Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Anything but God in Secular Universe Origins Ideas

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".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels