• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Isn't Big Bang Bad Science?

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Answers in Genesis just posted a lecture in Legacy Hall in the basement of the Creation Museum on the Big Bang with speaker Dr. Terry Mortenson. Dr. Mortenson earned a PhD from Coventry University in England in the history of geology. He also is educated in theology.

The video is an hour and sixteen minutes long and is well illustrated and all scientific quotations are displayed on the screen:

 

tyndale1946

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, Big Bang is considered part of Evolution.

Scripture is definitely against the Big Bang theory, the worlds were not created with a Big Bang... But its going to go out with one:eek:... Brother Glen

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Only by creationists. Planetary science and cosmology are separate fields from evolutionary biology.

This is why the old "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" assertion fails.

Evidently American science textbooks on astronomy link Big Bank to Evolution, four examples of which are shown at the 3:15 mark of the video.

By the way, some of these Big Bang folks are saying that people are made up of stardust. As a Hoosier, I want to drag out Hoosier Hoagy Carmichael at this point:

 

ehbowen

Member
The origins of the world and the universe are much more complex than recorded in Genesis; this is indisputable. However, as someone who knows God and trusts his word, I'm also quite certain that if you broke every thread down to its components, the actual origin would resemble Genesis 1-6 a whole lot more than it would resemble Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

The fall down comes because too many people confuse linear time with the sequence of events. For temporal beings such as ourselves, the two are inextricably linked and most of us can't even conceive of anything outside of that paradigm. But for an eternal and transcendent being such as our God, the two are related in only the most casual manner.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Is linking to a topic on another BBS permitted?

There is an amazing discussion on "Genesis 1: a Polemic against the gods" that talks about how the literary construct of Genesis 1 serves to directly refute virtually all other contemporary creation stories through direct reference. It is like God told his story in a way that deliberately says "No, the Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Indian creation stories and gods are all false and wrong. Here is how it happened."

Just a very quick case in point: all other stories begin by telling how the pantheon of gods were created, but Genesis 1:1 begins with a statement that only one God has always existed ("In the beginning of the beginning").
 

James Flagg

Member
Site Supporter
Evidently American science textbooks on astronomy link Big Bank to Evolution, four examples of which are shown at the 3:15 mark of the video.

By the way, some of these Big Bang folks are saying that people are made up of stardust. As a Hoosier, I want to drag out Hoosier Hoagy Carmichael at this point:


I saw that, but he's making an obvious equivocation fallacy. Lots of things are spoken of as "evolving", but that's a different sense of the word. I can talk about "the evolution of the V-8 engine", for example, but that doesn't have anything to do with biology.

He says very clearly, "they're all talking about the evolution of stars". Yes. And stars are not organisms and they don't have ancestors, and none of those books are linking the "evolution" of stars and planets to the evolution of weasels and E. Coli.

The equivocation fallacy is why saying "Evolution is still just a theory" is meaningless.

Finally, the only real Hoosier I knew was a guy named Rick who could dig a 3x3 hole faster than any man alive.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I saw that, but he's making an obvious equivocation fallacy. Lots of things are spoken of as "evolving", but that's a different sense of the word. I can talk about "the evolution of the V-8 engine", for example, but that doesn't have anything to do with biology.

He says very clearly, "they're all talking about the evolution of stars". Yes. And stars are not organisms and they don't have ancestors, and none of those books are linking the "evolution" of stars and planets to the evolution of weasels and E. Coli.

The equivocation fallacy is why saying "Evolution is still just a theory" is meaningless.

Finally, the only real Hoosier I knew was a guy named Rick who could dig a 3x3 hole faster than any man alive.

So you are saying that the science textbooks are inappropriately named?
 

ehbowen

Member
So you are saying that the science textbooks are inappropriately named?

"Science" is based upon the underlying presumption that there has been no change in underlying fundamental conditions throughout the time period under observation. For those of us who accept the possibility and the reality of the miraculous, that presumption is a non-starter.
 

James Flagg

Member
Site Supporter
So you are saying that the science textbooks are inappropriately named?

Not at all.

I'm saying that Terry Mortenson is making an obvious equivocation fallacy.

I've never heard of Mortenson, but he's just trotting out the same old Duane Gish/Carl Baugh level sophistry. There is a reason he's giving this lecture at The Creation Museum and not at the science department of Alabama State University.
 

James Flagg

Member
Site Supporter
"Science" is based upon the underlying presumption that there has been no change in underlying fundamental conditions throughout the time period under observation. For those of us who accept the possibility and the reality of the miraculous, that presumption is a non-starter.

True.

It is impossible to write a testable hypothesis about anything supernatural.
 

ehbowen

Member
True.

It is impossible to write a testable hypothesis about anything supernatural.

True enough, but as I said to another skeptic on another board eight years ago....

...be advised that IMO approaching God as a hypothesis to be tested will not gain you one one-thousandth of the traction of approaching him as a Person to be befriended.

Edit To Add: Not implying with that prior statement that you are or come across as a skeptic; just that the one whom I refer to was another person interacting on that message board.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not at all.

I'm saying that Terry Mortenson is making an obvious equivocation fallacy.

I've never heard of Mortenson, but he's just trotting out the same old Duane Gish/Carl Baugh level sophistry. There is a reason he's giving this lecture at The Creation Museum and not at the science department of Alabama State University.

I saw Dr. Mortenson last year at the Creation Museum during a free lunchtime lecture. He has a masters in theology and a PhD in the history of the science of geology from Coventry in England. He spent much of his life working for Campus Crusade for Christ. He gave the opening statement in the recent movie "Genesis, Paradise Lost."
 

