Creation vs. Big Bang

[creation astro guy]

I wrote a 3 page artical about the problems with the big bang. I personaly beleive in a Biblical 6 day creation about 6,000 years ago. I know most of you would disagree with me on that but, I think this will be a fun place to descuss this topic. Also, lets try to keep this a freindly place.
I do want to say that I don't have even close to all the answers regarding this subject, but I still would like to post this.
Feel free to voice your comments, objections, and thoughts.

So here it is,

"Hello, I am exited to be able to write this and hopefully show you some of the problems with the Big Bang! I want to start by saying that I am a Christian and believe in a Biblical Creation that took place in six, 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago. I know many people disagree with that, but as I have studied it I am 100% sure that was how the universe came to be. Also, I do not claim to know even close to everything about this topic, but I have found some very persuasive evidence not only against evolution, but also in favor of Creation. I do wish I could write a longer article because there are hundreds of pages I could write (I’m not joking, I mean it:biggrin: ) but I will be able to cover some of the problems with the Big Bang.

The Big Bang
I will cover the problems with the big bang and some of the evidences that go against it in this section.
“Evidences” for the big bang: If you read a book about the big bang, it might have up to about ten evidences that supposedly support the big bang, but they all boil down to mainly three things, and some do just give three.
• The Abundance of light elements: “When” the big bang happened, it would have created an abundance of light gases such as hydrogen and helium (and stars would have later created the heavier elements), and that is what we find in the universe. However, that was known before the model was made! So they made the model to explain that fact. It is obvious that that isn’t proof for the big bang!
• The expansion of the universe: Same thing here, the model was made to explain this.
• Cosmic Background Radiation: This was a prediction based on the big bang model, and it turns out there was a CBR. So this would be something that does weakly support it (however, there is a lot that does not support it that I will write about in a moment). This is a very general prediction, not a precise one that should be able to be made from good models, for instance with the model of the solar system you can very precisely calculate the orbits of astronomical bodies. Good models also should not be very complex (and the Big Bang is obviously very complicated).
But the CBR also causes some big problems for the big bang….
Problems for the big bang: a few of the things I will talk about are not only problems for the big bang put also problems for the general evolutional time scale. A few of the problems are somewhat complex and it will be hard for me to explain so bear with me. Many models have been proposed to solve some of these problems but there is just no proof for them (and many of them don’t even fit the evidence very well). If you want more information about these topics or anything else, there is an organization called Answers in Genesis with dozens of PhD scientists on staff and they have hundreds of books, DVDs, and articles all about Creation science available at their website, answersingenesis.org (I am not associated with them in any way except as a customer).
• Horizon problem: This is a complicated problem. If you want more information about it there are some DVDs by Answers in Genesis. They are; Creation Cosmology by Dr. Danny Faulkner, Distant Starlight and Time by Dr. Jason Lisle, and Answers Academy: Big problems with the Big Bang. They talk about most of the problems mentioned here.
OK, so in the first stage of the big bang the different parts of the small universe would have been different temperatures. Then it started to expand very rapidly. Using the CBR we can tell that the universe is about exactly the same temperature everywhere. For that to happen they would have had to come in thermal contact (light traveling from one object to another) several times. Even in 20 billion years they could not have come in contact once so they could not have the same temperature, but they do!
Many evolutionists have pointed out that the starlight from stars and galaxies millions of light years away could not have gotten here in a few thousand years. But this is there own starlight problem. That gives both of us a problem so nobody is one-up on the other because of this evidence.
• Gravity Problem: This is the last complicated problem:woot: . Well, here I go! There is a ratio between kinetic energy, and potential energy caused by gravity (the balance of the expansion of the universe and a sudden collapse). The balanced point is 1:1. That ratio changes very slowly and as soon as it starts to move in one direction it will move exponentially that way and never come back. If it started at 1:1, in 6,000 years time it would not have changed any observable amount. However, in 13 billion years it would be very far from a 1:1 ratio. And guess what, the ratio right now is 1:1! That fits great with Creation perfectly. Inflation has been proposed to solve this problem but there is no evidence for it (red shift doesn’t prove it. For instance, the Whirlpool Galaxy has a different red shift than the small galaxy that it is connected to and there are plenty of other examples of that). Where is the science in that? If you want to verify and/or clarify what I have told you can get the DVDs or look it up on there website.
• Source problem: Where did the space, mater, and time in our universe come from? The big bang does NOT explain the origin of the universe!!!!! The evolutionists have come up with quite a few models to explain this, but once again, there is no evidence for them (and they don’t even come close to explaining it). They keep claming that the big bang is science but it is a religion! Look up the definition of religion and see if it doesn’t match evolution.
• The times, principals, and ideas of the Big Bang keep changing. This is not an actual problem, but when you consider it, a model that is constantly changing is one that should be questioned For example around 20 years ago they where 100% sure that the big bang happened between 18 and 20 billion years old, now they are 100% percent sure that it happened about 13 billion years ago! Also, from the time when the theory was developed to now there are almost no similarities except a huge explosion(expansion)! And the list goes on.
• The planets problem: There is a problem with how the planets formed according to the big bang. The gas planets would have formed much closer to the sun than they are. In fact, the big bangers cannot explain how Uranus and Neptune are as far out as they are. In addition, Jupiter and Saturn are emitting around twice as much heat as they are receiving from the sun. That would make sense if they where still cooling off from a recent creation. But in 4 million years, they would have cooled down. The Big Bangers can’t explain this (reasonably).
• The star formation problem: In billions of years most of the stars would blow up. It would take a long time, but it would happen. So, the big bangers said that stars are born in the nebulae. There is a big problem with that, if a region of gas started to collapse down into a star, the friction caused by the collapse would heat up the gas and cause it to expand again! For another thing, there has been no actual observation of them forming, contrary to what the big bangers say. All they see are some lit areas of helium gas. No new stars are being born! So how do we have as many stars as we do now? Maybe a recent creation.
• The spiral galaxies wind up problem; As you probably know, there are thousands of spiral galaxies in the universe. When the galaxies spin, the inside part of the galaxy spins faster than the outside. This causes them to wind up, sort of like a top spinning with strings attached to it would cause the strings would wind up. In a few ten thousand years, they would be blobs of stars with no spiral shape. In 6,000 years, however, they would be the way we see them now. Evolutionists have proposed the spiral density wave model to explain this but I have seen no evidence for it, and there are problems with it as well. They can always come up with something to explain a problem they have, but just look at the evidence and see what fits better Creation or evolution? See which model has the evidence supporting it.
• The galaxy/star formation problem: Even if you could get the universe to explode (expand), you would have a uniform expansion. So how do you get sections of it to collapse down into galaxies and stars? Even top evolutionists (including Stephen Hawking) say they don’t have a good explanation for it! And even if they could get it collapsing, there would need to be another factor to stop the collapse form forming a singularity.


