I think the issue is about creation in the absence of time.
Since the creation of time itself must be an event outside of time.
No, scientists do not agree that time, space and matter were
created - scientists hold to the view that time, space and matter
began to exist.
I understand. The same applies to the theory of gravity.
However, theories can be translated into facts. There are 4 pieces
of evidence in favor of the big bang. Two of which are microwave
background radiation and general relativity. To say that someone
believes in the big bang is no different from saying that one
believes in gravity. Sure, one may say that, but it's merely
semantics. Big bang did not create anything in particular
(energy can neither be created nor destroyed). I think you speak of
dis-order? That has to do with entrophy - the universe progresses
towards chaos, not order.
The age of the Earth can be dated using uranium dating (uranium
has a half life of 4.47 billion years). Uranium compunds in igneous
rocks can be dated backwards to achieve a fairly decent estimate of
the age of the Earth. If someone can offer an alternative method of
determining the age of the Earth, I'll be glad to hear it.
Yes, is there a creator? I addressed some issues about "creating
time" in a couple of my previous posts. Thus far, I have not heard
any justification of such a premise and how this can be done.
If time has a beginning, and this not an issue of contention
among secular scientists (see http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html),
then it does not make sense to speak of anything prior to or before
time. But note that while science has only RECENTLY come to this
conclusion, the Bible has taught that for thousands of years! Again
I see this as another evidence that supports belief in the
divine inspiration of Scripture.
But I think we should not translate the issue about how the
cause could have brought about the effect ( the universe, including
time itself) to denying the need for a cause, which is what I think
you are suggesting. That anything that began to exist, and
scientists are saying that they began to exist simultaneously
(hence the singularity), means that there must be a cause. I am
sure you are familiar with William Lane Craig's defense of the
Kalam cosmological argument.
There is the theory of gravity (to explain the big things) and
there is the law of gravity which we all experience every moment of
our lives. Gravity can be affirmed via operational science,
repeated tests via the scientific method. But the big bang, if it
is true, is a theory/hypothesis/model/belief about the past to
explain the present. You cannot go back to test it. It depends on
many unproven and untested assumptions. While there are evidence
that supports the Big Bang, there are others that do not. Such
evidence must of course be interpreted, and interpretation depends
on one's worldview, be it naturalism or theism. Please see http://creation.com/dismantle-the-big-bang-and-rediscover-gods-universe
Dating methods are often appealed to as proof that the earth is
immensely old, in the region of 14.7 billions years (I suspect the
decimal point is put there to make it sound more correct). And even
this figure was a revision upwards from the 13.7 billion years. But
have you heard of the RATE project? It provides many evidences that
points to a young earth. See http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-and-old-ages-in-disarray
And if you are a sucker for books like me, you can
even download the entire research document here www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf
As to whether there is a Creator, we may have to start another
thread. But I suspect it will be deleted just as soon as the topic
is started. The existence of God seems to be a censored issue.