Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
When unable to address the issues, a good last resort is to suggest that those who disagree with you are delusional, although this strategy is not without its potential to backfire.
-
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!
Errors in Science!
- Thread starter OldRegular
- Start date
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
When unable to address the issues, a good last resort is to suggest that those who disagree with you are delusional, although this strategy is not without its potential to backfire.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by OldRegular:
From your reply it is logical to assume that you can show Scripture that supports the Big Bang Theory!!!!!!!! I would certainly be interested in reading such Scripture.
While the Big Bang theory will likely undergo many changes as new evidence comes to light, its similarities to creation ex nihilo has been the reason naturalistic scientists have continually tried to come up with competing theories which have been rejected, one after another with the new evidence that comes to light.
Ironically, "Creation Scientists" in their fervor to oppose scientific views that challenge their preconcieved notions of the universe, also support these already falsified competing theories simply because they cast doubt on the Big Bang.
To be blunt you are mistaken. ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY was accepted by scientists. </font>[/QUOTE]Check the verb tense. It is not accepted and was corrected by science itself as more data and better information was collected. Science is self correcting and eliminates such mistakes. Mistakes cannot stand the scrutiny. But the real, modern use for ontogeny goes without a response.
OldReg,
What is it about the Big Bang that throws you for a loop?
Big Bang Theory simply means "creation ex nihilo." Exactly what the Bible teaches.
GoldDragon and I probably differ about our views of creation, but he is absolutely right about the implications of the BB and young earth creationists inability to see through their own bias.
Is this your problem?
I find the big bang proved in Scripture by Genesis 1:1. For me, verse two is merely a description of the earth in its original creation and verse three is merely a description of God calling for light to reach the earth's surface by thinning the clouds that were enveloping the earth (Job 38:4-9).
Your denial of the similarity between BB and creation ex nihilo is humorous.
What is it about the Big Bang that throws you for a loop?
Big Bang Theory simply means "creation ex nihilo." Exactly what the Bible teaches.
GoldDragon and I probably differ about our views of creation, but he is absolutely right about the implications of the BB and young earth creationists inability to see through their own bias.
Is this your problem?
I find the big bang proved in Scripture by Genesis 1:1. For me, verse two is merely a description of the earth in its original creation and verse three is merely a description of God calling for light to reach the earth's surface by thinning the clouds that were enveloping the earth (Job 38:4-9).
Your denial of the similarity between BB and creation ex nihilo is humorous.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
To be blunt you are mistaken. ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY was accepted by scientists. </font>[/QUOTE]Check the verb tense. It is not accepted and was corrected by science itself as more data and better information was collected. Science is self correcting and eliminates such mistakes. Mistakes cannot stand the scrutiny. But the real, modern use for ontogeny goes without a response. </font>[/QUOTE]
You can't have it both ways, it was either accepted to be true or it wasn't. Make up your mind.
[ May 31, 2005, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: OldRegular ]
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
From your reply it is logical to assume that you can show Scripture that supports the Big Bang Theory!!!!!!!! I would certainly be interested in reading such Scripture.
While the Big Bang theory will likely undergo many changes as new evidence comes to light, its similarities to creation ex nihilo has been the reason naturalistic scientists have continually tried to come up with competing theories which have been rejected, one after another with the new evidence that comes to light.
Ironically, "Creation Scientists" in their fervor to oppose scientific views that challenge their preconcieved notions of the universe, also support these already falsified competing theories simply because they cast doubt on the Big Bang. </font>[/QUOTE]I asked you for Scripture that supports the Big Bang Theory. If you believe the passage you quoted supports the Big Bang Theory then you are delusional.
At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. That doesn't sound like creation ex nihilo to me.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You sayOriginally posted by Paul33:
OldReg,
What is it about the Big Bang that throws you for a loop?
Big Bang Theory simply means "creation ex nihilo." Exactly what the Bible teaches.
GoldDragon and I probably differ about our views of creation, but he is absolutely right about the implications of the BB and young earth creationists inability to see through their own bias.
Is this your problem?
I find the big bang proved in Scripture by Genesis 1:1. For me, verse two is merely a description of the earth in its original creation and verse three is merely a description of God calling for light to reach the earth's surface by thinning the clouds that were enveloping the earth (Job 38:4-9).
Your denial of the similarity between BB and creation ex nihilo is humorous.
That statement simply is not true. I will post the same description of the Big Bang that I posted for Gold Dragon.
This quotation states:
Someone said above in reference to a post I made that science was "self correcting". Perhaps I am just trying to correct the miscinception some have about what creation ex nihilo means.
