Inflation Hypothesis Doesn't Measure Up to New Data (growing body of evidence contradicts Big Bang)

ICR ^ | January 30, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

Since the Big Bang story of the origin of the universe has been refuted by a host of external observations and internal contradictions,1 secular science has been forced to postulate additional, exceedingly improbable events to keep it afloat. One of these is “inflation,” which attempts to explain the apparent uniformity of the universe.2 But new observations by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe are forcing cosmologists to revamp inflation, at the cost of inventing yet another miraculous event to prop it up...

[count-your-change]

You still don’t know what you’re talking about. Vs. 16 and 26 don’t speak of “create”. 2:3 shows there is a difference.

You’re trying to wing it and it doesn’t work. You still don’t know what you’re talking about. Try again.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply and for sharing your insights and views!

Please understand that it doesn't bother me at all that you have a different understanding than I do concerning either creation or prophecy. We are like two people looking at a seven faceted diamond but from different facets and seeing things a bit differently - but it is the same diamond (the words of God) - and the same Light.

The bottom line is that we must declare the Truth as we have received it. We must tell others what we see.

Schroeder: [[Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four?]]

you: How can this be a 'problem'? It's not mentioned that God 'created' the sun on the 4'th, but rather it's ismply the first itme hte sun is mentioned.

Actually it is the beginning of day and night - emphasis mine:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: - Genesis 1:14

You continued:

Not that htis is relevent to hte discussion, but I think this isn't entriely true- order can hypothetically accidently arise from disorder- small insignificant orders can arise by htrowing multicolored confetti into a wind tunnel, there 'might' arise some orderly patterns- but again, this is insignifcant to the order described in life. Some life orders 'might' arise accidently from chaos- but again- insignifcant to hte discussussion- just a side note

Here I affirm Schroeder's point in that order cannot rise out of a chaos in an unguided physical system. Period. Even metaphysical naturalists must admit that at the root space/time, physical laws, physical constants and physical causation are guides to the physical system. Both self-organizing complexity and cellular automata have guides, chaos theory has initial conditions, etc.

At the risk of causing yet another sidebar, I should mention here that some mathematical concepts do not translate well to physical systems. For instance, math can deal with the concept of infinity but space/time is finite. Math can deal with the concept of null or void, but it doesn't translate to physical systems, e.g. vacuums are still subject to physical laws, are geometrically "in" space/time, etc.

Those two sample concepts - infinity and void - are also Spiritually meaningful. So is timelessness and therefore, most importantly, God's Name: I AM.

All of this sets up my reply to GodGunsGuts' question:

Are you getting this information from the Bible, or some other source?

The Name of God – I AM – is my guide and the perspective that matters to me in looking at the diamond (words of God.) And God is Light.

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:13-14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. – I John 1:5

As I have testified before, the most certain knowledge I have received are God the Father’s revelations in (1) the Person of Jesus Christ, (2) the Person of the Holy Spirit, (3) Scriptures, and (4) Creation both spiritual and physical.

Every other source of knowledge – sensory perception, reasoning, counsel of others, etc. – is greatly subordinate to me.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:6-16

To God be the glory!

[CottShop]

[[Please understand that it doesn’t bother me at all that you have a different understanding than I do concerning either creation or prophecy.]]

Was about to write same hting- It doesn’t bother me either way- I just personally feel it’s literal and think that those liek Schroeder go too far-

[[chaos theory has initial conditions, etc.]]

Then I misunderstood- I thought chaos was just that- without conditions- I can see where conditions would verify what schroeder then says about this then- not one of my strong understandings/points-

[Alamo-Girl]

No problem at all, dear brother in Christ! I'm very sure that God will work everything - including our differences - together according to His own will.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. - Romans 8:28

To God be the glory!

[GodGunsGuts]

I am willing to live and let live when it comes to the age of the earth, as long as the other side is respectful (like you, Alamo-Girl). However, when intolerant old-earthers tell me that creationists are ignorant, liars, and hurt the cause of Christ, the gloves come off immediately. And while I disagree with your interpretation of Genesis, I have no doubt that you are a strong and faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. With that in mind, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful response. If I had more time I would delve into your words a little deeper, but alas I am swamped. When I find enough time to come up for air, I’m hoping to pick your reply back up and give it the attention it deserves.

