Objections to the big bang?

[samaus12345]

Consider throwing a dead cat out into your front yard, how long would it take predators maul it. A few hours? A few days? How long till its thrashed around no longer neatly in place, bones scattered everywhere? Evolution says things dies, bones remain intact, neatly arranged in original anatomical position for "millions and millions" of years while some pitiful amount of soil, blown by wind builds up around it (all while no predators get to it) and eventually cover it (while the bones still have their original elements/mineral composition). To make a fossil you drop a whole load of sand/mud on something all at once. In a second/few seconds that thing is dead/trapped, surrounded by a heavy load and no longer in the open easily smoked by predators. Which model do you believe? and why is it so important to believe a fish transformed into a human being?

 

[Keachian]

Consider throwing a dead cat out into your front yard, how long would it take predators maul it. A few hours? A few days? How long till its thrashed around no longer neatly in place, bones scattered everywhere?

Not really sure, certainly not long enough to become a fossil, I expect my neighbours would probably complain first though, from the smell or something.

Evolution says things dies, bones remain intact, neatly arranged in original anatomical position for "millions and millions" of years while some pitiful amount of soil, blown by wind builds up around it (all while no predators get to it) and eventually cover it (while the bones still have their original elements/mineral composition).

Um, no, in fact I have had conversations on this forum with creationists who don't like the fact that the skeletons of homo erectus we have reconstructed have come from as wide a dispersal as 50 meters iirc, however there are some rare cases in which fossilization will happen quickly, volcano eruptions, mudslides that sort of thing.

To make a fossil you drop a whole load of sand/mud on something all at once. In a second/few seconds that thing is dead/trapped, surrounded by a heavy load and no longer in the open easily smoked by predators. Which model do you believe?

Hmm well it appears that you actually understand how to make a fossil, not to mention the fact that evolution does not deal with fossilization, archaeology does to an extent though, I'll believe the one that is actually supported by the scientific community, not one that you've been told is how evolution views it, so yes I'll agree with you.

and why is it so important to believe a fish transformed into a human being?

It's not, it is however important that we don't misrepresent the faith in such a way to make it unappealing to those who are dying, after all some are quite knowledgeable in these things and when they hear us spouting off nonsense in regards to something which is quite ancillary to our belief in the Cross why would they turn around and accept what we tell them about salvation. On the other hand God has created both the Bible and Creation, yet some of us toil forever trying to block out all study of one to the detriment of their knowledge of the other, surely it would be better if we were to understand both to some level and excel in what God has called us to do, so that we have a fuller picture of who God is from all that he has left us which testifies to him, or do you deny that what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made?

 

[freezerman2000]

I still have yet figured out what evolution has to do with the Big Bang...perhaps Jinx could enlighten me.
How life came about has nothing to do with the earlier time when the universe was being formed.

 

[samaus12345]

Every field of any science has been hijacked by the concept of "evolution". Look at any area (medicine, astronomy, geology, biology) and look at the alleged origins of things. How did our earth get here-evolution,waters under the heavens and the dry lands-evolution,grass,herb that yields seed,fruit tree that yields fruit,-evolution, sun,stars and earths moon-evolution, birds that fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens-evolution, sea creatures and every living thing that moves-evolution, cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth-evolution, sigh and sigh....man....i cant type it......

 

[freezerman2000]

No, the topic of biological evolution hijacked this thread...which by the way is about how the universe got it's start..talk about going off topic!

 

[Look Up]

Hi Gluadys,

Thank you for your thorough, courteous, and informed responses.

Following especially your last response with its clarifications, I find myself with more agreements even than I expected (and I did expect much after the dust settled), with a few "cheers" and exclamations of "encouraging illustrations" thrown in.

My remaining reservations, I think, largely hover at the corners of my awarness--as nagging doubts I can't quite put my finger on.

... At the same time both the principles of justice and fairness, and the law, require the public sphere to be theologically neutral. I believe we need to support that too.

I think or agree that emotional distance facilitates (but cannot guarantee) even-handed judgment. Conflicts of interest put judgment at some risk, hence for example the suspicious correlations between funding source and research findings. And our commitments tend to bias us, hence the dangers of partisanship and sectarianism when it comes to decisions that affect those outside one's own group(s).

And hence, in theory at least, the separation of powers, not only as conceived in the US legal system and in independent ethics boards and watch groups for certain professions. Church and state have separate jurisdictions historically in western cultures (arguably to some extent even in England) for apparently idealistic and philosophical reasons as well as practical.

