Skip to comments.Americans Question the Big Bang
Posted on 04/25/2014 8:30:14 AM PDT by fishtank
Americans Question the Big Bang
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A new poll revealed that 51 percent of Americans question the Big Bang theory, and 54 percent of Americans believe that the universe is so complex that there must have been a designer.1 Mainstream scientists are not happy about it.
The Associated Press-GfK poll queried Americans' confidence in a number of other issuesthe genetic code's link to inherited traits, smoking's link to lung cancerand the respondents expressed more confidence in these issues than they did in the Big Bang. According to AP, "Those results depress and upset some of America's top scientists, including several Nobel Prize winners, who vouched for the science in the statements tested, calling them settled scientific facts."2
But the Big Bang theory asks us to believe the incrediblethat randomized forms of matter and energy coming from an unknown source self-organized into stars, galaxies, planets, life and ultimately people.
...more at link
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
Good grief. Why is there ANY problem with God creating us via a Big Bang? Unreal.
"These pictures are from your Hooble Telescope."
Ummm, that's "Hubble".
“First there was nothing, and then it exploded.”
Makes perfect sense to me.
God could easily have spoken cause a very organized, creative Big Bang!
I, personally, believe a Big Bang could have been the spark that caused this vast thing we call the universe to be. No reason God couldn’t have caused it.
All science should be based on public opinion polls because we all know 51% of Americans could never be wrong.
It all depends on the meaning of “nothing”.
According to bill clinton.
..... nad we all know that 90% of scientists are always right?
Love that show.
Halton Christian “Chip” Arp (March 21, 1927 December 28, 2013) was an American astronomer. He was known for his 1966 Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, which (it was later realized) catalogues many examples of interacting and merging galaxies. Arp was also known as a critic of the Big Bang theory and for advocating a non-standard cosmology incorporating intrinsic redshift.
too bad it’s run by a bunch of perverts
The big bang theory is just a feeble attempt for man to explain the unexplainable. There was no big bang...the universe is a steady state environment with materials constantly being extinguished and created. Look at their search for “dark matter” to substantiate their thesis...doesn’t make sense or exist. The “red shift” can be explained by a deterioration in the speed of light over vast periods and distances.
Read further than the headline. It states that the universe is so complex that it is illogical to think it was created by a huge random undirected explosion.
ah, but “given enough time”...
“Good grief. Why is there ANY problem with God creating us via a Big Bang? Unreal.”
Exactly! I’ve always said that the Bible verse, “And God said, Let there be light” is the perfect description of the Big Bang, especially when explaining it to early humans.
More and more we are hearing about "settled science". The whole nature of science is to explore, experiment, and postulate, then explore and experiment more, not to ridicule.
” 54 percent of Americans believe that the universe is so complex that there must have been a designer”
Hmmm, I guess the mass indoctrination by the public schools, the media, and our government doesn’t seem to be working. They will need to step it up.
Only 51% question the validity of an unproven theory? Scientifically speaking, that number should be 100%.
The Big Bang theory is based mainly on the red shift, based on the premise that light is supposed to move at a standard speed no matter (get the pun?) what.
Since the red shift is seen from objects that are the furthest away, and we know that light is effected by gravity, then if science is wrong about one universal speed of light, all is explained without expansion. The light is simply slowing due to the gravitational pull behind it.
Hence why it is important to protect the electorial college.
“But the Big Bang theory asks us to believe the incrediblethat randomized forms of matter and energy coming from an unknown source self-organized into stars, galaxies, planets, life and ultimately people.”
And one religion asks us to believe that a giant magic man in the sky (who came from where?) made everything in six days about 7,000 years ago, while another religion teaches us that the universe exists on the back of a giant turtle.
I’ll just keep an open mind
Smoking causes cancer ... 82%
A mental illness is a medical condition that affects the brain ... 71%
Inside our cells, there is a complex genetic code that helps determine who we are ... 69%
Overusing Antibiotics causes development of Drug-resistant bacteria ... 53%
GLOBAL WARMING ... 33%
Earth is 4.5 billion years old ... 27%
Universe began 13.8B years ago with big bang ... 21%
The article tried to pin the answers on religion, but I don't buy it. If that were true, I would expect the earth and universe question to poll better than evolution since there is a large segments of Christian that support big bang but not evolution. I suspect that Evolution, Earth's Age and Big Bang are in the who cares category for most people.
The global warming is a who cares issue because it polls so low on urgent issues. But does it poll low because people don't but it or it is viewed problem down the road?
Atheists say there’s no evidence of God.
Yeah, everything just appeared out of nothingness for no particular reason right?
You can convert energy and matter but not destroy them. How do you explain the big bang then?
I think one of the biggest arguments in favor of a "big bang" is Olbers Paradox, i.e., the night sky is dark. If the universe were infinite in both time and space, the night sky should be as bright as the surface of the sun. It isn't.
My Muslim associate used to ask with a grin, about the big bang which he did not accept at all, “Who lit the fuse ?”
Actually, that release of photons occurred a whole 380,000 years after the creation -- and after inflation (the "big bang") -- when the temperature of the expanding universe dropped to 3,000 degrees Kelvin.
When the initial plasma reached that neo-universal temperature, protons and electrons were finally able to combine into hydrogen -- allowing free photons to escape.
