, with the information we have that supports the big bang, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, biological evolution--the odds of your creation story occurring as writtin are somewhere close to that of the example. So no, your hypothesis can not be disproved--merely shown that the odds against that particular hypothesis being correct are infitessimal.

The creation tale in Genesis is the sole one from historic circumstances that holds up in present day circumstances. different cultures around the comparable time had the universe getting into existence after a war of the various gods. regularly the earth and individuals have been made by utilising the triumphing gods from the physique components of the lifeless gods. Kinda stupid. you are going to be able to desire to realize- a million. The intro to Genesis replaced into written partly as a reaction to the pagan creation myths 2. The creation tale in Genesis is poetic 3. The creation in Genesis tale teaches us approximately God, morality, and our place interior the universe 4. The creation tale in Genesis isn't a technology lesson. Few poems are. (If any.) i'm hoping this enables. if so, you could stay away from destiny embarrassment by utilising attempting to educate technology from this or different poetical works. Have a superb day. Pastor Doug Jesus highway undertaking

Your question is backwards, can you prove that the universe wasn't created by the flying spaghetti monster with a single wave of his noodly appendage? Of course not, but I'm willing to bet that you don't believe it.

If you want to assert an absurdity, such as the world being created by your magical sky daddy in 7 days, the burden of proof is on you, so I await your proof.

Can't find any? Why am I not surprised...... Don't feel bad about your complete failure to competently defend your beliefs, people have been trying and failing for the last 2000 years, it's an impossible task, because your god doesn't exist, so he didn't create the world.

"Immature answers will be ignored."

You mean all answers will be ignored. If you're still believing in mythical creation stories, then you clearly have not been paying attention, at all.

Sure. I can prove it's a wrong in a great number of ways. First, tell me which mythical creation story you are talking about. There are 1000s and none are the same.

The creation story has already been scientifically proven wrong and many times - get your head out of the sand!

On the other hand, what's amazing is the similarities between the account in Genesis and theories by people like Steven Hawkings.

If the creation story is Adam and Eve then of course.

Humans evolved over millions of years and all life is related and started from a common ancestor billions of years ago. The cosmic evolution is that Earth and other planets formed from left over material from the Sun. This info brought to you by Science!

Creationism was just mankind's attempt at understanding our origins. Science came along and did a better job. Evolution is simply better science than Genesis.

There are volumes upon volumes of scientific evidence pointing towards something other than creationism. There are only a couple of dozen pages in a book thousands of years old to support creationism.

Which would appear to be more reliable from a scientific viewpoint?

Science cannot disprove the creation story (although, fortunately for them - the burden of proof is square on the shoulders of the people making the fantastic claim...)

However Creationists cannot prove the creation story.

That's why I'm an agnostic, because 'god' can't be proven or disproven.

As far as I'm concerned - 'god' is possible, just not probable.

The Creation story is inconsistent with what we know about the history of the Earth and the Universe in general. There is an enormous amount of information that conflicts with the whole thing. These facts (such as the blue-shift of celestial objects) can be verified by anyone that cares to do so.

Where is the support for your Creation theory?