Skip to comments.The big bang is not a Reason to Believe!
Posted on 05/20/2014 9:28:21 AM PDT by fishtank
The big bang is not a Reason to Believe!
by John G. Hartnett
A response to "A Response to Four Young-Earth Objections to Inflation"1
Published: 20 May 2014 (GMT+10)
Astrophysicist Dr Jeff Zweerink works for the Hugh-Ross-led organization Reasons to Believe. He recently wrote the above article. Relevant portions of his words are reproduced (in green) with my comments interspersed.
It could hardly be said that the Bible is giving a simplified account of the big bang/evolution history of the universe A remarkable correspondence exists between inflationary big bang cosmology and the Bibles accounts of the universes origin. This is his summary statement, which one would assume that his article itself will support. But if you look deeply into the details the substance evaporates.
How can a correspondence exist between the biblical creation account and the big bang cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe)? Leaving aside the elephant in the kitchen, the 6 ordinary days of Creation Week,2 just look at the respective sequences of events.
...more at link...
CMI's caption and image:
Each flash indicates a conflict in sequence between the biblical account and the big bang evolution story. Note that long-age creationists, though they deny biological transformism, hold to the identical order of appearance as evolutionists. There are 23 in total shown here. Credit: Idea from Russ Humphreys.
Fishtank's comment: Russ Humphreys is a retired astrophysicist from Sandia Labs (ABQ, NM).
I’m going to need to read the article again... it’s fairly long.
It is obvious that Humphreys is trying very hard to create conflicts between Ross & ICR in these elements. Example, Mammals in day six are purposely put at the opening of day six to conflict with sequence 15. Methinks he protesteth too much. The elephant in the kitchen is whether the “day” of the Lord, in that “day”, cool of the “day” and “day” 1 always means 24 hours. After all, there are only about 3000 Hebrew words in the entire OT...many of them have to do double, triple, quadruple duty.
I am getting very tired of “young earth” creationists. Above all, the Big Bang confirms that there was a “Beginning”, something that secularists derided for decades.
“In the beginning, there was nothing, and it exploded.”
My Bible says the first thing created is light.
I would refer you to: Age of the Universe
By Dr. Gerald Schroeder
You have assumed that God is in earth time and on earth for your 6 days. But the Bible does not say where God is until the end of the 6th day, when He creates Adam. This paper shows that at the source of the Big Bang the span of 6 24 hour days equals 16 million years on earth. The rapid expansion of the universe makes the difference. It really is amazing!
Even a brief perusal of the article--heck, just looking at the chart--shows that CMI has not taken the time to really understand, let alone correctly present, RtB's creation model and their prooftexts (both Biblical and scientific). That is sadly the norm in YEC literature and debate. And that--plus learning more about the Hebrew of the Bible--is why I'm no longer even on the borders of the YEC camp.
I once saw a religious program hosted by a jewish rabbi/physicist. He used that very explanation. I would simplify it by taking a 6 inch rubber band then ink off every inch. Then stretch it out as far as you can..That origional 6 inches is now several feet long........
maybe this is what that guy was referring to...
The chronology of Genesis 1 is not reconcilable with what science says. Genesis clearly says that the Earth was there on Day 1, trees and plants on Day 3, the Sun, Moon and stars on Day 4, fish and birds on Day 5, and land animals on Day 6.
Sorry, your view is obsolete. If the “days” are eons of time and the account delivered by God to Moses is from man’s perspective on earth, then it comports nicely. Check Ross’ book The Genesis Question. Perhaps in a predisposition to find it incorrect, you have assumed far more than the text says.
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
The Big Bang says there was an abrupt beginning to the existence of the universe. This fits with Genesis 1:1. Between verse 1 and verse 2, there is no indication how much time elapsed between the creation of the universe/earth and when God began to do something with the earth. There is no indication how long the earth was “without form and void” before God began to do further creative acts with the earth.
Both the Bible and the initial Big Bang, demonstrate that the universe appeared out of nothing. This is in accordance with the Bible.
Very good point. We now have the self-appointed authorities agreeing that there was a beginning. Now, though, their gang is hard at work (Hawking et al) to manufacture a "self-creation" view. The darkness will prevail until the curtain falls.
Actually what was going on five minutes before the big bang IS. Drives atheists nuts. Not supposed.to think about it.
My take on it as well.
When it says, "And God made the greater light . . . the lesser light . . . and the stars also," the word translated "made," y'as, has two significances: First, is is in the imperfect form (the root word is asah) which can indicate a past completed action in a narrative. Ergo, as Gleason Archer points out, it can mean that the stars were made on day 4, but they could also have been made on day 3, day 2, day 1, or in the beginning. That was also the opinion of the rabbis of the Talmud some 1500 years before evolution and Big Bang cosmology were an issue. (The Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 12a if you want to look it up.)
Secondly, by using the verb y'as / asah instead of the word yivra' / bara', the Bible is telling us that the sun, moon, stars (and by extension, planets, asteroids, and coments) visible to an ancient Israelite's naked eye were not the first sun, moon, and stars the Eternal One ever created--which is a real exegetical problem for YEC.
All of this is completely compatible with day-age (old earth) creationism, on the other hand.
These points are also made by Ross in his book The Genesis Question. Thank you for bringing them up along with your useful exegetical notes. Grace to you...