Why is "Big Bang' so important to Creationists?

Its of interest to quite a lot more than just the theoretical astrophysicists, but its been pretty much taught and taken as a fact, despite evidence against it so a lot of people just arent very vocal concerning the matter.
The big bang theory is ONE forcus of christians as that is supposedly the creation of everything; the start of it all. There are just as many other issues that christians do not agree with either.

It could have happened I guess. God could have said it, and BANG there it was!

Good morning Hespera

Hespera said:

As far as I can tell, the"'Big Bang" theory is of interest to some theoretical astrophysicists, and that is about it, at least where the scientific community, or just people in general are concerned. Its kind of a who knows, maybe,
and so what exactly if that is what happened.

Seems tho that it is of some sort of great importance to creationists, it just gets brought up over and over and over, to try to disprove evolution.

Im just wondering why that is.

Click to expand...

Hi Hespera,
Impartially &, or unbiasedly speaking.... as a Christian physicist, chemist, geneticist, etc analytically &, or contrary to what you think, believe &, or have just said, I do not need to talk about the Big-Bang to mathematically &, or scientifically disprove evolution, Darwinism, etc 100% & besides amongst the scientific community.... The Lord my God (i.e., את השילוש הקדוש) & the "Anthropic Principle" (i.e., "Intelligent Design"), has already proven evolution, Darwinism, etc to be 100% fallacies, incorrect, etc.... logically I only talk about it because it's 100% relevant to the Standard Model via the Big-Bang.... true there can be discrepancies &, or inconsistencies along the Christian(s) journey with "The One of many", but as extremist in all things.... growing-up I knew that I can be used to bring forth great "good, or evil", so The Lord my God intervened & prevented me from signing my eternal life over to Satan & instead of me being used as a tool within Satan's hands to kill billions of people & going to hell, etc & now.... currently (for over fourteen years) within this space Δ time dimensional reality, I am equal, or one with &, or in the hands of God(s) & blessed via Him to have brought over 1 × 10[sup]9[/sup] of people into His kingdom & thanks to Him.... I am still going strong, Elohim saved me & raptured me 1.09688515 × 10[sup]36[/sup] undecillion miles away from Earth into (d[sup]3[/sup]) the third dimension, or dimension(s) within Heaven twice.... "the love from & of The Lord my God (i.e., את השילוש הקדוש)".

Hmmm? Really?

Well, anyways, what about theistic evolution? Why precisely would a religious person object to that?

JGL53 said:

Hmmm? Really?

Well, anyways, what about theistic evolution? Why precisely would a religious person object to that?

Click to expand...

Hi JGL53,
The rhizome(s) of theistic evolution I personally view as very ambiguous relative to the "Anthropic Principle" (i.e., "Intelligent Design") because scientifically, mathematically, etc the theistic evolution, etc equate(s) 100% analytically logical fallacies, etc but of-course humanity has the "God" given right(s) to accept &, or reject, etc any particular religion(s), etc they desire.

Conspicuous, I will analytically agree with any individual(s) irrelevant to their age, religion, gender, etc.... logically whom is scripturally, morally, scientifically &, or mathematically correct.

Personally, I'm rather amused to see creationists on both sides of the big bang theory. There are those that trot it out and (wrongly) claim that it supports the existence of their god. There are others, like 70x7 here, that claim it's all wrong. Oh, well. Once more onto the breach...

70x7 said:

Its of interest to quite a lot more than just the theoretical astrophysicists, but its been pretty much taught and taken as a fact, despite evidence against it so a lot of people just arent very vocal concerning the matter.

Click to expand...

The evidence that supports the big bang theory is strong and varied. There is no evidence that contradicts it as yet. Here's a very, very rough rundown of the evidence in support of the big bang theory:

1. The observed expansion of the universe.
2. The observed homogeneity and isotropy of the universe.
3. The existence of the cosmic microwave background.
4. The correlation of the small fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background with the distribution of nearby galaxies (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations).
5. The abundances of light elements.
6. The "shadows" of galaxy clusters in the cosmic microwave background (the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect).
7. The imprint of nearby matter on the distribution of the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect).

There are also a variety of experiments ongoing today that both seek to measure the above with greater accuracy, and to push the measurements into new regimes, such as using gravitational lensing to examine the growth of structure in the universe (e.g. formation of galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc.), and accurately measuring the polarization of the light coming from the cosmic microwave background (which might give us insights into cosmic inflation).

So yes, the big bang theory is on very strong footing today. Stronger than it's ever been. And this is likely to continue in coming years.

