Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble [Exercpt, click link]
Creation Ministries International ^ | 6-12-14 | Alexander Williams

Posted on 06/12/2014 8:22:20 AM PDT by fishtank

Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

"Hugh Ross praised latest Big Bang inflationary theory claims but—weeks later—evolutionists admitted they got it wrong."

Premature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe

by Alexander Williams

Published: 12 June 2014 (GMT+10)

The above was the heading and subheading of an opinion piece by Dr Paul Steinhardt, a distinguished Professor of Physics at Princeton University, in the 5 June 2014, edition of the prestigious scientific journal Nature. The article has consequences that go far beyond the scientific establishment.

On 23 April this year a unique event took place in Perth, Western Australia. Dr Hugh Ross, founding president of Reasons to Believe met with Dr Carl Wieland, Managing Director of CMI, at a full-house public meeting to “dialogue” on the subject of young-earth vs old-earth creation. Astronomer Dr Ross is well known for his compromise position in trying to fit Genesis creation into Big Bang cosmology and old-earth fossil record/isotope dating.1

Among a flurry of highly technical evidence and arguments that must surely have gone ‘over the heads’ of the vast majority of the audience, Dr Ross cited the recent discovery of gravity waves as supporting the ‘inflationary Big Bang’ cosmology and emphatically stated that “Only an inflationary universe can sustain life!” With this in mind, read on.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: bigbang; creation

NASA image used in CMI article.

1 posted on 06/12/2014 8:22:20 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

More at link....

http://creation.com/multiverse-bubble-bursts


2 posted on 06/12/2014 8:23:17 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Either Obama or Hillary did it. Its one of their lesser achievements dontchaknow?


3 posted on 06/12/2014 8:24:27 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

If they got the Big Bank Theory wrong, image how wrong the global warming tax is?


4 posted on 06/12/2014 8:25:10 AM PDT by Kozy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kozy
If they got the Big Bank Theory wrong, image how wrong the global warming tax is?

A universe that's too big to fail?

5 posted on 06/12/2014 8:27:24 AM PDT by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

There is no multiverse. Only 1 universe. And the big bang is not a sufficient explanation for the origin of the universe.


6 posted on 06/12/2014 8:27:24 AM PDT by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible. Complicit in the destruction of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
As if Halton Arp hadn't already destroyed the inflation and "big bang" ideas, there's now this...

http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/04/04/2014/sir-roger-penrose-cosmic-inflation-is-fantasy.html?fb_action_ids=453482394788328&fb_action_types=og.comments

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/25/settled-science-paper-claims-the-universe-is-static-not-expanding/

7 posted on 06/12/2014 8:29:06 AM PDT by varmintman (It must really suck to be a Nazi in Kiev these days...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Deuteronomy 29:29 (KJV)

29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law


8 posted on 06/12/2014 8:30:32 AM PDT by john316 (JOSHUA 24:15 ...choose you this day whom ye will serve...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

The only fact the “big bang” demonstrates is that the universe had a beginning. It is not eternal. Something had to initiate that beginning.

The naturalists came up with the “multiple universes” to try to explain away the uniqueness and the apparent design of our universe, which with only minute physical changes to gravitational pull would make life impossible to exist.


9 posted on 06/12/2014 8:47:10 AM PDT by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

For the life of me, I cannot understand why certain Christians are threatened by the Big Bang. It fits perfectly with a Biblical worldview.


10 posted on 06/12/2014 8:57:47 AM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Agreed. When God SPOKE light into existence, one could imagine what a “fireworks” show that was (kinda like a big BANG)...


11 posted on 06/12/2014 9:08:49 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

***It fits perfectly with a Biblical worldview.***

Actually..... it doesn’t. Here’s why:

http://creation.com/did-god-use-big-bang


12 posted on 06/12/2014 9:10:18 AM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Then they’d have to shut down their creationist museum that “proves” dinosaurs are merely 6000 years old.


13 posted on 06/12/2014 9:18:17 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
I've read it before. My knowledge of the Biblical Hebrew and what Big Bang cosmology actually says (and what it admits are still mysteries) has reached the point where I no longer find it compelling.