"...and God said, 'Let there be light'..."
This shouldn’t be surprising. There’s a profound difference between operational (observable, repeatable) science and historical (happened only once) science. The latter is necessarily a matter of faith in one form or the other. Especially when one considers the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
Except that the same account in Genesis 1 clearly state he made the Sun, Moon and Stars on day 4. The Biblical account directly contradicts the Big Bang and evolutionary sequencing, thus one or the other is in grave error.
“Good grief. Why is there ANY problem with God creating us via a Big Bang? Unreal.”
I have no problem with that. I have no problem saying, “I don’t know.” There are a whole lot of things I don’t know and that doesn’t bother me over much. I happen to agree with you but I have no way of “proving” it. That is my faith and religious belief, as such, not really open to scientific inquiry.
At least you have a starting point with him.
Atheists think we are idiots and begin with a dismissal if we try to talk science.
Doesn't say that. It says God made "the two great lights...the greater one to rule the day and the lesser one to rule the night."
From the beginning of Christianity, theologians knew there was something funny about the days of Gen 1, because how can you have morning and evening on days 1-3 if the sun and moon aren't made yet? They saw right away there was something odd going on.
My personal opinion is that the sun (at least) was created with the light on day 1. Earth then had a hazy, perpetually cloudy atmosphere like Venus's. There was day and night but no heavenly bodies were visible. The creation of the plants on Day 3 released massive quantities of free oxygen into the air, and our atmosphere went from (if I remember my biology classes right) a cloudy reducing one to a clear oxygenating one. On Day 4, the sun and moon and stars first became visible to the surface of the earth and could be used to tell time.
Perhaps Genesis chose to say "the two lights" rather than "the sun and moon" for a reason. Because it wasn't the bodies themselves that were made on that day, just the light from them.
You stated QUOTE: Doesn't say that. It says God made "the two great lights...the greater one to rule the day and the lesser one to rule the night."
Not sure why you contradicted my statement, but the scripture plainly states
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day.
Psalm 104:2 The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent
God himself was the light on the earth for the first four days of creation.
The Big Bang theory was first postulated by a Belgian Priest Georges Lemaitre. It was derided by his contemporaries as being a religious apology for the Genesis story.
"Settled scientific facts"? I wasn't skeptical before about the Big Bang, but now I think I am.
ExoPlanets: They cannot be seen, heard, touched, or otherwise detected. Yet scientists infer their existence based on the gravitational effects they have on the star that is in close proximity to them. Yet those same scientists will tell you that God does not exist, that faith is ignorance, because God cannot be seen, heard or touched. They put their faith in man and science. From what I have experienced in my life, I would rather put my faith in God; As science and man have mixed reviews and results, at best.
I’m just saying it’s not as plain and clear as you are supposing. The language is “lights”, not “sun” and not “moon”.
Also, it says “he set them in the vault of the sky”. I don’t have my concordance in front of me to know what word for “sky” is being used in Hebrew or Greek, but assuming the English is accurate that is also an odd thing to say as well.
God placed the sun and the moon and the stars thousands/millions of miles away in space. He did not actually place them in our sky. So that’s another clue that we are dealing with the vantage point of the earth’s surface.
That's a fair interpretation. But it is still an interpretation. It's not in the text of Genesis.
Sounds like you have read Pascal...
which is a great place to start your view of science.
Have a great weekend.
To listen in, click here.
Where did you get that notion?
Light was released during the first day of creation (when the cosmic temperature dropped to 3000 degrees Kelvin)..
Besides -- why illuminate something (Earth) that did not exist during those first days -- even according to Genesis...?
You are making the "grave error" of not differentiating between "creating (from nothing) and "forming" (or "shaping") materials that already had been created or formed...
Stars, Earth, etc. were not "created". They were "formed" by God -- just as the physical body of Adam was formed by God from "the dust of the ground" (light elements that God had created ex nihilo plus heavier elements that He caused to be formed by fusion in the cores of stars and supernovae.)
The "grave error" or "conflict" exists only in your mind -- because, you, apparently, neither understand Genesis nor the scientific description of Creation, aka "the Big Bang".
Conflict between Genesis and science exists only in the minds of folks who are ignorant of one or both -- or who make their livelihood by deliberately (and falsely) teaching that such a conflict exists.
I also so no conflict in God the Father’s revelations in: 1) the person of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, 2) the person of the indwelling Holy Spirit, 3) Scripture and 4) Creation (physical and spiritual.)
Whether or not I concede to your semantical musings, it does not change the fact that Genesis 1 indicates the Sun, Moon and Stars were created/formed on the fourth day.
And to clarify, YHWH reiterated in his fourth spoken command to all the Israelites from Mount Sinai that
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
In case you misunderstand the point of my assertion regarding grave error, the evolutionary big bang postulates that all matter was concentrated into a singularity, the rapid expansion of which, when sufficiently cooled, allowed the stars to either appear prior to the planets, or somewhat simultaneously. Furthermore, it postulates that the earth was a molten rock that gradually cooled, until water condensed forming pools, later oceans.
Taken at face value, Genesis provide an opposite chronology, for those who can be bothered to read it.
Your comments seem to indicate you understand what the writer of Genesis intended to convey, and since one apparently can't understand the sequence as written, we will enjoy your insight.