ICR article image
Posted on 06/06/2014 8:29:18 AM PDT by fishtank
'Smoking Gun' Proof of Big Bang Already In Doubt
by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
In March 2014, a team of radio astronomers using the BICEP2 telescope announced purported direct evidence for inflation, an important part of the Big Bang model.1 But only two months after this “discovery” a number of secular scientists have become increasingly skeptical.2
The original Big Bang model had a number of serious problems, including its own version of the starlight and time problem.3 In order to rescue the Big Bang from these difficulties, secular scientists proposed inflation as an ad hoc tack on to the original model. Originally, inflation was said to be an extremely rapid but very short-lived growth spurt that occurred early in the history of the universe. However, more recent ideas about inflation are radically different from those earlier versions of inflation theory.4
This recent claimed proof for inflation consisted of faint, swirly patterns in low-energy background radiation from space, the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). These patterns, called “B-mode polarization,” were said to have been imprinted on this radiation as a result of the inflation process. Secular scientists interpret the CMBR to be an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the supposed Big Bang. Some Christians who argue that God used the Big Bang as a means to create the universe eagerly but uncritically accepted this claim.5
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Discussion of health, education, welfare, drugs, abortion, environment, housing, unions, employment, social security, religion, arts, humanity, sports, and other cultural and societal issues.
ICR article image
our Universe could be a molecule in something REALLY BIGS Ham sandwich
Pinging as a FYI..!
The “creation” of the universe seemed to have been an energetic event. Yet the ICR seem to think it a “cold” event.
How do we know there weren’t TWO or more Big Bangs? Successive conglomerations of matter after the original could cause multiple ‘bangs’ across billions of years, thus causing interference with the matter from the original explosion......................
I had my doubts before article came out. The problem with the Big Bang theory is that it does not mention who lit the fuse that set off the bang.
Personally, I don’t think God just lit a galactic firecracker and then relied on the resulting explosion to put it all together. I like to think he spent seven days painting it all into place.
There were not any big bangs.
If the universe is no longer constantly expanding, then how do I explain my waistline?
We are but a drop of water on a slide in a microscope. Some kid in a science class left us out by the window and the universe (water drop) is shrinking...
All Hail K!
All Hail J!
If you are referring to the fact that sound doesn’t travel in a vacuum, I would agree................
God had a string of Black Kat firecrackers
I enjoy all your creation articles, fishtank.
The article isn’t about the Big Bang being in doubt.
The Big Bang immediately followed the Big Dinner and a couple of drinks.
The difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists are encouraged to be skeptical.
cranksville
>The problem with the Big Bang theory is that it does not mention who lit the fuse that set off the bang.<
.
That is not part of the scientist’s homework especially considering that, as a society, we are directed to get away from the concept that God is a reality.
If that were not the case, and we accept that God exists, we would not so much contemplate the Big Bang Theory but more the Author of it. It’s more important to contemplate the Creator than the Created.
Contemplating the latter without emphasis on the former is doing a disservice to science and oneself.
That's only partially true. The paper that put Hawking and Penrose in the public eye back in the 70s concluded that if the universe contains mass and if it is governed by the laws of special relativity, then it had to have a cause that is transcendent over matter, energy, space, and time. Hawking has been trying to get out of that bind ever since (ala A Brief History of Time), but that the universe of the big bang requires a transcendent entity is pretty solid physics at this point.
The only question is whether that Entity is sentient and personal or not. I would argue that the fine-tuning of the universe to make it suitable for life points to a personal, intelligent Creator rather than a blind source or process.
Ergo, the theist is on pretty solid ground to say that our current understanding of the universe points to the God of the Bible: A transcendent (outside of space), eternal (outside of time) Being of neither energy nor matter, One of virtually infinite power and intellect who is keenly interested in the creation and continuence of life.
Shalom.
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.