ICR article image.
P.S. This article is about cosmology, not the perverted TV show.
Posted on 02/23/2015 8:37:27 AM PST by fishtank
Secular Study: No Big Bang?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Christians who believe the universe began billions of years ago often point to the Big Bang model to try and verify a creation-like beginning.1 But a new origin of the universe model offers an "everlasting universe" and dismisses the whole idea of a Big Bang.2
Genesis does not describe a Big Bang. Instead of a hot explosion, it presents a rather cold, watery origin. Instead of stars first, followed by Earth's emergence billions of years later, God made Earth first, then stars four days later. If the Big Bang really happened, then nobody told God about it. And if Scripture's history falls this far off base, then what other errors might it contain?
Despite the dangers that the Big Bang presents for the Bible—to say nothing of the baffling scientific quandaries it generates—some Christians continue to believe it and even use it to argue for creation. But this noble intention can have bad results.3 Lured by the prospect of illustrating how secular science incorporates a kind of beginning point for the universe that could merge with the concept of God, this particular argument pays the price of accepting a model with almost no resemblance to Genesis.
ICR article image.
P.S. This article is about cosmology, not the perverted TV show.
This is a followup on articles posted about the flawed Big Bang theories....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3256336/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3255730/posts
I hope this is in before the all-too-often posted "What about starlight?" issue.
Hollywood has been forcing the theory of evolution and the Big Bang by promoting the TV show called the Big Bang Theory.
Oh, I think the TV show is pretty funny.
Summary? Give me/us a reason to not dismiss it as crackpot material.
Given that the Earth revolves around the Sun, our viewing angle of stars changes measurably (planetary rotation/tilt being accounted for). That gives a straight geometric computation of distance.
Given that incandescent elemental gasses produce fixed electromagnetic frequencies, and those those frequencies red/blue shift based on relative speeds, we can compute stellar velocities. That, coupled with geometric distance & gravity & red/blue shift, gives a reinforced computation of distance.
This is all simple, fits empirical conclusions of concrete experiments, allows numerous predictions which have been consistently confirmed, and while may not yet explain some nuances it _does_ rule out dramatically different models (such as the visible universe having to fit in a 20,000 light year diameter).
I’m open to alternate explanations - so long as they make objective sense, are internally self-consistent, and explain & predict what we can objectively observe. So far the “young universe” models don’t work - give me one that does.
Genesis does not say “in the beginning, God created the Universe”; it says in the beginning, God Created the heavens and the earth.
I happen to believe God in fact created the Universe. I don’t think He tells us or thought we needed to know how, when, and under what circumstances He did so—if we did, He would have told us.
But getting this issue into Genesis contributes to misunderstanding of the description of the historical events in Genesis and of the timing of the ages in which they occurred.
It is not positive for Christen Witnesses to get involved in quasi factual debates where the evidence is not precise and well established under circumstances where we are exposed to being in outright conflict with the science on the ground.
Believers pay a high price for the historical conflicts the Roman Church initiated over the organization of the solar system (sun revolving around the earth); the position of the earth (flat); and similar issues.
These debates are beyond the scope of our Witness. “You believe in the Father, believe also in Me for the Father and I are One . . . . the Father is in Me and I am in Him . . . .”
The Institute For Creation Research and its predecessor have made a significant contribution to our understanding of the events of early Modern Man—particularly in the period after the flood.
“Despite the dangers that the Big Bang presents for the Bible”
I cannot see a single way that it does. God could have done exactly things that way. It does threaten the nutty, and theologically unsound, idea that the Bible is a chronologically exact timeline of the history of the universe, and that the earth is 6000 years old.
“Hollywood has been forcing the theory of evolution and the Big Bang by promoting the TV show called the Big Bang Theory.”
Please tell me you aren’t serious.
Beautifully stated. And the frustrating thing is that none of that in any way is in conflict with the Bible. SO much bad science comes from the deeply wrong idea that the bible is a calendar, and you can just count the days back to the beginning.
