BTW, Thank you for the warm welcome QED.
My answer to your question is that I do not agree. The Big Bang Theory is a purely mathematical abstract construct with very little or no basis in reality, except that the universe is expanding and that the expansion appears to be accelerating. The math was invented by materialists in an effort to explain the observation of our expanding universe and the known helium and deuterium abundances found in the universe. The math is constantly being tweaked in an effort to explain the big bang as well as the formation of galaxies, stars, planets etc. As with biogeny, cosmogony has become permeated with evolutionary assumptions and conclusions, yet, despite this, the Big Bang points to an extremely fined tuned low entropic beginning of our universe that suggest an uncaused cause, that must exist, that caused the universe to come into existence, and many have concluded the uncaused cause to be an intelligent being, the I AM, God Himself.QED wrote:Wow, that's a pretty big chunk you've taken care of. Or is it? The inferences that lead us back to a "big bang" are pretty well beyond dispute would you not agree? Inflation is a phenomenally successful theory in terms of its ability to describe and predict the subsequent evolution of the universe and is persuasive for a number of reasons.:Bart007 wrote: Yes, if the Big Bang (including the Ad Hoc inflationary theory) be true, then it, along with the facts that the universe started out in an extremely low entropic state and has an extraordinarily large information content, provides evidence for an eternal intelligent Creator God because the Big Bang is an effect and is in need of a cause, a first cause must be eternal, and that cause must be intelligent to provide the extraordinarily high information content.
Whenever problems arise, a big banger will just add some more mathematics to the equation, thus we have this mysterious mathematical 'inflation' to help bring the Big Bang theory into agreement with theoretical observations. If there was ‘inflation’ at all, then we do not know what started the inflation and what caused the inflation to suddenly stop.
Mathematical changes also resulted from the "Big Bangers" failure to find the predicted gravitons, monopoles, etc. Using their preconceived materialistic worldview as a constraint, and their intelligence, big bangers simply devised more mathematics to explain away their failure to observe the predictions of the Big bang, and now the "Big Bangers" have new mathematical reasons why we do not observe the predicted gravitons, monopoles, etc. If they had found the predicted gravitons and monopoles in the first place, they would not have bothered to add the new math that makes them invisible.
Other problems with the Big Bang:
The BB Model has had only one successful prediction to support it, the existence of a Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). This background radiation turned out to be approximately a flat 2.75K (from COBE “Cosmic Background Explorer”).
The one successful prediction (CBR) of the Big bang Theory may prove to be its falsification. The CBR is too uniform. To get stars and galaxies, there must have been a slight unevenness in the temperatures of the early universe, causing gravity to vary throughout space and thus causing clumping, etc. The Big Bang scientists involved were able to calculate exactly what these variations in the CBR ought to be. They sent the COBE satellite into space to search for these variations. It would have been another strong confirmation for the Big Bang Theory (at least for the surviving versions of it) had it not been for the fact that COBE did not find any variation. Of course, when you have fifty years of scientific effort, life-long careers, and personal scientific achievement at stake, scientists do not take “NO” for an answer, especially from some machine named COBE. With complex statistical analysis of COBE’s measurements, variations were allegedly found. Then two additional published studies confirmed this analysis.
As one scientist put it, “Even if the temperature fluctuations turn out to be real, it has generally been missed that these fluctuations are an order of magnitude too low for the standard cosmology.” Indeed they were so low that COBE couldn’t see them and even after the statistical fudging of COBE’s readings, no one was able to point to any place in space where these alleged variations exist.
Of such is the miracle of materialist scientists finding what they are looking for in order to demonstrate they had not wasted a large part of their life believing and arguing for a materialistic view of cosmogony that proves to be false.
In his article: 'The Big Bang Never Happened' by Eric J. Lerner, he states: “The earth and the entire solar system was, five billion years ago, formed from the debris not of the Big Bang but of a supernova. ... just as Lemaitre's Big Bang failed when cosmic rays were shown to be produced in the present-day universe rather than the distant past, so Gamow's failed when the chemical elements were shown to be produced by present-day stars.”
Lerner also states: “Other conflicts with observation have emerged as well. Dark matter, a hypothetical and unobserved form of matter, is an essential component of current Big Bang theory- an invisible glue that holds it all together. Yet Finnish and American astronomers, analyzing recent observations, have shown that the mysterious dark matter isn't invisible- it doesn't exist. Using sensitive new instruments, other astronomers around the world have discovered extremely old galaxies that apparently formed long before the Big Bang universe could have cooled sufficiently. In fact, by the end of the eighties, new contradictions were popping up every few months.”
”In all of this, cosmologists have remained entirely unshaken in their acceptance of the theory. ... cosmologists, with few exceptions, have either dismissed the observations as faulty, or have insisted that minor modifications of Big Bang theory will reconcile "apparent" contradictions. A few cosmic strings or dark particles are needed- nothing more.”
