Big Bang

[Bsman]

An interesting article




It’s amazing to see how many Christian leaders have not merely tolerated the ‘big bang’ idea, but embraced it wholeheartedly. To hear their pronouncements, believers should welcome it as a major plank in our defense of the faith. ‘At last, we can use science to prove there’s a creator of the universe.’
However, the price of succumbing to the lure of secular acceptability, at least in physics and astronomy, has been heavy. We have long warned that adopting the big bang into Christian thought is like bringing the wooden horse within the walls of Troy. This is because:

• The big bang forces acceptance of a sequence of events totally incompatible with the Bible (e.g. earth after sun instead of earth before sun—see Two worldviews in conflict and How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?)
• The big bang’s billions of years of astronomical evolution are not only based on naturalistic assumptions, they are contrary to the words of Jesus Himself, who said people were there from the beginning, not towards the end of an interminably long ‘creation’ process (Mark 10:6)—see Jesus and the age of the world.
• The slow evolution of the stars, then solar system and planets (including earth) in big bang thinking means that ‘big bang Christians’ are invariably dragged into accepting ‘geological evolution’ (millions of years for the earth’s fossil-bearing rocks to be laid down). So they end up denying the global Flood, and accepting death, bloodshed and disease (as seen in the fossils) before Adam. This removes the Fall and the Curse on creation from any effect on the real world, as well as removing the biblical answer Christians have always had to the problem of suffering and evil (God made a perfect world, ruined by sin). See Terrorists and Death and The god of an old earth.
• Marrying one’s theology to today’s science means that one is likely to be widowed tomorrow.

In fact, the signs are strong that exactly that is happening, and that those who have ‘bought’ the big bang for its allegedly irrefutable science have been ‘sold a pup’. A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (www.cosmologystatement.org) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article widely publicized on the internet at the time stated ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’
The open letter includes statements such as:

• ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
• ‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]
• ‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory[emphasis in original].’
• ‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

The dissidents say that there are other explanations of cosmology that do make some successful predictions. These other models don’t have all the answers to objections, but, they say, ‘That is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined.’
Those who urge Christians to accept the big bang as a ‘science fact’ point to its near-universal acceptance by the scientific community. However, the 33 dissidents describe a situation familiar to many creationist scientists: ‘An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences … doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.’ Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging the ruling paradigm—see Science … a reality check. This should give some idea of the difficulties biblical creationists face.
But don’t we read, even in the daily newspapers, about many ‘observations’ that only ever seem to support the big bang? In fact, these prominent secular scientists say:

‘Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.’
​

Science is a wonderful human tool, but it needs to be understood, not worshipped. It is fallible, changing, and is severely limited as to what it can and cannot determine. As AiG has often pointed out, instead of a scientific concept, the big-bang idea is more a dogmatic religious one—based on the religion of humanism. As these big-bang opposers point out:

‘Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method—the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.’
​

Furthermore, contrary to the naïve pronouncements of many who should know better, it is not in any sense a matter of ‘looking into a telescope and “seeing” the big bang billions of years ago.’ As always, observations are interpreted and filtered through worldview lenses. Those who developed the big bang were guided by secular worldview filters just as much as those who are now crying that the emperor has no clothes. They wanted a universe that created itself; their opponents want an eternal, uncreated universe. From a Christian perspective, both are in open defiance of their Creator’s account of what really happened.
With Darwinism on the run, the Enemy of souls is seeking to seduce believers into embracing a more subtle, yet far deadlier way of evading the authority of the Bible. With progressive creationism/big-bangery rampaging through the evangelical community, he must think he is on a winner.

 

[pgp_protector]

You state that this is an article.
Do you have a link to it ?
Or is this an article you created ?

 

[Mick116]

An interesting article




It’s amazing to see how many Christian leaders have not merely tolerated the ‘big bang’ idea, but embraced it wholeheartedly. To hear their pronouncements, believers should welcome it as a major plank in our defense of the faith. ‘At last, we can use science to prove there’s a creator of the universe.’
However, the price of succumbing to the lure of secular acceptability, at least in physics and astronomy, has been heavy. We have long warned that adopting the big bang into Christian thought is like bringing the wooden horse within the walls of Troy. This is because:

