Young Earth v Big Bang

[aqrinc]

Ok since this is now part of our homework assignment here is my thursday report.
This is Quantum Mechanics and Physics combined with serious mind exercise.
More to come as we look back in time to go forward. Remember God operates from
out of time to make his Creation work. Without Him was not anything made that was made.

Wow, Is Our God Almighty or ALLMIGHTY.

In Reverence and Love; George.

Rebuttal to "Ten Problems Against the Big Bang"
by Rich Deem

Claim = C     Truth = T

1.
C- Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models

T- This statement is blatantly false. The static universe model is accepted by virtually no cosmologists or astronomers, since it fails to correctly predict what the universe should be like. In particular, it would predict that galaxies would be in all stages of development – forming, young, middle age, and old. However, the universe contains only middle-age galaxies. There are no old galaxies, and the only young galaxies we see are those that are 10-13 billion light years away –at a time that was only 0.5 billion years after the Big Bang event.

2.
C- The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

T- Another false statement. The variation in background radiation is independent of stars or galaxy clusters within our universe. It is extremely even – something one would predict from an expansion that began 14 billion years ago. The variation in background radiation is only 0.00001°K – the exact amount predicted by the Hot Big Bang model. This variation represents the large-scale structure of the universe only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

3.
C- Element-abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

T- The overall prediction of element abundance is exactly what would be expected from the Big Bang. Immediately after the quarks and antiquarks combine to annihilate each other, atomic nuclei form (hydrogen) and for 3 minutes, the fireball remained hot enough to support nuclear fusion, which formed the 25% helium that we see in the stars today. In local areas, the abundance of elements is different from that predicted from the Big Bang. It is precisely because God has provided a way for heavier elements to form that we are alive today. The Sun and our Solar System formed late in the history of the universe, and so contain the remnants of heavy elements formed during multiple supernova events within our galaxy.

4.
C- The universe has too much large-scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

T- The amount of matter – both baryonic and dark matter – is sufficient to account for the large-scale structure of the universe.

5.
C- The average luminosity of quasar must decrease in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

T- Since quasars have a very short lifespan (a few billion years at most), they would all have the same apparent brightness because they would be all roughly the same age. All quasars have large redshift values, since they were all formed over 5 billion years ago.

6.
C- The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

T- This appeared to be true a few years ago. However, recent measurements have indicated that the Hubble constant is smaller than originally thought (making the universe older) and the ages of globular clusters younger than previously thought. The results of these studies are shown in the table below from a study published in Science.

7.
C- The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

T- The motions of the galaxies are exactly what are predicted from the Big Bang. The farther galaxies are receding at a higher rate than those that are nearer. The relationship is extremely linear (very little deviation).

8.
C- Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

T- At least four different scientific techniques have confirmed the presence of large amounts of cold dark matter in the universe. For a detailed description of these studies, see Dr. Ross' book, The Creator and the Cosmos.

9.
C- The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

T- Recent pictures from the Hubble Deep Field have revealed galaxies when they were forming – over 14 billion years ago. The light that is reaching us now is 14 billion years old, and, as such, shows no evidence of evolution, since we are looking back in time, and can see even before true galaxies were formed. Quasars are formed when two galaxies collide and their combined gases ignite at the center of one of the galaxies. Since galaxy collisions were much more common at the beginning of the universe, most quasars were formed then. Since they burn so intensely, they do not burn for long. When we look at the universe we see quasars only at distances equivalent to less than 50% of the age of the universe, back to about 10% of the age of the universe. We don't see quasars older than 50% of the age of the universe, because after that time, they ceased to exist (we only see them now because of the time it took the light to reach us). Likewise, we don't see quasars earlier than 10% of the current age of the universe, because galaxies had not completely formed before that time. Therefore, we would expect to see protogalaxies and newly formed galaxies with redshifts greater than those of quasars. The result is not inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology, but is, in fact, predicted by it.

10.
C- If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

T- This is true, and a subject of concern for atheists. The extreme fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the exact size of the universe is such that it is virtually impossible for the universe to have formed by chance. Rather than disprove the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests a level of design not possible by chance. Many atheists reject the Big Bang because the level of design suggests the intervention of a Divine Creator.

References Van Flandern, Tom. 1997. Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang. Meta Research Bulletin 6:64. (Bulletin address: P.O. box 15186, Chevy Chase, MD 20825-5186.)
Watson, A. 1998. Cosmology: The Universe Shows Its Age. Science 279: 981-983.
D. N. Spergel, R. Bean, O. Doré, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, E. Komatsu, L. Page, H. V. Peiris, L. Verde, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, N. Odegard, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, E. L. Wright. 2007. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology. Astrophysics arXiv:astro-ph/0603449v2.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html

[Heidi]

Hi there arc.....don't know if you have seen the email from one of the mods yesterday.  I would love to get involved but take heed of the advise given till until all have received the information.

