atheism · Bible · Christianity · creationism · evolution · God · religion · science

Contradicting the Bible reveals astronomers’ weaknesses

The Big Bang theory is correct in its claims that our universe, including Earth, suddenly came into being out of nothing, but it has many weaknesses. Many astrophysicists have embraced the Big Bang as a tool to try to tear down what the Bible says and many Christians have embraced the Big Bang as a whole without inspecting the various theories that are part of the whole thing–theories which contradict God’s word. So I’ll examine some of the attacks unbelieving astronomers and astrophysicists embrace which they base not only on the Big Bang, but also on their assumptions that they understand the Bible correctly (which they don’t).

Attack #1: The Big Bang shows that the sun came before the Earth, but the Bible says God created Earth before the light (the sun?).

Rebuttal #1: God created light on the first day along with the Earth, but the sun wasn’t created until the 4th day, according to Genesis 1. This means God set up a temporary light system until he replaced it with a more permanent light system (sun, moon, stars) on the 4th day. John Calvin explained this back in the 16th century. A 24-hour day/night cycle does not require sunlight. It only requires the rotation of Earth and light originating from one direction. That’s scientific fact.

Attack #2: The Big Bang says the Earth started out as a hot, volcanic planet that cooled to form water, but Genesis says Earth was originally covered in water and land was created on the 3rd day.

Rebuttal #2: Since the Bible has proven to be true through its fulfilled prophecies, reliable science, and historical accuracy, we can trust the Genesis account over the accounts of men who presume to know different. However, for the sake of the skeptic, there is scientific evidence to prove the Genesis account of the Earth being covered with water instead of hot, molten lava.

That proof was shown by a scientist from Tennessee named Robert Gentry. He studied polonium, a rare radioactive element found all over our planet. When polonium breaks down like uranium, it gives off a particular signature by the particles it releases. Its particles travel a specific distance from the center when it breaks down in a sort of mini explosion. When it breaks down in solid rock, the particles form a hollow sphere in the rock. When it breaks down in molten rock, the sphere from the particles disappears. Gentry found that you can go all over the world and find these tiny spheres in granite everywhere. Therefore, it’s highly unlikely that Earth was ever one big hot, molten planet of lava since the spheres would be non-existent in granite.

Attack #3: The Big Bang says the atmosphere, Earth, and life took billions of years to form but Genesis says it only took six days.

Rebuttal #3: There is manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence which renders historical evidence, scientific evidence, and spiritual evidence backing what the Bible says, so when the Bible claims the Earth is young, it has proven that it can be counted on to tell the truth.

Nevertheless, there is lots of evidence showing that the billions of years scenario is wrong. For instance, the layers of rock (strata) that supposedly took millions of years each to form actually show that they developed rapidly because there are tree fossils cutting through more than one stratum. If the strata took millions of years to form, the trees would have decayed without leaving a fossil. Then there’s the fact that skeletons and soft tissue make up a large amount of the fossil record. For these to be as well preserved as they were in the strata, their burial would have to occur suddenly over a short period for them to be protected from scavengers, microorganism decay, or erosion.

Attack #4: The Big Bang says stars were formed before Earth existed but Genesis 1 says Earth was created before the stars.

Rebuttal #4: There are several scientific truths showing it unnecessary for stars to contribute elements, dust, and other things in order for Earth to be formed like the Big Bang suggests. For example, it is too difficult to get dust grains and elements to stick together from the power of stars, including the sun, long enough to form Earth or other planets over billions of years. Another weakness in the theory is that the rate of decay of Earth’s magnetic field is not sustainable over billions of years. In other words, after billions of years, the Earth’s magnetic field should not exist. Finally, the rate at which the sun rotates is too slow to contribute to conditions required to create Earth under the Big Bang theory, even if one were to calculate the rate at which the sun’s rotation decreases per year and extrapolated that rate all the way back to billions of years ago.

Attack #5: Science has proven that the moon merely reflects sunlight, but Genesis 1 calls the moon a light source.

Rebuttal #5: Genesis 1:16 says, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” This is merely a statement of perspective. From the Earth looking up, the moon looks like a light because it reflects light. The same type of perspective statements are made when we use the terms sunrise and sunset when in fact it is the Earth that’s turning toward the sun or away from the sun.

Attack #6: Science has proven the Earth is a sphere, but Isaiah 40:22 says God calls the Earth a flat circle.

Rebuttal #6: Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:” Critics of the Bible tend to forget that language evolves over time. There wasn’t a word for sphere in the Hebrew at the time Isaiah was written, so the KJV stayed with the original word in its translation, which was circle. A sphere is a circle in three dimensions and the Bible never calls the Earth flat. Critics basically assume that’s what the Bible says.

