Thos who don't believe in "the Big Bang"

[SPOKENWORD]

David Zampino:

Phony at best. The man has been challenged even by other “Young Earth Creationists”. He has been proven wrong many times – and has never paid up.

Can you please back up your statement. God Bless

 

[David_Zampino]

SPOKENWORD:

Can you please back up your statement. God Bless

talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

The man gives every evidence of being a fraud. Even other “Young Earth Creationists” are embarassed by him.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

vern humphrey:

It can’t be first generation – it’s not old enough. If it had been formed in the first few billion years after the Big Bang, it would long agohave died.

On the other hand, if it were third generation, it would be much younger than it is.

David Zampino:

Because of the presence of elements heavier than Hydrogen and Helium.

Thanks for your replies. Realize I’m not arguing with your conclusions - I’m just trying to understand.

Am I correct in understanding thus - any star around today has to be 2nd/3rd generation because of the time since the Big Bang? And how do we tell how old our sun is (ie not old enough to be 3rd gen.)?

In regards to the heavy elements - help me understand when a start dies. I thought that early in these posts someone said when a star dies it explodes. So it’d have to draw matter in from a large area in order to ignite again. How did our planets then escape that wrath or did they somehow get caught in the gravity pull after our sun was formed.

Thanks for the lessons!

 

[vern_humphrey]

SPOKENWORD:

Not according to Gods Word. The earth is less than 6500 years. God Bless

Can you quote the verse of the Bible where God says the earth is less than 6500 years old?

Remember, we’re talking about God saying it, not some Protestant clergyman “calculating” it.

 

[rbrooks]

talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

The man gives every evidence of being a fraud. Even other “Young Earth Creationists” are embarassed by him.

Hi all, interesting discussion. I also thought of drdino.com as I was reading the thread and was interested to see the site that David provided. Even on the surface anyone with common sence would know Hovind probably never intends or intended on paying the cash. Anyow, I always saw it as an attention getter for his ministry, and the guy is as much of a fundamentalist as I have encountered. I really enjoy his seminars, excluding the “everyone but me is wrong” attitude he presents. Enough on that.

The question of the big bang is perplexing. Who knows how God created the heavens and the earth? Did someone here ask Him? Please send me His web site, phone number or email, cause I have a few questions myself?

We know, as fact, He did create the heavens and earth. Scripture gives a 7 day account of creation. Not a huge issue, to me atleast, if creation occured in a literal 7 days, or that is a symbolic use of time by Moses in the writting. Not important to salvation really, just as long as we acknowledge God as our Creator, is the point I see there.

If the big bang in fact did happen. My understanding of the THEORY is that nothing exploded into the universe and shazam, here we are after billions and billions of years. I have yet to see convincing proof that the earth is billions of years old. I tend to agree with the young earth side, simply because Scripture does have a more solid type of timeline in the geneoligy of the OT.

My main problem with the issue is that creation is not taught, at all in some states, in our public schools. Both sides should be presented to our children for a fair and valid education. The school system is failing. But, I digress.

Webster defines science as: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

So, I go back to my question. Did someone ask God how He created the heavens and earth? If science is a “state of knowing” certainly folke pushing the big bang “theory” as fact, must have some insider information.

Just my 2 cents. Thanks for letting me chime in.

God bless,
Rich

 

[vern_humphrey]

rbrooks:

So, I go back to my question. Did someone ask God how He created the heavens and earth? If science is a “state of knowing” certainly folke pushing the big bang “theory” as fact, must have some insider information.

Did the Wright brothers ask God how birds fly, so they could invent the airplane? Did Edison ask God how He created light in order to produce the light bulb?

Or did they use their God-given intelligence to study God’s creation and find the answers that way?

 

[Melchior]

vern humphrey:

Did the Wright brothers ask God how birds fly, so they could invent the airplane? Did Edison ask God how He created light in order to produce the light bulb?

Or did they use their God-given intelligence to study God’s creation and find the answers that way?