Now let me ask you: Have you read any of Dr. Ross' work explaining why he believes that Big Bang cosmology is consistant with Scripture, or have you only read up on the YEC position? Have you read any of of Gleason Archer's commentary on the Hebrew explaining why Genesis does not require a YEC view to be taken literally, or have you only read the rather uneducated attacks of Hovind and the like? Have you watched the debate between Dr. Ross and Dr. Faulkner (a YEC astronomer) where Faulkner admitted in his own opening statement that there is absolutely no way to reconcile our current knowledge of the record of nature with a universe only 6000 years old? Have you studied the rabbis of the Talmud to find out that they knew 1400 years ago that the sun, moon, and stars were revealed on day 4, but were created in the beginning?

I've read and watched both sides of the argument for years, and in the end, I find YEC's claims to be untennable Biblically, let alone scientifically.

We live in a time when science overwhelmingly supports the Biblical idea that God is transcendent, eternal, omnipotent, intelligent and wise beyond comprehension, and very interested in the creation of and maintenance of life--and you YEC's want to throw away all that enormously powerful evidence because you won't accept the simple truth that the Hebrew word yom can mean a long but finite epoch as well as it can a 24-hour day.

Somewhere, the Devil is laughing and our Father is facepalming.

Shalom

14 posted on 06/12/2014 9:35:03 AM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jonno
You know, when the Bible speaks almost a dozen times of God stretching out the heavens, you'd think we would all be rejoicing at the discovery of the Big Bang.

Shalom!

15 posted on 06/12/2014 9:35:56 AM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: schaef21; Buggman

Thanks for posting that link.

Besides, why believe in the “Big Bang”, if there might not ever be proof of it?


16 posted on 06/12/2014 10:57:39 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; fishtank

***Somewhere, the Devil is laughing and our Father is facepalming.***

For the life of me I don’t know why some Christians who have a doctrinal disagreement feel the need to insult other followers of Christ…… I’d say that was unbiblical.

First let me say that belief about the age of the earth has nothing to do with salvation, which can only be found by faith in the Deity of and the death and resurrection of Christ. However, it is important doctrinally.

To answer your questions:
1. I have read some of Hugh Ross’s stuff but it has been a while.

2. I’ve not read Gleason Archer’s Commentary (although I will if I can find it). For every commentary like that I can find many distinguished theologians who take the other side. RC Sproul as an example became a YEC a few years ago…. based on scripture.

3. I’ve never read anything from Hovind.

4. I’ve not seen the debate between Faulkner and Ross, although I’ve seen similar debates over the years (but not recently).

5. I’ve not studied the Rabbis from 1400 years ago.

I have (and this has been a while ago as well) read “Refuting Compromise” by Jonathon Sarfati who poses the other side of Hugh Ross’s arguments.

I’ll make these further comments on the subject:

Dr. Stephen Boyd is a professor at The Master’s College. He specializes in Semitic Languages, Old Testament Studies and most importantly, he is considered one of the foremost experts in Biblical Hebrew in the country. Here’s an article about an extensive study that he did:
http://www.icr.org/index.phpmodule=articles&action=view&ID=24

Here are the three conclusions of the study:
(1) it is not statistically defensible to read Genesis 1:1-2:3 as poetry;

(2) since Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a narrative, it should be read as other Hebrew narratives are intended to be read as a concise report of actual events, couched to convey an unmistakable theological message;13 and

(3) when this text is read as a narrative, there is only one tenable view of its plain sense: God created everything in six literal days.

***We live in a time when science overwhelmingly supports the Biblical idea that God is transcendent, eternal, omnipotent, intelligent and wise beyond comprehension, and very interested in the creation of and maintenance of life—and you YEC’s want to throw away all that enormously powerful evidence because you won’t accept the simple truth that the Hebrew word yom can mean a long but finite epoch as well as it can a 24-hour day.***

You’re absolutely correct Buggman. It is overwhelming. As far as the rest of your statement, I’ll just make these observations:

1. Everywhere else in scripture that “morning”and “evening” are used with the word day (yom) it is a 24 hour day.

2. Everywhere else in scripture that a number is used with day (1st day, 2nd day, etc.) it is a 24 hour day.

3. Exodus 20:10-11 (part of the ten commandments) tell us why God created everything in 6 days:

10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

4. Most of the “clocks” that are available to scientists say that the earth can’t possibly be millions of years old. Here’s a good article on a few of them: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/age-of-the-universe/evidence-for-a-young-world/

While I obviously don’t have the mind of God, I’ll close by asking a simple question and then a comment: Why would a God powerful enough to speak the Universe into existence take billions of years to do so?