But is metaphysical or theological neutrality at law or in science a myth? Granted we make distinctions in academic disciplines for arguable reasons. And both theist and atheist can share understanding of Maxwell's equations, a gram of zinc, and a protein. Common ground is a place where conflict can be avoided and perhaps progress can be made.

But my theology tells me either we have the Son of God or not and either we worship God or what God is not, idols. Neutrality between God and idols is not an option. There is no "third door." Even atheism and material determinism are religions or represent religious positions, the worship of what God is not.

US law states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as if the Federal government in the US stood in neutral position with respect to all metaphysical and theological positions. Despite the need for neutrality or at least fairness at law, is First Amendment religious neutrality possible even if the US Constitution implies it is?

In some cases, I think legal practice has suggested law as related to religion can be fair in the US (less so in recent years). I also think neutrality is a myth. And I suspect the "the apparent tie of science to atheism" at least in the US is based in part on this myth of neutrality, as if philosophical secularism was religiously neutral. Emotionally distant, perhaps and depending. Neutral, no.

Postmodernism despite its faults has I think correctly pointed out that we cannot observe with our five senses without faith in the correspondence between information sensorily derived and the real world. Empiricism cannot be practiced without this faith, a faith that belongs to the realm of metaphysics and theology. Even an atheist must exercise faith to function (e.g., that oncoming traffic will not hit "me," that people at work will behave in ways that do not threaten "my" life, that gravity will exist tomorrow, and so on).

But I suspect the issue runs deeper still. I do not believe that observation, testing, and conclusion that is empircally and logically based can be theologically neutral for human observers, scientists, and deducers of data. Observation that a thing weighs a gram may constitute common ground between an atheist and a theist, but God has revealed something of His nature in "what has been made." To fail to draw that conclusion demonstrates non-neutrality as much as commitment to a theistic conclusion does and as whatever other positions their may be must. The empirical cat is in the science box until a human observes it there.

Where is this headed? I'm not entirely sure and my comments are in part a bit experimental. I will digress and return again.

In high school (and elsewhere) one remembers math problems that were limited to certain domains of the "x" or "y" axis--real numbers between 0 and 1, positive integers, whatever. The Law of the conservation of mass (and energy) seems true enough for ordinary "domains" of human observation and use. But when it comes to "just before the Big Bang," the Law appears to be out of its ordinary range or "domain" of application. Here is one place where physics drops off and metaphysics takes over. Is God or matter (or both) eternal and/or First Cause?

I think your advocacy of a clearer distinction between science and metaphysical commitments related to it may be part of the way forward. Indeed I wish your comments had a wider audience than on this forum. But my conscience at least warns against the possibility of theological neutrality ... oddly even as it warms to non-sectarianism and sharing common ground. Public policy cannot convert the soul and must be fair, but I for one wish to avoid appearing to support a policy which implies that idolatry is ethical to God.

In principle, I suspect you agree with the last statement, and the down-side of the above is that I have spent little energy agreeing with you on the many points with which I agree. My hope here in part is to add two cents to the conversation as well as to invite comments from others that may improve my thought ... though admittedly chronic illness hampers everything I do. Hence my delayed response.

 

[samaus12345]

Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers

He comments specifically on certain results in particle physics which, before they were obtained, would have been considered sufficient to falsify a particular theoretical prediction, but which afterwards ended up being incorporated into a revision of the theory.

His point is that, given the opportunity to inject endless revisions into a theory, there is no longer a standard by which it can be falsified. In the instances Oldershaw mentions it is evident that theorists consider they are in the repair business. The philosophy behind this mentality is of course the assumption that physicists have identified a core truth in whatever theory may be under study. All that is needed are continued modifications in order to asymptotically approach the final answer. To a certain extent it is this mentality that has guided the development of big-bang cosmology and has therefore, as Oldershaw points out, successfully blurred the distinction between theory and fact.

The sine qua non of physical science is empirical testing of hypotheses. Without this acid test we would have no way of distinguishing scientific gold from fool’s gold and we might come to view ourselves as being quite rich when, in fact, our pockets were mostly full of pretty, but non-negotiable, iron pyrite.

“If every five seconds a volume of space is added to the universe ... about equal to the volume occupied by the Milky Way, where does that volume make its entry? Rather than look for an answer, one had better reexamine the question....(p.739). To speak of the “creation” of space is a bad way of speaking, and the original question is a bad question. The right way of speaking is to speak of a dynamic geometry. So much for one question!” (p.740)


(this is why/how big bang/evolution dogma inhibits science,dont question, just believe)ed note


Similarly, there is Peacock who, in his recent graduate level cosmology
text, states [5]: “In the common elementary demonstration of expansion
by means of inflating a balloon, galaxies should be represented by glued-on
coins, not ink drawings, (which will spuriously expand with the universe.)”