To say that Genesis 1:1 or Job 38:49 support the Big Bang concept borders on the ridiculous.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Anyone seriously wanting to read some of the problems that scientists have identified with the Big Bang concept should go to the following web site.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm
I would post it but it is copywrited. The article is rather old and I am sure many additional problems have been identified since then.
Talk about Big Bang all you want, just don't delude yourself into believing that man has discovered how God Created the universe.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm
I would post it but it is copywrited. The article is rather old and I am sure many additional problems have been identified since then.
Talk about Big Bang all you want, just don't delude yourself into believing that man has discovered how God Created the universe.
To be blunt you are mistaken. ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY was accepted by scientists. </font>[/QUOTE]Check the verb tense. It is not accepted and was corrected by science itself as more data and better information was collected. Science is self correcting and eliminates such mistakes. Mistakes cannot stand the scrutiny. But the real, modern use for ontogeny goes without a response. </font>[/QUOTE]
You can't have it both ways, it was either accepted to be true or it wasn't. Make up your mind. </font>[/QUOTE]I have no need to make up my mind. It is not something that is currently accepted by sceince and you are ignoring the implication that ontogeny in the modern sense has on this discussion.
If you wish to drag out every mistake that humans have made in the past then you open up criticism of our own religion to everything from geocentrism and flat earth beliefs to burning witches to killing cops trying to blow up an abortion clinic.
If you want to point out errors in science, then try and come up with examples that are actually in science. You find that a much harder row to hoe. Going to the past just shows how science corrects any mistakes through the process.
"At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. That doesn't sound like creation ex nihilo to me."
First of all, this is a point in time once the process got under way, not some arbitrary point in time (which has no meaning) before the start of the universe. This still has nothing to do with the presence of matter before the BB.
Second, one problem in modern physics, as metnioned above, is the disagrement between quantum mechanics and general relativity. So long as you use QM for small things that are not moving too fast and GR for large things, massive things and things moving quite rapidly, you have no problems. However the beginning of the universe is one of those times where you have both a lot of mass and a very small space suuch that you must use both. Which leads to non-sensical answers at the very beginning. Now string theory enters the field. It posits a minimum size to everything. The "point" goes away and so does your objection.
"nyone seriously wanting to read some of the problems that scientists have identified with the Big Bang concept should go to the following web site.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm
"
The first two paragraphs are misleading at worst and show a misunderstanding at best. It is interesting that they give some supposed headlines and titles of papers, yet when Googles one at random, the only hits I got were copies of the ICR article. But, even taking their claim at face value, they ignore the overwhelming amount of supportive data for the BB which has been pouring in. They mistakenly claim that there were subatomic particles in existance before the start of the BB. They mistakenly assert that it was a literal explosion into a pre-existing space. (The BB is an expansion of space-time ITSELF!)
They then start into the heart of the matter. They claim that the distribution of the galaxies is a problem. Well, in reality, the distribution of the galaxies on a large scale is a triumph of the predictive power of the inflationary concept. Inflation predicts a certain distribution called a power law spectrum. Observation of the cosmic microwave background show the predicted power law spectrum. Furthermore, if you take the predicted and then observed variation in the CMB and scale it up due to the expansion of the universe in the mean time, you get the exact same power law spectrum for the large scale distribution of galaxies. Quantum scale variations from the time of inflation were scaled to the visible differences we see in the CMB which then became the "seed" for the large scale distribution we see today as the expansion continues.
The rest of the ICR article is a mistaken attempt at spin on this premise. They discuss how the CMB was predicted to bu smooth but that it instead shows lumpiness. What they do not tell you is the part I do in the preceeding paragraph. The lumpiness in the CMB is on the order of a tiny fraction of a degree and the magnitude and distribution match both predictions and the distribution of the modern universe.
First of all, this is a point in time once the process got under way, not some arbitrary point in time (which has no meaning) before the start of the universe. This still has nothing to do with the presence of matter before the BB.
Second, one problem in modern physics, as metnioned above, is the disagrement between quantum mechanics and general relativity. So long as you use QM for small things that are not moving too fast and GR for large things, massive things and things moving quite rapidly, you have no problems. However the beginning of the universe is one of those times where you have both a lot of mass and a very small space suuch that you must use both. Which leads to non-sensical answers at the very beginning. Now string theory enters the field. It posits a minimum size to everything. The "point" goes away and so does your objection.
"nyone seriously wanting to read some of the problems that scientists have identified with the Big Bang concept should go to the following web site.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm
"
The first two paragraphs are misleading at worst and show a misunderstanding at best. It is interesting that they give some supposed headlines and titles of papers, yet when Googles one at random, the only hits I got were copies of the ICR article. But, even taking their claim at face value, they ignore the overwhelming amount of supportive data for the BB which has been pouring in. They mistakenly claim that there were subatomic particles in existance before the start of the BB. They mistakenly assert that it was a literal explosion into a pre-existing space. (The BB is an expansion of space-time ITSELF!)
