Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

YEC argues FOR dark matter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    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
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
      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

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        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

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          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.
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            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.
            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              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
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                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
                Always found it interesting that a substantial portion of the initial resistance to the BB was actually from various atheists who thought that it was too similar to the Biblical account of creation.

                One of the many reasons for this was the person who proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe (which he called a "Cosmic Egg" and his "hypothesis of the primeval atom"), was a Belgian priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, wrote that it confirmed his belief that the universe had begun in light "as Genesis suggested it."[1]

                The head of the Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII, interpreted the Big Bang as de facto proof of the Biblical creation account, pronouncing that it bore witness "to that primordial 'Fiat lux' uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation. ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator, therefore God exists!"

                Lemaître was actually horrified by Pius XII’s enthusiastic backing because he thought that it would make his science less acceptable by skeptics. He even wrote the pope and asked him to stop saying that the Big Bang is a scientific theory that makes predictions you can test while our beliefs are independent of those predictions.

                And considering the response by some critics he was correct to worry.

                Prior to the formulation of the Big Bang most scientists thought the universe had no beginning. Most scientists then accepted that the universe was expanding, but they resisted the implication that the universe had a beginning. They were used to the idea that time had gone on forever:

                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? made it clear that their opposition to the Big Bang theory was based in a belief that it as merely “just a disguised version of the Bible creation, when Jehovah said ‘Fiat Lux’, and the universe was created”

                Paul Marmet, aside from disliking quantum mechanics, often railed against the Big Bang complaining that, “The Big Bang is a creationist theory and differs only from another creationist model (for example, the one that claims that creation took place about 4000 years BC) by the number of years since creation. From the Big Bang model, creation happened about 15 billion years ago.”

                Geoffrey Ronald Burbidge, who proposed what he called, a "quasi-steady state theory," complained that his "peers in physics and astronomy are rushing off to join the 'First Church of Christ of the Big Bang'." Supposedly (unconfirmed) he contemptuously remarked that "The Big Bang equals Jesus Christ. If you prove the Big Bang Theory, you prove Jesus Christ."

                Even if the latter quote is apocryphal such an account still serves to illustrate the resistance to the Big Bang some had because of its theological implications.

                In articles like THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE you read complaints like: "The 'Big Bang' coincided nicely with religious doctrine and just as had been the case with epicycles (and despite the embarrassment thereof) religious institutions sought to encourage this new model of the universe over all others, including the then prevalent 'steady state' theory."

                An editorial from August 10, 1989 called “Down With the Big Bang” by John Maddox the self-professed atheist physics editor for "Nature" declared that “Creationists and those of similar persuasions seeking support for their opinions have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang.”

                Plasma cosmology advocate Anthony Peratt had similar complaints when he notes that, "My complaint that fundamentalist creationism is inspired by big bang creationism" in the April 1983 issue of "Physics Today."

                "Some younger scientists were so upset by these theological trends that they resolved simply to block their cosmological source," commented the German astronomer Otto Heckmann, a prominent investigator of cosmic expansion.

                Moreover, apparently, even Einstein “found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation."

                As the 2010 The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion put it "One reason for initial resistance to the Big Bang theory was that, unlike the rival Steady-State hypothesis, it proposed that the universe has a beginning – a proposition that for some had unwelcome religious implications"

                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 that, "Andrei Zhdanov, Stalin's notorious chief ideologue, said in a speech of 1947 that Lemaître and his kindred spirits were 'Falsifiers of science [who] wanted to revive the fairy tale of the origin of the world from nothing ... Another failure of the 'theory' in question consists in the fact that it brings us to the idealistic attitude of assuming the world to be finite.'"
                Last edited by rogue06; 04-25-2017, 09:16 PM.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    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
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                    48 responses
                    135 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Sparko
                    by Sparko
                     
                    Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                    16 responses
                    74 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                    6 responses
                    46 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Working...
                    X