Isn't Big Bang Bad Science?

Evolution in general is bad science.

 

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.

 

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... 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.

 

Especially when Christians want to adopt it into genesis!

 

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.

 

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").

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

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....

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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