• The big bang forces acceptance of a sequence of events totally incompatible with the Bible (e.g. earth after sun instead of earth before sun—see Two worldviews in conflict and How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?)
• The big bang’s billions of years of astronomical evolution are not only based on naturalistic assumptions, they are contrary to the words of Jesus Himself, who said people were there from the beginning, not towards the end of an interminably long ‘creation’ process (Mark 10:6)—see Jesus and the age of the world.
• The slow evolution of the stars, then solar system and planets (including earth) in big bang thinking means that ‘big bang Christians’ are invariably dragged into accepting ‘geological evolution’ (millions of years for the earth’s fossil-bearing rocks to be laid down). So they end up denying the global Flood, and accepting death, bloodshed and disease (as seen in the fossils) before Adam. This removes the Fall and the Curse on creation from any effect on the real world, as well as removing the biblical answer Christians have always had to the problem of suffering and evil (God made a perfect world, ruined by sin). See Terrorists and Death and The god of an old earth.
• Marrying one’s theology to today’s science means that one is likely to be widowed tomorrow.

In fact, the signs are strong that exactly that is happening, and that those who have ‘bought’ the big bang for its allegedly irrefutable science have been ‘sold a pup’. A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (www.cosmologystatement.org) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article widely publicized on the internet at the time stated ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’
The open letter includes statements such as:

• ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
• ‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]
• ‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory[emphasis in original].’
• ‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

The dissidents say that there are other explanations of cosmology that do make some successful predictions. These other models don’t have all the answers to objections, but, they say, ‘That is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined.’
Those who urge Christians to accept the big bang as a ‘science fact’ point to its near-universal acceptance by the scientific community. However, the 33 dissidents describe a situation familiar to many creationist scientists: ‘An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences … doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.’ Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging the ruling paradigm—see Science … a reality check. This should give some idea of the difficulties biblical creationists face.
But don’t we read, even in the daily newspapers, about many ‘observations’ that only ever seem to support the big bang? In fact, these prominent secular scientists say:

‘Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.’
​

Science is a wonderful human tool, but it needs to be understood, not worshipped. It is fallible, changing, and is severely limited as to what it can and cannot determine. As AiG has often pointed out, instead of a scientific concept, the big-bang idea is more a dogmatic religious one—based on the religion of humanism. As these big-bang opposers point out:

‘Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method—the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.’
​

Furthermore, contrary to the naïve pronouncements of many who should know better, it is not in any sense a matter of ‘looking into a telescope and “seeing” the big bang billions of years ago.’ As always, observations are interpreted and filtered through worldview lenses. Those who developed the big bang were guided by secular worldview filters just as much as those who are now crying that the emperor has no clothes. They wanted a universe that created itself; their opponents want an eternal, uncreated universe. From a Christian perspective, both are in open defiance of their Creator’s account of what really happened.
With Darwinism on the run, the Enemy of souls is seeking to seduce believers into embracing a more subtle, yet far deadlier way of evading the authority of the Bible. With progressive creationism/big-bangery rampaging through the evangelical community, he must think he is on a winner.

I respectfully disagree.

As this is the Creationism board, I'll leave it at that.

 

[Assyrian]

You state that this is an article.
Do you have a link to it ?
Or is this an article you created ?

I clicked on one of the links and had AiG ask if I was sure I wanted to leave their website.

 

[busterdog]

It’s amazing to see how many Christian leaders have not merely tolerated the ‘big bang’ idea, but embraced it wholeheartedly. To hear their pronouncements, believers should welcome it as a major plank in our defense of the faith. ‘At last, we can use science to prove there’s a creator of the universe.’

Monotheism is hugely over-rated. Even Islam passes for an honest worship of the one true God. There would never have been a bible if mere belief in a creative god was a monumental acheivement. Yes, Lord, we reject everything you say, just about, but we really believe you exist, and isnt that wonderful. Its like saying, gee that cancer has metastisized, but looking on the bright side, your hair looks terrific.

However, the price of succumbing to the lure of secular acceptability, at least in physics and astronomy, has been heavy. We have long warned that adopting the big bang into Christian thought is like bringing the wooden horse within the walls of Troy.

Trojan horse indeed. Its like replacing marriage with pornography. The notion that science really sees something is so attractive, yet it never provides any satisfaction on the ultimate issue, which it replaces with the notion of just seeing more and more complexity. Epistemologically, walking by faith and not sight is a very sound idea, and not just piety or platitude. The Big Bang proves it.

• The big bang’s billions of years of astronomical evolution are not only based on naturalistic assumptions, they are contrary to the words of Jesus Himself, who said people were there from the beginning, not towards the end of an interminably long ‘creation’ process (Mark 10:6)—see Jesus and the age of the world.