Even worse, no matter if the universe started billions of years ago in a big bang, or if God created it one afternoon 6000 years ago, complete with light positioned enroute to earth in the proper timing,,,, it makes not a whit of difference to Jesus message and to salvation.
This is a modern parlor game of no import whatsoever. Like angels on the head of a pin.
The only dangers are those to the zealots who have taken a stand on their interpretation of a thousands-year-old book that has been translated through numerous languages (try the old Google translation from Spanish to English twice for hilarious results). Even within English, there are 6 or more major versions with some linguistic differences.
Had some fools not drawn a line in the sand (the exact opposite of science), and declared that they know exactly what a variety of vague references REALLY mean in the opening verses of the Bible, they would not face a "danger" from science doing more of its work, discovering (mostly through decent guess-work checked by the scientific method of review and repeatability) what laws God saw fit to include when putting together this awesome and awe-inspiring universe/creation we get to enjoy.
I'm fully in the Big Bang Proves Creation crowd... but only because I know/feel/believe that the Original Source of all matter is the one we call God, and no matter how the Almighty chose to put it all together (Big Bang being the most recent and current best "guess"), it IS... and it is wonderful... and I am grateful.
I read Steven Hawking saying nobody could use big bang to disprove the existence of a God, and nobody could describe the universe one second before the big bang.
Basically more desperate guesswork by the 6000 Years Old crowd, giving any response that will let them cling to a number that does not in any way appear in the Bible, and was simply the guesswork of someone else who was hoping to enforce their view of a few Bible verses upon the world as if it were unassailable.
I wouldn't presume to debate Hawking or God. ;)
I don't think it is possible to disprove the existence of God to me, simply because my personal definition is "that which created all of this". All of this came from somewhere. Ergo... God exists.
However, with even Einstein getting proven and disproven after generations, I would not be surprised if the next Einstein/Hawking/daVinci/yourgrandkid found a way to describe that first second. Doing so in no way disproves God, the Bible, or anything else. It simply improves our current scientific explanation of how He did what He did when He did it.
That's my thinkin' on it, anyway. FWIW.
The universe is nothing more than a sneeze from God.
This is silly to say the the concept of the Big Bang is at odd with God...
The Big Bang denotes the start of a ...Physical Universe...
God is not physical ..to say he is diminishes God...
And to say the Physical Universe is eternal..has always existed and always will exist..has no start or end
Is putting the physical universe on the level of God
Its conflating the creation with the Creator
One of the things predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a “white hole” event, that could only occur once at the beginning of the universe. In this event, moving in the opposite direction of a “black hole,” heavenly bodies would move apart far faster than light, at least initially.
The Bible doesn’t specifically tell us how He created the stars, but there’s a couple of descriptions of that creation that imply relativistic forces at work:
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Psa 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Such relativistic effects would appear from earth as if the stars were being stretched forth and spread like a curtain because they were moving so fast. And if the starting point was in the vicinity of earth, after the event horizon passed us, we could continue to see these stars and galaxies even though they eventually end up stupendous distances from the earth.
So, bottom line, there’s no excuse for compromising God’s Word and robbing Him of glory that He alone deserves. It’s not as if creation only appears in the first few chapters of Genesis. It appears right up into Revelation:
Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
Rev 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
That’s such a preposterous notion that I’d tie myself in knots trying to explain why it’s wrong, because I’d have to start with the presumption that it was right and then make impossible leaps to reality and then explain why those leaps were impossible. Kinda like explaining why this reasoning is wrong: “If I have 10 ice cubes, and you have 11 apples, how many pancakes will fit on the roof? Answer - Purple, because aliens don’t wear hats.”
Short answer: Being that close to an event horizon would be conducive only to rapid & total destruction, not intricate creation. You’d be orbiting the black hole at very nearly the speed of light, suffering G-forces so high it would tear the planet apart in something like microseconds. The gravitational difference from one side of the planet from the other, alone, would be so violent I’d expect gamma ray bursts. I’ll putter with figuring out the actual numbers, but have studied it enough to know whatever those values are they’d constitute nothing remotely resembling “creation”.
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.