Posted on 01/17/2008 10:27:05 AM PST by neverdem
I was not referring to the original Big Bang theory. I’m talking about the modern Big Bang theory as proposed and popularized by Stephen Hawking et al. The one in which the uviverse has no center and no edge; the one which posits that the universe is spacially homogonous; the one which posits that there is nothing special about earth.
==Please tell me how Astronomers based their model of Cosmology on the theory of natural selection of Biology. It should be educational as well as entertaining.
Some Creationists argue that the Big Bang model was initially opposed by ‘eeeevil Scientists’ because it posited a beginning to the Universe as the Bible says. But as I pointed out before, no two Creationist sources agree; which is the price you pay when you turn your back on the empirical method.
I was specificly referring to Darwinist IDEOLOGY. Darwinist ideology = ATHEISM. Nor was I referring to the original Big Bang theory as proposed by Fr. Lamaitre. I am referring to the modern Big Bang theory as proposed by Stephen Hawkins et al. That particular Big Bang model is based on rank atheism (read: Darwinist ideology).
Just giving militant Darwinists a taste of their own medicine.
Humphrey’s makes a very convincing case that our galaxy is at the center of the universe.
==What would it look like if seen from another location? Say halfway from the center to an edge.
As Einstein demonstrates in his theory of Gen. Rel., red shifts can be produced by more than just velocity; red shifts can also be produced by the expansion of space itself. If space is expanding/being stretched out, then the length of light should be stretching right along with the medium it is traveling through. If our galaxy is at or near the center of a universe that is expanding or being stretched out, the further light has to travel to the center the more it will have been stretched out and the greater the redshift. As for looking in the other direction, that is a very interesting question. I’m no expert, but at first glance, if the observed redshifts are the product of the lengthening of light in an expanding universe, then my best guess is that a similar redshift effect would be observed from either vantage point.
Any comments on #185. Chess Expert brings up an interesting question. Curious to get your thoughts.
All the best—GGG
As I said, Dr. Humphrey’s makes a very interesting case that our galaxy is indeed at or near the center of the universe.
Hey, newb, welcome to FR.
Since smells can’t travel over the internet, there’s only likely to be one source.
I had to read that one twice...then I began to LOL in an uncontrollable fashion. Talk about a sharp tongue and a quick wit!
The majority of Scientists in the U.S.A. are people of faith. Nothing in Evolution or Astronomy contradict Christianity, only your flawed interpretation of it which includes the extra-Biblical notion of the cosmic centrality of our planet and our star.
So please explain to me how the Big Bang model is dependent upon atheism as a foundation. You know with actual reasons, not ‘because I said so’.
Yes, people can be stubborn about holding on to their views. And that includes the scientific community (although many of them and their 'supporters' like to pretend otherwise).
If you weren’t so ignorant of Creation Science, you would know that there are several creation cosmologies that attempt to explain the universe within the constraints of biblical revelation. Dr. Humphreys is quick to point out that he is not making the claim that all creation cosmologies are equal to the task. Rather, he is simply pointing out that a “broad class” of creation cosmologists are attempting to offer an explanation for the pioneer effect. Perhaps you should do a little reading before poking fun at things you haven’t taken the trouble to understand. You might want to start with the Bible which, in addition to explaining our spiritual predicament, is the only book that contains God’s revelation with respect to our cosmological history.
==Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist.
He rejected Christianity, became an agnostic, and then devised the biggest engine of atheism ever invented. In todays day and age, DARWIN’S IDEOLOGY = ATHEISM.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/the-reluctant-mr-darwin/
What in the Big Bang model is dependent upon or advances atheism? Would a model that had a line drawn in with fake data points and a “here is Heaven” x’d in make you happier?
It's true that you guys do more damage to yourselves without my help. I should have followed my own advice.
==The majority of Scientists in the U.S.A. are people of faith. Nothing in Evolution or Astronomy contradict Christianity, only your flawed interpretation of it which includes the extra-Biblical notion of the cosmic centrality of our planet and our star.
It depends what you mean by “cosmic centrality.” According to the Bible, the entire universe was created for God’s glory and our benefit. As for the location of our galaxy, it is science that suggests we are located at or near the center of the universe, not the Bible. Although, given the reasons God created the universe, finding out that we are both spiritually and physically close to its center should come as no surprise for those who believe God’s word.
I read the Bible. I would say that I know it quite a bit better than you, so please follow your own instructions. Have you ever read the Bible, or only the parts read to you or quoted in Jack Chick comics? I recommend especially the four gospels, the rest of the new testament is commentary. Every Christian should revisit the four gospels at least once a year, IMHO. It doesn’t take long and it is well worth the effort.