Yes, naturalistic assumptions make the point very clearly. It goes something like this. The first moments of Big Bang were enormously unlikely results of a very powerful process. But, since we have a cosmic background radiation, we simply assume in our naturalistic way that CBR could have only been caused by one of any number of absurdly unlikely events or unknown powers. It is a like worshipping something carved of wood and expecting it to speak some day. That natural phenomena (CBR) is elevated to a position that subsumes the unknown and at least virtually infinite unknown source of unlikely things like a precisely balanced and expanding universe. The assumption is that immense and unknown creative force is so well behaved, limited and confined at all times past, present and future such that it can only work one way, only follow one schedule and only produce CBR by a narrowly defined mechanism. It is ludicrous.

• The slow evolution of the stars, then solar system and planets (including earth) in big bang thinking means that ‘big bang Christians’ are invariably dragged into accepting ‘geological evolution’ (millions of years for the earth’s fossil-bearing rocks to be laid down). So they end up denying the global Flood, and accepting death, bloodshed and disease (as seen in the fossils) before Adam. This removes the Fall and the Curse on creation from any effect on the real world, as well as removing the biblical answer Christians have always had to the problem of suffering and evil (God made a perfect world, ruined by sin). See Terrorists and Death and The god of an old earth.

Lots of TEs have come close to many creationist ideas and are not true Darwinians (unless you change the definitions). But for the belief in old light and old rocks, we probably would be able to get somewhere with them.

• Marrying one’s theology to today’s science means that one is likely to be widowed tomorrow.

Most scientists are atheists or deists. Even satan believes in a creator God. Many TEs are not included within this predictive model, hopefully fewer and fewer will be.

In fact, the signs are strong that exactly that is happening, and that those who have ‘bought’ the big bang for its allegedly irrefutable science have been ‘sold a pup’. A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (www.cosmologystatement.org) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article widely publicized on the internet at the time stated ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

Interesting. Never saw that one. Imagine that! Inconceivably precise tuning of energies and unimaginably lucky events overcoming barriers to usable energy, functional celestial bodies and life itself existing in a world where there is more than one theory worth thinking about!

The open letter includes statements such as:

• ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’

Dark matter and energy. So vastly greater than anything we can see. So powerful and mysterious and impenetrable. So apt to proving that things are exactly as we think they are! That is some theology!

• ‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]

• ‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory[emphasis in original].’

  '''

Must be a sacred cow in there somewhere. The Biblical model is the pride of life in the enticement of the eye. If time were to be collapsed to six days, it would sure screw up some fancy equations and models. A 15 billion year model is probably easier to see and calculate. An enormously unlikely 15 billion years at least offers the advantage of being something that can be visualized, modelled and presented in a doctoral defense. With a six day creation, there probably just as much to trust, but lots less to pretend about in terms of thinking you have really seen it, understood it or known it.

• ‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

That really is one knotty area. These guys are just so stuck on post hoc prediction. Everything supposedly predicted is just retrospection or examination of the last few years of exploration. Like Darwin.

The dissidents say that there are other explanations of cosmology that do make some successful predictions. These other models don’t have all the answers to objections, but, they say, ‘That is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined.’

Oh come now. All that ridicule of dissidents is meant in a loving and encouraging way.

Those who urge Christians to accept the big bang as a ‘science fact’ point to its near-universal acceptance by the scientific community.

And we certainly know about convenient redefining of universes.

'However, the 33 dissidents describe a situation familiar to many creationist scientists: ‘An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences … doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.’ Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging the ruling paradigm—see Science … a reality check. This should give some idea of the difficulties biblical creationists face.
But don’t we read, even in the daily newspapers, about many ‘observations’ that only ever seem to support the big bang? In fact, these prominent secular scientists say:

‘Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.’
​

It is amazing that such a smart group of people would be so prone to missing evidence simply because it doesnt fit the model.

Science is a wonderful human tool, but it needs to be understood, not worshipped. It is fallible, changing, and is severely limited as to what it can and cannot determine. As AiG has often pointed out, instead of a scientific concept, the big-bang idea is more a dogmatic religious one—based on the religion of humanism. As these big-bang opposers point out:

When you look at the rabid repulsion that the notion of God creator poses to any scientific discussion of origins, then you understand that indeed it is about worship. God cannot be ascribed "worth." Only unnamed mystery and unexplored territory may be named in scientific discussion. The immense, the unknown, the infinite are not precluded from discussion in science. Only the name of the one true and infinite power. Yes, it is idol worship.