And the comment: If the earth truly is young and it can eventually be proven… Then the evolutionists and their atheist brothers in arms have nowhere to go.


17 posted on 06/12/2014 12:13:28 PM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: schaef21; fishtank
For the life of me I don’t know why some Christians who have a doctrinal disagreement feel the need to insult other followers of Christ…… I’d say that was unbiblical.

Oh yes, because the Bible contains no examples at all of the positive use of satire, sarcasm, and snark for the sake of driving home a point. And I've directly insulted no one--I have gone after the willful blindness of a doctrinal position that I consider to be actively dangerous to the Body.

But for the sake of conversation and shalom, I'll tone down the snark, though my final statement was entirely sincere.

1. It's good that you've read his work. Are you familiar enough with it to be able to know what his answers would be to the article you linked me to? That's not sarcasm; I'm just seeing to what extent I need to present the case.

2. "For every commentary like that I can find many distinguished theologians who take the other side." Agreed. The reason I point this out is that many on the YEC side like to act as if there's absolutely no reason other than "compromise with the world" for anyone to disagree with them. Heck, Kent Hovind got all of one line into his debate with Ross before subtlely accusing him of worshipping another god, and that accusation came out in full force by the midway point of the debate, much to John Ankerberg's consternation.

Actually, watching Ross's debates, I have to say that the arguments--and lack thereof--of Hovind, Faulkner, et.al. did more to convince me of the OEC position than those of Dr. Ross!

My point is this: There are good literalists on all sides of this debate, and it is evident that both YEC and OEC (and the Framework Hypothesis, and Analogical Days) fit within the meaning of the original Biblical Hebrew. I happen to think OEC fits better (if YEC is correct, there's no way to tell how long the first three days were and Adam sure fit a lot of activity into the last few hours of day six), but let's say it was a wash: At that point, shouldn't we be willing to look at outside scientific evidence to break the tie, just like we do with archaeology all the time?

3. Just as well.

4. You should watch it. It's long as heck, but it's probably the most gentlemanly debate on this subject I've ever seen. It helps that both men are scholars and colleges and actually behave as brothers in the Messiah should.

5. It's definitely not everyone's cup of tea, but I find that when looking into this subject, reading exegetical commentaries from before the 1800s is rather fascinating. That's not to say the rabbis are always right, of course, but they certainly weren't tainted by evolution in the 600s when the Talmud was compiled.

On Dr. Boyd (and I'll read his paper in more detail when I get off from work):

(1) Absolutely agreed.

(2) Agreed again.

(3) Agreed with a caveat: God created heaven and earth in six literal yomim, which may be understood as either "days" or "epochs."

On your refutations:

1. Where else does the Bible use the formula V'eyhi 'erev, v'eyhi boqer, yom [number] for you to compare?

2. That's actually not true (see Hos. 6:1-2), but supposing it was, where else in the Bible would it need to number epochs for you to be able to compare?

3. Yes, in six yomim. However, the Bible is rife with wordplay (it's one of the defining characteristics of Jewish language and thought). Ergo, there's no problem with the idea that God's point was: "I made the heavens and the earth in six yomim/epochs, therefore you mortals can emulate me by working for six yomim/days."

As Archer points out, if an eight-day celebration (Feast of Booths) can symbolize forty years in the wilderness, there's no problem with six days symbolizing six epochs.

4. You might want to check some of the secular science sites on those clocks. They turn out not to be as conclusive as they're made out to be in the YEC community. Moreover, as Faulkner admitted, even though there are some anomalies that might suggest an earth or solar system younger than conventional science suggests, there's absolutely no hard data that would put it at 6-10,000 years.

