If I came across as arrogant, I apologize. It was not my intention. I was curious as to what level I should restrict this discussion.
Your original post said: I do agree with you that it certainly does not fit the observed evidence.
Okay, here's a little info to kick it off:
1. Big Bang Cosmology/General Relativity VS. What the Bible says:
The first suggestion that laid the groundwork for the 'Big Bang Theory' was by none other than Albert Einstein. His field equation of general relativity predicted an expanding universe.
Actually there was much puzzlement before GR hit the scene. If you take into account Heinrich Olber’s thoughts on starlight and an infinite universe with stars populating the whole against Isaac Newton’s universal law of gravity, this presents a paradox. Also Newton himself realized there was a problem with a static universe where every star attracted every other star. Unfortunately, the idea of an expanding universe was not hit on (or at least published).
Even Einstein himself, faced with this dilemma, added a cosmological constant to keep the universe static. Unfortunately, that allowed for an unstable model of the universe. Should it have shrank or grown even in parts per million, you would get either a net positive or negative gravitational acceleration respectively which would have caused it to shrink or expand even more. Einstein himself called it his greatest blunder. However, there still exist discussions and investigations on vacuum energy density, matter density, and the relationships between the two. Therefore, a cosmological constant is still within the framework of modern cosmology and believed to be positive. This would be directly proportional to the energy density of the vacuum itself. Looking at this from the standpoint of general relativity, this density is very close to zero if not exactly equal to zero. However, looking at this from the aspect of quantum field theory, it can be huge. The study of quantum gravity should end up with a theory that reconciles the two.
Cosmological models require a few assumptions. These are that the laws of physics are identical throughout the universe, the structure is homogeneous (same throughout the universe, sans clustered galaxies etc), and the universe is isotropic. The latter two concepts make up the Cosmological Principal.
Whether our universe will expand forever or eventually collapse is still debated among cosmologists.
A few years back, by studying supernovae, astronomers discovered that the universe was expanding at an ever increasing rate. This new force has been given the name “Dark Energy”. I am certainly not a string theorist, however, from some light reading, there are a number of ideas that posit different fates of the end of the universe. One is, that Dark Energy will become negative and cause the entire universe to collapse on itself (the big crunch), or not. :-) Another is that our universe is just a bubble is a sea of bubbles allowing us to only “see” our tiny piece.
In either case, the actual density of matter in our universe is within a factor of ten of the so-called critical density, the point of exact balance between permanent expansion and eventual contraction. But to be so close to this critical density after some 20 billion years of expansion suggests intelligent design. What?!? Yeah, there must have been precise tuning in the earliest moments of the Big Bang for it to work at all. At 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang, for instance--the so-called Planck time--the density must have been equal to the critical density to one part in 10 to the 60. If it had been ever so slightly higher, the universe would have collapsed quickly and there would have been no opportunity for life to form. On the other hand, had the density been ever so slightly smaller, the universe would have expanded rapidly and no galaxies, stars, or planets would have formed. Again, no life. Thus, life is the result of fine tuning the density of matter-energy at the Planck time to one part in 10 to the 60!8 But it was the result of an accident, eh?
Think of the odds of holding a particular shuffle of a deck of cards. There are 10 to the 70th different combinations that can occur. So is the particular combination of the shuffled deck of cards impossible? Obviously not. To quote Physicist, my legs are JUST long enough to reach the ground.
Are you about to tell me this contradicts the Biblical account? Not really. For all the chest-beating and things you may have heard the Bible says, in reality the Hebrew word used to refer to the astronomical universe is shamayim. That word is used in conjunction with the phrase 'stretch out' several times in the Old Testament.
That still does not reconcile the obvious errors in the order given in Genesis. For example:
Gen 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:14 - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years
The concept being that the cosmos is not static and used with the verb natah as an active participle form indicates that the process is ongoing.
That does not give it any more credence that elves dancing either. Both would be considered ongoing processes.
IOW, the Bible does not contradict the OBSERVABLE phenomenon of an expanding universe. (And in fact, an expansion that is accelerating.) Whether or not this began as a 'big bang' or some other way is not particularly relevant. God certainly could have empolyed this method to create the universe.
