big bang continued

[alphaparticle]

I noticed there are a bunch of 'big bang' posts. So, why not throw my hat into the ring.

 

There are a few major reasons the big bang cosmology is accepted.

 

1. the redshift of clusters of galaxies in a very specific relationship, the ones farther away do so at a faster rate than the ones closer by. Look up the plots. They are beautiful.

 

2. the relative abundances of elements. Yes, the big bang model specifically predicts that the universe ought to be about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium (with fudge for 'rest', including a bit of lithium). These predictions get a lot more specific about this by the way, predicting also what percentages of isotopes we ought to see.

 

3. cosmic background radiation, the common afterglow of the fact that the observable universe used to be in very close quarters. The very small perturbations of this are also important.

 

In addition, there is recent evidence for the inflationary model by being able to detect specific kinds of gravitational waves from BICEP. Future looks at gravitational waves could provide additional looks at the very early universe.

 

Why I am posting this-- specifically because this section is taken over by believers with a very narrow viewpoint on what is an acceptable reading of Genesis and limited understanding of the relevant science. While I am hardly an ideal believer, I am still around for one reason or another, and I still think it is important that believers and non believers alike see this diversity in the body of Christ. You do not have to be scientifically illiterate or alternatively reject the scientific consensus to be a member. I don't think this has any direct relevance to God's existence or creative action and find the emphasis put on that distracting and unfortunate, and for some of us, straight up deflating.

[Schouwenaars]

I'm very happy that this is finally pointed out by a christian.

it's not science versus faith, but science with faith.

And being a christian does not have to imply that you believe in creationism.

[Guest shiloh357]

I noticed there are a bunch of 'big bang' posts. So, why not throw my hat into the ring.

 

There are a few major reasons the big bang cosmology is accepted.

 

1. the redshift of clusters of galaxies in a very specific relationship, the ones farther away do so at a faster rate than the ones closer by. Look up the plots. They are beautiful.

 

2. the relative abundances of elements. Yes, the big bang model specifically predicts that the universe ought to be about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium (with fudge for 'rest', including a bit of lithium). These predictions get a lot more specific about this by the way, predicting also what percentages of isotopes we ought to see.

 

3. cosmic background radiation, the common afterglow of the fact that the observable universe used to be in very close quarters. The very small perturbations of this are also important.

 

In addition, there is recent evidence for the inflationary model by being able to detect specific kinds of gravitational waves from BICEP. Future looks at gravitational waves could provide additional looks at the very early universe.

 

Why I am posting this-- specifically because this section is taken over by believers with a very narrow viewpoint on what is an acceptable reading of Genesis and limited understanding of the relevant science. While I am hardly an ideal believer, I am still around for one reason or another, and I still think it is important that believers and non believers alike see this diversity in the body of Christ. You do not have to be scientifically illiterate or alternatively reject the scientific consensus to be a member. I don't think this has any direct relevance to God's existence or creative action and find the emphasis put on that distracting and unfortunate, and for some of us, straight up deflating.

What youi and others fail to do is take what the Big Bang notion proposes and place it against the biblical creation text and notice how they contradict.

 

The Bible is inspired by God and as such is an inerrant document.  The glaring contradictions preclude the Big Bang from being in any way compatible with the biblical account of creation.

 

What people also seem to be oblivious to is that things like the Big Bang and Evolution exist primarily as alternatives to the biblical text.    These "theories" exist to offer people a way to address origins without God.   It is rather amusing to see Christians trying validate as biblical, secular theories that are formulated and presented as a means of invalidating the biblical account of creation.

[alphaparticle]

I find it amusing Christians would feel a need to respond with their assertions of amusements at the efforts of other Christians to make sense out of things. Or, maybe I don't find that amusing, but just unfortunate and immensely disappointing.

[Guest shiloh357]

I find it amusing Christians would feel a need to respond with their assertions of amusements at the efforts of other Christians to make sense out of things. Or, maybe I don't find that amusing, but just unfortunate and immensely disappointing.

Christians need to decide if they put more faith in the inerrant word of an all-knowing God or the words of fallible men, when those two contradict.