”This response is not surprising: most cosmologists have spent all of their careers, or at least the past twenty-five years, elaborating various aspects of the Big Bang. It would be very difficult for them, as for any scientist, to abandon their life's work. Yet the observers who bring forward these contradictions are also not at all ready to give up the Big Bang. Observing astronomers have generally left the interpretation of data to the far more numerous theoreticians. And until recently there seemed to be no viable alternative to the Big Bang - nowhere to go if you jumped ship.”
Another problem with the Big Bang that Lerner brings up is:
“A major problem, known as the age paradox, (16) plagues Big Bang Theory: The postulated age of the Big Bang universe may be incompatible with observations.
Despite the insistence of some Big Bang advocates on a lower value, recent observations of distant galaxies have confirmed the Hubble constant to be approximately 80 km/sec/Megaparsec (about 24.5 km/sec/million light years). (13,17) Hubble time, the age 12 billion years. The age of a flat or near flat Big Bang universe, as postulated by Big Bang theorists in recent years, would be two thirds of that, or about 8 billion years; somewhat more than that for an open Big Bang universe, and somewhat less than that for a closed Big Bang universe. That age is only about one half of the known age of some stars and galaxies, (18,19) presenting an obviously impossible situation.”
”Conversely, a flat Big Bang universe having an age of 15 billion years, would require a Hubble time of 22.5 billion years and a Hubble constant of about 42.2 km/sec/Mpc; little more than one half of the observed value.”
Lerner also has this to say about the peer reviewed process that evolutionists seem to admire so much:
“In 1889 Samuel Pierpont Langley, a famed astronomer, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and soon to be the one of the pioneers of aviation, described the scientific community as "a pack of hounds ... where the louder-voiced bring many to follow them nearly as often in a wrong path as in a right one, where the entire pack even has been known to move off bodily on a false scent."
“The current system of specialized peer review originated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as science became more closely tied to, and supported by, large-scale capitalist enterprise. While inventor-entrepreneurs like Thomas Edison chose for themselves what to research, the later financier-industrialists wanted the "quality of work" guaranteed in advance. So they, together with leading academics, encouraged the idea of peer review- the inspection of scientific work by the "best authorities" in a given field.”
”At the same time, the growing industrialization of scientific research led to an increasing level of specialization. The older generation of scientists had picked their research topics according to their own interests and often hopped across an entire field (as the best twentieth-century scientists continue to do). But as scientific research became organized in large-scale industrial labs, and as university work fell under the sway of industrial concerns, research came to focus on specific topics of commercial need, and scientists were encouraged to devote their entire career to single specialties.”
“The combination of growing specialization and the peer-review system have fractured science into isolated domains, each with a built-in tendency toward theoretical orthodoxy and a hostility to other disciplines.”
“ “When scientists are specialized," Alfven comments, "it's easy for orthodoxy to develop. The same individuals who formulate orthodox theory enforce it by reviewing papers submitted to journals, and grant proposals as well. From this standpoint, I think the Catholic Church was too much blamed in the case of Galileo- he was just a victim of peer review.”
“The ability of a scientific theory to be refuted is the key criterion that distinguishes science. If a theory cannot be refuted, if there is no observation that will disprove it, then nothing can prove it - it cannot predict anything, it is a worthless myth.”
The picture becomes even bleaker for the Big Bangers.
No Discernable Gravitational Lensing of the Cosmic Back Ground. Gravitational lensing is an optical effect whereby a background object like a distant quasar is magnified, distorted and brightened by a foreground galaxy. It is a consequence of general relativity and is so well understood that it now appears in standard optics text books. Objects that are too far to be seen are ‘focused’ by an intervening concentration of matter and bought into view to the earth based astronomer. The largest foreground concentrations of matter are galactic clusters and the furthest known background is the cosmic background radiation or the CBR. The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) recently imaged the CBR of the full sky to high resolution. One would expect to see gravitational lensing distortions in the CBR ‘acoustic’ pattern. Lieu and Mitaz in their recent Astrophysical Journal article (ApJ 628:583, 2005) have shown mathematically that the expected distortions in the CBR are absent! This is a major blow to the Big Bang theory where the CBR is the main evidence for its occurrence. This may mean that the CBR is not ‘cosmological’ at all, but rather a ‘local’ effect, possibly like that envisioned by Hoyle & Wickramasinghe (Ap&SS 147:245, 1988). They showed that a homogeneous cloud mixture of carbon/silicate dust and iron or carbon whiskers could produce such a background radiation. Thus the CBR may not be the whimper of the Big bang, but just a dirty expulsion of nearby supernovae.
The Cosmological Principle states that neither earth, nor our sun, nor our galaxy holds as special or privileged position in the universe. Though this view was not that of Nicolaus Copernicus, in 1961 Hermann Bondi personalized the cosmological principle by renaming it the Copernican Principle, thereby making it more palatable to a larger audience. In 1973, Stephen Hawking and George Ellis threw their weight behind this term to popularize it. This principal has guided all materialistic views and interpretations on cosmogony.
