Home | Forums | Bible | +Width | Subscribe | Member Login

Thursday, September 20, 2018   1:07:53 AM  
 Welcome to The Omega Letter   Daily Briefings Commentary News Room   Contact OL Site Map How Do I?
Testimonials Prophecy Israel Globalism Terror In Defense Around the World War News Witnessing Perspective Commentary

Omega Letter Member Log In
2 Timothy  3 : 5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Read Today's Proverb - Chapter 20



Zeteo 3:16 with Alf and Alesia Cengia




The End The Book Part 6




Bible Prophecy News Christian Current Events

The Omega Letter Commentary Archives ...

Open Text: Exact Phrase:

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Bang?
In Defense of the Faith
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Wendy Wippel

A quick review of internet apologetics reveals that pretty much every Christian organization that disseminates scientific reasons for belief are firmly antagonistic to the Big Bang Theory. Which they might want to rethink, since that puts them snuggly in bed with more than a hundred years of atheistic scientists, and counting. Why? Because atheists grasp the Big Bang’s implications.

Strike one against the Big Bang for the atheistic scientists was the fact that the Big Bang theory was actually first proposed by a man of the cloth--specifically Monseigneur Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest, whose Doctoral Thesis, in 1931, laid out evidence that the universe was not static, but rather expanding. He described its origin as beginning with a primeval atom, which exploded to create all of our existing reality.

(The current view at that time, in fact since the time of Aristotle, was that the universe was eternal and “static”, meaning nothing ever changed.)

Einstein told Georges that his calculations were correct but his physics were atrocious, and refused to accept an expanding universe.   

Other scientists pretty much followed suit. 

Despite growing evidence of an expanding universe (German astrophysicist Carl Wilhem Wirtz and Americans, Vesto Slipher and Edwin Hubble, by the 40s, had all documented galaxies moving away from earth). The famous British Astronomer, Fred Hoyle, speaking on BBC radio, first described the expanding universe theory as consisting of a “Big Bang” and meant it derisively.

He was making fun of the scientists who embraced it.  And the derisive name caught on because most scientists still found the theory distasteful.

Why? Because if the universe had a beginning, it clearly required a beginner. 

Astronomer, Arthur Eddington, observed, "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it – the beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."

Hoyle spent the rest of his life trying to disprove the big bang theory, while evidence for it continued to accumulate.

Most importantly, the data from the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), a satellite that measured the temperature of the radiation throughout the universe. 

It was expected, if the Big Bang theory was true, that there would be residual “background” heat as the result of the incredible energy that would have to have been involved in the universe’s expansion. The Cobe satellite brought back evidence of this background heat as well as evidence that the heat observed that had spread throughout the universe observed, was not completely uniform.

This was important because, according to the Big Bang theory, a variance in the background heat of 1 part in 10,000 was required in order for stars and galaxies to form. No source of information before COBE was able to measure the background radiation temperatures accurately enough to support or disprove that parameter, but The COBE satellite did, in 1999.  And found that reality matched the theoretical parameters perfectly. 

Physicist Hubert Reeves greeted Cobe’s confirmation of many critical predictions of the Big Bang Theory with it, "involves a certain metaphysical aspect which may be either appealing or revolting".

That prediction has certainly proven true. 

Robert Jastrow, mourning the demise of the Static Universe he had vigorously defended, said, "On both scientific and philosophical grounds, the concept of an eternal Universe seems more acceptable than the concept of a transient Universe that springs into being suddenly.”

Then he opened up on a more personal level: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Many other scientists were, and are still, reluctant to embrace the theory because it obviously requires a First Cause.

Fred Holyle continued to derive alternate theories till he died in 2002.

John Maddox, in fact, when the deal seamed sealed in 1999, predicted that the Big Bang theory would only last a decade before scientists discovered a more acceptable theory.

British Physicist and Professor Dennis Sciama, was compared to a defense attorney,  clutching at any alternative explanation to avoid the one staring him in the face.  