Well, I am glad that I could write this and I hope that this is able to show you some of the problems with the big bang and that you will come to believe that God is real and is the creator of the universe.
I just covered the things about astronomy in this letter but if you have questions about the evidence for creation in other fields of science, let me know (it might take a while to write all of that, though:biggrin: )!
Thank you for being willing to read what I had to say.

Ryan

[omaroo]

Sorry - there are several utterly opposed views on this - the B.B. and this "creationism" just two. I personally think that creationism is complete nonsense and does not belong in the 21st century - but there you go - another "opinion", and one which I'm entitled to. If I had a kid at school who was being taught that this view was a viable one then I'd change schools quick-smart. The fact that not all events have been explained, yet, does NOT mean that they won't be in time. I'll personally wait for the proper explanation than merely accept the "poof - it's all conveniently done" principle. I really think that creationism was borne of those unwilling to contribute to conclusive scientific discovery and general observation principles, and who are unable to wait to find the right answers, so lump it all in the too-hard basket. The fact that we can't explain everything satisfactorily and scientifically right now should not be a reason to generate other improbable theories - and certainly not to "believe" in them unreservedly.

I guess that it's refreshing to see at least some effort to argue - and not just complete acceptance of your own "fact" - and for this I thank you.

Being religious is a pre-requisite to believing in creationism (not capiltalised, notice, because I don't think it rates being a proper noun), yet all it takes to work with science is an ability to say "yeah - I can see why that is, and it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt". The way we all live today is the result of irrefutable and practised science. It is not the result of believing, "therefore it shall be".

[Radar]

G'day Ryan,

Welcome to the site.

Do you know what "lost in translation" means?

Your bible is a book of events that have not been translated properly. These people simply did not know what they were looking at most of the time, and as a result, they have created wonderful stories to explain them, and who can blame them, they weren't educated.

If I was going to try and figure out what gave rise to the universe, which is one of the most complicated questions we'll ever ask, I wouldn't look for answers from people that lived thousands of years ago; people that weren't educated, people that thought the world was flat, people that thought witchcraft was real, people that believe in demonic possession etc etc etc etc .

I would put my question to educated people, not people that thought something like a bright comet was an angel flying through the heavens.

