Anything but God in Secular Universe Origins Ideas

By -
You may be surprised to learn that the Big Bang model for the origin of the universe began way back in the 1920s and has been modified numerous times since then. However, the Big Bang simply does not work, so older ideas are being retooled, and new ones are being considered and slipped through the secular torpedo nets.
The Big Bang is in constant trouble, and secular scientists are trying to find rescuing devices, including alternatives. But they refuse to admit the truth of the Creator.
Credit: Pixabay / Johnson Martin
Astronomer Fred Hoyle came up with the title Big Bang out of derision. He and other scientists did not like the idea of the universe having a beginning, and preferred the even less scientific but predominant steady state concept. Since the Big Bang has been Frankensteined with parts added on through the years in futile attempts to keep it alive, some scientists are dreaming up other ideas to cling to their cosmic evolution ideas. They will not admit that the facts support  what the Bible said all along: God created. There is definitely no valid reason for professing Christians to use this philosophy as an add-on.
A recent New Scientist (hereafter abbreviated NS) article entitled “What if there was no big bang and we live in an ever-cycling universe?” has generated great discussion. At first blush, one might look at the title and think that a few maverick astronomers and astrophysicists are looking to popularize some new theory. Or you may assume that it is a set-up article to tear down a straw-man and bolster the Big Bang. But in reality, the hypotheses mentioned in the article are all just recycled arguments against the current Big Bang model, which has more and more problems as new astronomical data comes in. This article, highlighting some serious problems with big bang cosmology, reads more like a desperate attempt to find anything (besides the biblical explanation of cosmic origins) to explain how our universe came to be and how the current observations can fit into a “bangless” cosmology. The primary hypothesis mentioned in the NS article is the Big Bounce, or oscillating universe, although other cosmologies are discussed at the end of the article. I have previously addressed much of this in my book Universe by Design and will use some of that material here as I address all of these in turn.
To continue reading, click on "Secular Alternatives to the Big Bang Are Expanding". On a similar note, more evidence that cosmologists at the Darwin Ranch have been into the peyote buttons again, see "Anti-Theism Makes Cosmologists Go Crazy".

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more