YEC argues FOR dark matter

[shunyadragon]

I think his point may be that dark matter isn't just needed in regard to the flying apart and formation of galaxies, it is also relevant to their rotation.

The first two items may not be relevant to YECs, but the last one may be.

. . . but how is that relevant to the YEC argument

[Jorge]

I was pleasantly surprised to see that leading YEC astronomer Danny Faulkner is arguing FOR the existence of dark matter.

https://answersingenesis.org/astrono...r-dark-matter/

As Faulkner says in his conclusion:

Source: Danny Faulkner

There is strong observational evidence for dark matter. Yet, many biblical creationists remain skeptical of it. This skepticism appears to be based upon a misunderstanding of the reasons for belief in dark matter. Contrary to popular misconception, dark matter is not a rescuing device for the big bang model. It is true that dark matter is used to manipulate the big bang model, but that merely is because there is good evidence that dark matter exists and that the big bang suffers from problems that need fixes. The big bang was the dominant cosmogony for years before dark matter came to be accepted, so it is clear that the big bang model is not nearly as dependent upon dark matter than many creationists seem to think.

© Copyright Original Source

Faulkner is right on many things -- certainly on the important ones -- but that does not make him infallible. On this particular point Faulkner is dead wrong. Dark matter/dark energy *IS* indeed a concoction devised to save-retain Big Bang cosmology in the same way as Punctuated Equilibrium was, in light of the evidence, concocted to rescue Darwinism. Of course, it is totally expected that Kbertsche and the other TWeb Evo-Faithful would latch on to an error by a YEC. Yup - par for the course.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I am really curious as to the significance of your question. The fact that dark matter is used to explain what is clearly happening does not in any way alter my belief in God, nor my faith in Jesus Christ.

Geesh - one would think that an old geezer like yourself would have learned about a little thing called logical implications. If the Big Bang model - including its billions of years - is correct then Genesis cannot possibly be right/accurate. We may then toss God's Special Revelation into the shredder - why not? Heck, I'll supply the shredder!

Even an idiot Atheist like Richard Dawkins at age 16 understood that simple principle yet you people can't in your ripe old age? Boggles the mind!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

Jorge

[Christianbookworm]

Geesh - one would think that an old geezer like yourself would have learned about a little thing called logical implications. If the Big Bang model - including its billions of years - is correct then Genesis cannot possibly be right/accurate. We may then toss God's Special Revelation into the shredder - why not? Heck, I'll supply the shredder!

Even an idiot Atheist like Richard Dawkins at age 16 understood that simple principle yet you people can't in your ripe old age? Boggles the mind!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

Jorge

It could be poetical. Not every verse has to be literal.

[Jedidiah]

Geesh - one would think that an old geezer like yourself would have learned about a little thing called logical implications. If the Big Bang model - including its billions of years - is correct then Genesis cannot possibly be right/accurate. We may then toss God's Special Revelation into the shredder - why not? Heck, I'll supply the shredder!

Even an idiot Atheist like Richard Dawkins at age 16 understood that simple principle yet you people can't in your ripe old age? Boggles the mind!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

Jorge

I believe the Genesis account is accurate and it is only illogical to suppose that you interpretation is superior to mine only because it is different.

[oxmixmudd]

Geesh - one would think that an old geezer like yourself would have learned about a little thing called logical implications. If the Big Bang model - including its billions of years - is correct then Genesis cannot possibly be right/accurate. We may then toss God's Special Revelation into the shredder - why not? Heck, I'll supply the shredder!

Even an idiot Atheist like Richard Dawkins at age 16 understood that simple principle yet you people can't in your ripe old age? Boggles the mind!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

Jorge

It indeed can be if it's intended purpose is different from your assumptions about it. You place your own contention the text must be about describing the scientific terms of how God created above the truth of scripture and so your pride forces you in this absolutely untenable position of conflict between the text and scientific discovery.

Jim

[rogue06]

Geesh - one would think that an old geezer like yourself would have learned about a little thing called logical implications. If the Big Bang model - including its billions of years - is correct then Genesis cannot possibly be right/accurate. We may then toss God's Special Revelation into the shredder - why not? Heck, I'll supply the shredder!

Even an idiot Atheist like Richard Dawkins at age 16 understood that simple principle yet you people can't in your ripe old age? Boggles the mind!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

Jorge

^[1]

Source: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory, who rejected the implication that the universe had a beginning.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Fred Hoyle said that the idea that the universe had a beginning was a pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms."

The eminent Sir Arthur Eddington, wrote, "The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold."

And as I said some atheists, such as those at Is the Big-Bang a Religious Hoax?The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion put it ""

As an aside, many Marxists also opposed the concept of a Big Bang^[2]. Aside from their dislike of its religious implications, the new theory contradicted their belief in the infinity and eternity of matter -- one of the axioms of Lenin's dialectical materialism -- and was accordingly dismissed as "idealistic."

The Marxist physicist David Bohm rebuked the developers of the theory as "scientists who effectively turn traitor to science, and discard scientific facts to reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church."














1 According to the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion: "The Big Bang Theory brought to an end the idea of a static universe and made respectable again discussions of the beginning and possible creation of the universe." And as George Smoot, astrophysicist, cosmologist and Nobel laureate, observed: "There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of a creation. In fact, the Big Bang theory describes a creation event that defies atheism and pantheism, and harmonises with the Bible."


2. Helge S. Kragh, the Danish historian of science, wrote in his Entropic Creation

[Jorge]

It indeed can be if it's intended purpose is different from your assumptions about it. You place your own contention the text must be about describing the scientific terms of how God created above the truth of scripture and so your pride forces you in this absolutely untenable position of conflict between the text and scientific discovery.

Jim

Ridiculous and misrepresenting --- good to see you retain your historic M.O., Jim.

I've never once said or even implied that "...the text is about describing the scientific terms of how God created" . That's just you once again employing your deceptive-dishonest Strawman strategy. It's all downhill after that.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Ridiculous and misrepresenting --- good to see you retain your historic M.O., Jim.

I've never once said or even implied that "...the text is about describing the scientific terms of how God created" . That's just you once again employing your deceptive-dishonest Strawman strategy. It's all downhill after that.

Jorge

Words coming out of your mouth have no real meaning Jorge. You can't defend your words, but you still say them over and over again, as if by doing so they will magically become true. I mean, it's not as if people can't become President of the U.S.A using such a tactic, so it's hard to blame you I suppose. Except that as a Christian you are supposed to be more interested in what is right and true than success in this world.

And yes, you have implied, over and over again, that the text is about describing the scientfic terms of how God created. If you didn't believe that to be true, you would have no reason whatsoever to be YEC. That is what YEC IS Jorge! The belief that one can use the timeframe spelled out in Genesis to define in scientific terms the timeframe for the Universe itself.

Jim