nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 141:
Line 141: + + +
→Young earth?: Big Bang is shaky
::::: OK, thanks for explaining your position. The problem I have with it is that just because the bible says the universe was created in six days, that doesn't mean that it was. That's just an appeal to authority ("It true because the Bible tells me it's true"). So I don't see how you can rule out the Big Bang theory just based on a sentence in a book, especially when the theory does a remarkably well job in explaining the Li/H abundance ratio, the relationship between galaxy velocities and distances, and the pattern of temperature anisotropities of the cosmic microwave background. Each of those observations are totally unrelated to each other and are described by very different physics, yet one theory (BB) can make predicitions for them all that numerically agree with reality. So if the BB theory is not true, then why does it give numerical predicitions that agree with reality?--[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 04:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: OK, thanks for explaining your position. The problem I have with it is that just because the bible says the universe was created in six days, that doesn't mean that it was. That's just an appeal to authority ("It true because the Bible tells me it's true"). So I don't see how you can rule out the Big Bang theory just based on a sentence in a book, especially when the theory does a remarkably well job in explaining the Li/H abundance ratio, the relationship between galaxy velocities and distances, and the pattern of temperature anisotropities of the cosmic microwave background. Each of those observations are totally unrelated to each other and are described by very different physics, yet one theory (BB) can make predicitions for them all that numerically agree with reality. So if the BB theory is not true, then why does it give numerical predicitions that agree with reality?--[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 04:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: The "appeal to authority" fallacy is only a fallacy when the person being appealed to is ''not'' an authority. There's nothing wrong with appealing to an authority if the person being cited ''is'' an authority. And by definition, God ''is'' an authority on what happened at the beginning. So I'm not really saying "It true because the Bible tells me it's true"; rather, "It is true because the One who did it and observed it tells us that's what happened.".
:::::: The theory might do "remarkably well" at explaining some things, but overall it doesn't do that well, and I seem to recall that the anisotropies of the CMB is one that it ''doesn't'' do well, as the observed variations are not as great as predicted by the theory. In fact even many secular scientists reject or have doubts about the Big Bang. See [http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ here].
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth creationist view ==
== Young earth creationist view ==