Featured More Evidential Confirmation of the Big Bang Theory

The word Theory has been redefined in order to suit their agenda. What ever you want to call their so called "theories" they are unproven. Cannot be stated as fact without doubt.

 

I understand the word "theory" and there is no way to link it to faith. As for science what is being called science today by some is nothing but total speculation with no science involved.
As I said before the only reason anyone believes in a big bang theory is because they do not have the faith to believe in the creation account. The big bang theory is in fact scientificly impossible yet some still hold to it. No disrespect to you but It is as the bible says some are willfully ignorant.

They just flat out refuse to believe that God created everything in 6 literal days so they have to make up something to cling to and the big bang is them. Like I said the big bang is scientifically impossible and violates every known law of physics.

 

From the article:

A potential hitch in the presumed course of cosmic evolution could have infused space itself with a special energy that exerted a repulsive force, causing the universe to swell faster than the speed of light for a prodigiously violent instant.​

:laugh::laugh:

"potential hitch"

"special energy"

:laugh::laugh:

Funny how one can swallow the camel of unspecified metaphysics of Naturalism and strain at the the gnat of a six day creation.

But . . . this rapid, faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion sounds to me the Second Day described in Genesis 1, and yet they say it took less than an earth second.

Just sayin'.

 

Big Bang is simply an attempt by atheistic science to account for the existence of the universe absent God. So denying God they postulate "a submicroscopic speck of primordial energy". If one looks up the meaning of primordial it really isn't very clear what primordial or primordial energy is. Of course knowing in this 21st Century a little about energy the question is: How could a "submicroscopic speck of primordial energy" become the universe 28 billion light years in diameter, more or less?

 

Dr John G. Hartnett, an Australian cosmologist, comments on the supposed 'More Evidential Confirmation of the Big Bang Theory" in an extensive article Has the ‘smoking gun’ of the ‘big bang’ been found? at: http://creation.com/big-bang-smoking-gun

I present his concluding remarks below.

Concluding remarks

The universe began as God said in Genesis chapter 1, with no big bang. He created it out of nothing, by His supernatural omnipotence. God said: “Let there be light.” He filled the universe with light and that light might be what we observe today in the CMB radiation. My own cosmology—a derivative of Moshe Carmeli’s own big bang cosmology, but with biblical initial conditions—has a period of super-rapid accelerating expansion in the 4th Day of Creation, not quite the same as inflation, yet sufficient to adiabatically cool the initial light from a temperature of about 9,000K to nearly 3K today.

I proposed that the initial light was due to plasma glowing blue, which filled the initial much smaller universe. That initial plasma would have had sound waves resonating through it. And gravitational waves are entirely possible real physics, though they have yet to be shown to exist. Even the case of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar-neutron star pair, the discovery for which they were given the Nobel Prize in 1993 (where energy is lost as the binary pair spiral in towards each other), shows only that gravitational energy is lost, not that that gravitational energy is dissipated in waves.

My point is that even if this detection of an anisotropy in the excess B-mode polarization of the CMB photon field at the claimed angular scales is confirmed it may not be evidence of anything more than an effect resulting from some other source in the universe. You would have to rule out all other causes before you could definitely say it was a detection of the big bang. But to do that you would have to know everything and that would make you a god.

Making a prediction from some esoteric quantum theory6 in regard to the putative inflationary epoch, and then claiming a fulfilment of this in these observations is not the same as a clean prediction in testable, repeatable physics. In the case of the latter, there are ways to interact with the experiment and repeatably test one’s hypothesis. In the case of the former, i.e. when the laboratory is the cosmos, we cannot do that. The best we can do is run simulations on what we think the universe should look like and try to quantify the likelihood of the outcome of an observation. Astrophysicist Richard Lieu wrote,

Hence the promise of using the Universe as a laboratory from which new incorruptible physical laws may be established without the support of laboratory experiments is preposterous7 …

Summary

Far from being a definitive proof of either inflation or the big bang, this so-called ‘smoking gun’ is very ‘model-dependent’, which means it depends on unprovable assumptions—including that there was a big bang to begin with. Whereas even the idea that the CMB is the leftover echo of this alleged event has some serious and unresolved problems; for example, if the radiation really is coming from deep space, why is there no ‘shadow’ in it from objects supposedly in its foreground? See The big bang fails another test.

Consider for a moment something else, something consistent with all the observations, including these latest reports; namely, that the universe did not begin in a big bang, because the universe never started in a singularity. It began in time, yes, … but, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

http://creation.com/big-bang-smoking-gun[/quote]

 

Has the ‘smoking gun’ of the ‘big bang’ been found?
Media headlines make people think that some astounding scientific ‘proof’ has been discovered. The reality is far less spectacular.

http://creation.com/big-bang-smoking-gun

 

So, according to the article, did the Universe expand to the size of a grapefruit, or beyond the current limits of the known universe during the "inflation" period of much less than a fraction of a second?