All true. But we are dealing with theory vs. hard facts. We can “make” light ans we can make flying machines. Can we reproduce the big bang? No. Electricity and flight are an observable given. Edison and the brothers Wright were working with existing phenomena. They came up with ways to harness it or to make it useful to man. But that is a far cry from an unverifiable theory about how it all began.

Mel

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dandelion_Wine:

Am I correct in understanding thus - any star around today has to be 2nd/3rd generation because of the time since the Big Bang? And how do we tell how old our sun is (ie not old enough to be 3rd gen.)?e

We understand the process by which stars are created, shine and die. Knowing the size of our Sun, we can calculate it’s life span. Knowing it’s current state, we can determine where on that life span it is. The Sun is middle-aged, as stars of its type go.

Dandelion_Wine:

In regards to the heavy elements - help me understand when a start dies. I thought that early in these posts someone said when a star dies it explodes. So it’d have to draw matter in from a large area in order to ignite again. How did our planets then escape that wrath or did they somehow get caught in the gravity pull after our sun was formed.

Our planets did not exist when the “parent” stars died – except as matter widely scattered through space. When the Sun was formed, some matter went into orbit around the forming star, instead of falling into the center. This matter became the planets.

 

[rbrooks]

vern humphrey:

Did the Wright brothers ask God how birds fly, so they could invent the airplane? Did Edison ask God how He created light in order to produce the light bulb?

Or did they use their God-given intelligence to study God’s creation and find the answers that way?

Good point Vern, but they had specific subjects to study. I.E. birds and light. Also specific goals, flying and seeing. A little different than stating the big bang as fact. I’m not a proponant or oponant to the theory, just am not convinced.

Is there proof for the big bang? Not that I know of, it is mearly a theory and must be presented as such. Impossible for God to have done? NOPE

Rich

 

[vern_humphrey]

rbrooks:

Good point Vern, but they had specific subjects to study. I.E. birds and light. Also specific goals, flying and seeing. A little different than stating the big bang as fact. I’m not a proponant or oponant to the theory, just am not convinced.

And nuclear physics and relativity aren’t specific subjects?

rbrooks:

Is there proof for the big bang? Not that I know of, it is mearly a theory and must be presented as such.

All science is theory!!

However, the background radiation which the Big Bang Theory predicts has been found.

The red-shift – which shows the universe expanding – is another prediction of the Big Bang.

rbrooks:

Impossible for God to have done? NOPE

That’s my point, exactly – it is not impossible for God to have created the universe in this way.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Melchior:

All true. But we are dealing with theory vs. hard facts. We can “make” light ans we can make flying machines. Can we reproduce the big bang? No. Electricity and flight are an observable given. Edison and the brothers Wright were working with existing phenomena.

And those who developed the Big Bang Theory are also working with existing phenomena – the background radiation and the red shift.

Melchior:

They came up with ways to harness it or to make it useful to man. But that is a far cry from an unverifiable theory about how it all began.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang – which is why it is so well acccepted. If there were not, other scientists would have shot it full of holes.

Now, who are we to tell God that He can’t create the universe His way?

 

[Melchior]

vern humphrey:

And those who developed the Big Bang Theory are also working with existing phenomena – the background radiation and the red shift.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang – which is why it is so well acccepted. If there were not, other scientists would have shot it full of holes.

Now, who are we to tell God that He can’t create the universe His way?

You are assuming the Big Bank is His way. A big assumption with such limited data thus far.

For the record the Big Bang has been challenged more than once in the scientific community. There are others working on different theories even now. It is far from accepted fact. Poplular? Yes. Decisive? Hardly.

 

[davidford]

The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Bashing Big Bang theory
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402061734.3914cb3b%40posting.google.com
1982 Richard Morris, 1992 Antony Flew
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990311073639.27782B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1966 Hannes Alfven; 1990 H.C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J.V.
Narliker, and N.C. Wickramasinghe; on Jean-Claude Pecker
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980824234855.3753B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
on Eric Lerner
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970122231808.6380G-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

 

[vern_humphrey]

Melchior:

You are assuming the Big Bank is His way. A big assumption with such limited data thus far.

And you’re assuming that it isn’t His way – with no better data.