Chalnoth said:

...So yes, the big bang theory is on very strong footing today. Stronger than it's ever been. And this is likely to continue in coming years.

Click to expand...

That's my understanding also. So, in speculating about the origin of the "big bang", I think the two competing ideas would be:

1. supernaturally caused by a "god" of some sort (an all-powerful conscious or "acting with intention" entity

or

2. a spontaneous evolution of a "bubble universe" within an infinite and eternal SupraUniverse - the so-called "multiverse".

I think that in applying Occam's Razor a disinterested person would go with the presupposition of choice #2. Contrariwise, a self-interested person might very well go with choice #1. lol.

Hespera said:

Seems tho that it is of some sort of great importance to creationists, it just gets brought up over and over and over, to try to disprove evolution.
Im just wondering why that is.

Click to expand...

Primarily because of ignorance. Many creationists, having been deliberately misled by creationist pooh bas, would rather believe the lie than question it. After all, it's a mind set that delights in the reaffirmation of religious predisposition. And I say "deliberately misled" because it is virtually impossible for any professional creationist---those who have lectured, published papers/books or created a website promoting creationism---to have not been challenged on the point and informed that the BB has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and the theories that under gird it. For instance: creationists, like Answers in Genesis here, ↓ just love to imply that the BB somehow impacts the claims of evolution.
An unconscionable misleading implication? Of course, but deception is an indispensable tool of the the professional creationist, especially when there's $$$$ to be made. Heck, Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino), who started Creation Science Evangelism, was caught hiding a million and a half dollars from the federal government.

JGL53 said:

That's my understanding also. So, in speculating about the origin of the "big bang", I think the two competing ideas would be:

1. supernaturally caused by a "god" of some sort (an all-powerful conscious or "acting with intention" entity

or

2. a spontaneous evolution of a "bubble universe" within an infinite and eternal SupraUniverse - the so-called "multiverse".

I think that in applying Occam's Razor a disinterested person would go with the presupposition of choice #2. Contrariwise, a self-interested person might very well go with choice #1. lol.

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose I should go back and state precisely what I mean when I say that the big bang theory is on more solid ground than ever:

The big bang theory is known to only be accurate back to a certain point. It starts to given nonsensical predictions if you take the theory too far back. After that early point, though, it has proven to be an extremely accurate theory that matches well with all existing experiments. There are some details that need to be nailed down (dark matter, dark energy, baryogenesis, and inflation), but the overall picture is extremely solid.

Also, as of this moment, the exact nature of the start of our region of the universe is largely up in the air. I will admit that it seems most likely that our region is but one of many, but there are a large number of ways in which that could be so. Perhaps when we learn more about what inflation is we'll be able to say more about how it started. But at this moment we only have what pretty much amount to wild guesses.

Chalnoth said:

Personally, I'm rather amused to see creationists on both sides of the big bang theory. There are those that trot it out and (wrongly) claim that it supports the existence of their god. There are others, like 70x7 here, that claim it's all wrong. Oh, well. Once more onto the breach...


The evidence that supports the big bang theory is strong and varied. There is no evidence that contradicts it as yet. Here's a very, very rough rundown of the evidence in support of the big bang theory:

1. The observed expansion of the universe.
2. The observed homogeneity and isotropy of the universe.
3. The existence of the cosmic microwave background.
4. The correlation of the small fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background with the distribution of nearby galaxies (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations).
5. The abundances of light elements.
6. The "shadows" of galaxy clusters in the cosmic microwave background (the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect).
7. The imprint of nearby matter on the distribution of the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect).

There are also a variety of experiments ongoing today that both seek to measure the above with greater accuracy, and to push the measurements into new regimes, such as using gravitational lensing to examine the growth of structure in the universe (e.g. formation of galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc.), and accurately measuring the polarization of the light coming from the cosmic microwave background (which might give us insights into cosmic inflation).

So yes, the big bang theory is on very strong footing today. Stronger than it's ever been. And this is likely to continue in coming years.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't subscribe to your position that the Big Bang theory does not indicate the existence of a general creator deity. However, thank you for providing an informative and accurate description of the evidence for the Big Bang. Not that I'm surprised, since if I recall correctly you are a professonal cosmologist.

On this forum there are many Christians who believe that the Big Bang theory denies the truth of the Bible, as well as some atheists (and possibly theistic non-Christians) who also deny the Big Bang because it threatens their particular brand of atheism. Hopefully both types of individuals will see that there is compelling evidence for the Big Bang.