In fact lets analyze that. Back in the days when the bible was written, there was no light pollution, they had beautiful dark skies, and many people lived under the stars. This year alone (I'm referring to 2007 of course), I have seen two very bright naked eye comets. Comet McNaught and Comet Holmes. That's two bright comets in one year from very light polluted skies. If the people that wrote the bible were accurate in their translation of events that took place, why is it that there are no comet sightings talked about in the bible? Did comets not exist back then? Was there a period where comets simply did not grace the skies of Earth? Fact is Comets did exist, but to an uneducated person, that thought space was the heavens, trying to explain an event such as this would have always had a religious over tone to it.

Look at the photo in the link below and ask yourself, how would someone from 2000 years ago who lives in a cave explain this -

http://www.wcnet.org/~kmkerr/IMAGES/Comets/comet%20ikeya-zhang.jpg

A comet? Or an angel?

We know what is in that photo, but what would they have thought?

The Bible is a book full of natural events which have been misinterpreted because the writers were uneducated (which was not their fault).

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah


"Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens"


So what happened here? God rained down fire and brimstone? Sounds like a meteor impact to me, there is a decent one about every 100 years. How would they have interpreted this though? In fact, where is the documentation in the bible about meteors? Are they inferring that meteors didn't exist back then? It's lost in translation Ryan.

Why are the dinosaurs not mentioned in your book? Are you saying T-Rex lived in the last 6000 years? In fact, I collect fossils, I understand the physics of carbon dating, and to say that the Earth is only 6000 years old, you'll need to demonstrate with evidence how carbon dating is flawed and how your new approach is more accurate. Of course if you can't do this, then your theory is caput. :biggrin:

The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.2 million light years away. How did the light travel from Andromeda to here for me to photograph in only 6000 years? Do you have some new kind of data or mathematics to show us? Again you'll need to demonstrate how Red Shift is wrong and how your new, more accurate technique is better. If you can't do this your theory is caput. :biggrin:

This is what science is comprised of, data, evidence, absolutes.


OK, so in the first stage of the big bang the different parts of the small universe would have been different temperatures.

Is this documented somewhere? Where are you getting this info from? I'm not saying it's wrong either, but when writing a paper you need to quote your source and maybe touch on the physics of it, this is why most scientific papers are 50 - 100 pages long, and not 3.



Then it started to expand very rapidly. Using the CBR we can tell that the universe is about exactly the same temperature everywhere.

Um, no its not -

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hole-in-universe1.htm

And, what exactly does the term "about exactly" mean? In science we deal with absolutes if we are making some kind of finding. The words "about exactly" contrast one another significantly. It's like saying "I think I'm sure". That is a double negative and does not make sense, have a think about your wording "about exactly". You need to offer exact numbers for us to work with. If you can't because you either don't have the data or you don't understand the physics properly then your theory is caput. :biggrin:

To be honest, I could continue going like this through your entire thread but it's just too much for me to write and for others to read. Your thread is entertaining, but from a scientific perspective it lacks greatly.

Be religious if you must, but also be wise about what is written and how you comprehend it.

The big bang theory may be wrong, red shift maybe wrong, carbon dating maybe wrong, your bible and your theory maybe wrong, so whenever I go with anything, I'll go with the evidence and the data before I go with Fire and Brimstone.

You don't need to believe in all this religious stuff like creationism or the immaculate conception to be spiritual. You can forge your own path, and be a true individual. Many religious people love to think they know the answers, but the fact is, no one does have the answers yet, not the big bang theorists and not religion, making out you know how things came to be is, well,,,,,, entertaining I guess.

An extremely wise man once said "it is better to be in the mystery, than be in the know".

I'm happy to remain in the mystery for now, I don't feel that I need to know all the answers, and if I did need the answers, I'd be smart enough to know that I'll probably never have them. That's my answer.

Thanks for reading.

Ray :biggrin:

[hpcoolahan]

:ta_clap5: :ta_clap5: :ta_clap5: :ta_clap5: :ta_clap5: :ta_clap5: :ta_clap5:

Everyones entitled to an opinion, which is why i left your thread for others to look at.(im a moderator).

But as you are allowed to have an opinion,, so are others .

And i hope you will take on board what others here have said..eg ,Radar ,Omaroo.

Well said Radar, very diplomatic,,,Radar for Prime Minister!!!!


Scientists and Amature Astronomers like us have VERRY open minds, we have too.
But .....evidence is evidence,,,sorry Creation Astro Guy.


Sincely
Patrick

[Mick]

Creation is a creation of man nothing more nothing less that's my opinion.

