[Physicist]

I believe the Scriptures give us a much more accurate answer as to how He did it. "And God said... and it was so."

But don't you find that a little, well, sketchy? Presumably He could have decreed a different universe, in which case, His exact decree would have been worded differently.

So therefore you're necessarily hiding a great deal of verbiage in those ellipses. Since the book of Nature is far longer than the book of Genesis, He must have given us an abridged version. (I'm agnostic on this issue of whether that was to save papyrus or our attention spans.) So if we want to know what he really said, we have to read the book of Nature to find out. But then, there's really no point in opening the cover if we aren't prepared to accept what we read there.

[Daniel_in_Babylon]

The details of the origin of the universe cannot be determined by the natural laws of science. To most people, that seems quite obvious. All the matter and energy and information in the universe created out of nothing. Not many natural laws at work there, are there?! By definition, the creation of the universe is outside of the natural - it was supernatural. Your so-called "book of Nature" provides you with no information on this point. So if we want to know what really happened, our only source would be an eye-witness. And we have One. Jesus Christ, the eternal Creator, tells us in His book that He created the known universe out of nothing and that He spoke it into existence over the course of six days. That's what He says. Now you must decide whether or not you believe Him.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Is it safe to characterize this result as another successful prediction of the Big Bang theory? I don't have the stats on the Universe at its 300,000th birthday, but if the splotches match projections of galactic clusters backward in time from the present, then this is another remarkable success for Big Bang theorists.