Isn't Big Bang Bad Science?

[Aaron]

The Big Bang isn't science. It's philosophy. Theoretical physicists and astronomers aren't trying to understand their observations honestly (for the most part). they're attempting to explain their observations according to unguided, random naturalistic forces. That is a philosophical constraint, not a constraint based on observation.

When Hubble discovered that light from distant galaxies is equally red-shifted, it seemed to mean that the distant galaxies were moving away from the earth at an equal rate, and that seemed to suggest that the earth was located in the center of that phenomenon.

Well we can't have that, because that would mean the earth is in a special or favored location in the universe, and that would mean there is a mind and purpose behind our existence. So how do we explain it? All of 3d space is expanding! Like raisins in a muffin all move away from each other as the bread is baked because the dough is expanding, so we observe all other bodies moving away from us at equal rates because space is expanding.

We can't test that hypothesis. It's not even the simplest answer, but it's the favored answer, because those who govern the institutions of science prefer a naturalistic explanation.

…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs...such a favored position is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape . . .

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf (p.40)​

 

[37818]

Distant galaxies moving away from each other on the whole. On the assumption they are moving away from a common source, there is a limited time from which that could have happened from. (The Big Bang)

What is not assumed is that they are all moving toward a common point which is from our stand point, moving out in all directions from here. The unthought of idea of how the collapse would look like.

". . . They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed: . . ." -- Psalm 102:26.

". . . 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.

". . . the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.. . ." -- Revelation 20:11.

". . . a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; . . ." -- Revelation 21:1.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The Big Bang isn't science. It's philosophy. Theoretical physicists and astronomers aren't trying to understand their observations honestly (for the most part). they're attempting to explain their observations according to unguided, random naturalistic forces. That is a philosophical constraint, not a constraint based on observation.

When Hubble discovered that light from distant galaxies is equally red-shifted, it seemed to mean that the distant galaxies were moving away from the earth at an equal rate, and that seemed to suggest that the earth was located in the center of that phenomenon.

Well we can't have that, because that would mean the earth is in a special or favored location in the universe, and that would mean there is a mind and purpose behind our existence. So how do we explain it? All of 3d space is expanding! Like raisins in a muffin all move away from each other as the bread is baked because the dough is expanding, so we observe all other bodies moving away from us at equal rates because space is expanding.

We can't test that hypothesis. It's not even the simplest answer, but it's the favored answer, because those who govern the institutions of science prefer a naturalistic explanation.

…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs...such a favored position is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape . . .

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf (p.40)​

You are picking and choosing here, and evidently confused by the language. The author is progressing through alternative hypotheses and comparing them with the data. The actual conclusion of the article cited, which is quite old (1937) and now outdated, is as follows (see p. 52):

Larger telescopes may resolve the question, or theory may be revised to account for the new data. But with regard to relativistic cosmology in its present form, and the observations now available, the conclusion can be stated quite simply. Two pictures of the universe are sharply drawn. Observations, at the moment, seem to favour one picture, but they do not rule out the other. We seem to face, as once before in the days of Copernicus, a choice between a small, finite universe, and a universe indefinitely large plus a new principle of nature.​

Clearly, there is a philosophical preference for some, but nothing conclusive here. The data are a separate matter entirely and have favored a young universe from the beginning.

Now eighty years since, they have made many more observations and done much more analysis. Ever more strongly, the data favor "a small, finite universe," which implies a beginning, aka Genesis. Still, the desire of some is to escape that obvious conclusion, and they grasp at ever weaker straws for the purpose.

Yet in a bizarrely ironic twist, YECs consider "Big Bang" cosmology their enemy, as it does not present the universe or earth as the right age to suit their worldview, while atheists (and others) consider it their enemy for precisely the same reason.

edit: fixed last sentence

 

[Aaron]

You are picking and choosing here, and evidently confused by the language. The author is progressing through alternative hypotheses and comparing them with the data. The actual conclusion of the article cited, which is quite old (1937) and now outdated, is as follows (see p. 52):

Larger telescopes may resolve the question, or theory may be revised to account for the new data. But with regard to relativistic cosmology in its present form, and the observations now available, the conclusion can be stated quite simply. Two pictures of the universe are sharply drawn. Observations, at the moment, seem to favour one picture, but they do not rule out the other. We seem to face, as once before in the days of Copernicus, a choice between a small, finite universe, and a universe indefinitely large plus a new principle of nature.​

Clearly, there is a philosophical preference for some, but nothing conclusive here. The data are a separate matter entirely and have favored a young universe from the beginning.

Now eighty years since, they have made many more observations and done much more analysis. Ever more strongly, the data favor "a small, finite universe," which implies a beginning, aka Genesis. Still, the desire of some is to escape that obvious conclusion, and they grasp at ever weaker straws for the purpose.

