1) We will rely on Francis Bacon's version of the Scientific Method. Bacon's method was a clarification of the method of Roger Bacon, who was the student of the great Robert Grossteste, who proposed using the investigative way of studying the Universe rather than the axiomatic method that was popular during the Middle Ages. Rather than starting with the thoughts of great philosophers of the past and, with their thoughts as guides, opining applications and corrolaries to such thoughts. So the inductive method was accepted as superior to the deductive method of investigation. BUT naturalism was NOT part of the Scientific Method. Those who devised it were Creationists who saw that it made sense that a Universe created by a Logical God and originally to be ruled by man must be able to be understood and manipulated by mankind. NO NATURALISM WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE IMPOSED ARTIFICIALLY. You see, while we can only investigate in the present and within a natural world, both sides want to make predictions and declare their beliefs about what has happened in the unobservable past. Since neither side has a time machine, both sides have to leave this time-space continuum to make faith statements about past events. Therefore both Naturalists and Supernaturalists must needs leave the natural world with their thoughts and assertions to travel within their minds back to past.
2) Any Scientific Law that has never been disproved will remain law. I will not accept any arguments that claim that the Laws of Thermodynamics have ever been demonstrably broken or that the Law of Biogenesis has ever been broken. There is no evidence that would support removing the "Law" from these laws.
3) I will be willing to argue evidence. But commenters have to bring evidence to the table. Simply either saying "nyuh-uh" will not be acceptable. Also, the evidence-free appeal to some opinion held by some Darwinist somewhere is not acceptable. Simply saying that "Joe Blow has an interesting hypothesis" is not evidence. Sure, the check is in the mail! Your wishful thinking is not evidence. Bring evidence or be ignored and actually spotlighted. Trust me, commenter spotlighting has happened in the past and it is going to be done again in the very near future. So if you do not want empty arguments on page one and torn to shreds, do not make empty arguments. Are we clear?
So we will start with the first fundamental question, which is, WHERE DID EVERYTHING COME FROM?????
DARWINISTS argue from faith and Creationists argue from evidence when considering the origin of the Universe.
Creationists - We have strong evidence for the Creator God having created the Universe.
1) God left us an eyewitness account in the Bible. God not only tells us in what order He created, He even tells us why. So the historical document known as the Bible gives us evidence for God as Creator.
2) The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us God or another Supernatural Creator had to be the First Cause. Since no matter is being created or destroyed in the natural world, the natural world could not make itself. If the natural world cannot create itself, then by definition the Supernatural had to create the natural. A naturalist who must depend on a long series of unexplained miracles with no source for the miracles is not depending upon evidence, is he? But we can stand on the Laws of Thermodynamics.
3) Real life observation. We see that we have a creative side. We write songs and poems, create paintings, carvings and other works of art. We invent various mechanisms to accomplish things more efficiently than simply using our arms and legs. We see that created things have a creator. Da Vinci was very creative and designed many devices as well as numerous works of art. Mozart was a wonderful writer of music. George Washington Carver not only made the peanut a versatile and useful source of many tasty edible things, he was simply an inventive guy who came up with all sorts of ideas. Edison and Tesla were certainly inventors, as were the Wright Brothers. We do not see symphonies or automobiles *poof* mysteriously into existence. We should not expect the Universe to have *poofed* into existence, either. Logic and observation tell us that creative beings create and nothing creates itself.
Darwinists - They have only faith positions for the existence of the Universe.
1) The Laws of Thermodynamics? They ignore them and claim that some "singularity" with no known caused exploded by no known means and said explosion had to be controlled by no one to produce elements that should not have formed. That is faith!
2) The equations that purport to represent the Big Bang do not add up. You remember Algebra class? Remember that an equation has two sides of the = sign that are equal? Well, the Big Bang equations are 96% unobserved matter and energy. In my high school Algebra class, should one of us had turned in an equation with missing stuff and just invented new words to hide our ignorance and represent things we could not figure out? Well, that would be an "F!" Big Bang equations do not add up.