Clue, you have to read the article. And then you will realize the article provides at least two answers!

The problem with trying to calculate the size after inflation, assuming duration to be 10 to the minus 32 seconds, is we do not know how much faster than the speed of light is needed to match future data.

As one article said, cosmic inflation appears to be a contrivance to explain any data known or postulated. It is like a black hole, which swallows up any and all data to explain away the "supernatural" birth of the universe.

 

As I stated before the big bang theory is biblically impossible. If you read the biblical account the earth was created on the first day and the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day. Also the big bang theory says something exploded. The bible says God created everything out of nothing. That is the end of any big bang.

 

Following is a post I wrote, from a few years back, re: the brouhaha over the age of the earth. I never got a satisfactory answer!
The same question(s) can be inserted into this post, as the basic premise is the same - do you trust God or science when they differ????????

Again, we see the same physical evidence, but vary vastly in the conclusions thus drawn.
So what compels one to trust science's BIG BANG vs God's several day creation? Either is an act of FAITH!!
I seriously doubt that God would have used the "big bang" and then told us that He took several days to complete the task!?!?!?
Ya think???????

 

No disrespect, but comparing the big bang to being the same kind of faith as believing God's word tells me you do not understand what faith is.

 

I agree that belief in evolution is an act of faith. I would not call it the same as saving faith which I believe is a gift of God. Having said that I believe evolution to be the religion of the atheist.

There are two possible causes for the existence of the universe, an eternal God or eternal energy/matter. And then there are some who peddle the following:

 

You are of course correct. One is faith in flawed human reasoning and one is Holy Spirit given faith in the eternal creator God, but both are acts of faith.

 

its not JUTits NOT "just the Bible", as there is much more scientific facts that support creationism and

Actually, the bible IS indeed God saying what happened at that time to us, so not really faith, but a sure acceptance of what actually happened there!

And its NOT just the Bible alone , but even scientific facts support how we view this, as evolutionists MUST strain to make sure the "facts' fir their mindset set, so mis and re interprete the facts to get their desired results!

 

One could say that jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is a leap of faith and jumping out with one is also faith. However if truth is what is desired they are not comparable. Without a parachute is reckless stupidity, not faith as it is hope without substance. With one it is truly faith.

The same applies with the big bang and the bible account. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of a big bang. All we have is total made up speculation and it is of a nature that totally contradicts itself. Believing this kind of mumbo jumbo is not faith. It is stuborn willful ignorance. Believing the biblical account IS faith because the One who gave it is believable.

 

Hello Qf,

As i know you have a lust for anything academic if i was going to seek some science that could possibly go along with biblical revelation...i would look more into this...as it can be reconciled with the biblical account of creation......even thought it is undeveloped to an extent;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biU3W0w2Oq0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAo5uLCPio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuANDlrTHyI
They deny God....however this concept i believe can mesh with Hebrews 11:3...the images in our brain take in what God allows us to "see". What do you think on this QF...there are dozens of longer versions of these two examples.

 

No matter who screams the loudest, there really is no need to choose between science and the Bible.

They just are not in conflict--not unless you READ INTO the Biblical account that which it does not say.

 

Judith, I believe that saving faith is a gift of God and is not the same as believing that jumping out of a plane with a parachute is in any way similar to saving faith.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his book, God The Holy Spirit, page 140 makes the following argument [Paraphrased for brevity.]

“It is unfortunate that all too often saving faith is compared to the choices that people make in life. The argument is as follows :

Faith is a natural faculty that every person has. You are always exercising faith in your life, you couldn’t live a day without doing so. You exercise faith when you go out to start your car. You exercise faith when you board an airplane. Just as you trust that the car will start and the airplane will arrive safely, why don’t you trust Jesus Christ as Savior?

“In fact starting a car or boarding an airplane have nothing to do with faith, rather they have to do with an understanding [to a greater or lesser degree] that the probability of the desired event will happen. Therefore, such a comparison is meaningless.“

You say

Actually Judith it is for the very reason you say that belief in the Big Bang is a kind of faith. Recall that Scripture tells us: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.{Hebrews 11:1} Now those people who believe in cosmological evolution are believing in mumbo jumbo. They do this , in my opinion, because they are hoping to demonstrate that God had nothing to do with creation. That is the substance of things they hope for even in the absence of anything other than vivid imaginations and the ability to manipulate mathematical equations.

I believe I stated earlier that evolution is the religion of atheists. I also believe there is an element of faith/belief in any religion!