Yet in a bizarrely ironic twist, YECs consider "Big Bang" cosmology their enemy, as it does not present the universe or earth as the right age to suit their worldview, while atheists (and others) consider it their enemy for precisely the same reason.

edit: fixed last sentence

Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

Big Bang Theory

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

The quote was essentially right but the title wrong. The “range of models” refers to Big Bang theory more generally. The “standard model” refers to the then popular version of the Big Bang theory. The refined inflationary model still holds. Ellis challenged a collapsing, possibly oscillating model (re Hinduism). He said the data may show a continually expanding universe. He was right, they were wrong.

They did not like the Big Bang implications then and even less now. They do not want the universe to have a beginning. They do not want it to be uniquely fine-tuned. They do not want a Creator. They do not want to think about it. Arguing about geocentrism and a thousands-of-years-old earth are great ways for them to avoid the reality of God.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Observations: If (I speak in the hypothetical, I have no doubt in the matter) God created the Universe - all of everything - then God created the laws governing the function of the Universe. Such as gravity, light, chemistry, mathematics, movement, and so on. If God - in the Second Person - did not create it, it wasn't created. (John 1:3) So all laws of physics, known, partially known or totally unknown are God's creation.

One notes those who believe the speed of light or other 'laws of nature' changes with time believes God's authority does not extend to physical laws, or, that God plays with natural laws capriciously. I find that counter to the Biblical description of God. (Numbers 23:19 for one, I recall the same sentiment in other passages.)

One notes God - including all three Persons of the Trinity - is eternal. Not just long lived, not just 'all of time', but timeless and not 'in' time. (Isaiah 40:28) Just as a matter of my own, not so humble opinion, no one is looking over God's shoulder with a stopwatch, ready to call time.

"It's just theory..." This does not mean a wild guess plucked out of thin air. In scientific research, everything is a theory, based on observed results of both intentional experiments and natural occurrences (volcanoes, apropos of nothing in particular). Theories are accepted as long as the idea holds; when shown to not work, theories are either discarded or altered to include the 'new' information. A theory in science is the best understanding currently held and logically attacked by all.
So the claim "... it's just a theory ..." is meaningless.

The alternative to a theory is a blind guess.

Appeals to the Bible - which I hold to be inspired by God Himself - is predicated on a total and infallible understanding of the text of the original, inspired languages. In other words, a Bible expositor who announces 'this' is what this passage means is claiming to have infallible knowledge of God's intention.

What actually comes out is the speaker's best knowledge of all that. Much the same as a scientific theory. And yes, the Bible has been understood to mean more than one meaning. One obvious such conflict is Matthew 16:18. The theory of the Roman Catholic Church and pretty much all "Protestant" (in the popular - non RCC - usage) have different interpretations of what that means. Different 'theories'.

The accusation of "...they don't really know..." is silly. Of course 'they' (scientists) do not know. They admit it. There is no secret and no hiding it. Lemaitre's theory of the beginning of the Universe is based on the movement - as close as astronomers can observe and calculate - of the various bodies of the Universe. All movement, reversed (mathematically on paper of course, no one claims to have physically done this) shows a 'singularity' which began expanding.

But no scientist will even pretend to know from where it came or why it began to expand. None. Not one. Notice no mention of God in this? How can anyone from this standpoint? God does not show up in a test tube or an equation. (Any objects to that concept?)

Yes, some of those against the existence of God attempt to deny God by 'science'. Which is silly. The best science - which is a very broad and nearly meaningless term - can say honestly is 'we can't speak to that'. Much like the honest answer of the theologian to "how (mechanically) is light formed'?

 

[Aaron]

But no scientist will even pretend to know from where it came or why it began to expand. None. Not one.

Not very well read, are you?

 

[JohnDBaptiste]

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:

Interesting how some "open minded" evolutionist audio bombed the video in the OP of this thread.

It's what people resort to when they cannot refute the point being made.

How many times are we told by evolutionists that black holes result from the compacting of stars many times larger than our sun into the size of a basketball?

The galaxy and the universe are far larger than the biggest star...

So we are supposed to believe that simply because everything is fanning out across the universe that it all started at a single small point?

This is where the fairy tale audio bomb needs to be!

Grab two handfulls of sand. Throw it up into the air and watch it scatter!

Now according to evolutionists... this is evidence that the sand you flung into the air started at an infinitesimally small point (smaller than one of the grains of sand) and everythi8ng else came from it...

Sadly they call this science.

Even sadder, they call what they force on everyone "education."

 

[JohnDBaptiste]

The scientific method is not exclusively limited to but generally limited to repeat experimentation / observation.

If the THEORY of evolution was a merited as those who buy into believe, it would have been the LAW of evolution a long time ago. Evolutionists will state for the record it's not even a good theory.

 

[JohnDBaptiste]

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

So?

There are MANY things Catholics get wrong about theology. Why should science be any different?