Furthermore, contrary to the naïve pronouncements of many who should know better, it is not in any sense a matter of ‘looking into a telescope and “seeing” the big bang billions of years ago.’ As always, observations are interpreted and filtered through worldview lenses. Those who developed the big bang were guided by secular worldview filters just as much as those who are now crying that the emperor has no clothes. They wanted a universe that created itself; their opponents want an eternal, uncreated universe. From a Christian perspective, both are in open defiance of their Creator’s account of what really happened.
With Darwinism on the run, the Enemy of souls is seeking to seduce believers into embracing a more subtle, yet far deadlier way of evading the authority of the Bible. With progressive creationism/big-bangery rampaging through the evangelical community, he must think he is on a winner.

No, I dont think they want an eternal, uncreated universe. They are happy to have a creator. They just want to carve it for themselves by their own hands.

 

[ClearSky]

Some comments from a "YEC plus astrophysics" viewpoint:

However, the price of succumbing to the lure of secular acceptability, at least in physics and astronomy, has been heavy. We have long warned that adopting the big bang into Christian thought is like bringing the wooden horse within the walls of Troy.

You may be right, but as a Christian I am uncomfortable with this line of argument. I think the only criteria to accept a world view is whether it is true or false. It should not matter whether the world view is good or bad for me. Otherwise I'm not honest in my opinion.

The big bang forces acceptance of a sequence of events totally incompatible with the Bible (e.g. earth after sun instead of earth before sun)

This depends on how you interpret the Bible. If you interpret it very literally, you come to the conclusion that creation happened twice, and have no problem with the Big Bang. Old Earth Creationists don't have problems either.

By the way, earth before / after sun has nothing to do with the Big Bang at all. It just follows of whether you think the solar system was created by God or by gravity. The result - our current solar system - would look the same in both cases.

Marrying one’s theology to today’s science means that one is likely to be widowed tomorrow.

Only when your theology is incompatible with today's science. That needs not be the case.

‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’

That's correct for dark energy, but incorrect for inflation and dark matter. Both have been observed by measuring supernovae distances and galaxy rotation, and are independent of a Big Bang theory.

There are many misrepresentations of astronomy and Big Bang theory especially on web sites like AiG. Be careful and take their articles with a grain of salt (or maybe two).

 

[Mallon]

By the way, earth before / after sun has nothing to do with the Big Bang at all. It just follows of whether you think the solar system was created by God or by gravity.

Interesting "either/or" phrasing. Do you feel God and gravity are mutually exclusive?

 

[ClearSky]

Interesting "either/or" phrasing. Do you feel God and gravity are mutually exclusive?

Of course not, what I meant was whether God used gravity to indirectly create the solar system (the traditional scientific viewpoint), or God created the solar system directly but in a way as if it were created by gravity (the YEC viewpoint).

 

[Mallon]

Of course not, what I meant was whether God used gravity to indirectly create the solar system (the traditional scientific viewpoint), or God created the solar system directly but in a way as if it were created by gravity (the YEC viewpoint).

Sorry if it sounded like a silly question. I asked because I've grown accustomed to hearing many neocreationists say that natural explanations, like evolution, are somehow exclusive of God. "Either evolution created life's diversity, or God did", they'll say. Your phraseology about gravity sounded similar.

 

[shernren]

• ‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory[emphasis in original].’

Let me tell you a story about a very, very bad particle physicist. He noticed in 1930 that in beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) conservation of angular momentum, linear momentum, and energy did not apply. This was a problem for particle physicists at the time; it meant that you would have to call almost all of Newton's Laws as well as many principles of quantum physics into question.

The bad physicist did a very naughty thing. He introduced a hypothetical object, which he called a "mini-neutron", to bridge the gap between theory and observation. Conveniently, it had no charge, so it wouldn't interact with electromagnetic forces. Conveniently, it had little or no mass, so it wouldn't interact much with anything really. Convenient because the sun was supposed to be pushing 50 trillion of the little buggers through every single human body every second - but hey, since it's got no charge and such little mass it wouldn't interact with us. Shades of epicycles! Popper would roll in his grave ...

... and then a quarter of a century later the neutrino was detected, confirming the result of Wolfgang Pauli, one of the leading particle physicists of his time.