All the best—GGG

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ! I look forward to your future comments.

[Diamond]

The Bible does not claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old or that it was created in six, literal 24-hour days.

As a thought experiment, suppose for thirty seconds, and no more than thirty seconds, just for the sake of argument, that you are Adam writing your cuneiform tablet diary, and/or Moses, translating Adam's cuneiform tablet that you have in front of you, and suppose that you actually want to convey the idea that God created the universe in six, literal 24-hour days. I know that this is practically inconceivable to you, so as a precautionary measure to prevent premature head explosion I'm only asking you to imagine it for thirty seconds. Think of it as a mental stress test, sort of like a heart stress test. If our monitors indicate an iminent explosion we will abort the test. How could you have made it any clearer? What clearer terms could you have used, in the language available to you?

p.s. You should make your cuneiform tablet literary critic-proof, even though you don't know what a literary critic is. Your language has to be so unambiguous that it will convince unwilling skeptics thousands of years later presuming to know more about what happened to you than you do, scientists who know that virgins don’t conceive, men don’t walk on water, and bodies don’t rise from the dead, and anybody else whose world view of eons of geological ages logically cannot coexist with what you intend to convey; namely that that God created the universe in six days, local time.

Any suggestions?

Cordially,

[DallasMike]

Nope, the literial Hebrew says "evening, morning, second day". There's no 'the' there but neither is there an 'a'.

There is no "a" because Hebrew does not have an indefinite article. The indefinite article is implied by context. English has an indefinite article, but sometimes it, too, is implied. To wit:

• I ate steak last night. [implied indefinite article]
• I ate a steak last night. [indefinite article included]

This page explains the difference between the definite and indefinite article.

Finally, Genesis says that God entered into rest on the seventh day. If we were to hold to the YEC theory that yom must mean a literal 24-hour day, it means that God's rest was only on that 7th day. However, Hebrews 4:1-13 says that God is still in that time of rest and we can enter into it with him.

This is just one more example of how YEC conflicts with the word of God. 

 

Which is why you want to do a word-study focused on yom and not on 'evening, morning, second day', etc.

I did both. Please look again at what I wrote -- you even mentioned my "evening, morning, n day" study in your first question! Why did I do a word study on yom? Because it is the centerpiece of the YEC argument. If YECs admit that their interpretation of yom is incorrect, then the whole argument for YEC vanishes.

 

That relies on the assumption that nuclear energies are based on nuclear-time and not dynamic-time. If they are based on dynamic-time and are related to the ZPE, then faster decay simply means the same (or less) energy spread out over more events occurring during the same amount of dynamic-time in the past.

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you are talking about. Are you talking about nuclear time scales and dynamic time scales in stellar evolution? Or are you talking about measuring time based upon nuclear decay and measuring time based on things like the movement of a pendulum? Or neither? Please educate me.

The interior of the earth is heated by nuclear fission caused by nuclear decay. If the rate of decay is faster, you would have a hotter earth. For the adherents of YECs to be correct, the earth would have molten at best and blown apart at worst.

I know what the next argument is:  "God could have supernaturally cooled the earth." Well, yes he could have. YECs are fond of using layer upon layer of "what if?" arguments to support their interpretation of the Bible. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?

1. The body of science and observation point to an old earth.
2. The Bible does not claim that the earth is young.

Why not just accept the simplest explanation, which also happens to agree with the Bible? 

 

MM: "The speed of light used to be faster."

GD:  Probably. If you are going to discount Setterfield's work, you should probably use his site, rather than t.o. (which is notoriously incomplete and biased). Barry Setterfield

Lord, have mercy and give me patience. Setterfield's work has been thoroughly discredited in many, many places, including here. To accept Setterfield's theory, you again have to add on layers upon layers of "what if?" arguments.

As just one example, Setterfield tries to reconcile E=mc² by claiming that nuclear particles once had more mass. Setterfield is not just proposing a minor correction -- his theory claims that the speed of light would have had to have to approximately 10 million times faster than it is today. If the mass was once greater, then gravity was once greater. Sutterfield then has to add another layer to compensate for that fact.