They then start into the heart of the matter. They claim that the distribution of the galaxies is a problem. Well, in reality, the distribution of the galaxies on a large scale is a triumph of the predictive power of the inflationary concept. Inflation predicts a certain distribution called a power law spectrum. Observation of the cosmic microwave background show the predicted power law spectrum. Furthermore, if you take the predicted and then observed variation in the CMB and scale it up due to the expansion of the universe in the mean time, you get the exact same power law spectrum for the large scale distribution of galaxies. Quantum scale variations from the time of inflation were scaled to the visible differences we see in the CMB which then became the "seed" for the large scale distribution we see today as the expansion continues.
The rest of the ICR article is a mistaken attempt at spin on this premise. They discuss how the CMB was predicted to bu smooth but that it instead shows lumpiness. What they do not tell you is the part I do in the preceeding paragraph. The lumpiness in the CMB is on the order of a tiny fraction of a degree and the magnitude and distribution match both predictions and the distribution of the modern universe.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
UTEOTW
Your response was exactly as I expected once you saw the ICR.
Here is another.
The Big Bang ---- Ref: http://members.tripod.com/~ssscott/BigBang.html
Your response was exactly as I expected once you saw the ICR.
Here is another.
The Big Bang ---- Ref: http://members.tripod.com/~ssscott/BigBang.html
13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Is this creation out of nothing or out of something the size of an atomic nucleus?
Well, they are mixing up their terminology there. A singularity has no dimensions. It is a point. An atomic nucleus has small but real spacial dimensions.
Having said that, there was a point in time where the whole universe was the size of the nucleus of an atom.
What is being missed here is that this is at a point in time AFTER the beginning of the universe. This still says nothing about there being matter BEFORE the beginning of the universe. To take it a step further, the moment of the Big Bang WAS the beginning of space and time such that it does not even make sense to talk of a time before this moment. Without even a possibility of time there is no way to speak of matter that existed before. There is NO "before" to speak of. I must agree here with the others who assert that the Big Bang fits in completely with the idea of creation from nothing. God spoke and bang, it happened.
Any comments on the implications of ontogeny as discussed above?
Having said that, there was a point in time where the whole universe was the size of the nucleus of an atom.
What is being missed here is that this is at a point in time AFTER the beginning of the universe. This still says nothing about there being matter BEFORE the beginning of the universe. To take it a step further, the moment of the Big Bang WAS the beginning of space and time such that it does not even make sense to talk of a time before this moment. Without even a possibility of time there is no way to speak of matter that existed before. There is NO "before" to speak of. I must agree here with the others who assert that the Big Bang fits in completely with the idea of creation from nothing. God spoke and bang, it happened.
Any comments on the implications of ontogeny as discussed above?
The quote you site also mentions "infinitely dense." For matter to be dense into infinity is what Hoyle describes as "nothing."
Before God spoke the universe into existence, there was nothing! No time, no space, no matter, no nothing.
Naturalistic scientists may stop short by saying that the Big Bang is an explosion of a "point" or single atomic nucleus. But when honest, they admit that infinte density is nothing and therefore the beginning of the universe is the result of creation ex nihilo.
Before God spoke the universe into existence, there was nothing! No time, no space, no matter, no nothing.
Naturalistic scientists may stop short by saying that the Big Bang is an explosion of a "point" or single atomic nucleus. But when honest, they admit that infinte density is nothing and therefore the beginning of the universe is the result of creation ex nihilo.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
It is thrilling to communicate with someone who can dismiss so-called experts so easily.
Do you have a reference that proves a singularity has no dimensions?
Thermodynamicist Roy E. Peacock in his A Brief History of Eternity defines a singularity as "a point at which all known laws no longer apply; they break down." If that is true we really can't say much about a singularity can we?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Naturalistic scientists say that when somethong is infinitely dense it is a singularity.
Steve Nelson, Grad student, nuclear astrophysics Ph.D. program, Nuclear Lab, Duke University states the following about a singularity:
So in truth we cannot really say that infinite density is "nothing" regardless of what Hoyle says. Recall that he has waffled between the steady state concept and the big bang concept. Perhaps he will waffle about whether infinite density is nothing or something.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY was an error accepted by evolutionists. They may or may not have been scientists depending on your bias.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that Hoyle was once an ardent steady state advocate, embraced the big bang concept, and now has doubts about it. The big bank concept is a relatively new concept and I have already noted that there are opposing viewpoints.
Face it, Science cannot address beginnings. It is a question for religion or philosophy.