Today's feature article at www.AnswersInGenesis.org dealt with a new publication by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. To read the article, please click on this link: www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/big_bang.asp.
The article is, as always, very well-written. Basically, a segment of prestigious secular scientists have attacked the Big Bang Theory. They challenge many of the BBT assumptions, including the speculation that the universe has no center and no edge.
This should not alarm the evolutionists out there. If it's all in the pursuit of "science", there is no reason that this would make the secular world upset. It's just the rejection of the current model in favor of a new idea . . . that, incidentally, would allow for a young earth.
However, this should alarm Hugh Ross and kids like Gabriel Bertilson (no offense, Gabe, I'm just identifying you as a progressive creationist). In his book about progressive creationism, Hugh Ross basically claims that he got the Big Bang/Day-Age idea directly from scripture without any significant outside input. He tried to fit the Genesis account around the BBT. Now, if "science" changes its mind (as it is prone to do; Scripture never changes), does he have to re-interpret his re-interpretations to fit the new scientific model?
As AiG scientists have observed so many times, if you marry your theology to secular science, you are likely to be widowed tomorrow.
Let's make it a point to stand on God's Word ALONE, the only thing that never changes!
3 comments:
The Smoller-Temple paper can be found here. I glanced over it but it seems like a weird paper and I can't admit to studying it very closely.
Black holes have the highest entropy of any physical object in the universe--thus if your cosmology depends on exploding outwards from a black hole you are generally going in the direction opposite of what thermodynamics would allow. Entropy should increase wherein here it might not.
Second--I'm not sure how they treat the event horizon. The event horizon is that part of space which upon enetering you become casually disconnected from the rest of the universe. Matter can't pass through an event horizon but only enter.
No one has referenced this paper aside from the authors since it was published. It has made no impact on the cosmology community. Weiland is wrong to say PNAS is a highly prestigious journal--maybe for some subjects but if you are writing a paper on general relativity it isn't somewhere where you'd typically go to publish.
S
I don't base my entire OEC view on the Big Bang.
I know that I'm being ruthless, man, but I want you to see how RTB is compromising God's Word. Read this article at Reasons.org: Big Bang - The Bible Taught it First!. The whole RTB ministry is centered around making the Biblical record "jibe" with the Big Bang and millions of years, even going so far here as to say that God's Word teaches a Big Bang cosmology. Now that the Big Bang is being questioned by secular scientists, will RTB have to change their stance on what they want the Bible to say about cosmology?
Black holes have the highest entropy of any physical object in the universe--thus if your cosmology depends on exploding outwards from a black hole you are generally going in the direction opposite of what thermodynamics would allow. Entropy should increase wherein here it might not.
A so-called "white hole" is the opposite of a "black hole" in every way. Just as a black hole affects position space and velocity space inversely, a white hole would do the same . . . double-inversely. A double negative is a positive, right? Entropy would still be increasing either way. Besides, I don't think that Starlight and Time has a theory that would so blatantly go against thermodynamics.
Incidentally, we have never witnessed an event horizon; it is just something that is predicted based on General Relativity.
Go to AnswersInGenesis and search for "Big Bang" if you don't think that the authors are "prestigious" enough for you, Mr. High and Mighty S.
Post a Comment