I am AMAZED that people have totally missed this point on BOTH sides of the argument. Expansion theory DESTROYS evolutionary theory for one simple reason: TIME. Or, more specifically, the lack of it. Here’s why:

If the expansion was only 90%, then the actual “age” of the universe is only 1.4 Billion years old. Guess what? Right there, that means that the universe is already too young for “evolution” to have enough time to be true (let alone mathematically possible).

If the expansion was 99%, then the universes is only 140 million years old.
If the expansion was 99.9%, then the universes is only 14 million years old.
At an expansion of 99.99995% the universe would be only 7,000 years old. Hmm, this will cause a problem because suddenly the Biblical account becomes scientifically plausible.

Expansion theory also destroys Einstein’s theory that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Something (or, more likely someone) moved ALL of the matter in the universe 14 Billion light years wide in less than one-trillionth of a second.

To believe that everything was created out of nothing is just scientifically impossible. Just like every house has a builder, the same holds true for the universe … and God is it’s Builder. How much bigger of a BANG do you want? God spoke everything into existence.

Smather and Moot is just one nail in Darwin’s theory. There are other nails in the areas of biology, etc. But, most important to evolution theory is the concept of billions upon billions of years that would be necessary for “evolution” to be true.

Expansion theory destroys the time line. Using “light-years” as an absolute method for measuring the “age” of the universe is wrong, based upon the evidence provided by expansion theory. Under expansion theory, “light-years” are only a referential form of measurement since no one knows, anymore, just how old the universe really is (except, of course, God Almighty).

To assume that the “Power” that moved ALL of the matter in the universe 14 Billion light years wide would not have the ability to create everything in 7 days is VERY unwise (OK, just plain stupid)! It’s nice that science is finally catching up with the Bible…

PS In his book “A Brief History of Time,” Stephen W. Hawking more or less gave the mathematical “proof” of the existence of God. However, due to his being “politically correct” to a fault, Hawking was not willing to make the final conclusion, but left that up to the reader. Someday every person will stand before God, the Creator of the Universe, and give a “management” report about their life. Those that had chosen to believe in evolution will be in deep sh–! Wouldn’t want to be in their shoes on judgment day.

In general, the argument goes thusly: The Bible states that the Universe began from nothing, was created by God from nothing. The Big Bang proposes a rapid expansion of space and time (i.e. the universe) out of nothing (non-matter/energy). Ergo, the Big Bang confirms the Biblical account in Genesis, and thus is proof of God.

There are a number of assumptions in that argument.
1. Genesis 1 provides an accurate description of the creation of the universe in a scientific sense, and is not a story created by primitive people to explain their own existence and significance.

2. The particular wording of Genesis as currently phrased in English forms is an accurate representation of the actual wording as employed by the ancient Hebrews, especially in the oral tradition that predated the written record. The particular interpretations of the vague words chosen by the arguers is the correct one, and not some other at least as (if not more so) justified interpretation of the words.

3. The definition of “God” is diverse. Are they talking about the personified, anthropomorphic God described in Genesis? What about the Deistic God who sets things in motion and then sits back and watches? Or the Pantheistic “God is the universe”?

There are probably more. The reality is that the Big Bang is not proof of God, because the claim of God can be supported by either proposition (BB true or BB false). The alternate description of the universe (which was held prior to the proposition of the BB) was the Steady State model of the universe - the universe is constant and non-changing. The argument regarding God with respect to Steady State is that the SS only describes the current conditions, how things are progressing, it cannot conclusively rule out an initial beginning that brought things into existence in their present state. Ergo, SS cannot disprove Genesis. Therefore, BB cannot prove Genesis.

The best that can be said is that the BB is consistent with the notion of creation of the universe from nothing as an interpretation of Genesis.

My time for research is very limited and I am not scientifically qualified which makes my answering session a long one.

Can someone try and post a reply as to, in short, what the impact of the Nobel price adored, old theory, has done to the claims that God created the universe.

I would hate to be shocked now to discover that this gives more proof to the Creator God.

“That is the ideal process that in reality is not quite so smooth and orderly.”

ESPECIALLY for creationists!

What does that mean, “give me evidence, NOT theoretical evidence”? What constitutes evidence to you?

How about the existence of snowflakes? Snowflakes are complex structures forming from the arrangements of loosely associated molecules - “order” from “chaos”. Yet that is not considered a violation of entropy. How is that different from other forms of chemistry?

>I work in a realm which deals in repeatable experiments, that is how scientific progress is made, that is how I can build a better engine next time around. I experiment, I observe, I record, I repeat.
“Bad” science tries to operate in the past, making observations AFTER the events without being there at the time and declaring that “we know…”.