If such vast forces of expansion ever existed, they would have worked not
only to expand the sizes of galaxies but also to prevent their formation. That is, since expansion is presumed to cause ever-increasing separation of even the smallest particles, it would also have worked to cause ever-increasing separation of atoms of the big bang’s presumed primordial H and He, thus inhibiting even the formation of stars. Without stars there would have been no galaxies, no sun, and no planet Earth. These results demonstrate that galaxies cannot form under the assumption that the expansion hypothesis has been governing the universe. This contradiction invalidates the balloon illustration, revealing it as perhaps one of the most seriously flawed illustrations ever used in modern science

These results prove the balloon illustration and the expansion hypothesis
are completely at odds with the existence of galaxies.

This article confirms Trefil’s skepticism by concluding the existence of galaxies is prima facie evidence that the expansion hypothesis is false.


We conclude, therefore, that the existence of galaxies provides two powerful Smoking Gun Signatures; first, that our universe knows nothing of big bang’s spacetime expansion and secondly, that the GENESIS of our universe occurred far differently than modern cosmology has envisioned


The discovery of GENESIS’ astrophysical framework has successfully
unveiled the deeper significance of which Weisskopf spoke, for it provides
a unique scientific understanding of why the 2.7K CBR does function as
an absolute frame of reference of the cosmos. Since the proof is certain,
the denial must be of a philosophical nature.

Without spacetime expansion the Hubble relation shows the universe
does possess a Center which is near the Galaxy.
• Without spacetime expansion there was no big bang.
• Without the big bang, the beginning of time cannot be traced back to
a spacetime expansion singularity.
• Without the big bang there is no basis for tracing the history of any
star back to its beginning.
• Without the big bang there was no primordial nucleosynthesis of any
chemical elements, hence no ‘first generation’ H/He stars, and no possibility
of producing any other stars by ‘first generation star’ supernovae
nucleosynthesis.
• Disproof of big bang’s nucleosynthesis scenario shows that the heavy
chemical element content of the visible universe did not originate in a
series of distant supernovae events but instead had a different origin

• Disproof of big bang’s time frame disqualifies all current astrophysical
theories about the origin and age of stars as well as the origin and age
of galaxies.
• Disproof of big bang’s time frame renders invalid all current astrophysical
interpretations which picture various star types evolving from one
type to another.
• Disproof of big bang renders invalid all astrophysical theories that
attempt to picture different types of galaxies evolving from one type
to another. This implies the array of peculiar galaxies observed by Arp
[6-8] should long ago have been recognized as proof that all current
theories of galaxy formation are fatally flawed.
• Disproof of big bang completely erases the scientific basis for tracing
Earth’s origin back to a primordial molten blob that spun off the sun.
• Proof of fossil relics of short half-life primordial natural radioactivity
in Earth’s primordial

Trefil has noted that in times past a certain astronomical assumption gained such a degree of credibility that it was considered beyond question until an accumulation of new data forced the unthinkable [10]. That time has now come for the big bang.


Without due cause, modern cosmology a priori rejected the Creator’s
claim of exercising supranatural power in calling the visible universe — with
all its mature and exotic diversities — into existence on literal Day 4 of the
Genesis creation week.​

 

[cupid dave]

15 years ago you might have had a point - but it would take something extraordinary to change the 13.75 billion figure these days. We are out of the first significant figure cosmology these days.

The Big Bang Theory really says nothing either way about creation. Yes, people conflate the two (on both sides of the Cre/Evo debate) but the theory itself in a scientific sense does not address this.

Simply put - the Big Bang Theory addresses the observations of an expanding universe, the abundances of the light elements and the presence of the cosmic microwave background. There are subsequent observations that have backed up the initial evidence that the universe was once in a hot dense state.

And the Big Bang was the moment Genesis refers to when In the beginning the heavens and the earth were formed... right?

The two ideas support one another, so I find only atheists object because they hate to see this agreement.

 

[Keachian]

And the Big Bang was the moment Genesis refers to when In the beginning the heavens and the earth were formed... right?

The two ideas support one another, so I find only atheists object because they hate to see this agreement.

No, the Bible only discusses the current scientific understanding of the Universe in your own mind

 

[NGC 6712]

And the Big Bang was the moment Genesis refers to when In the beginning the heavens and the earth were formed... right?

No.

The two ideas support one another, so I find only atheists object because they hate to see this agreement.

I'm an astrophysicist (cosmologist specifically) so I approach the Big Bang Theory as it should be - in the context of science.