And MIT Astrophysicist Steven Weinberg, told his students that he preferred the static theory because it least resembled the book of Genesis.

Stephen Hawking opined was a little more revealing: "Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. ... There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang." Hawking himself tried to design a universe without design, but he had to theorize in imaginary time to make it work.

His rationale was that, “real time could just be a human invention to describe our experience in the universe.”

Maybe he watched a certain purple dinosaur too much when he had nothing better to do. The one that told his audience every day to use their imagination. 

And how would anything thought up in imaginary time tell us anything about the real world we live in?  I am not a physicist, maybe I am just missing something…

Another alternative was an oscillating universe that swings back and forth, into and out of existence. That theory, thankfully, has also been laid to rest.

Although it would explain how all my phone cords disappear.

Wanna hear something funny? Quantum cosmologist, Christopher Isham, has cast his vote for the most convincing proof of the Big Bang theory, and here it is:

The fact that the Big Bang Theory really really really wigs the atheist physicists out. Which Isham also lays at the feet of the  spiritual discomfort with the implications of that option. 

Isham’s theory also explains the steady string of alternatives proposed by atheistic scientists despite the fairly rigorous evidence we already have and which continues to be obtained.

Its their gut-level loathing of the possibility of divine design. 

According to Isham, “alternative theories are so often proposed, with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth, that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.”

Despite their best efforts and Maddox’s predications, however, the Big Bang Theory has survived.

Don’t get me wrong, it is still a theory. Which means the theory will continue to be revised and refined as data comes in, until something ultimately disproves it. Or not. But we have no reason to be scared of it.

For one thing, it helps to remember that the entire account of the formation of the universe in Genesis is a grand total of 212 words. The entire account of all six days of creation is just 829 words. NKJV. (Results may vary.)

While the astrophysics collection at MIT is reported to hold billions of words on that topic alone.

And Remember Sr. Francis’ bacon’s law: "a little science estranges a man from God, a lot of science brings him back."

We just have to wait for the science to line up completely, as it always does, with what the Bible said to begin with.

And the basic tenets of the Big Bang theory already line up with those 212 words in Genesis in spookily precise ways.

Some of which I have shared over the last few years.

I almost feel sorry for the atheistic scientists, because for them, it’s gotten steadily worse  The universe increasingly appears to be not only created by a supernatural being, but also fine tuned to human existence.

But that’s a topic for another day.

Actually, I do feel sorry for the scientist, as they are more to be pitied then censored.

When you rule out God from the beginning you have not once chance of understanding either science or spiritual things. A fool says in his heart there is not God. 

What do you call somebody who denies it despite abundant evidence?


Wippel" href="http://www.omegaletter.com/content/?Bio_Wendy_page">About Wendy Wippel

Last week: Wippel" href="http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=8307">Apologetics at the Speed of Light

Current Article Ranking: Average Rank of 4.93 Stars

Rank This Article: Rank this Article 1 star It's an article.
Rank this Article 2 stars It's informative.
Rank this Article 3 stars I liked it.
Rank this Article 4 stars Inspiring!
Rank this Article 5 stars It's a home run!

If you have already Registered, then Login and start a discussion.
Share on Facebook
OmegaLetter Exclusive Commentary
A God Big Enough to Believe In? Giving Glory to God Zero-Sum A Heavenly Mind Holy Cow
    Rss Feeds

Member Contributed Articles
Just Thinking Stage Setting On Steroids--2017 Prophetic Year in Review Professor Grant Horner's Bible Reading Plan Modified A Life (and Death) Worthy of the Gospel Sometimes Life Sucks but God is Good

Omega Letter Links
Fight For JoyGot Christianity?Hal LindseyJack KelleyJewish VoiceLion & Lamb MinistriesNow The End BeginsOilprice.comOlive Tree MinistriesOmegaletter MediaOther SitesProphecy TrackerProphecy UpdateProphezineRapture ForumsRapture ReadyReasonWorld Prophecy NetworkWorld Watch Daily

The Omega Letter Bible Prophecy Christian Intelligence