That is a common misunderstanding, an unfair limiting of the means for scientific study. What you are dealing with is more conventional hard science such as chemistry and physics. That type of science lends itself well to running that test to witness the event occurring and the results. Science would be very limited if that were all that it could do. That eliminates many realms of science - for example, geology. You can crack open a rock and study it under a microscope, but it is very difficult to witness the formation of a rock. Either submerge yourself in magma for a while, then watch it flow, cool, and harden. Or watch pressure and time transform the rock from igneous to some other form (metamorphic). Or watch the rock get erroded, flow in water down and out into the gulf, and settle into the silt that fills the ocean floor and hardens over centuries. Yeah, witness that. Or take astronomy - try witnessing real time the birth, life, and death of a star - the whole complete cycle. Try devising an experiment to create a star.

There are science processes that deal more with historical events and piecing together how they happened. There are still hypotheses, development of ways to test the ideas and falsify them, and collection of data to use as the ultimate referral points. The best science finds ways to tie into other fields of study, other branches of science, and leads to a coherent whole. Evolution does that. Creationism does not. ID does not.

Darth Robo said:
>…would be an ASSUMPTION! Right? And anyone who makes an assumption is just making an ass out of themselves and “umption”. Right?

Congratulations for Dilbertizing yourself! You’ve officially paraphrased that remark in such a way to remove all sense from it.
>In that order? Here are the five steps of science:
1 Observe
2 Form a hypothesis which may explain your observation
3 Make testable predictions from that hypothesis
4 Perform an experiment which tests those predictions
5 Modify your hypothesis to sync up with all observations and predictions
If you’re not doing that, then you’re not doing science.

That is the ideal process that in reality is not quite so smooth and orderly.

“I would point out that a majority doesn’t make something true or correct…”

Maybe, but when speaking strictly of the scientific community, it is the consensus that rules I’m afraid. Sure, there have been people who pushed the boundaries like Galileo, Newton and Einstein etc. but there has yet to be a creation scientist that gets into that league. When pushing new ideas in science, it is not enough to just suffer critiques from your peers, you must also show that you are right.

“did you ever do that thing in school where someone goes out of the class… ”

No.

“I’m afraid these jokes about origins have braiwashed our society so much that few people dare to question the obvious flaws.”

Funny, there seems to be plenty of them. They’ve even gone to court with their objections numerous times. They lost every one.

“So how did life come from non-life?”

As I already said above, science does not know for sure yet. Evolution doesn’t deal with the initial forming of life from non-life. It deals with how life developed after it did.

“So when did anyone last dig up a dinosaur fossil with a date on it?”

You think that’s how they come up with these dates???

“Why is entropy not a problem to evolution?”

Is entropy a problem for evolution? If you think so, then why?

“Are we just going to say “it doesn’t apply to evolution… because it can’t, because if it did, our THEORY would be nonsense”. If it is not a problem, please give me evidence, NOT theoretical evidence.”

Well due to the nature of science, ALL science is theoretical. A theory is an explanation which fits the known observations of the time. If we observe something new which affects a particular theory, we adjust the theory to fit the observations. Few people today would have a problem with the theory of gravity but it’s always possible that we might discover something new that would mandate a change to the theory.

“The fossil record does more harm than good to this falacy of evolution.”

How?

“Thanks for the link, I did check it out, I’ve been there before.”

I’m not convinced. Look up ‘on the fossils’ here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html

“Can I recommend “Evolution or Creation” at ‘Wilder-Smith’ ”

Nice. His PhD was in chemistry, not biology. He also lost a debate against biologists John Maynard Smith and Dawkins. Still, I will check out what he’s got to say at some point. But I would appreciate some peer reviewed evidence.

“I am not a scientist by trade, but I do recognise “good” science… ”

But you just linked to a creationist…

“Good science looks at the evidence and examines it in the light of what we KNOW, not what we ASSUME. We can only know what we have observed,”

True…

” everything else is assumed and believed in faith, religious or scientific. You must recognise this.”

I recognise that religion deals with faith. Science doesn’t deal with faith. At all. Not one bit. I know that’s difficult for you to get your head around since it did come up with evolution, a theory which you happen not to like. Evolution in itself does not disprove God. Granted, it does disagree with the idea that humanity was created out of a pile of dirt and a spare rib. Science also says that people cannot come back from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine (without fermentation), fly (unaided), conceive if they’re a virgin, fit two of EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH onto ANY boat, kill a fig tree with just words…

“We do not KNOW that the speed of light has always been the same, we may assume it.”

yet before, you said:

“Good science looks at the evidence and examines it in the light of what we KNOW, not what we ASSUME. We can only know what we have observed,”

Sooooo… we know what the speed of light is NOW, to consider that it was different at any other time would be an ASSUMPTION! Right? And anyone who makes an assumption is just making an ass out of themselves and “umption”. Right?

