Sure, the Big Bang theory could certainly be incorrect (and, while a good chunk of of astronomy would need to be revisited, it’s certainly not impossible to provide for other causes of expansion), but why would that prove Evolution to be false, or the universe to be young?
We have plenty of proof that the world is old, after all, and so much of science - science that has proven valid through contributions to the world - is reliant on an old earth, that it would require a miracle to explain why these sciences worked.
God could have created the world with the appearance of age, I suppose, but that would involve God deliberately deceiving us. That, in turn, would lead me to only one rational conclusion (ignoring, of course, the possibilities that God is malicious or incompetent); that God WANTS us to believe that the world is old, for reasons unknown, in which case I ought treat it as such.
In short, I believe you to be railing against a position not represented amongst normal believers in evolution. Certainly, the extreme naturalist god-hating crowd believes in evolution (other than one or two who have found their own answers to life, I suppose), as well as an old earth and the big bang, but none of these positions are incompatible with God. One can believe both, and they certainly work very well together; isn’t a grand design spanning billions of years that works so perfectly, with such simple mechanisms, not proof of a higher hand at work? And wouldn’t such a work demonstrate the hand of its designer to be perfect?
Some people worship Science, but that doesn’t mean one MUST worship science to accept certain facts and theories about the universe to be true. Nor does acceptance of such facts and theories force one to accept a set of ethics, any more than the motion of tectonic plates requires us to relocate every year or our observations of cats require us to toy with our food before we eat it, regardless of what some may say.
One would not need to hate God, or even believe in God in order to believe that no such thing as wrong exists.
Even if one has no concept of God(And you can't hate what you don't have a concept of) but they believe with all their heart that all came to be by chance and that there is no moral lawgiver greater then man, the only logical position is that no such thing as wrong exists. What one man says is wrong another might say is just fine. Logically, the only rule is to preserve one's self and offspring -- in other words, the rule of the jungle: Don't get caught.
I only mentioned that because as I think about the issue I see that a person is presented with two contradictory stories ("In 6 days God created the heavens and the earth" vs "Long long ago, far far away, there was, for all practical purposes, nothing, and then it exploded") and they both require significant faith. So then it is perfectly logical to ask ones self which story is more likely true: The one which proves that no such thing as wrong exists, or the one who says that such a thing as wrong does exist.
But my main point was that the evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that the big bang happened requires us to have faith in things which we did not see and which, in the case of the big bang, are now impossible.
Specifically, as I cited in the post to which you replied, "Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy,.." So this takes faith too! How is that different then any other faith of geologic origins?
Herein I am not trying to prove ID or anything else -- I'm just trying to logically and honestly look at this big bang idea.
I think if we just asked people on the street whether the big bang was true, they would say yes. But if we asked them further, I'm betting that for the vast majority of them, it is a pure faith. They have chosen to believe in it and chosen to trust people that they don't know, about a thing that is physically impossible today, that nobody ever saw.
So whether there are some people for whom the big bang is more then just a faith, I do not know. But I'm quite certain that for most people, it is no more then a faith. The problem is, they don't know that it is a faith, and they all recite it as a known fact.
I sure hope that somewhere, somebody knows it to a significantly better degree then as a mere faith. After all, it's being taught all over as fact to innocent schoolchildren.
-Jesse
Force, no. But people who decide to go rob a bank or whatnot are not forced to do it -- they have a set of morals, world view, and beliefs that convince them they can do it and get away with it. The fact is that certain ideas do logically lead to certain decisions. The news is full of stories of people doing things that they think they can get away with.
We have plenty of proof that the world is old, after all,
I guess I am not convinced that there is plenty of evidence that anywheres near proves that the world is old.
I know that a whole lot of people believe with all their hearts that the world is old, and I know that a lot of professors will say that there is ample proof, but I'm sort of an amateur scientist/engineer type of person, and I certainly believe in God and have faith in God and the Bible -- but I cheerfully admit that it is faith. And by the way, the Biblical account of creation makes a lot more sense to me, when I look around and see the world. But I see a lot of faith going on in the "science" department when it comes to the old earth and evolution, but the problem is they won't admit that they only believe, rather then know.
Anyway, as I was saying, with my scientific/engineering tendencies, I tend to be very skeptical of things that are asserted as science but cannot be demonstrated to me.
After all, the majority of scientists can be wrong. Now I'm not saying that the majority of scientists are all wrong, but that it is possible (How many people died from bloodletting?) -- it's happened before. And since it is possible, it is perfectly acceptable of us to question them when what they all say seems to not line up with reality.
God could have created the world with the appearance of age, I suppose, but that would involve God deliberately deceiving us.
It may be only because of our limited sight and knowledge that the world does appear old.
Let's that 5 milliseconds after God breathed into Adam and brought him to life, a highly educated modern doctor were whisked in to inspect him and give him a checkup. The doctor would notice several interesting things.
First he would notice that it was a full grown man. "This fellow is at least 30 years old." He would also notice that the blood pumping through Adams heart was well full of oxygen and he would know that Adam had been breathing for some time. Also he would note that Adam knew how to talk and walk, and knowing that these take a couple years to learn, it would be quite clear that Adam had not just come into being.
After all, I'm quite certain that God created Adam with oxygen in his bloodstream, otherwise Adam would have come to gasping for air.
So in the case of Adam, its quite clear that God created him with the appearance of having been alive for some time, and yet the purpose was not to deceive anybody, but rather because God wanted to create a full grown man.
So I consider it not at all deceptive if God had decided to create a full-grown universe.
as well as an old earth and the big bang, but none of these positions are incompatible with God. One can believe both, and they certainly work very well together;
Well, I guess that depends on which God you're talking about. But the Bible is really quite clear in describing that God created the world in 6 days. The Genesis creation account even specifies that each day had a morning and an evening. And the whole idea that "days" were eons or whatnot really raises lots of questions without answers. If you would like more information on the problems with the day-age /epoch/era idea, just ask. I or someone else here will be glad to get some information on it.
Keep up the good work,
-Jesse