However, observing the universe from earth’s vantage point, it appeared that the universe was spherically symmetrical all around us. Stephen Hawkin and George Ellis, in 1973, admitted that this normally mean that earth is located near a very special point in the universe, but such a thought is anathema to all materialists, including the Big Banger’s. So they added an ad hoc solution to discredit this observation that we are special. They use the Copernican Principle to reject this observation by assuming the “… universe is isotropic about every point in space time; so we shall interpret the Copernican principle as stating that the universe is approximately spherically symmetric about every point (since it is approximately spherically symmetric around us).” Thus they argued for a super ad hoc solution that saves the materialists worldview and their prevailing view of cosmogony from destruction.
The advent of scientists’ ability to measure the redshift of galaxies combined with the advent of the understanding that the redshifts of distant and very distant galaxies were not caused by their relative velocity to earth, but by the expansion of space itself as predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Thus a redshift is partially due to Doppler shifts, but is mostly primarily to the spatial expansion of the universe, and more so the further away the galaxy. This enabled scientists to measure the distance between the earth and each galaxy. As time went by, they were able to remove the Doppler effect of relative motion from the measurement of the redshifts of other galaxies in order to determine accurate distances between earth and other galaxies.
As the distances were plotted, a materialistic inexplicable observation was made. Our earth is surrounded by near spherical walls of galaxies that occur approximately every 1 million light years. Computers were used to recalculate the observation from the center of our Milky Way and the spherical walls appeared to be near perfect indicating that the center of our Galaxy was the center of the universe. To confirm this, other locations in the universe were chosen to test for the spherical walls from their location. At 1 million light years from the Milky Ways center the spherical walls started becoming blurred. At 2 million light years the spaces between the spherical walls filled in. It became clear that if our galaxy were greatly displaced from the centre, the distance groupings seen from our vantage point would overlap one another and become indistinguishable. The evidence is strong that our galaxy is special, that we may truly be the center of the universe. To the consternation of the materialists, our universe has a center and our Milky Way is it.
In addition, Earth holds a special place in our Milky Way galaxy. I quote Physicist D. Russell Humphreys
Spiritual implications of a centre:
To Christians, the thought of being located at the centre of the cosmos seems intuitively satisfying. But to secularists, it is deeply disturbing. For centuries they have tried to push the Copernican revolution54 yet further to get away from centrality. Carl Sagan devoted an entire book in this style to belittle our location and us:
‘The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena … Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light [an image of Earth taken by Voyager I]. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.’55
Let’s consider more closely why the central position of mankind in the cosmos is so important an idea that the enemies of God try to escape it.
First, the Bible declares the uniqueness and centrality of our home planet. It mentions the Earth first in Genesis 1:1, on Day 1—long before it mentions the Sun, Moon and stars over a dozen verses later, on the fourth day. Genesis 1:6-10 locates the Earth ‘in the midst’ of all the matter of the cosmos, as I explained in Starlight and Time.56 In Genesis 1:14-15, God says the host of the heavens exists for the benefit of those on the Earth. So it is not man who imagines himself ‘at a commanding position at the centre of the universe’,57 but God who says we are there. It is heartening to see the evidence once again supporting what Scripture says.
‘Okay,’ you might say, ‘but then why didn’t God put us right at the centre of our galaxy, where the centrality would have been more evident?’ Well, it looks like He had something better in mind. First, there are good design features about our Sun’s position in the Milky way, making it an ideal environment.58,59 The inner galaxy is very active, with many supernovæ, and probably a massive black hole, that produce intense radiation.60 Instead, the Sun has a fairly circular orbit keeping the Earth at a fair distance from the dangerous central portion. In fact, the Sun is at an optimal distance from the galactic centre, called the co-rotation radius. Only here does a star’s orbital speed match that of the spiral arms—otherwise, the Sun would cross the arms too often and be exposed to other supernovæ. Another design feature is that the Sun orbits almost parallel to the galactic plane—otherwise, crossing this plane could be disruptive.
Second, there are aesthetic and spiritual reasons. If God had placed the Sun closer to the Milky Way centre, the thick clouds of stars, dust, and gas (quite aside from the supernovæ!) near our galaxy’s centre would have prevented us from seeing more than a few light years into the cosmos. Instead, God put us in an optimal position, not at the outmost rim where the Milky Way would be dim, but far enough out to see clearly into the heights of the heavens. That helps us to appreciate the greatness of God’s ways and thoughts, as Isaiah 55:9 points out.
Most important, it is very encouraging to see evidence for the centrality of humans to the plan of God. It was a sin on this planet that subjected the entire universe to groaning and travailing (Romans 8:22). Ours is the planet where the Second Person of the Trinity took on the (human) nature of one of His creatures to redeem not only us, but also the entire cosmos (Romans 8:21). This knowledge that God gave minuscule mankind prime real estate in a vast cosmos astounds and awes us, as Psalm 8:3-4 says:
‘When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have ordained; What is man, that you are mindful of him? and the son of man, that you visit him?’
Sources:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/ ... xy.asp#f49
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology ... g.mitchell
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny ... ation.html
The Current State of Creation Astronomy: Danny R. Faulkner, Ph. D. 1998
The most dangerous outcome for a theistic universe would be be the steady-state universe would it not?