I'd also point out that there are formations on the earth that either took millions of years to carve out or else God set up nature to deliberately lie to us. For example, we know how fast a river can erode rock. The Columbia River carves a path right through the Cascadia Mountians. The only way that works, since water obviously doesn't flow uphill, is if the river existed first and carved down through the mountains at the same rate that they rose--which means that the mountains had to rise over millions of years, or else the river would have been dammed.

That's just one obvious example. There are plenty of others. And the problem gets worse when you start talking about the age of the universe, since the light is coming from so far away.

Why would a God powerful enough to speak the Universe into existence take billions of years to do so?

First, a counter-question: Why would a Being who exists completely outside of our time domain care about billions of years?

Second, an answer: By taking His time, and then creating a universe with consistant laws of physics that include a finite speed of light, God has actually allowed us to observe the entirety of His creative process from the time light first separated from the darkness, giving us enough data to infer the rest. Ditto on using long creative processes on the earth. He's giving us the means to appreciate the amount of care He put into Creation, as well as the information we would need to backwards-engineer it (via the scientific process) to fulfill the command to "subdue" the earth.

If the earth truly is young and it can eventually be proven… Then the evolutionists and their atheist brothers in arms have nowhere to go.

And if it isn't and it can't?

Shalom

18 posted on 06/12/2014 1:40:23 PM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; fishtank

Before I respond.....

Do you believe that God used evolution to create?


19 posted on 06/12/2014 1:57:40 PM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
Put it this way: If He did, it would not create a problem for my theology. The Bible says only that God created the animals from the dust of the earth, and thanks to the extremely laconic style being used, does not tell us the details of how.

But having said that, I can state with complete honesty that the science doesn't support evolutionary theory. For example, the genetics quite often fail to match the morphology that paleontologists use to try to trace the evolutionary paths. For another example, genetic load from bad mutations will always drive a more complex species to extinction long before it has a chance to evolve. Ergo, no, I do not believe that God used Darwinian evolution as the means by which He created and developed life.

Heck, even the evolutionists have long since abandoned Darwinism as being insufficient a mechanism.

Shalom

20 posted on 06/12/2014 3:14:08 PM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; fishtank

Hey Buggman…..
*** I’d also point out that there are formations on the earth that either took millions of years to carve out or else God set up nature to deliberately lie to us. For example, we know how fast a river can erode rock. The Columbia River carves a path right through the Cascadia Mountians. The only way that works, since water obviously doesn’t flow uphill, is if the river existed first and carved down through the mountains at the same rate that they rose—which means that the mountains had to rise over millions of years, or else the river would have been dammed.***

A global flood would easily explain this would it not?

*** You might want to check some of the secular science sites on those clocks. They turn out not to be as conclusive as they’re made out to be in the YEC community. Moreover, as Faulkner admitted, even though there are some anomalies that might suggest an earth or solar system younger than conventional science suggests, there’s absolutely no hard data that would put it at 6-10,000 years.***

The main point being made here is that the earth can’t possibly be as old as the evolutionists claim and I believe it systematically does that. The evolutionary trinity is Father Time, Mother Nature and Lady Luck….. None of the three are on their side.

*** If He did (use evolution to create), it would not create a problem for my theology.***

It would actually create a big problem……

Mark 10:6-7 say this: 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife

John 1, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 all tell us that Jesus Christ is the Creator. So in this passage, the Creator of the universe told the Pharisees that He created man and woman at the beginning of Creation. If you look up “beginning” in Strong’s Concordance it sends you to the appendix. In other words, according to Strong’s, the definition of beginning is so obvious that they see no reason to define it.

Mark 10:6 leaves no room for a Christian to hold to evolution. If Christ is your Savior, belief in evolution is tantamount to calling Him a liar (based on this passage).

