Isn't Big Bang Bad Science?

The video is not using science, True science proves that evolution could not have happened.

 

“Big Bang” cosmology as understood by many creationists is certainly bad science, and atheistic interpretations of “Big Bang” cosmology are very bad metaphysics. Fearing the implications of the new physics, Sir Fred Hoyle, a non-Christian, derisively coined the term “Big Bang.” (He also gave up on the idea that life could have originated naturally on Earth and so promoted “panspermia”). At the time, many scientists believed in an eternal universe, whereas the new theories strongly implied a beginning reminiscent of Genesis 1:1. The scientific evidence that the universe had a definite beginning continues to grow ever stronger, depressingly so for some, but unsurprisingly for me. The Bible is profoundly true: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

 

The term “Big Bang” is easily misunderstood, much like the TULIP acronym for “Calvinism,” or FACTS for “Arminianism.” The quotes are apropos because, just like most who hold to either of the latter two theological positions, those who hold to a “Big Bang” cosmology do not believe in a popular misunderstanding of it. “Big Bang” really refers to a mind-bogglingly precise, rapid expansion of a perfectly ordered singularity that “precipitated” into our universe. All the matter, energy, space, and even time of our universe originated “in the beginning.”

 

Why indeed! Because of its theistic implications of course. They will be doing this until the Return.

While there are those who constantly try to eliminate the obvious necessity of the Creator’s role in creation, there is no real hope on the scientific horizon. This is why the “new atheists” resort to claiming that the default theological position is that there is no God. They have no real arguments otherwise; there is simply no foundation for atheism other than assumption.

 

Unfortunately again, ICR is referencing an article it does not understand.

Here is the actual article which is essentially written in Klingon for non-physicists.

Here is a lay explanation of the significance of the paper from physicists.

 

Science has no real working solution on how the Universe originated, nor on how life came about.

 

SAY WHAT!... Brother Glen

 

Brother Glen, sorry you are so confused by my post. Perhaps you made the all too common mistake of rushing through it and thus failed to grasp the points being made? Or perhaps you missed some of my other statements in the thread that could help alleviate your confusion?

Still, I will offer a little explanation, just in case others may be confused. “Arminians” and “Calvinists” argue a lot and speak past each other in large part because they fail to understand the others’ positions (there are multiple views within each camp) and tend to put words in each other’s mouths. I used quotes here because so many of these do not really consider themselves to hold to either Arminianism or Calvinism; the terms serve as labels, but very inaccurate ones. If you are essentially unaware of that debate or the problems inherent in it (one can go to that forum on this board to get his fill), then I can see how my reference to it would entirely escape you, and you would be unable to relate it analogically to the debates between creationist camps that use such terms as “Young Earth” (whatever that means) and “Big Bang” (one I very briefly described).

In any case, the term “Big Bang” is hardly a good description of the actual cosmological theories associated with it, nor are the popular misconceptions propagated by opponents. If you do not understand that from my brief statement about it, then I doubt I can offer much help without knowing more specifically what about it confuses you. If you don’t understand my statements because of their structure (you wouldn’t be the first), then you will have to be specific about that.

 

When it comes to the origins of both life and the universe, I doubt man’s capacity to understand even if God were to explain it. From the Bible we know who, not how.

 

It is not what you said it is the way you said it... I am very well aware of what goes on in the Calvinist/Arminian Forum I once was a moderator... I know the debates... In reference to the Big Bang I'm a young earth scientific creationist... I know those debates too... You're not talking to a new kid on the block, I've been here a long time... Just needed clarification... All I'm saying is plain talk is best... Brother Glen

 

I heard a preacher make a comment on the theory of evolution that I have not forgotten to this day... He said evolution is about as true as if a group of monkey's set off a case of dynamite in printing factory and out of that Big Bang came a dictionary... God planned everything he leaves nothing to chance... Brother Glen

 

I did not really think you might be new to either debate. My response was intended generally, since you provided no clear indication of what might be confusing. I just used "you" because it was easier. What I posted seemed very plain and simple to me. I think that's how most people see their own posts. Most people also seem to think whatever interpretation they hold to is the right one, or even the only possibly right one, plain and simple. That does not make it so, however.

 

Yes. Since when did chance ever do anything?

But theories of evolution assume life already exists. Theories regarding the formation of the universe assume precursors already exist, even if in the form of a singularity. Thus arguing over these really misses the point. I want to know where everything comes from in the first place, why there is something rather than nothing. These are questions science cannot address much less answer. Those scientists who deny God pretend to address them by calling on other things that already exist, e.g., a multiverse or other forms of space-time-matter-energy.

 

IF there was no God, there would be nothing that exists, which includes both Universe and life!

 

Game-changing resolution: whose name on the laws of physics for an expanding universe?

 

A distant galaxy moving away at relative speed to that of light. And a perceived measured distance. At the given velocity how long would it take to travel said distance? The age of the universe is estimated on such a basis.

 

Ah, where do you get that if the universe has a calculated beginning? It is not then uniformitarianism universe! The so-called big bang is a refutation of uniformitarianism universe! The big bang theory is a refutation of the steady state theory of the universe.