3) Logic is not on the Big Bang side, either. The Big Bang is a desperate attempt at explaining the creation of the Universe without a Creator. Occam's Razor be darned! You see, when Darwinism was proposed by Darwin, the Universe was thought to be very likely eternal and largely unchanging. A steady state always there Universe gave the statistically impossible concept of evolution endless time to happen. But the great joy with which Darwinists greeted the apparent deep age of the Universe based on the idea of light years was tempered by the problem of a Universe that had a beginning and was stretched out and possibly still being stretched (as the Bible says, by the way). How could they explain a created Universe, which would be actually evidence for a Creator? Well, they decided to pretend that nothing exploded and became everything. IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY THE "SINGULARITY" AND THE POWER BY WHICH THE CONTROLLED EXPLOSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED, PLEASE STEP UP AND EXPLAIN!
Otherwise I assert that Creationists stand on evidence. We also say that the entire Big Bang hypothesis is so full of holes and canards and problems that it would be laughed out of existence if it was not the only thing that Darwinism can cling to in order to avoid the Creator God. I hereby assert that the laws of nature show us that nature does not create itself. We have changes happening everywhere but creation and destruction? Nope. Sorry, naturalist, your insistence on natural solutions leaves you with no Universe at all!!!
Several major problems with the Big Bang are presented in this article, below, from CreationWiki:
|“||...most widely accepted theory of the origin and evolution of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe originated from an initial state of high temperature and density and has been expanding ever since.||”|
- The Copernican Principle.
- An unbounded universe.
The Copernican Principle
An Unbounded Universe
Cosmic Background Radiation
- Main Article: Cosmic background radiation
- Main Article: Redshift
Alternative redshift mechanisms
Not enough antimatter
No magnetic monopoles
No plausible inflationary mechanism
- Main Article: Cosmic inflation
No gravitational wave background observed
Ad hoc reliance on "quantum fluctuations"
Quantum gravity and the paradoxical singularity
The vacuum is not a vacuum contradiction
Electromagnetic forces unaccounted for
Too complex, too early
Not enough helium or lithium
Too many heavy elements
The universe isn’t homogeneous enough
Galaxy disk formation
Too much energy
Too much angular momentum
Mathematical discrepanciesIn 1933, and again in 1998, the Big Bang model was shown to have serious mathematical discrepancies between observation and expectation. In response, Big Bang cosmologists have invented two concepts that violate Occam's razor and the current understanding of physics, in order to keep their calculations consistent.
- Main Article: Dark matter
- Main Article: Dark energy
|“||...represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles.||”|
- Asteroid makes case for hydroplate theory Asteroid 2012 DA14 will pass closer to earth than a communications satellite. Under the current evolutionary model of asteroid origin, this should not happen. Conservative News and Views, February 8, 2013.
- More Evidence Our Solar System Is Uniquely Suited for Life With over 2,000 extrasolar planets found around nearly as many stars, there’s still no place like home. Creation Evolution Headlines, October 16, 2012.
- Galaxy Cluster Stuns Scientists—Supermassive and Spewing Out Stars Galaxy cluster possibly more massive than any other known, claimed to be forging fresh stars nearly a thousand times faster than normal (though no stars are even visible at that distance). National Geographic News, August 15, 2012.
- 'Echoes' of the Big Bang Misinterpreted? Veteran radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur, of the University of Memphis, disagrees with the conventional interpretation of the universe's cosmic microwave background.Discovery News, Jun 15, 2012.
- ↑ Edited by Ian Ridpath, Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy (Oxford University Press 1997) pg. 57
- ↑ "Big Bang Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test." Moon Daily, September 3, 2006. Accessed August 15, 2008.
- ↑ Oard, Michael. "Missing antimatter challenges the 'big bang' theory." TJ 12(3):256, December 1998. Accessed August 15, 2008.
- ↑ Lamicella, Paul W. "Antimatter and the Big Bang." Answers in Genesis, March 2006. Accessed August 15, 2008.
- ↑ http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2546v1
- ↑ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21732-nearby-darkmatterfree-zone-poses-cosmic-conundrum.html
- The Big Bang Theory by Astronomy & Origins
- The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique, part I
- The Big Bang Theory - A Scientific Critique, part II
- BUMPS IN THE BIG BANG by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
- Hubble, hubble, 'big bang' in trouble? by Carl Wieland. Creation 18(4):26–29. September 1996
- More on the ‘Rotating Cosmos’!
- New evidence for a rotating cosmos
- Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show.
- So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!”
- Was there a Big Bang?
- What about the 'big bang'?
- The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
- High-redshift quasars produce more big bang surprises by Bill Worraker