It also creates a problem for OEC. If man and woman were created “from the beginning of creation” and the biblical genealogies take us back 6000 years (roughly) you have to twist the plain meaning of this passage to hold the old earth position. In fact, here would be your options:

1. Jesus is not telling the truth….. in which case He is not God and can’t be your Savior.
2. It was only Jesus’ opinion….. in which case He is not God and can’t be your Savior.
3. Mark was lying, Jesus never said it. This means that Matthew was also lying when he related this incident in Matthew 19 and it undermines the credibility of the entire New Testament.
4. Jesus created man and woman at the beginning of Creation.

The only other ground that you can stand on is to pull a Clinton and say “It depends on what the meaning of “beginning” is.

Over the years (but admittedly not recently on the old earth position) I’ve explored both sides of this. If scripture is my authority…. and it is…. I believe the Young Earth position is correct.

As I said before, it is not a matter unto salvation (I will meet you in glory one day, Buggman) but it is an important doctrinal issue. I know the standard arguments. Distant Starlight being the main one (old earthers really have the same issue when you consider the Horizon Problem).

I’m sure I’m not going to convince you to change your mind, Buggman and you won’t convince me to change mine.

I hope that I have convinced you that I’ve come by my position in a logical and hermeneutically sound manner.

Blessings to you, Buggman.


21 posted on 06/16/2014 11:36:51 AM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

“Big Bang inflationary theory claims but—weeks later—evolutionists admitted they got it wrong.”

Astronomy and evolutionary biology are not the same disciples.


22 posted on 06/16/2014 11:48:52 AM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz

disciples should be disciplines. Interesting typo considering the original post.


23 posted on 06/16/2014 1:03:22 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
A global flood would easily explain this would it not?

Through soft soils, sure, that's a possibility. Through solid granite? Not so much.

The main point being made here is that the earth can’t possibly be as old as the evolutionists claim and I believe it systematically does that. The evolutionary trinity is Father Time, Mother Nature and Lady Luck….. None of the three are on their side.

Heh, I like that; I'll have to steal it. However, there's a difference between our perspectives: You seem to be conceeding that if the universe were billions rather than thousands of years old, "Father Time" at least would be on the evolutionist's side. Is that your intent? I certainly don't think 14 billion years of universal history and a billion of earth's is nearly sufficient enough.

On the subject of the universe's "clocks," how about if we each pick a couple and kick them around just to keep the conversation focused.

Mark 10:6-7 . . .

Let's break the question down a bit: Are Yeshua's words proven false by the fact that man and woman were not created on the first day? Why not?

I know the standard arguments. Distant Starlight being the main one (old earthers really have the same issue when you consider the Horizon Problem).

The Horizon Problem is explained easily enough by the Inflation Model, which also solves several other cosmological problems. The athiest is bothered by it because of the energies involved in such an early, radical expansion; the unique nature of the event which seems to have no explanation in our current understanding of physics; and the precision involved in the event's timing and extent. The theist, on the other hand, rejoices at such incongruities, since they point to the Hand of God.

On the other hand, there is no evidence, either scientifically or theologically, for CDK or "light created in motion" as mechanisms to explain how we can see galaxies millions or billions of light years away. Again, watch the Ross-Faulkner debate and see Faulkner admit that none of the standard mechanisms proposed in the YEC work.

The only way to hold to YEC is to propose that the Eternal Lawgiver keeps changing the laws of nature in a way that is impossible to detect in order to make the universe lie to us about its age . . . or else, God has simply put us in the Matrix, and everything we think we see is an illusion. That might describe a god, but it certainly does not describe the God of the Bible.

Shalom

24 posted on 06/17/2014 9:10:57 AM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
Forgot my postscript:

I hope that I have convinced you that I’ve come by my position in a logical and hermeneutically sound manner.

I agree that this is not a salvational issue--in that no one's salvation is dependent on their theological position for YEC or OEC. However, I do think that YEC is creating a barrier to the undecided and creates an unnecessary and damaging dichotomy between science and Biblical faith.

I agree that you are a thoughtful person, and that your decision is logical within the context of the facts you choose to accept. However, you have to simply discard the lion's share of the scientific data and even a portion of the Scriptural data to do so.

Of course, you'd argue the same about me. :) That's why we're having this conversation.

Shalom uv'rechah (peace and blessings).

25 posted on 06/17/2014 9:17:12 AM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson