Red shift measurements threaten Big Bang

[Micaiah]

I was watching a DVD recently in which a Christian physicist was discusing red shift. Red shift is typically used by astronomers to give the distance of a star or galaxy from the earth. Everything was supposed to have originated from a big bang, and spread out from the centre of the explosion. It was believed red shift confirmed this assumption. An astronomer by the name of Arp has found big differences in red shift of stars in the same galaxies. If correct, the findings will destroy one of the foundational assumptions of the Big Bang Theory.

 

[Beowulf]

I'm not so sure the "Big Bang" is as commonly upheld now-a-days. I've been seeing a very gradual drift away from that theory or I'm just reading the wrong stuff or something. It's still taught in schools though, at least here anyway.

 

[seebs]

It'd be nice if you could name the specific physicist.

Note, BTW, that losing the Big Bang is bad for Christianity. The Big bang theory's major competition is some variant of Steady State, which says that there's always a universe. The Big Bang theory is a major component of arguing that maybe the universe as we understand it was created. That turns out to be good for our side!

That said... If the Big Bang didn't happen, better we face up to it and react accordingly than bury our heads in the sand.

 

[Aeschylus]

This very, very old news; Walton Arp is a well-known steady-statist who has made is career out of trying to disprove the big bang by photographing so-called 'Arpian objects' (objects that of diferent red-shifts that seem to be connected by 'bridges' of matter). The problem is that there is no proof that the these apparently connected objects are in the same galaxy or even remotely near each other and are better explained as two distant objects aligned from the point point of view of the Earth. If Arp were able to show a gradual change in the redshift across the bridge he may be onto something , but he can't.

The problem is that creationists don't have any real understanding of big bang theory and often attack it at it's strongest points, there are still some unexplained areas in the theory (but I stress these cannot be regarded as terminal redundancies in the theory), but Arpian objects aren't regarded as one of them.

 

[Micaiah]

So what does a TE do when most of the scientists agree that the world came into existence without God?

I'll need to get the details from the DVD. The presenter is Dr John Hartnett. He is a research physicist at one of the universities here in WA. His research includes such things as fundamental constants, relativity, and cosmology. He quotes quite a bit of research from a fellow called Arp.

 

[Aeschylus]

So what does a TE do when most of the scientists agree that the world came into existence without God?

I'll need to get the details from the DVD. The presenter is Dr John Hartnett. He is a research physicist at one of the universities here in WA. His research includes such things as fundamental constants, relativity, and cosmology. He quotes quite a bit of research from a fellow called Arp.

Looking at his biography he seems to be a metreological physicist, not csomologist.

Science says nothing about God (infact many big bang theorist, from it's originators right up to the present day, are devout Christians).

 

[Micaiah]

I'd be interested to see a reference to his 'biography'. I know he is currently doing research into time dilation due to gravity.

 

[notto]

So what does a TE do when most of the scientists agree that the world came into existence without God?

Disagree with them on theological grounds. After all, science (and scientists) cannot prove the existence of God. Any statements in that area are not scientific but are theological.

What does a YEC do when most Christians accept that evolution explains the diversity of life and accept that the world is old. My guess is that they disagree with them on theologial grounds.

 

[Micaiah]

You may be right about the bridge, though it looks fairly convincing.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/487.asp

 

[Aeschylus]

Look at the list of papers he's published, he hasn't published a single paper on cosmology.

 

[Micaiah]

Hey Notto, I thought nature was the TE's infallibe guide, and if the majority of the scientists say this is what happened then it must be correct.

 

[Micaiah]

Look at the list of papers he's published, he hasn't published a single paper on cosmology.

Doesn't mean it isn't an area he is researching though. Care to provide a link to the list to which you are refering.

 

[notto]

Hey Notto, I thought nature was the TE's infallibe guide, and if the majority of the scientists say this is what happened then it must be correct.

He Micaiah, way to try to misrepresent my position and response. Real Christian of you.

When scientists comment on the supernatural, they are commenting from personal opinion, not from a scientific point of view. If the majority of scientists said that WWII never happened, I wouldn't accept it because it is outside their area of expertise, just like theology and comments on the existence of God are outside their area of expertise.