Which is why I take umbrage with all the silly misconceptions seemingly put about by people who haven't taken the time or cannot understand the concepts involved.

 

[freezerman2000]

No.

I'm an astrophysicist (cosmologist specifically) so I approach the Big Bang Theory as it should be - in the context of science.

Which is why I take umbrage with all the silly misconceptions seemingly put about by people who haven't taken the time or cannot understand the concepts involved.

The building blocks of the universe were created during and after the Big Bang, the Earth came afterwords..is that why you said no?
Without the Bang,there would be no earth..The idea of the Bang relating to the formation of the heavens and the Earth sound plausible to me.
When you take umbrage to the "silly misconceptions", why not explain to us in laymen's terms what you find so wrong about the ideas put forth by us?
Share with us, please, so we can see where you are coming from!

 

[NGC 6712]

The building blocks of the universe were created during and after the Big Bang, the Earth came afterwords..is that why you said no?
Without the Bang,there would be no earth..The idea of the Bang relating to the formation of the heavens and the Earth sound plausible to me.
When you take umbrage to the "silly misconceptions", why not explain to us in laymen's terms what you find so wrong about the ideas put forth by us?
Share with us, please, so we can see where you are coming from!

Yes that basically is why I said no. But I will add the Big Bang Theory really isn't a theory of creation in a scientific sense. People on both sides of the creation debate often conflate the two.

What irritates me is that there is so much material on the web (Wiki articles etc.) that explain why the Big Bang Theory came about through various observations, what it states and what it applies to. All this calling it "The Creation Event" and trying to marry Genesis into it is superfluous nonsense for the most part.

The Big Bang Theory is born out of explaining certain observations that tell us the Universe was once in a hot dense state and subsequent events are borne out of that. It really says nothing about a Creation as such no matter how many times people attempt to make it about such.

 

[freezerman2000]

Yes that basically is why I said no. But I will add the Big Bang Theory really isn't a theory of creation in a scientific sense. People on both sides of the creation debate often conflate the two.

What irritates me is that there is so much material on the web (Wiki articles etc.) that explain why the Big Bang Theory came about through various observations, what it states and what it applies to. All this calling it "The Creation Event" and trying to marry Genesis into it is superfluous nonsense for the most part. the erarth was formed

The Big Bang Theory is born out of explaining certain observations that tell us the Universe was once in a hot dense state and subsequent events are borne out of that. It really says nothing about a Creation as such no matter how many times people attempt to make it about such.

Thanks for the answer to the first part of my post.
I was not calling it the Creation event in so much that the Earth was formed WHEN the "Bang occurred, but that BECAUSE OF the "Bang",the Earth was formed..which did not happen in a "poof", as some believe ..but that the writer of the creation story was describing the "bang" in terms he could comprehend.

I understand the first part of your post. I don't see the Bang as a one time deal, it is still ongoing through the expansion of the universe.
I like to think that the event was(is)part of God's grand creation.
My faith has not suffered for my believing so.

 

[samaus12345]

NGC have you read Gentrys censored paper?

Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers

 

[NGC 6712]

NGC have you read Gentrys censored paper?

Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers

Unfortunately yes. Or at least some of them. I felt like suing him for the lost couple of hours of my life I can never get back.

 

[samaus12345]

So you clung blindly to big bang secular materialistic dogma? Also please falsify his polonium halo artifacts in rocks (EMPIRICAL evidence) or do you prefer to continue to cling blindly to big bang secular materialistic dogma?

 

[NGC 6712]

So you clung blindly to big bang secular materialistic dogma? Also please falsify his polonium halo artifacts in rocks (EMPIRICAL evidence) or do you prefer to continue to cling blindly to big bang secular materialistic dogma?

Stop the silliness. The only blind clinging to dogma going on here is you. It is obvious you haven't a scientific education in these areas (neither has Gentry in much of what he writes). So how on Earth can you keep accusing others of clinging to dogma when you aren't able to find the faults with his writings that those trained in the areas instantly see?

 

[samaus12345]

Falsify it please.

 

[NGC 6712]

Falsify it please.

Google Polonium Haloes. There is tons out there on this ripping Gentry a new one. I am bedridden and cranky at the moment so I can't be bothered. And don't tell me (if you have looked into this) you haven't seen his stuff torn apart.

I ask again - how do you determine what has scientific merit and what does not?

 

[samaus12345]

None of the GARBAGE "rebuttals" have made journals because they are WORTHLESS and preying on the IGNORANT. JUST LIKE "EVOLUTION". Would you kindly falsify it in your own words? OR it still stands and knowing of it AND disregarding it is clinging to DOGMA.