However, the order does not fit the observed data. Foe example, first generation stars would not have planets, yet they certainly would be emitting electromagnetic energy.
I like this quote regarding the idea of the 'big bang.' In Parade magazine, February 4, 1996, Marilyn vos Savant had a reader who expressed this view as follows: "I assume that you, like most intellectual types, are not a religious person. So what do you think of the Big Bang theory." Ms vos Savant responded: "I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would have laughed at the idea."
They laughed at the world being round at one time as well, however, that too has no bearing on this argument except that science builds on itself over the years. I certainly am not putting forth the position that science is all knowing however, scientific theories can be modified scrapped or replaced as new evidence is uncovered. Creationism and or a BELIEF in Genesis cannot. The available data must be conformed to a predisposed world view.
Silly but typical. Assume the data is valueless because of the viewpoint of the speaker, but I digress.
2. You queried: How much and to what level ….. stellar evolution, and planetary formation are you familiar with?
I won't claim to be an expert, as I'm sure neither are you, but I am fortunate to be continuously exposed to these concepts via my employer. I work for a company that built several science instruments for Hubble (visible spectrum), produced an infared spectrum telescope called Spitzer and helped built an X-Ray telescope called Chandra. So, we get to be exposed to some very cool stuff as a result. Are you going to propose that the Bible claims all creating on the part of God is over? Therefore viewing new stars being formed is somehow a contradiction? Ha!
Not sure what this has to do with our argument, however, did I even posit a position on God? I just said Genesis does not fit the observed data.
In scanning your reply, you post:
That still does not reconcile the obvious errors in the order given in Genesis. For example:
Gen 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:14 - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years
I assume you are pointing out that plant life could not exist in the absence of the light provided by celestial bodies?
This is an apparent contradiction in the text to be sure. A closer inspection shows that our planet and the sun where formed the first day. (3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.)
You quoted v12 and v14 which were presented as occurring on the 3rd and 4th days respectively. In general sequence terms this preserves the logic flow, that is to say, light was in place before life appeared.
For the moment we'll let the more esoteric language arguments slide, because only creationists would care, but there is also an explanation involving differences in Hebrew tenses and our English translations of such that addresses timing of the conclusion of events listed in Genesis. Additionally, there is also a theological argument involving sequencing to show the superiority of Yahweh over the local gods that would have made sense to the target audience, but that seems a bit weak to build an argument around.
The next interesting point you make is:
However, the order does not fit the observed data. Foe example, first generation stars would not have planets, yet they certainly would be emitting electromagnetic energy.
Let me make sure I understand your position. Are you suggesting that the description of a planetary body being created at the same time as the parent star is the issue?
An aside...I was pleased to see someone who has even heard of the Magellan spacecraft. I spent two years of my life on that one, and relatively few people are even aware of it or its contributions to science.
In the current cosmology, there has only been so much time for light to be emitted and to reach Earth. If you look out far enough, you're looking at a time before galaxies even existed. Light also gets increasingly redshifted because of the apparent recession of distant objects. The "paradox" vanishes.
Again, good work!
At 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang, for instance--the so-called Planck time--the density must have been equal to the critical density to one part in 10 to the 60. If it had been ever so slightly higher, the universe would have collapsed quickly and there would have been no opportunity for life to form. On the other hand, had the density been ever so slightly smaller, the universe would have expanded rapidly and no galaxies, stars, or planets would have formed. Again, no life. Thus, life is the result of fine tuning the density of matter-energy at the Planck time to one part in 10 to the 60!8 But it was the result of an accident, eh?
Think of the odds of holding a particular shuffle of a deck of cards. There are 10 to the 70th different combinations that can occur. So is the particular combination of the shuffled deck of cards impossible? Obviously not. To quote Physicist, my legs are JUST long enough to reach the ground.
Don't forget that under the Inflationary Model of the BB, the matter/energy density of the Universe has no choice but to be the critical value, regardless of the initial density prior to the Inflationary Phase. Conservation of Energy demands it, the Inflationary model predicts it, and the W-MAP data confirms it.