By the time Setterfield is finished, he has a layer cake that is two miles high. 

Conveniently for Setterfield, he claims that light stopped slowing down in the 1960s. Even the Institute for Creation Research is dubious about Sutterfield's work. 

Since ICR has an entire cottage industry built upon incompetent science, their criticism of Setterfield is like Michael Moore saying that Rosie O'Donnell is too fat.

If one accepts a reasonable and consistent meaning for the word yom, one does not have to create a whole set of Rube Goldberg contraptions to explain the universe.

   

MM: "The Hebrew word yom combined with an ordinal always refers to a 24 hour day: Wrong. "Zechariah 14:7 contains the word yom combined with an ordinal (number one, echad), exactly as seen in Genesis 1:5."

GD:  That doesn't help you as it refers to a single day there as well.

No, it doesn't. Zechariah 14:7 refers back to the "Day of the Lord" in Zechariah 14:1. Read the entire chapter. It clearly does not refer to a single, 24-hour day, but rather to a span of time. In fact, some of the events of the "Day of the Lord" have already happened. For example, Amos 5:18-27 uses the "Day of the Lord" to describe sending Israel into captivity -- something that happened in the past!

Research the many passages in the Bible that refer to the "Day of the Lord."  Please do it yourself for your own benefit. I'm tired of doing Biblical research for people who claim to know that Bible better than I do.

I'm not directing this to you, but many people on this thread whom I believe are well-meaning Christians claim that I and other reasonable people don't understand the Bible. Yet, when they make a Biblical claim, I find they are the ones who do not have an in-depth knowledge of the Bible.

It is my contention that YEC is based upon a fundamental misinterpretation of portions of the Bible, not on science. It's a Biblical interpretation problem, not a science problem. 

 

I would say this fits with my observation that OECs insert as many unobserved assumptions into the Bible as the philosophical naturalists insert into their 'scientific' theories.

I have not inserted any assumptions into the Bible. However, YECs claiming that yom must mean a literal, 24-hour day is inserting a huge assumption into the Bible.

 

You are just another confused OEC who only supports the damage done by the philosophical naturalists. Your God is indistinguishable from no god at all and that's just how the boys at t.o. like it.

You talk like this and wonder why reasonable people sometimes fight back? You refuse to accept a reasonable interpretation of the Bible that completely agrees with both science and the rest of the Bible. To defend your belief, you have to insert increasingly complex layers of "what if?" claims that are without basis.

Why not just accept a reasonable, Biblically-sound interpretation of the Hebrew word yom? That solves the whole problem.

[DallasMike]

Now perhaps he’s just unaware there is plenty of young earth evidnece- but I strongly doubt that if he’s been here any length of time as plenty has been posted.

I am fully aware of the YEC claims for young-earth evidence, but not aware of any evidence that meets scientific scrutiny.

There's a big difference. I can make a post saying that I am 212 years old. Is that evidence? No, it's a claim.

As for the "evidence" that has been posted, it's very easily refuted.

I am a science by training and profession. So is TXnMA. Do you think that it maybe, just might be possible that what we write has a little more credibility than the musings of someone without science training?

[DallasMike]

So while it is good to refute the young earth theory on a scientific basis, keep in mind that the true, usually hidden motivation of YEC is based on a peculiar eschatology.

Very interesting. I have never thought of that.

I was really into science, especially dinosaurs, before I even started first grade. I was reading about the adventures of Roy Chapman Andrews in the Gobi Desert long before dinosaurs were cool. I never questioned the old age of the earth and, when I was older and did question, I found nothing to make me doubt it.

I didn't give much thought to premillenialism until Hal Lindsey's books came out. I read rabidly on the subject and held to it for years. However, I began to have problems when I noticed that PM authors were inserting an awful lot of their own interpretations into the Bible text. The "Left Behind" books were positively dreadful. I'm now a semi-Preterist but am open to the option that there may well be another antichrist.

Most eschatology books concentrate on Daniel and Revelation. I've learned that the major and minor prophets also have a lot to say on the subject and that this material.

