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 issues—the genetic code's link to inherited traits, smoking's link to lung cancer—and 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 incredible—that 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 ...
Poor you. Ever heard of gravity as a function of mass/matter? Hawking and Penrose came up with the infinite gravity in a black hole. What escapes from a black hole? A special type of radiation, but not matter. Want to try again? Your effort to insult me failed, skippy.
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
And you are deluded if you think the scientists who propagate the Big Bang compromise with you to admit God started it all. In fact, those of the same ilk as Mr. Hawking mentioned above vehemently oppose any concession to a Causal Agent.
If you want to dismiss the Genesis account out of hand, please feel free to do so. But don't be so naive as to think you can compromise both the scripture and Godless "scientific" theories about origins and satisfy anyone but the scriptural illiterate. You may be happy with what you've always believed, but it is plainly at odds with the scripture.
As evidence, please note how in previous assertions you "clarify" what the scripture meant by reinterpreting it via your pet theory.
The arrogant often see correction as insult!
You stated in post 55 QUOTE: "Actually, the Bir (sic) Bang does not postulate that ‘all matter’ was concentrated in a singularity. "
Hawking directly and indisputably contradicts you when he stated "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. Link to quote in 59 above.
Don't be so obtuse, and admit you either misspoke or were wrong.
PS, you retort in 61 had no relevance to you erroneous assertion whatsoever.
So maybe it is dawning on you by now that I do not agree with Hawking. He has even changed his tune since the quote you cited. But enjoy your evening, skippy. ONLY The Creator could cause a gravity well so great to expand and form a Universe.
You retorted:
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.)
Nice straw man argument you have there. I simply quoted Genesis 1:16.
Ad hominim when out of logic.
I will quote you again, in post 53, where you wrote
"Actually, the Bir (sic)Bang does not postulate that ‘all matter’ was concentrated in a singularity.
Please provide some source for this assertion. The rambling you proceeded with does not describe the Big Bang as currently postulated, but your own musings on how God "stretched out the heavens".
Then you wrote
"Here again you err, along with conflation of ‘creating’ and ‘forming’, as TxnMa has cogently pointed out.
If you re-read the posts, you will learn that you fell for his straw man argument, for I never asserted anything of the sort!
Whenb a stealth fool like you insults someone then plays that lame 'ad hom when out of logic' foolery, it exposes you as just another leftist prick (that's a little nettle, skippy) come to try and generate something to drag and paste to another leftist liberal progressive bacterial website. I would add more ad hom but you aren't worth the effort, skippy. Troll somewhere else, you're exposed now.
You stated in post 55 QUOTE: "Actually, the Bir (sic) Bang does not postulate that ‘all matter’ was concentrated in a singularity. "
We're still waiting for a reference to support this assertion.
Regarding logic, and how it works, calling me "fool" "leftist prick" and "skippy" is nothing more than personal insults used to cover the lack of a substantial argument.
Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
I am done.
And for readers of this swill, what erupted from the Big Bang first was not yet matter. Matter came later, like 10-12 seconds later. But the poster playing at conservative doesn't understand the Physics of the process, so it is lost in a popular press book by Hawking. Hawking knows all this but doesn't bother trying to get so specific because of dolts like our little skippy.
Current science tries everything to avoid the ‘creation’ or beginning of our universe – but it fails on a logical basis. If there was an infinite past to nature we would never reach ‘here and now’. Nature must have a beginning for time to progress – and an infinite past would never start the stopwatch. An infinite amount of universes, or the multiverse, does not solve the problem either - nature still needs a beginning because it exists within time.
"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God."Natural – matter, energy, laws of physics, space, time.
-Steven Hawkings
Hawkings is correct, before the ‘creation’ or beginning (Big Bang) there were no natural processes. Regardless of this fact, we know that natural processes cannot create natural processes (circulus in probando). So we are logically left with ‘creation’ from the supernatural.
Indeed. That is exactly the problem. Which you so beautifully illustrate in your splendid post!
Forget questions of origin [First Cause]. Everything just "starts up" somewhere in mid-air — with no ground and no reason. Science doesn't seem to want to inquire into the details....
Thank you so very much for writing, dear Heartlander!
Fred, is that you? Back from the dead, eh.
Actually, you can. And it's been proven.
Cute. Whether it’s Steady State, Big Bang, or quantum fluctuation, creationists will take credit and say it proves their point.
… the naturalist believes that beneath every natural phenomenon there exists yet another natural phenomenon. If explanation by reference to an endless stack of large turtles is silly, then an explanation by reference to an endless stack of natural phenomena would be equally so. The naturalist's answer for the origin of life, therefore, is some natural phenomenon. (Which one is not particularly relevant.) When you ask them how that natural phenomenon came to be, their response boils down to: "It's natural phenomena all the way down!"
-Pete Chadwell
Natural explanations are assumed because there is no evidence for the supernatural. Science doesn’t claim to know the origin of life; this is a claim only creationists make.
I know many people like to recite the mantra that “abiogenesis is not evolution,” but it’s a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry.
-PZ Myers
I’m glad you and Myers found something to agree on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.