Washington said:

Primarily because of ignorance. Many creationists, having been deliberately misled by creationist pooh bas, would rather believe the lie than question it. After all, it's a mind set that delights in the reaffirmation of religious predisposition. And I say "deliberately misled" because it is virtually impossible for any professional creationist---those who have lectured, published papers/books or created a website promoting creationism---to have not been challenged on the point and informed that the BB has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and the theories that under gird it. For instance: creationists, like Answers in Genesis here, ↓ just love to imply that the BB somehow impacts the claims of evolution.

"Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away."

source
​

An unconscionable misleading implication? Of course, but deception is an indispensable tool of the the professional creationist, especially when there's $$$$ to be made. Heck, Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino), who started Creation Science Evangelism, was caught hiding a million and a half dollars from the federal government.

Click to expand...

While I agree with your assessments of Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind, it cannot be denied that the Big Bang theory is used by many atheists as part of a particular model of the creation of life. I recently saw a documentary on the History Channel which succinctly summarized it in a statement to the effect of, "mix up a large cloud of hydrogen gas, wait a few billion years, and out comes human life." The Big Bang is then used as a logical extension of this model to explain where the hydrogen gas comes from. Now, I am not denying that the Big Bang is a sound theory (and I think it is almost definitely correct). But there is a valid reason for which many creationists are opposed to the theory. It just so happens that you've cited creationists who are money-grubbing whackjobs.

arunma said:

I certainly don't subscribe to your position that the Big Bang theory does not indicate the existence of a general creator deity. However, thank you for providing an informative and accurate description of the evidence for the Big Bang. Not that I'm surprised, since if I recall correctly you are a professonal cosmologist.

Click to expand...

That's right. But it's really not disputable that the big bang doesn't indicate the existence of a creator. The theory doesn't describe the universe before a certain point, and so cannot have anything to say about the beginning.

arunma said:

On this forum there are many Christians who believe that the Big Bang theory denies the truth of the Bible, as well as some atheists (and possibly theistic non-Christians) who also deny the Big Bang because it threatens their particular brand of atheism. Hopefully both types of individuals will see that there is compelling evidence for the Big Bang.

Click to expand...

Mostly the people who deny the big bang theory are people who have bought into the rather popular idea that the "mavericks" who claim that scientists have it all wrong are actually the ones more likely to be right, when in reality this is rarely the case.

I haven't seen anybody who stated a lack of believe in a god as a reason for doubting the big bang.

arunma said:

While I agree with your assessments of Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind, it cannot be denied that the Big Bang theory is used by many atheists as part of a particular model of the creation of life.

Click to expand...

Huh? Since when does the nearly homogeneous, isotropic expansion of the universe have anything at all to say about the formation of life? At best it just sets the initial conditions. But even that's a stretch as the big bang theory doesn't actually discuss star formation.

arunma said:

I recently saw a documentary on the History Channel which succinctly summarized it in a statement to the effect of, "mix up a large cloud of hydrogen gas, wait a few billion years, and out comes human life." The Big Bang is then used as a logical extension of this model to explain where the hydrogen gas comes from. Now, I am not denying that the Big Bang is a sound theory (and I think it is almost definitely correct). But there is a valid reason for which many creationists are opposed to the theory. It just so happens that you've cited creationists who are money-grubbing whackjobs.

Click to expand...

That's not the big bang theory.

arunma said:

While I agree with your assessments of Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind, it cannot be denied that the Big Bang theory is used by many atheists as part of a particular model of the creation of life. I recently saw a documentary on the History Channel which succinctly summarized it in a statement to the effect of, "mix up a large cloud of hydrogen gas, wait a few billion years, and out comes human life." The Big Bang is then used as a logical extension of this model to explain where the hydrogen gas comes from. Now, I am not denying that the Big Bang is a sound theory (and I think it is almost definitely correct). But there is a valid reason for which many creationists are opposed to the theory. It just so happens that you've cited creationists who are money-grubbing whackjobs.

Click to expand...

Hespera's question, the one I was addressing, was specifically asking about creationists' use of the BB "to try to disprove evolution," NOT the creation of life, which evolution doesn't address. So while atheists may use the Big Bang theory as part of a particular model of the creation of life, no knowledgeable atheist or any other such person would use it to either affirm or deny evolution. This is why creationists are wholly out of line in connecting the BB with any aspect of evolution. There is no valid reason to do so.

arunma said:

I recently saw a documentary on the History Channel which succinctly summarized it in a statement to the effect of, "mix up a large cloud of hydrogen gas, wait a few billion years, and out comes human life."