“We do not KNOW the half-life of a carbon atom, we may asume it.”

Again, see the Talk Origins link above and look up ‘On the Age of the Earth’.

“I work in a realm which deals in repeatable experiments, that is how scientific progress is made, that is how I can build a better engine next time around. I experiment, I observe, I record, I repeat.”

In that order? Here are the five steps of science:

1 Observe

2 Form a hypothesis which may explain your observation

3 Make testable predictions from that hypothesis

4 Perform an experiment which tests those predictions

5 Modify your hypothesis to sync up with all observations and predictions

If you’re not doing that, then you’re not doing science.

” “Bad” science tries to operate in the past, making observations AFTER the events without being there at the time and declaring that “we know…”. ”

No, science operates in the present (as it always does) then from the data it gathers it EXTRAPOLATES what happened in the past. If you see a footprint, that is evidence that something was there in the past. But according to you, you would say: ‘Well how do you KNOW something was there if you weren’t there to see it made?’

Hey, if I go to Mt Everest today, how do I know it was there yesterday?

“It’s like coming home to a half filled bath, measuring the temperature and stating that you know how long it’s been stood.
You can’t know whether it was hotter to begin with or colder, whether it was half-full and some leaked out or if some evaporated, or if a kid came in and let some out or put some in.
You CANNOT know these initial conditions, therefore your theories are not to be trusted.”

And science would entertain and test all the possiblities you described and maybe more. It would NOT entertain the idea of any supernatural intervention, by God or any other undetectable means.

“If YOU are a good scientist you will acknowledge this.”

Just so you know, I’m not a scientist (just in case you thought I was). Though some of the posters here are (if there is anyone left out there watching this thread).
So I personally might get some stuff wrong, but of course, that wouldn’t invalidate the theory of evolution. You’d have to convince the scientists, not just the general public. Good luck with that.

Yeh, sorry to all concerned that I swung around to evolution, thought I was a bit close to the astronomy edge, but it’s all connected isn’t it.
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
I would point out that a majority doesn’t make something true or correct… did you ever do that thing in school where someone goes out of the class and while they’re out the rest of the class come up with an experiment to show how peer pressure works? eg. 3 pieces of string, “which one is longer?” and the whole class contradicts the pupil who went out, until the pupil questions their own judgement for fear of ridicule.

I’m afraid these jokes about origins have braiwashed our society so much that few people dare to question the obvious flaws.

So how did life come from non-life?

So when did anyone last dig up a dinosaur fossil with a date on it?

Why is entropy not a problem to evolution?
Are we just going to say “it doesn’t apply to evolution… because it can’t, because if it did, our THEORY would be nonsense”. If it is not a problem, please give me evidence, NOT theoretical evidence.

The fossil record does more harm than good to this falacy of evolution.

Thanks for the link, I did check it out, I’ve been there before.
Can I recommend “Evolution or Creation” at http://www.wildersmith.org/library.htm
If you’ve not heard him before, I admit the professor is a bit eccentric and stereo-typically British, but let him get into his arguments before you press the little red X in your media-player!

“I appreciate you may be good at what you do.” Thanks I am not a scientist by trade, but I do recognise “good” science… you may scoff, but lets be consistent here, and honest!
Good science looks at the evidence and examines it in the light of what we KNOW, not what we ASSUME. We can only know what we have observed, everything else is assumed and believed in faith, religious or scientific. You must recognise this.

We do not KNOW that the speed of light has always been the same, we may assume it.
We do not KNOW the half-life of a carbon atom, we may asume it.
Etc etc etc
I work in a realm which deals in repeatable experiments, that is how scientific progress is made, that is how I can build a better engine next time around. I experiment, I observe, I record, I repeat.
“Bad” science tries to operate in the past, making observations AFTER the events without being there at the time and declaring that “we know…”.

It’s like coming home to a half filled bath, measuring the temperature and stating that you know how long it’s been stood.
You can’t know whether it was hotter to begin with or colder, whether it was half-full and some leaked out or if some evaporated, or if a kid came in and let some out or put some in.
You CANNOT know these initial conditions, therefore your theories are not to be trusted.
If YOU are a good scientist you will acknowledge this.

ARRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
I hate trying to discuss an idea by typing. I’d much rather discuss it over a cool beer! There’s lots of stuff that I could agree with you on, in the nature of science and lots of assumptions I would like to dispell about where I’m coming from, but I recognise that this is not the forum for it, so I’ll leave it at that.

Kind regards B