Patience, creationists! If it is of man, it will be found out, but if not ... ^^

 

[busterdog]

Let me tell you a story about a very, very bad particle physicist. He noticed in 1930 that in beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) conservation of angular momentum, linear momentum, and energy did not apply. This was a problem for particle physicists at the time; it meant that you would have to call almost all of Newton's Laws as well as many principles of quantum physics into question.

The bad physicist did a very naughty thing. He introduced a hypothetical object, which he called a "mini-neutron", to bridge the gap between theory and observation. Conveniently, it had no charge, so it wouldn't interact with electromagnetic forces. Conveniently, it had little or no mass, so it wouldn't interact much with anything really. Convenient because the sun was supposed to be pushing 50 trillion of the little buggers through every single human body every second - but hey, since it's got no charge and such little mass it wouldn't interact with us. Shades of epicycles! Popper would roll in his grave ...

... and then a quarter of a century later the neutrino was detected, confirming the result of Wolfgang Pauli, one of the leading particle physicists of his time.

Patience, creationists! If it is of man, it will be found out, but if not ... ^^

Works for me.

Everyone hear that? Plasma events of presently unobserved magnitudes are fair game! Just because you dont see it now doesnt mean it isnt real. Planets being created in a day are also on the table.

 

[RecentConvert]

Actually, I think Bsman (is that really his chosen username?!) has made a good point. It's never a good idea to marry one's theistic views with science because today's science won't be tomorrow's. If you were to root your religion in science then any (inevitable) strike against that science will be a strike against your religion. That's never a good idea...

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Marrying theology to science is not the point. Nobody is suggesting that Christianity is dependent on the Big Bang theory. It is merely a question of how well the Big Bang fits in with the Christian world view. Since it points to the universe having an absolute beginning, and therefore supports an ex nihilo creation, I would personally conclude that it fits quite well.
Of course, it contradicts some people's interpretation of Scripture, and whether that is cause do oppose the Big Bang theory or a cause to oppose those interpretations of Scripture is a question each of us has to answer ourselves.

 

[anonlulz]

Well, since all observable evidence supports the big bang, and, as it happens, we have 0 observable objective evidence that god exists, I guess we have to assume, especially if we consider Occam's razor, that the big bang is the start of the universe. (Unless any of you can provide any evidence that god exists?)

 

[busterdog]

Well, since all observable evidence supports the big bang, and, as it happens, we have 0 observable objective evidence that god exists, I guess we have to assume, especially if we consider Occam's razor, that the big bang is the start of the universe. (Unless any of you can provide any evidence that god exists?)

He healed my son miraculously.

Oh, you mean you weren't there?

Hmmm. Maybe, as a scientist, your sample is not as wonderful as you think. That is what you are doing, right? You are assuming you have a truly representative sample of human experience.

 

[anonlulz]

He healed my son miraculously.

Oh, you mean you weren't there?

Hmmm. Maybe, as a scientist, your sample is not as wonderful as you think. That is what you are doing, right? You are assuming you have a truly representative sample of human experience.

haha, too bad, 1 subjective experience doesn't fly to prove something. And no, I'm not saying I have a large enough sample either, but the burden of proof is on the one who is adding complexity to the universe, not the one who takes it for what it is.

 

[Mick116]

Well, since all observable evidence supports the big bang, and, as it happens, we have 0 observable objective evidence that god exists, I guess we have to assume, especially if we consider Occam's razor, that the big bang is the start of the universe. (Unless any of you can provide any evidence that god exists?)

The so-called "cosmological argument" coupled with the "argument from design" is quite convincing. We have a universe with a point of beginning; it is not eternal, at least, not in its current state. It is a universe of intricate order and comlexity, in which even something as unlikely and as unimaginable as life can develop. Whatever we name it, the origin of the universe requires something independently self-existent, something from which complexity can arise. As consciousness arises out of this complexity, it is not a far stretch to imagine some sort of primordial consciousness existing before the "creation". This is, at the very least, objective circumstantial evidence for God's existence.

While universally convincing, objective evidence for God's existence might be difficult to come by, billions of instances of subjective evidence should be, at least, cause to stop and consider the possibility of divine existence. That is, there are literally billions of people worldwide claiming a perception of a "supernatural" reality beyond themselves, and beyond the immediately observable.

 

[busterdog]

haha, too bad, 1 subjective experience doesn't fly to prove something. And no, I'm not saying I have a large enough sample either, but the burden of proof is on the one who is adding complexity to the universe, not the one who takes it for what it is.