Premillenialism or semi-preterism are not hills that I would choose to die on. Christ is returning, I am looking forward to it, and I believe that it will happen within my lifetime. If there is a pre-trib rapture, I'm not going to argue with Jesus on the way up that he's wrong about eschatology.

[DallasMike]

I think you're attributing more to the lack of a definite article than is justified.

It's possible, and I almost didn't include it. However, I thought of the Cambrian explosion and other short periods of time where large numbers of new species suddenly appeared. I also remembered how bent out of shape the militant atheists were when these discoveries were made.

As with the the Big Bang theory, one of the major concerns of the militant atheists was that the Cambrian explosion fits too closely to the Bible.

However, the militant atheists forgot that they could count on the YECs not to take advantage of the discoveries because they held to a wrong interpretation of scripture.

[TXnMA]

DallasMike, -- as an indication that you and I and our Sisters in Christ, Alamo-Girl and Betty Boop, are not alone in our comfort with our salvation and both creation and scientific observation -- in a previous CrEvo thread, 50sdad wrote:

"The major problem with those who hang their entire faith on the idea that God simply MUST HAVE made all of Eternity in seven 24-hour calendar days is that gripping like a bulldog to this idea causes scientific people who might actually accept Jesus in their hearts given time and persuasion about His love to decide that Christians are a bunch of know-nothing Luddite morons who don't believe in gravity. Seriously."

"I am more impressed that God made a billion stars than by the idea that God had to do it all a week, despite a rather elaborate geological and astrophysical record to the contrary. I am amazed that God could take a steady-state mass at the beginning of the entire timeline, force his will on it and cause Big Bang, because even the most severe of physical scientists can't tell me, in a universe of cause and effect, what caused that reaction to occur. I am impressed that God formed man and the animals around him from lifeless dust, and don't think the time frame really important, for the end result is my thinking mind and the heritage of Jesus' sacrifice."

"The only thing funnier than watching the Godless Scientists make Creation dance and twist to prove that God had no hand in it is watching the God-full Creationists try and make that same cosmos dance and twist to prove it happened in their timeframe."

I would much rather be testifying -- to God's greatness, the wonders of His Creation that I've been privileged to observe, and about His gracious love that sent my Saviour to rescue me from the condemnation of my sin -- than trying to defend both my Christianity and my scientific professionalism from those who make careers of attacking them.

In fact, if you folks on this thread will bear with me and allow me to testify without attacks, I would like to begin a series of comments sharing my personal testimony.

OK with everyone?

[count-your-change]

The reason I said that about the use of the article is that in looking at Hebrew grammars one will say, yes, it is used here or not but never why it is used in Hebrew, only why it is or is not translated into English. Not much help since I can pick up a Bible and see what the translator did. And they often use “the” where the indefinite appears by default in Hebrew. That's a tough language.

The Cambrian explosion either has to be explained or explained away, the latter by the atheists seems the trend,
big oxygen burst, lot longer than it seems, not such an explosion after all, and so forth. I don't any atheist really wants anyone to understand what a really, really outstanding event is marked in areas like the Burgess
shales.
Of course many religious folks saw the big bang theory as supporting the Biblical account of creation and the two in the basics don't conflict, i.e., that there was a “beginning”, that there was some point when the material universe didn't exist and we have no way to see to the other side and in fact that our language isn't adequate to frame the question let alone the answer.

I do feel that some description like the big bang comes closer to Scripture than what is called the young earth creationists view even if the BB is not correct in every detail, details the Bible is silent on.

[metmom]

Sure.

FWIW, I also like Gerald Schroder’s explanation for the discrepancy between Scripture and observations.

The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts

That might be something folks like Dallas Mike could bounce off non-believers who are scientists and would like something to chew on, if they’re willing to read something like that.

He’s right, BTW, that unbelieving scientists will never be convinced about changing their opinion abut the age of the universe BEFORE they become believers. I’d hazard a guess what not even likely after. That would only happen IF God convicted them of it.

A scientist is not going to become a believer based on being convinced that his view on the age of the earth is wrong, if he were able to be convinced of that in the first place.

Our salvation is based on what we do concerning Christ. Nobody has perfect doctrine and beliefs when they get saved and it often takes time to correct ones that are in error.