 

[shodan]

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven...? --Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

 

[MartyF]

I would agree that the Big Bang is not set in stone but does have fewer problems than evolution. I definitely wouldn’t bet my life on it. This might be interesting to some.

An Open Letter to Closed Minds: Reevaluate the Big Bang

 

[Chomper76]

"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.

Do you have any shred of evidence there has been a "change underlying fundamental conditions"? Or are you arguing from ignorance to try to discredit what existing evidence does show?

 

[Chomper76]

You are picking and choosing here, and evidently confused by the language. The author is progressing through alternative hypotheses and comparing them with the data. The actual conclusion of the article cited, which is quite old (1937) and now outdated, is as follows (see p. 52):

Larger telescopes may resolve the question, or theory may be revised to account for the new data. But with regard to relativistic cosmology in its present form, and the observations now available, the conclusion can be stated quite simply. Two pictures of the universe are sharply drawn. Observations, at the moment, seem to favour one picture, but they do not rule out the other. We seem to face, as once before in the days of Copernicus, a choice between a small, finite universe, and a universe indefinitely large plus a new principle of nature.​

Clearly, there is a philosophical preference for some, but nothing conclusive here. The data are a separate matter entirely and have favored a young universe from the beginning.

Now eighty years since, they have made many more observations and done much more analysis. Ever more strongly, the data favor "a small, finite universe," which implies a beginning, aka Genesis. Still, the desire of some is to escape that obvious conclusion, and they grasp at ever weaker straws for the purpose.

Yet in a bizarrely ironic twist, YECs consider "Big Bang" cosmology their enemy, as it does not present the universe or earth as the right age to suit their worldview, while atheists (and others) consider it their enemy for precisely the same reason.

edit: fixed last sentence

There is absolutely no data that supports a young universe.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There is absolutely no data that supports a young universe.

Yeah, that was unclear. I think the comment was intended as a relative one, namely between an eternal universe and one much younger than that. Billions of years old is very young indeed compared to eternal, or even to trillions of years old.

 

[Revmitchell]

Evidence 1 Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds
Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only be used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.

Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1–2 billion years old and related to the earth’s early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.

Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years—a far cry from the evolutionary billions!

• For more information, see Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. To learn more about diamonds and their formation, read this articleby Dr. Andrew Snelling.

Evidence 2 Astronomy: Recession of the Moon
The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!

• For more information, see Lunar Recession (based on this article) as well as The Age of the Universe, Part 2. We also recommend Video on Demand: Our Created Moon.

Evidence 3 Geology: Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field
Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.

Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)

However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.

• For more information, see The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth and section two of The Age of the Universe, Part 2.

Evidence 4 Biology: Dinosaur Soft Tissue
In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?

• To learn more, see “Ostrich-Osaurus” Discovery? and The Scrambling Continues. We also recommend the article Fossilized Biomaterials Must Be Young by Brian Thomas of ICR.

Six Evidences of a Young Earth

 

[tyndale1946]

There is absolutely no data that supports a young universe.

Why concern yourself weather it is a old universe or a young one?... It's all going to be burned up anyway!... 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.

3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

3:12 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?

3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

 

[church mouse guy]

Why concern yourself weather it is a old universe or a young one?... It's all going to be burned up anyway!... 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.

3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

3:12 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?

3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Because the issue is whether or not Genesis is a lie. For two hundred years since the European Enlightenment, we have been bombarded inside the church with the message of evolution and deep time as the Young Earth preachers in England and America died out and were not replaced. Now we have theologians of some note such as Norman Geisler who believes in an Old Earth, although he does not have a scientific background sufficient to discuss the evidence for such a viewpoint. Americans are particularly cursed in that their educational system is one of the worst in the industrialized world. Young people believe in evolution and deep time and think that Genesis is a lie and therefore the whole Bible is a lie. I happen to live near a high school--more than half the girls are pregnant and the school mascot there is a dead rabbit.

 

[Chomper76]

Because the issue is whether or not Genesis is a lie. For two hundred years since the European Enlightenment, we have been bombarded inside the church with the message of evolution and deep time as the Young Earth preachers in England and America died out and were not replaced. Now we have theologians of some note such as Norman Geisler who believes in an Old Earth, although he does not have a scientific background sufficient to discuss the evidence for such a viewpoint. Americans are particularly cursed in that their educational system is one of the worst in the industrialized world. Young people believe in evolution and deep time and think that Genesis is a lie and therefore the whole Bible is a lie. I happen to live near a high school--more than half the girls are pregnant and the school mascot there is a dead rabbit.

Europe is far more atheistic than the US, well excluding the Muslim immigrants.

The issue isn't that Genesis is a lie. Ok for some it is. For others, it is that YEC have a faulty interpretation. It takes ignoring a mountain of evidence while accepting as fact an interpretation made by fallible man.

 

[Revmitchell]

Fallible man also interprets science