Melchior:

For the record the Big Bang has been challenged more than once in the scientific community. There are others working on different theories even now. It is far from accepted fact. Poplular? Yes. Decisive? Hardly.

All theories are challenged – but note that the Big Bang has withstood challenges. Is it an accurate description of the creation of the universe? Perhaps not. But the idea that a Protestant clergyman knows the age of the universe so precisely that we Catholics must accept his calculations is simply not tenable.

 

[vern_humphrey]

davidford:

The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Bashing Big Bang theory
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402061734.3914cb3b%40posting.google.com
1982 Richard Morris, 1992 Antony Flew
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990311073639.27782B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1966 Hannes Alfven; 1990 H.C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J.V.
Narliker, and N.C. Wickramasinghe; on Jean-Claude Pecker
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980824234855.3753B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
on Eric Lerner
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970122231808.6380G-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

My scan of these references was adimitedly bried, but I don’t find any that offers scientific evidence that the universe is only 6500 years old.

I do note

At this point in the paper, I conclude that the model to beat, i.e. the best guess science provides as to the universe’s early history, is the HBB (IMy note – HBB = Hot Big Bang). From the HBB’s origination-out-of-nothing I then
argue that the universe had an originator, i.e., I argue that the
universe’s beginning-to-exist was brought about by a not-material
causal chain(s).

In other words, the author of this piece is saying the Hot Big Bang is evidence of God.

 

[rbrooks]

What are we arguing about again???

Rich

 

[rbrooks]

Archangel-Jon:

As we all know the Big Bang is a scientist way of explaining the creation on earth.
This ‘Big Bang’ was the results a result of a huge supernovic implosion. As far as we know, the force it created must have been the equivalent to 300 billion nuclear bombs.
Many religions have completely discarded this believe but… if you think about a huge power must have been behind the force created, if you are catholic you, quite rightly, belive God created the earth in seven days, but why isn’t it possible that God was this ‘huge power’ that created the big bang. Surely this make more sense…

OH YEAH!! Jon, I agree!!!

It’s funny you use Archangel, I use it also in circles I run with. Wish I could discuss that further, but I can’t, just thought we were the coolest guys here. lol Just kidding! Wow lighten up you stuffy catholics!! Oh wait, that’s me too. GOSH nevermind

Archangel-Rich

 

[BayCityRickL]

Tonks40:

I’m not sure where on the forum I saw this, but someone stated that a Vatican scientist formulated the Big Bang Theory - any references anyone?

Edwin Hubble is credited with the idea of a big bang, given his observations of an expanding universe.

I forget the author’s name, but check into a recent book called “Faster Than the Speed of Light.” This scientist is looking into the Plank Epoch, the first 0.1 sec into the big bang, where light may have been faster than we measure it today. A lot of physics may not apply to the Plank Epoch, but postulating a faster-than-light light helps to explain other things that unified theories have not.

This cosmology for the average-man book is quite readable and entertaining.

And, this idea has been gaining hold, too.

 

[Melchior]

vern humphrey:

And you’re assuming that it isn’t His way – with no better data.

But the burden of proof is not on me. It is on the one with the theory to prove. Were I to go by tradition and scripture I would still be in better company…so again the burden of proof is on the newer theory.
vern humphrey:

All theories are challenged – but note that the Big Bang has withstood challenges. Is it an accurate description of the creation of the universe? Perhaps not. But the idea that a Protestant clergyman knows the age of the universe so precisely that we Catholics must accept his calculations is simply not tenable.

Well I agree. I am not sure where the last sentence came from. That is certainly not my position.

Mel

 

[JimG]

The author of the book “Faster than the Speed of Light” is Joao Magueijo, who proposes a variable light speed as an alternative to early “inflation” involved in the Big Bang.

Note that the Big Bang theory itself is based upon a multitude of observations, and was not proposed as a theory until numerous observations required that hypothesis. For an overview of the current state of modern cosmology, physics, quantum and relativity theory, I recommend Brian Greene’s “The Fabric of the Cosmos.”

But this is a Scripture forum! I’d say we have wandered far from the topic of Scripture. The only point being made with respect to scripture is that scripture did not intend to teach anything about the age of the universe.