 

[notto]

Doesn't mean it isn't an area he is researching though. Care to provide a link to the list to which you are refering.

http://www.physics.uwa.edu.au/about/staff/academic?dn=cn%253DJohn%2520Hartnett%2520%252B%2520uid%253D02221221082001%2540merge.ucs%252B%2520uid%253D20040204101222-0%2540directory%252Cou%253DAcademic%2520Staff%2520%2528Physics%2529%252C%2520ou%253DSchool%2520of%2520Physics%252C%2520ou%253DFaculty%2520of%2520Life%2520and%2520Physical%2520Sciences%252C%2520ou%253DFaculties%252C%2520o%253DThe%2520University%2520of%2520Western%2520Australia&display=research


He's currently researching materials physics. He has an interested in cosmology but it is not his area of physics and he is not doing active publishing or research in the area.

It is also interesting to know that by his own admission, he is now trying to fit science to the bible after his theological conversion to be a YEC. The evidence did not lead him to this conclusion, an now, he is working ot rework the evidence to fit his interpretation of the bible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bigbang.asp

 

[Aeschylus]

Doesn't mean it isn't an area he is researching though. Care to provide a link to the list to which you are refering.

The key point i he is not a cosmologist. He has a list of his papers on his homepage under 'publications'.

 

[Micaiah]

Alright, so he is a research physicist who has more than a passing interest in cosmology. He mainly quotes work done by Arp in his talk.

Arp has also noted a significant difference in the red shift of quasars linked to galaxies.

 

[Micaiah]

It is also interesting to know that by his own admission, he is now trying to fit science to the bible after his theological conversion to be a YEC. The evidence did not lead him to this conclusion, an now, he is working ot rework the evidence to fit his interpretation of the bible.

What part of his article do you get that from.

 

[Micaiah]

He Micaiah, way to try to misrepresent my position and response. Real Christian of you.

When scientists comment on the supernatural, they are commenting from personal opinion, not from a scientific point of view. If the majority of scientists said that WWII never happened, I wouldn't accept it because it is outside their area of expertise, just like theology and comments on the existence of God are outside their area of expertise.

Okay I get it. If the TE decides that the thing the scientist is commenting is something they are not qualified to comment on then what God says holds true. However, if the TE decides that the scientist is qualified to comment on the thing he is commenting on then the scientist takes precedence over God.

That is an awfully big resposibility the TE has to shoulder. I guess I like simplicity and consistency. I also don't claim to know more than God, and don't feel qualified to decide when God has the call, and when the scientist has the call. I'm happy to go along with what God plainly teaches in Scripture, and let the scientists catch up on the truth when the are ready.

 

[notto]

What part of his article do you get that from.

Years went by, and John became a Christian during the third year of his undergraduate degree in physics. Meeting other Christians after that, one young man challenged him to read Genesis, saying, ‘Read the first part, and when you’re finished, I’ll come back and talk to you.’ John says, ‘When I started reading it—it was like—wow, unbelievably amazing. Straight away it struck me that this could be completely consistent with the scientific evidence and the knowledge I had at that time. I was being converted into a creationist there and then.’

So John becomes a Christian, and then reevaluates his understanding to a young earth model. The evidence, independent of the bible, did not lead him there.

 

[Beowulf]

I don't see that the big bang is any advantage to creationists though. Sure, mathematics falls apart as one gets closer to the point just before the explosion and some scientists may need to admit something had to create all the matter in the first place or something like that.

As to the universe always being there then there's still the evidence science produced that the universe is expanding. So that evidence, which was/is held as irrefutable fact, would testify against it. "Science" has it's work cut out for itself that's for sure to prove cosmic evolution. And whose going to replace all the textbooks and when that still teach the Big Bang actually happened? It's still being taught in schools even though it may be wrong? The Big Bang has become the common and accepted answer to beginnings within the unbelieving world. That idea will take a lot of time to wretch out of society since "science" so adamently placed it there.

No, showing the Big Bang never happened is going to cause a lot of problems for a changeover toward another conflicting irrefutable fact that society can hold onto.