You can place the burden or proof on me all you like. Winning style points in argument here is not the point. Whether you have the truth is the point, and a point you have avoided after being challenged.

And, if you dont have a large enough sample, why are you make assertions you cant back up? You said "we have" "0 evidence." You made the assertion.

There is no theoretical difference between subjective and objective in terms of quality. You may not like the method. But, that doesn't make subjective proof wrong. We also know that an aggregate or survey of subjective information is perfectly good science for some purposes.

Searching for truth starts with admitting ignorance. Is your admission here more than implicit? You have just admitted an enormous unexplored body of evidence of the existence of God. Do you take your own ignorance seriously? I do. I admit it. I don't have the equipment, time or reason to figure these things out for myself. There quite a few sadus in India with large weights tied to their privates trying to use this "disclipine" to get in touch with God and His truth. Will they succeed? I couldn't tell you whether they will, but I do know that Jesus promises success by His Word.

The mistake you make (probably, I will gamble) is thinking that my inability to deal with the sadu's truth means that all truth is subjective. That is a complete nonsequitor. Otherwise, you wouldn't be ignorant and you would already have all the answers you ever need. But we both know that is not so.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We have a universe with a point of beginning;

Arguably. All we know is that it has been expanding from a tiny volume to its current size over 13.7 billion years, a process called the Big Bang. Whether or not it began 13.7 billion years ago is anyone's guess.

it is not eternal, at least, not in its current state.

Well, nothing exists in its current state for eternity. But the universe may have existed in some state or another for eternity. The 'oscillating universe' model is one such hypothesis which incorporates an eternal universe.

It is a universe of intricate order and comlexity,

Not really: the vast, vast, vast majority of the universe is the next best thing from empty. And of what little exists, scientific inquiry has long explained why it looks complex: stars are simply balls of hydrogen plasma in a state of hydrostatic equlibrium; the awesome and staggering structure of galaxies is simply a result of tars obeying General Relativity; biologically complex structures like organs and cells are simply the result of 3.5 billion years of evolution.

The last theory is, I think, the quintessential example of what I am trying to get across: mind-boggling complexity explained with an almost obscene elegance. Why do biological systems look complex? Because they are the cumulative result of 3.5 billion years of reproduction with variation.

in which even something as unlikely and as unimaginable as life can develop.

The universe is full of counter-intuitive things. But then, whoever said it shouldn't?

Whatever we name it, the origin of the universe requires something independently self-existent, something from which complexity can arise.

Why?

As consciousness arises out of this complexity, it is not a far stretch to imagine some sort of primordial consciousness existing before the "creation".

Why?

This is, at the very least, objective circumstantial evidence for God's existence.

What is? All you've done is comment on the grandeur of the universe, and conclude a deity. Call me old fashioned, but that smells like a non sequitur.

While universally convincing, objective evidence for God's existence might be difficult to come by, billions of instances of subjective evidence should be, at least, cause to stop and consider the possibility of divine existence. That is, there are literally billions of people worldwide claiming a perception of a "supernatural" reality beyond themselves, and beyond the immediately observable.

There are also billions of people who believe walls are made of continuous matter*, who believe prayers can intice divine healing, who believe there are monsters in the dark, who believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real, and who believe duck's quacks don't echo.

Fortunately, urban legends and antiquated superstitions can be, and have been, refuted by scientific inquiry. The first by atomic and quantum theory, the second by double blind trials, the third by brave parents, the fourth by mere pragmatism, and the fifth by experimental testing (turns out a duck's quack's echo sounds remarkably similar to the original quack, and the human ear is hard-pressed to differentiate between the two; thank you, MythBusters).


My point, then, is that reality rarely conforms to the beliefs of the masses. So what if billions of people have a tenuously similar belief in the tellingly ill-defined 'supernatural'? People believe all sorts of things.

*Though they probably wouldn't say it in so many words.

 

[Van]

I think it is quite valid to say the "big bang theory" fits better with theistic evolution than creationalism. If creationism is defined as young earth creationalism, then I have a question.

Let's assume all of creation was created within six 24 hour days of the creation of Adam and Eve. Now when were they created. If we use the generations listed, it works out to about 6000 years ago. And let's assume before Adam and Eve were created, no pre-adamic race existed. So what we are left with is the apparent age argument, like the wine at Cana. God created a whole false history, including cave paintings and the like, that appear to be more than 6000 years old. While this view has the least theological problems, it does not seem sound to me. Where have I gone wrong?