Click to expand...

Well, there is part of your problem... As of late there has been far more sci-fi on the History Channel than actual history. Sadly I have seen more good sci-fi on the History Channel than I have seen on the Sci-Fi Network recently.

I am sorry that some if not many of the recent crop of writers for the History Channel as of late can be only generously described as ignorant on science and history, but that is what you get from trying to get an education about a subject from the idiot box.

The best place to get scientific or historical knowledge is from reading what the scientists and historians themselves read and write.

LewisWildermuth said:

The best place to get scientific or historical knowledge is from reading what the scientists and historians themselves read and write.

Click to expand...

Which, for non-scientist readers, makes blogs a pretty good place much of the time.

Chalnoth said:

Personally, I'm rather amused to see creationists on both sides of the big bang theory. There are those that trot it out and (wrongly) claim that it supports the existence of their god. There are others, like 70x7 here, that claim it's all wrong. Oh, well. Once more onto the breach...


The evidence that supports the big bang theory is strong and varied. There is no evidence that contradicts it as yet. Here's a very, very rough rundown of the evidence in support of the big bang theory:

1. The observed expansion of the universe.
2. The observed homogeneity and isotropy of the universe.
3. The existence of the cosmic microwave background.
4. The correlation of the small fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background with the distribution of nearby galaxies (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations).
5. The abundances of light elements.
6. The "shadows" of galaxy clusters in the cosmic microwave background (the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect).
7. The imprint of nearby matter on the distribution of the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect).

There are also a variety of experiments ongoing today that both seek to measure the above with greater accuracy, and to push the measurements into new regimes, such as using gravitational lensing to examine the growth of structure in the universe (e.g. formation of galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc.), and accurately measuring the polarization of the light coming from the cosmic microwave background (which might give us insights into cosmic inflation).

So yes, the big bang theory is on very strong footing today. Stronger than it's ever been. And this is likely to continue in coming years.

Click to expand...

Hi Chalnoth,
To a minuscule degree I am perplexed about you (suddenly now) accepting "cosmic inflation".

Pertaining to the 100% erroneous ideology that the velocity of 6.71 × 10[sup]8[/sup] (i.e., light) is constant, in which (all of the various forms of E= m, or energy Δ matter &) the below facts disproves:

Big Bang
Planck Epoch
Cosmic Inflation
Faster Than Light
Inflationary Epoch
Lambda-CDM Model
Cosmological Constant
Variable Speed of Light
Grand Unification Epoch
List of Cosmic Microwave Background Experiments

Chalnoth said:

Zone, I was neither harmed nor offended by your equations. They just make no sense whatsoever. And yes, by the way, I'm a physicist, and you're completely off your rocker when it comes to neutrinos traveling faster than light. The most that you can say is that photons tend to run into more stuff as they travel, and so will take longer than a neutrino if there's a lot of stuff. But that doesn't indicate that the actual velocity of a neutrino is any greater.

Click to expand...

Splendid Chalnoth, since any genuine physicist(s) &, or physics student(s) can easily detect the error(s) contained within Einstein's theory of relativity, etc below I (as a physicist, chemist, geneticist, etc) want you to tell me (100% correctly) all of Einstein's blunders, errors, etc (of-course if you can).

Wikipedia said:

Faster-than-light communication is, by Einstein's theory of relativity, equivalent to time travel. According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, what we measure as the speed of light in a vacuum is actually the fundamental physical constant c. This means that all observers, regardless of their relative velocity, will always measure zero-mass particles such as photons traveling at c in a vacuum. This result means that measurements of time and velocity in different frames are no longer related simply by constant shifts, but are instead related by Poincaré transformations. These transformations have important implications:

• The relativistic momentum of a massive particle would increase with speed in such a way that at the speed of light an object would have infinite momentum.

• To accelerate an object of non-zero rest mass to c would require infinite time with any finite acceleration, or infinite acceleration for a finite amount of time.

• Either way, such acceleration requires infinite energy. Going beyond the speed of light in a homogeneous space would hence require more than infinite energy, which is not generally considered to be a sensible notion.

• Some observers with sub-light relative motion will disagree about which occurs first of any two events that are separated by a space-like interval. In other words, any travel that is faster-than-light will be seen as traveling backwards in time in some other, equally valid, frames of reference, or need to assume the speculative hypothesis of possible Lorentz violations at a presently unobserved scale (for instance the Planck scale). Therefore any theory which permits "true" FTL also has to cope with time travel and all its associated paradoxes, or else to assume the Lorentz invariance to be a symmetry of thermodynamical statistical nature (hence a symmetry broken at some presently unobserved scale).