[creation astro guy]

I am about to go to sleep, so I can't post now, but I will post a response to everyone hopefully tomorow (I will be busy tomorow so it might be the next day)
I am glad you are all being objective. I hope to answer all your comments ASAP!

[Astro Dave]

Ryan

Just a few points to keep in mind:

You can be a practicing Christian and still follow the science dictum.... I do.

There are quite a few points you've raised that require substantiation - for instance galaxies don't "wind" up as you suggest... they spin the same in the center as the outside (for the most part) held together by dark matter... testifiable, observable and documented. See the work of Vera Rubin.

Also, your chronology is a worry saying 6,000 years for the whole shebang. What the heck do we do with 70 million years old dinosaur bones?

Lastly, if you're going to write Ryan you really do need to look at your spelling. Sorry.

[gyro]

Succinctly put Dave.

[Tenacious Del]

What a can of worms this debate is. I'll go with the science any day. :smile:

what kind of telescope do you own creation_astro_guy?

[gyro]

Del, I am an agnostic and tend to lean towards science but disagree with your comment re: the debate.
An open debate allows all objective views.
The Vatican contributes a great deal towards Asto' observation and research. Thankfully they conveniently forget the inquisition...as should we.
Let's keep moving on with an open mind and embrace all considered views.

[creation astro guy]

Dave,
First of all, I take the bible seriously and when it says created in six days I believe it.
Second, What do you mean by “for the most part”? Also, where is the evidence for dark matter? Sure you see some things that dark matter could explain, The model of dark matter was created to explain those motions, so you can’t use those motions to try to prove itself.
Also, who says dinosaur bones are 70 million years old? I will write a short article about that soon, but I will give you a summery. There are more than a dozen assumptions that are required by the carbon (or any) dating method. They assume they know How much C14 was in the rock to start with, the rate of erosion is the same over time, that there has not been any C14 added or subtracted. If you sent a rock in for testing you would have to answer many questions like, “how old do you think the rock is” and other ones like that that should not matter if the dating was accurate. And there are MANY instances where the dating is very wrong, A live snail dated over a thousand years old, a frozen woolly mammoth tested 80 million years in it’s head and 2 billion in it leg, a tree that was in an explosion was dated in the FUTURE, along with many others. And scientists often reject a dating as bad if it dos not fit (and that is actually often), but accept it if it fits with there time frame.
Finally, I may need to check my spelling, but I try not to make any. And that dose not have much to do about this discussion.

I am working on responding to all of you. Don’t worry; I will get to all of you.

[creation astro guy]

Del,
The bible and science are compatible. There are dozens of PhD scientists who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. The bible fits with science.

Mick,
Read Genesis 1 again. The bible clearly states that He created everything!

[gyro]

Well folks this one looks like its going to run.

Dave, resist the temptation concerning the grammar !!

[gyro]

Hello creation astro guy.
I am interested to learn which Denomination you belong to and in particular which Church's teachings you follow. Please be pecise.

[omaroo]

Sorry, to me this is insane, as is the subject matter. There is absolutely no point in talking to anyone who has it in their head that what their parents taught them from birth is the utter truth of it all because a work of fiction told them all so. No matter how you explain yourself they just don't want to either hear or absorb reason. I believe (there we go again) that religion was instigated as an instrument to control and subdue the masses, a good thing too considering the way some people behave. While we have them subdued and believing what we want them to believe, lets also make a good living from them - can't hurt because we just point our finger skywards and say "it's the will of God". It's a fantastic way to keep the masses in check because they can't object to and fight what they can't see. Brilliant!

If you wish to believe in this sort of thing then it's up to you and you alone. Please don't go trying to convince others that what you need to believe in, because it may make you feel whole and good, is the truth. You will NEVER get reasonable, free-thinking humans to tow the line over this because there is not one single way you can prove what you believe is true. Not one. The existence of the bible is not proof in itself - it's a work of fiction written by, as Ray pointed out earlier, a bunch of uninformed humans from long ago. Funny that following the "truth" changes from knowing that the earth is the centre of the universe to now knowing that it's not. So - which is the truth, if both these concepts were at one time thought to be true, they can't both be.

Oh, please.

Tuning out now................. not interested in debating because there is no point to it.

Ray - I reckon that this thread be locked because it is turning out the way intended.

[orion]

Read my sig, you'll know what I believe in.