That's not a flawed premise. That's the way it's been working in real life for years.
We've been told repeatedly that science requires naturalistic philosophy, you can't enter God into the equation. That it would be introducing a level of uncertainty, that you couldn't count on your results because God could step in at any time and mess with them.
The problem with that is that God is real and COULD do that regardless. Believing in naturalism doesn't prevent God from doing that anyway, it just prevents man from being able to recognize when it might be happening.
The assumption is that the naturalistic assumption is a neutral one is wrong. There can be no neutral when there are only two sides to an issue.
As far as science not being used to advance atheism, I guess you haven't read up on Dawkins and his ilk much. Or maybe you forgot about Einstein fudging his calculations with the cosmological constant to avoid them showing that the universe DID have a beginning. Can't have any support for that Bible stuff, now can we? So we fix the data to support the theory instead of fixing the theory.
And GGG is saying that the Big Bang supports Atheism, although he wont say how or why.
As I pointed out. No two Creationists can seem to agree.
From the article you never bothered to read. Notice the Darwinist/Atheist ideological presuppositions that are built into modern Big Bang cosmology:
9. The big bang presupposition
In their influential but highly technical book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Stephen Hawking and George Ellis introduce their section on the big bang cosmology with the following general remarks:
‘However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology. In the earliest cosmologies, man placed himself in a commanding position at the centre of the universe. Since the time of Copernicus we have been steadily demoted to a medium sized planet going round a medium sized star on the outer edge of a fairly average galaxy, which is itself simply one of a local group of galaxies. Indeed we are now so democratic that we would not claim that our position in space is specially distinguished in any way. We shall, following Bondi (1960), call this assumption the Copernican principle’ [emphasis added].45
This notion used to be called the ‘Cosmological principle’.46,47 Note carefully that Hawking and Ellis call it an ‘assumption’ and an ‘admixture of ideology’—a presupposed idea not required by observations. Their phrase ‘we would not claim …’ is actually a dogmatic claim: the Earth is not in a special position in the cosmos. They go on to say:
‘A reasonable interpretation of this somewhat vague principle is to understand it as implying that, when viewed on a suitable scale, the universe is approximately spatially homogenous’ [emphasis added].48
‘Spatially homogeneous’ means ‘uniformly spread throughout all available space’. Hawking and Ellis are claiming that at any time space is completely filled with matter-energy. There never were any large empty volumes of space, and there never will be, they say.
They make this leap of faith because observations show that the universe is isotropic or spherically symmetric around us, meaning that from our vantage point it looks much the same in all directions. Ordinarily, Hawking and Ellis point out, this would mean, ‘we are located near a very special point’ 49—such as the centre. That conflicts with their desire that the Earth not be in a special location, so they seek a less troubling cosmology,
‘… in which the universe is isotropic about every point in space time; so we shall interpret the Copernican principle as stating that the universe is approximately spherically symmetric about every point (since it is approximately spherically symmetric around us).’49
As they then show, cranking this rather bizarre assumption into the mathematics of general relativity results in the various forms of the big bang theory.
10. The heart of the big bang is atheism
Let’s delve into the motive for the presupposition. Why should big bang theorists go to all this trouble to contrive a cosmology in which the Earth is not in a special place? Astrophysicist Richard Gott, in the introduction to an article specifically devoted to the Copernican principle, unveils the reason:
‘The Copernican revolution taught us that it was a mistake to assume, without sufficient reason, that we occupy a privileged position in the Universe. Darwin showed that, in terms of origin, we are not privileged above other species. Our position around an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy in an ordinary supercluster [the local group of galaxies] continues to look less and less special. The idea that we are not located in a special spatial location has been crucial in cosmology, leading directly to the [big bang theory]. In astronomy the Copernican principle works because, of all the places for intelligent observers to be, there are by definition only a few special places and many nonspecial places, so you are likely to be in a nonspecial place’ [emphasis mine].50
The word ‘likely’ above reveals a lot. Richard Gott evidently believes we are where we are by accident! It apparently doesn’t enter his head that an intelligent Designer, God, might have placed us in a special position in the cosmos on purpose. Thus the ultimate motive behind the Copernican principle is atheistic naturalism. Since that is the driving philosophy behind naturalistic evolutionism, Gott’s reference to Darwin is appropriate. The big bang and Darwinism are two halves, physical and biological, of an atheistic origins myth.
Thus, Christians who support the big bang theory should realize that they are unwittingly denying their God and compromising with a godless worldview....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.