Considering the moral, mental, psychological, social, etc, baggage that most people come with, I’d say correcting one’s opinion about the age of the universe is rather low on the list of things to straighten out.

Mind you, I understand where fellow believers are coming from on the inerrancy of Scripture and their concern about believing and teaching error and I share those concerns as well. However, with all I have to deal with on a daily basis, worrying about how old the earth is, is not high on my priority list.

[GourmetDan]

"You still don’t know what you’re talking about. Vs. 16 and 26 don’t speak of “create”. 2:3 shows there is a difference."

You still don't know what you're talking about. Vs 16 uses 'asah' in reference to sun, moon, etc and v 26 uses 'asah' in reference to man. V 27 uses 'bara' in reference to man.

So was man 'asah' or was man 'bara'? If he was 'bara', was he 'bara' in Gen 1:1 or in Gen 1:27?

"You’re trying to wing it and it doesn’t work. You still don’t know what you’re talking about. Try again."

You're still obfuscating and it doesn't work. You still don't know what you're talking about. Try again.

[DallasMike]

You’re example is spot on in revealing how those hwo tried to contend that the 7 days didn’t really mean 7 days went to lengths that simply can not be taken seriously

No, the idea of 6 days of work and a day of rest is a symbol of God's creation.

God commanded the Hebrews how they should celebrate Passover -- it's a symbolic celebration of how the real Passover occurred. They don't actually leave their homes and cross the Red Sea every year.

In Leviticus 23:42-43, God commanded the Hebrews to dwell in booths (Sukkot or Succoth) for 7 days to commemorate how they dwelt in booths when God liberated them from Egypt. Yet the Hebrews wandered in the desert for over 40 years! By your reasoning, the holiday should last 40 years.

Do you not realize that many parts of the Bible are symbolic?

As I said earlier, YEC is not a scientific problem, it's a problem of interpreting scripture.

[count-your-change]

“Research the many passages in the Bible that refer to the “Day of the Lord.” Please do it yourself for your own benefit. I'm tired of doing Biblical research for people who claim to know that Bible better than I do.”

A valid request. The tools are either free or cheap on the Internet and I offered one such reliable source.
From the Internet I can get concordances, dozens of Bible translations, the Septugint in Greek, The Latin Vulgate, interlinears, dictionaries, grammars and so forth.

I'm glad you mentioned Hebrews since Paul explicitly ties what he is saying about “Today” to that seventh day, which unlike the others, is not spoken of as ending.

[betty boop]

...if you folks on this thread will bear with me and allow me to testify without attacks, I would like to begin a series of comments sharing my personal testimony

Sounds GREAT to me, TXnMA!!!

You cited 50sdad as follows: "I am impressed that God formed man and the animals around him from lifeless dust, and don't think the time frame really important, for the end result is my thinking mind and the heritage of Jesus' sacrifice."

Amen! All Glory be to God!

For God had to make the very "lifeless dust" — next after the very origin of space and time — out of which His Creation was made, according to His Will and Purpose.

Which is the Act which made science possible in the first place.

Speak to that issue, dear TXnMA!

Thank you ever so much for your excellent essay/post!

[DallasMike]

Jewish tribal records predating a written language aren't exactly the kind of evidence that I would want to rely on in casting off good scientfic data.

It is well known that there are contradictions in Biblical genealogies. See here for example.

In this case, the most likely explanation is that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family and the genealogy in Luke belongs to Mary's family.

There are other cases of genealogical contradictions, too. In these instances, some of the genealogies were likely compressed, referred to clans and did not list every descendant until a new clan appearead, and even left out dishonorable people. For example, in I Chronicles 4:9-10, the name Jabez show up. The Bible doesn't tell us who is father was -- Jabez just pops up out of nowhere.

Jewish laws allowed families to disinherit disobedient children, and it's quite possible that Biblical genealogies sometimes read like this:

"And Fred begat [omitted (bad son), omitted (bad grandson), omitted (bad great grandson)] Johnny."

It would be interesting to see how the YECs address this.

[count-your-change]

Good night, dear. I hope you feel better in the morning.