Click to expand...

Suddenly now? I've accepted cosmic inflation since I understood what it was (as I only got to that point in my cosmology education after the data had come in rather strongly in support of it).

Chalnoth said:

Suddenly now? I've accepted cosmic inflation since I understood what it was (as I only got to that point in my cosmology education after the data had come in rather strongly in support of it).

Click to expand...

Hi Chalnoth,
Tell me, if what you're (now) saying is true, then why did you & your entourage continuously say that I was 100% incorrect? As a Christian I constantly stated (besides from all things are relative, that) analytically I will agree with any individual(s) irrelevant to their age, religion, gender, etc.... logically who is scripturally, morally, scientifically &, or mathematically correct.

My above statement alone should intuitively indicated to you & whosoever that I am attempting to advance your understanding to a totally higher & different levels.

This is why I was continuously telling everyone that:

• There is many scientists, physicists, etc who (knowingly, or unknowingly) agrees with me 100%.
• Not agreeing with me will result in your scholastic suicide.

Remember, all that I did was post many amazing scientific, etc facts.... which relative to the particular individual(s) understanding, knowledge, etc may seem to be totally impossible.

Also tell me, do you really understand what "cosmic inflation" means, demands, etc?

• It means that Einstein's E = mc[sup]2[/sup] is 100% incorrect.
• It also demands that every scientist, physicist, etc must recalculate any, or all of their equations in which incorporates Einstein's E = mc[sup]2[/sup]

Right now, you're probably thinking & saying to yourself, so-what his E = mc[sup]2[/sup] must be recalculate, etc it's no big deal right?

Wrong, because since all things are relative the velocity of 6.71 × 10[sup]8[/sup] (i.e., light) will continuously have to be recalculated to the relative situation(s) / factor(s) in which it is in.... (after all, who wants their paychecks to vacillate / fluctuate up & down, from left to right?) Talk about oscillation(s), imagine for a moment, that someone came to you one day & told you that all of your equations (TOE, etc) are inaccurate & must be recalculated (which is itself, is devastating) & to finalize their statement(s), they also said.... since all things are relative all of your equations in which incorporates Einstein's E = mc[sup]2[/sup] can never be accurate. Talk about dropping a atomic bomb upon the entire scientific community. Now as a physicist, I do not view it as a big deal, but relative to the entire scientific community, you can just imagine why they do not like João Magueijo, but I love him...., but then as a Christian I love everyone else also.

Out of all of the scientists, physicists, etc I have to say that Einstein was a very wise individual, because during his particular space Δ time upon Earth, even he realized that all things are relative & that his 6.71 × 10[sup]8[/sup] (i.e., light) velocity was not constant, this is why he incorporated the term "relative" into his theories (the general theory of "relativity", special "relativity", etc) to ensure that when his error(s) are discovered his theories will not end-up within the disproved category &, or files & his name will not become synonymous with error(s), such as the flat Earth theory, the steady state theory, etc.

As a scientists & physicists Einstein was under extremely tremendous pressure(s) to advance the understanding & knowledge of the human species, there were many other scientists, physicists also under the very same extremely tremendous pressure(s).... here is just one example of the type of pressure(s).

Example: Any female / woman who for whatever reason(s) can not procreate, (irrelevant to her boyfriend / husband continuously telling her that it's OK) even though they can simply adopt children, she still within herself will feel incomplete &, or laking her God given ability & deep within her being she will not really feel like a 100% female / woman (irrelevant to how many times she told herself & others tell her not to worry about it, read about all of the woman in the Bible in the same situations) & the same thing applies to any male / man who for whatever reason(s) can not achieve a erection, have a very low sperm count, etc would be feeling, irrelevant to how many times his woman / wife & or other people told him it's OK... Anatomically neither of them will truly feel whole &, or complete.

Einstein being a Jewish man naturally read God's word(s) within the Torah profusely (therefore he was made 100% aware that all things are relative), but he also being a scientists & physicists knew 100% that the scientific community demands stability, consistency, etc wherefore they can build their equation(s) upon a solid foundation, therefore he wisely also incorporated the term "relative" into his theories.

Oh, irrelevant to Einstein's error(s) when I just simply think of his insight.... ah, you just got to always remember him.

Sorry, Zone, I no longer have the patience to indulge your absurd notions of what constitutes physics.