Big Bang V Creation....is there really need?

Ok. Im sorry if I'm wrong but....

I presume that from what I have read and heard...the Big Bang created physical matter from absolutely nothing? ok. I also presume that God made the universe from...nothing? Does this not mean that if science really was to prove the Big bang theory...wouldnt this prove the book of genisis to be scientifically possible?

From what I have read briefly, The big bang; matter blossoming out of nothing. When Hubble confirmed the big bang by gathering evidence...the church used this argument of "The singularity" to claim the bible had been scientifically proven. The Singularity; Time Zero; The exact moment of creation.

I understand that CERN are able to create antimatter by colliding subatomic particles at great velocity. For antimatter to be anitmatter, the must be matter; which there obivously is. Therefore if these two building blocks are completely opposite, this suggests everything in the universe has an oppostie. For example; Light and Dark. We all know that opposite pairs cancel out in some form, therfore when matter and antimatter were created in the big bang, they would indeed collide and react with one another. CERN say in their experiments, "Animatter annihilates with ordinary matter, disappearing in a puff of energy.." This puff of energy being intense light....does the phrase "LET THERE BE LIGHT" come to mind here?

Surely Genesis and the big bang can simply be proven by understanding the presence of an enourmous source of energy?

" God, Buddha, The Force, Yahweh, the singularity, the unicity point...call it whatever you like, the result is the same. Science and Religion support the same truth - pure ENERGY is the father of creation." - Angels and Demons - Dan Brown

Alot of these ideas come from Dan browns "angels and demons" but There are sources all over the WWW suggesting the same truths. Just thought I'd see what people thought. Correct me if Im wrong. Im only 14.

Wally.

Matter and antimatter both contain matter they only differ in charge. For example, the electron-positron pair are considered anti-matter pairs yet they both contain the same amount of mass. There is no positive mass and negative mass. The opposite of mass is energy.

Rather than form anti-matter pairs, the universe formed partial anti-matter pairs, with one aspect with more mass than the other, i.e., proton and electron. These are anti-matter in the sense of opposite charge just like the electron-positron, but their unique mass ratios makes them dance forever, via EM force, without annihilation. That was intelligently designed by nature.

Current theory has almost equal matter-antimatter pairs, with a slight excess of one. The problem this creates is where did all the energy of annihilation go? It sort of implies 99.999% of the primordial atom was wasted. This is not very intelligent design because it is inefficient.

One interesting thought about the bible. It sort of says the BB, up to when hydrogen forms and light is emitted, occurred in one day, i..e, let there by light. If gravity causes time dilation, and the BB had enough gravity averaged over this initial expansion, the BB reference may have only taken one time dilated day until light appeared. In our reference it took 100, 000 years because we are not time dilated. But the early BB reference was. One would figure that God would ride on the time dilated BB express making sure things were going right and use his time as the standard. It is something to ponder. If one of you math whizzes could do the calculation of much zero reference time will pass in one decreasing time dilated day in the the early life of the BB reference, the result may surprise you.

at least you can talk better than i do.... T_T i'm already 20 and i know next to zilch about what you just said TT_TT

Been a few years since I did math on that level, but based on a simple thought experiment, you are saying that because the Universe was compressed, and therefore all it's mass was compressed, time was also compressed, at least for an outside observer. The one day observed from the outside could have been millions of years for an object on the inside?