[alphaparticle]

It's nice the world is so neatly divided and the truth of this matter so clear to you shiloh. I fail to see how these assertions help anyone else discern the truth of the matter. Certainly the blithe attitude of your initial response to me, your amusement, couldn't help.

[Guest shiloh357]

It's nice the world is so neatly divided and the truth of this matter so clear to you shiloh. I fail to see how these assertions help anyone else discern the truth of the matter. Certainly the blithe attitude of your initial response to me, your amusement, couldn't help.

The bottom line is that the Big Bang contradicts the Bible. That is not even disputable.  It is a practice in futility to trying sanctify the Big Bang as biblical when its claims and the Bible's claims are so clearly at odds to the point of being irreconcilable.  It is futile to attempt to reconcile what can't be reconciled.

 

In that event, it really does come down to a decision.the Bible and the claims of a theory that is usually presented by scientists as an alternative to the Bible.  It's really sad because I have found that the secular community is more honest about the huge divide that exists between the Bible and scientific claims about the BB or Evolution.   They see and understand the issue while Christians are frantically trying force the Bible to be reconciled with claims that simply contradict what the Bible says.

 

It isn't a matter of dividing the world up into neat little compartments.  It is a matter of looking at reality and seeing that the Bible's claims are specific and not general and those specific claims are at odds with specific claims being made by scientific theories on a fundamental level.

[alphaparticle]

It's a matter of fundamentally trying to see what is true about the world and believing what seems true about it. There are a number of well developed lines of evidence that leads to the big bang conclusion. These can't be wished away in the minds of individuals, even if they are inclined to try personally. It is a fact there are many believers in the world who do not have issues with reconciling their faith and their scientific positions such as big bang cosmology. Some see this as impossible, as you do shiloh, but that is hardly the only position possible to hold about these matters.

[Guest shiloh357]

It's a matter of fundamentally trying to see what is true about the world and believing what seems true about it. There are a number of well developed lines of evidence that leads to the big bang conclusion. These can't be wished away in the minds of individuals, even if they are inclined to try personally. It is a fact there are many believers in the world who do not have issues with reconciling their faith and their scientific positions such as big bang cosmology. Some see this as impossible, as you do shiloh, but that is hardly the only position possible to hold about these matters.

If you feel the evidence for the Big Bang is compelling and you want to believe it, that is your prerogative to do so.  Just be honest about the fact that it is not really reconcilable with Scripture and that one needs to abandon the Bible's account of creation in order to adopt the Big Bang model.

 

My contention is that theory clearly contradicts the biblical record.  Even Isaac Asimov observed that the scientific view of the universe is an attempt to explain its existence without God.  He wrote about he difference between the two worldviews and how utterly incompatible they are.   The Big Bang, Evolution et al., are an attempt to grapple with the problems of origins without having to appeal to God.  I think we all know that. 

 

I have read a number of secular articles about the Big Bang and what it all boils down to is a universe that was randomly created by an arbitrary explosion from a microscopic singularity, for which science cannot really account for unless one believer that the universe is expanding, crunching and re-expanding.

 

It is on the  level of expecting an explosion in a print shop  producing every book that exists in the Library of Congress.

[alphaparticle]

I remain unconvinced there is an impossible contradiction between the scientific consensus here and the Bible. That is only the case on a very restricted reading of the Bible.

 

As far as the scientific evidence for the big bang goes, I freely admit, and have never hidden, I accept it for scientific reasons.  It's not like randomly expecting the world to suddenly appear from an explosion, at all, because this is hardly an explosion in any ordinary sense. In this case, spacetime itself has undergone a rapid expansion as the laws of physics themselves froze out as we know them now. The most extraordinary thing about the big bang is the very low entropy conditions out of which our universe began. The oscillatory model isn't necessary to explain anything and I should point out there are a lot of different multiverse models by which cosmologists, most admittedly atheists, have developed to try to explain the existence of the observable universe and its particular parameters. I think you can have interesting discussions about fine tuning and whatnot, but it becomes subtle pretty fast. However, none of this is a problem for the theist, insofar as someone who believes in God would expect that God has created everything, whether it be through the big bang or not.