To Our Members
« on: Yesterday at 06:21:43 AM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Our Members

What a great revelation Ray has given us at the last conference. But even more important, what a wonderful testament to those who have denied the teachings of scripture, due in part to the overwhelming scientific facts that many in the world of Christendom dismiss as a hoax.

There will  undoubtedly be many many questions asked over the coming weeks, and many many more will go unanswered, this will lead to speculation, and surmising of facts.  More than this, many will offer countless website links to prove for or against such teachings.

It is this in which the moderators of this forum must address quickly, so that this will not get out of hand, causing some to stumble, and still others to leave.

Please understand, the message Ray is teaching in no way is meant to make us scientists, paleontologists, or other experts in the field. Please consider there was a huge pile of material and work going into this conference, and much of it not revealed at the conference, it is to this point, we wish to address.

We cannot spend countless hours debating scientific conclusion, nor can the moderators aid in your endless search for answers to some unanswerable questions. The forum would be too hard to moderate.

So in order to keep certain checks and balances concerning this subject, we ask that you refrain from  starting threads on the subject, at least until the material is put on the website.

Please do not misunderstand, we do not wish to forbid the subject, only to keep it in check until we can all come to grips with the teachings.

Debate on the subject may be moved to a locked area,  please do not take this personally, This is too important of a subject to confuse and debate over.

Thankyou for your continued help.

Moderators

[digitalwise]

I need to say this:

Young earth creationism is rife in the USA due to rampant Christian traditional fundamentalism.

The big bang understanding along with Ray's presentaton is precisely the correct understanding of Genesis.

In Australia, many of Ray's teachings would be considered mainstream Christian and many would invite him into their churches to speak.

If I can be somewhat straight here: Materialist and literalist fundamentalism has got the American churches in deep trouble. Denial of truth does not just away.

digitalwise

[aqrinc]

Thanks Heidi,

I totally missed the notice, will remove it if it is too controversial.

digitalwise,

Most people do not read or find information outside of radio or television.
As you have no doubt noticed most of the TV stuff is infantile or downright propaganda
to sell stuff. As the major mainstream newmedia say: it is only news when we (they)
say so. Anyway i may have to remove this post for now if it is too controversial.

Geo.

[musicman]

There is nothing controversial about real science, so don't be afraid to post on it.  The only problem with the post is this scientific but spiritually dead Richard Deem.  He backs up every idiot christian doctrine and defends them with the whole "you were given a free will".  He doesn't even believe that people are individually created, but merelly the cause of random relations of humans from the start.  And this blind man still thinks that we have a free will.  Ridiculous!!  Pretty good science, though.

[aqrinc]

That is my point, even the blind can recognize proper science.

Geo.

[winner08]

Why couldn't God use the big bang to start the universe?? or is that what is being said. I am l little behine.

Darren

[aqrinc]

Darren, Yes in fact that is the only way to explain the universe as it is. From a Primordial seed was all that you see today formed after the big bang.

George.

[musicman]

I've actually heard that the term "big bang" was given by scientists who originally scoffed at the whole notion.  So it went something like, "so, what, you think the universe started with some big bang"?  The term just stuck.  Interestingly, I've heard that scientists felt that it pointed too much to creation.

Boy, I had a joke in mind pertaining to the term "big bang".  But the moderators won't let me poke fun at real people such as Oprah, Rozanne or Christy Alley.






Or Rush Limbaugh.

[aqrinc]

Easy there musicman, my chemistry and physics days produced a lot of big bangs.
Some of the labs may still be expanding.

Geo.

I've actually heard that the term "big bang" was given by scientists who originally scoffed at the whole notion.  So it went something like, "so, what, you think the universe started with some big bang"?  The term just stuck.  Interestingly, I've heard that scientists felt that it pointed too much to creation.

Boy, I had a joke in mind pertaining to the term "big bang".  But the moderators won't let me poke fun at real people such as Oprah, Rozanne or Christy Alley.






Or Rush Limbaugh.

[Imabeliever]

I once heard someone say that science, one day, would prove the existence of God , all I can say is the intelligence behind physics and quantum physics,( which we are now just scratching the surface of), BLATANTLY screams out the existence of God Almighty!!  God Bless!

[aqrinc]

I Could not say it any better Imabeliever.

Geo.

I once heard someone say that science, one day, would prove the existence of God , all I can say is the intelligence behind physics and quantum physics,( which we are now just scratching the surface of), BLATANTLY screams out the existence of God Almighty!!  God Bless!