[creation astro guy]

Ommaro,
It is true that there are many different explanations for the origin of the universe. But as far as I am concerned, creation is the only one that explains it, but many people believe in the BB, so that is the other main theory. And again, that is just my opinion.
You are right; you are entitled to your opinions. You can think creationism is nonsense, but have you viewed the evidence from both sides? A lot of the things I showed you guys can only be explained by Creation. Sure you can say that someday those problems could be fixed, but take the Geo- and Helio-centric models as examples. The Geo-centric model was widely held to be true. But it had so many problems that the scientists had to keep adding things to the model (eccentric orbits, epicycles, more spheres, ect.) and it still had problems. They could have (and probably did) just said that they would discover solutions to the problems and that it did not mean that the theory was wrong. But it was. The people in the minority, who were thought to have been un-scientific where right.
And actually Creationism has been around MUCH longer than evolution. I believe (an opinion) that evolutionism was born out of a desire to explain your existence without God. People don’t want to have to serve a God; They don’t want to let go of their sinful life. And so really no matter how much evidence I show you, you won’t believe it unless you let yourself have a truly open mind.

[Mick]

Del,
Mick,
Read Genesis 1 again. The bible clearly states that He created everything!

Yes you are right astro guy, but it all depends if you think the two books belong in the fiction or non-fiction section of the library. I do respect your right to take the bible seriously and I suspect you have read it from cover to cover. This debate is old and stale in the end we all believe what we want to believe. We may never know the answer to the question maybe it's creation maybe evolution or a mix of both I don't know and don't care, I just don't see it as black and white.

Welcome to MAS :smile: I don't think you have answered DT, do you own a Telescope?

[omaroo]

It is true that there are many different explanations for the origin of the universe. But as far as I am concerned, creation is the only one that explains it, but many people believe in the BB, so that is the other main theory. And again, that is just my opinion.

"Creationism" explains nothing. It is an answer looking for a question. It is a convenient aggregation of thoughts formed in such a way to attempt to provide an answer to a question which just cannot be adequately explained yet. It relies on religious overtones to substantiate it to those who are religious - otherwise it would have no basis and be considered..well... just silly. I'm not sure of scientists of any worth who are not religious actively supporting the fundamentalist/creationist mumbo. There are, as you point out, religious scientists to do subscribe to it - well, uhmm.... what did you expect?

Once the answers are irrefutably and undeniably discovered (read: uncovered) one day - and can be DEMONSTRATED using logic and are measurable, we'll probably be in the 25th and a half century and all know better by then. Religious belief will have hopefully passed into oblivion as a passing and socially divisive fad, and the bible will be sitting on the fiction shelf along with Arthur C. Clarke where it belongs.

Do you really expect everyone to read what creationists have concocted and think to themselves - "hey thanks - I see it now! How could I have been so wrong over the years?" When you have two diametrically-opposed views on something you will NEVER get middle-ground consensus. A creationist's main problem is that they have no mechanism by which to prove what they believe is right - other than to belt people over the head with a work of fiction and make them believe it. To "believe" is proof enough so it seems. The single point of reference must be right at all times. Wow - easily satisfied.

As for the Big Bang - I can't personally see how it works, and I don't have to "believe" in it either to try to understand the argument so far. What's to believe? It either is, or isn't. Prove it to me in terms I can understand and in my personal plane of reference and I - like you - will know. Just because I don't have the necessary education levels to truly and directly relate to the real physics involved doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way. I can't see how so much matter in the known universe emerged from an infinitesimally small piece of matter as hypothesised - but what do I know of quantum mechanics at this level? I can't relate to "infinite" space either, but this doesn't mean that I need to turn to religion to answer it all. I'm not that insecure.

[creation astro guy]

Ommaro, I have no intention of causing a ruckus. I made this post simply as a place to descuss/debate this topic.


Gyro, I believe what the bible says is true and I take it in a literal perspective. I Use the bible as the ultamite sorce of truth. I of course do go to church; it is a fundametal/baptist that preaches from the KJV.

[creation astro guy]

Oh, sorry I do have a scope. it is a 8" LX90 GPS.

[Radar]

G'day guys,

Thanks to all for contributing to this debate. It's been interesting to read every one's different views.

I'm going to lock this thread now because both sides are locked into their views. I know some of you may disagree with me locking this thread but from experience I can see that this thread has the potential to spiral out of control. It's nothing personal against anyone and so far everyone has been great.

It's difficult moderating a forum sometimes in a situation such as this because some of you will want to keep the thread open and some will want it locked. Please understand my position in keeping the forums enjoyable, if I see something too serious, that could cause a ruckus I would be silly not to act. Beleive me, it's difficult making this decision.

If you guys still feel the urge to keep debating this topic, I would recommend the chat rooms, but please keep it friendly, I'm sure we can learn heaps from one another.

Thanks again for understanding.:smile:

Ray