MartyF

Well-Known Member
Compare to Evolution, the Big Bang is rock solid. Compared to the evidence Physicists like for most of our physical laws, the Big Bang is an Hypothesis at best.
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
Peter seems to describe a "Big Bang" sort of event in the creation of the New Heavens and Earth.

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” (2 Peter 3:10)

“Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:12–13)

Science, as blind as it may be, also looks for this universe to renew itself in what Peter describes. I'm YEC and reject evolution, but I find the harmony between Peter and science interesting on this point.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
What many Christians do not realize is that the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian catholic priest.

The prevailing scientific view of the universe prior to Lemaitre was the steady state theory of the universe which had no beginning and no end. As you can imagine, a Catholic priest suggesting an expanding universe theory with a "cosmic egg" beginning reeked of creation ex-nihilo to the largely atheistic cosmological community even though Lemaitre's work was backed up by accepted redshift data that suggested that stars were all moving away from each other.

This atheistic bias against the Big Bang Theory because it looked like Creationism lead to a slow adoption of the theory in the cosmological community until the 1960s when the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted by Big Bang Theory was first detected. That was the nail in the coffin for the steady state theory and since then the big bang has been the predominant view in the cosmological world and the more we can observe of the universe, the more it is confirmed that it had a beginning where a singularity of light expanded from a point which in Genesis is described as God speaking "Let there be Light".

Georges Lemaître: the Belgian priest who preached the Big Bang

Lemaître and the Expansion of the Space
The first hints that the universe is expanding came in 1917 when Albert Einstein applied his new general theory of relativity to the universe as a whole. To Einstein’s surprise, his field equations showed the universe was either expanding or contracting. Since there was no evidence for this at the time, Einstein added his famous cosmological constant to model an eternally static universe — one that has always been and will always be the same size. He later called this “the greatest mistake of my life”.

In 1922, Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann developed his own dynamic solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

Then, in an obscure 1927 paper (written in French), Georges Lemaître independently published his solution to Einstein’s equations. From his model, he proposed a linear relationship exists between a galaxy’s distance and its redshift. In general, the further away a galaxy is, the greater its light is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum (lower frequency). Lemaître reasoned that on its long journey to the Earth, a galaxy’s light is stretched in frequency by the expansion of space itself. The longer the light’s journey, the more the universe has expanded — thus the greater the light’s stretching or redshift. Lemaître backed up his claim by correlating published redshift data from Strömberg and Slipher with galaxy distance measurements by Hubble and Humason.


The universe continues to expand: Image credit NASA

That same year, Einstein was in Brussels to attend the Solvay Conference. Lemaître collared the great physicist to explain his model. Einstein responded: “Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable.”

Two years later, Edwin Hubble — who, like most scientists, had not read Lemaître’s paper — came up with the same redshift/distance relationship using nearly the same data. Ignorant of Lemaître’s precedence, physicists later labeled it “Hubble’s Law”. The discovery of the expansion of the universe is still generally credited to Hubble, even though he reportedly rejected this explanation for galaxy redshift to the end of his life.

The Cosmic Egg
In 1931, Monsignor Lemaître proposed an even more radical idea — the universe began as a “single quantum”. The expanding universe must have been smaller and smaller in the past, he reasoned. Thus it must have had a finite beginning.

How was Lemaître’s idea received? Many physicists were suspicious of a beginning of the universe proposed by a Catholic priest. The idea was too close to the Genesis story in the Bible. To make matters worse, Pope Pius XII latched onto Lemaître’s theory as confirmation of the biblical description of creation. Lemaître argued it was just a scientific theory and nothing more — neither confirming nor denying religious beliefs. He said:

As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question . . . It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.

In 1933, Lemaître and Einstein gave a series of lectures in California. Recanting his earlier objections, Einstein now called Lemaître’s theory “the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”
 
Last edited:

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What many Christians do not realize is that the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian catholic priest.

The prevailing scientific view of the universe prior to Lemaitre was the steady state theory of the universe which had no beginning and no end. As you can imagine, a Catholic priest suggesting an expanding universe theory with a "cosmic egg" beginning reeked of creation ex-nihilo to the largely atheistic cosmological community even though Lemaitre's work was backed up by accepted redshift data that suggested that stars were all moving away from each other.

This atheistic bias against the Big Bang Theory because it looked like Creationism lead to a slow adoption of the theory in the cosmological community until the 1960s when the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted by Big Bang Theory was first detected. That was the nail in the coffin for the steady state theory and since then the big bang has been the predominant view in the cosmological world and the more we can observe of the universe, the more it is confirmed that it had a beginning where a singularity of light expanded from a point which in Genesis is described as God speaking "Let there be Light".

Georges Lemaître: the Belgian priest who preached the Big Bang

But now science is finding problems with the Big Bang theory and it is being abandoned by some.

'In the new model, published in Physics Letters B, researchers included quantum correction terms to the standard formula assumed in Big Bang cosmology. This time, the formula ended up describing a universe with no beginning and no end.

'Why would scientists even think to challenge a long-held concept like the Big Bang unless they saw some deal-breaking weaknesses in it? Their paper lists some of the flaws they recognized, including "the smallness problem," "the coincidence problem," "the flatness problem," dark matter, and the inexplicable singularity from which the universe supposedly sprung.2,4'

Secular Study: No Big Bang?
 
Top