1. 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?

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by church mouse guy, Jun 22, 2018.

  1. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    17,059
    Likes Received:
    587
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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)
     
  2. 37818

    37818 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    801
    Likes Received:
    41
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    138
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #63 RighteousnessTemperance&, Oct 28, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2018
  4. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    17,059
    Likes Received:
    587
    Faith:
    Baptist

    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
     
  5. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    138
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  6. Archie the Preacher

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    4
    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'?
     
  7. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    17,059
    Likes Received:
    587
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not very well read, are you?
     
  8. JohnDBaptiste

    JohnDBaptiste Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    5
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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."
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. JohnDBaptiste

    JohnDBaptiste Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    5
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. JohnDBaptiste

    JohnDBaptiste Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    5
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So?

    There are MANY things Catholics get wrong about theology. Why should science be any different?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. shodan

    shodan Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    712
    Likes Received:
    6
    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
     
  12. MartyF

    MartyF Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2018
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Baptist
Loading...