But most of the time God gives us two or three witnesses for what he says. Job 26:10, which was written centuries before Isaiah, established that the Earth was round. It says, “He [God] hath compassed [encircled] the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.” “This verse teaches that God has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness (day and night) is called the “terminator” since the light stops or “terminates” there. Someone standing on the terminator would be experiencing either a sunrise or a sunset; they are going from day to night or from night to day. The terminator is always a circle, because the earth is round,” [Jason Lisle. The universe confirms the Bible. Answersingenesis.org. March 6, 2008]. And being the prophet he was, Isaiah would have been educated on the Job 26 scripture when he wrote Isaiah 40.

Sources:

Vince Albanov. Astrophysics contradicts the Bible. Examiner.com. Saturday, May 19, 2012.

Jonathan Sarfati. How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day? Creation.com. Creation Ministries International.

Jonathan Sarfati. Calvin said: Genesis means what it says. Creation.com. Creation Ministries International.

Creation Today. Was the Earth ever a hot, molten mass? Creationtoday.org.

Answers in Genesis. Young Age Evidence page.

Jason Lisle. Preliminary comments on the PBS-TV series ‘Origins.’ Creation.com. 29 September 2004, paragraph 7.

–Harry A. Gaylord–

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Contradicting the Bible reveals astronomers’ weaknesses

  1. I must state that a total of zero of your points has anything to do with the Big Bang. You state from the onset you’ll “examine some of the attacks unbelieving astronomers and astrophysicists embrace which they base not only on the Big Bang … .” But, the only science points you claim come from Big Bang theory have absolutely nothing to do with it. Points 1 and 2 have to do with solar system formation, point 3 with planetary evolution, and point 4 with stellar formation. Again, none of these have to do with the big bang.

    To anyone who knows about astronomy, your argument reads like, “I’m going to show why grocery stores should stock milk. Argument 1 is that trees need milk to grow, so to help them grow we should be able to buy milk at the store.” It’s just a complete non sequitur because you’re starting out with a straw man understanding of what you’re trying to talk about.

    If you’d like to be yet another young-Earth creationist out there trying to refute science, please at least get your terminology correct and don’t harp on straw man arguments.

    Like

    1. Stuart,

      Anyone who knows astronomy knows the points I said that are part of Big Bang cosmology are really part of the Big Bang. I can understand your wanting to try to disassociate my points from the science you embrace because it’s embarrassing to see how your theories don’t add up, but your claims are disingenuous. The government agency NOAA has this resource on the Big Bang that includes the theories I mentioned and Answers in Genesis also has an article at this link by Christian astronomer Jason Lisle stating the same things I stated about the Big Bang. So now there are two additional witnesses besides the articles I mentioned at the bottom of this post–one secular, one Christian–that prove you incorrect.

      Like

      1. Harry, I went to school with Jason and I’m a professional astronomer. You are wrong. You can continue to believe you are correct, but you are not. The Big Bang theory describes the origins of the universe and extends to perhaps a very few seconds after it. Everything else is a separate theory. Your NOAA link states this and then goes on to describe stuff after the big bang. Even your AiG link describes the BBT in the first paragraph, stuff after that is not a part of BBT, it is completely independent. Even creationwiki.org describes the BBT as I have, not as you. It’s unfortunate that you’re unwilling to even accept this issue of semantics.

        Like

      2. Stuart,

        Here’s what the NOAA link states: “Many astrophysical observations support the theory for the formation of universe known as the Big Bang hypothesis. According to this theory, all matter and energy in the universe were once condensed into a very small and hot mass. At least 15,000 million years ago, a huge explosion (the “Big Bang”) took place, sending matter (primarily hydrogen and helium) and energy flying out in all directions. As the universe expanded, matter condensed into clouds and began to rotate. Where there was sufficient mass, gravitational attraction caused the clouds to collapse, compressing matter to the point that nuclear reactions began and thus creating stars. Nuclear reactions in these stars converted hydrogen and helium into heavier elements, such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. These elements were blasted back into space by exploding stars (supernovas), and formed clouds containing simple molecules such as water, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. Our sun was formed in a rotating disk of gas and dust-like matter. These particles collided, first forming small grains and then larger bodies called planetesimals (which had diameters on the order of several hundred kilometers). The planetesimals eventually aggregated into larger bodies that became planets and satellites.”

        Here’s what Jason Lisle’s link states: “The ‘big bang’ is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything we see today, but also “space” itself. According to the story, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space.

        It is supposed that over vast periods of time, the energy from the big bang cooled down as the universe expanded. Some of it turned into matter—hydrogen and helium gas. These gases collapsed to form stars and galaxies of stars. Some of the stars created the heavier elements in their core and then exploded, distributing these elements into space. Some of the heavier elements allegedly began to stick together and formed the earth and other planets.”

        Finally, here is what appears on NASA’s website: “The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. …” [emphasis mine]

        There is no clear designation that “everything else is a separate theory” as you claimed. The points I highlighted as part of the Big Bang fall under NASA’s definition of the “evolution of our universe.” So based on all of this info, I was not trying to mislead people. Why is your definition different than the others? Probably because there are some differences of opinion within your field. If that’s the case, why try to make me look stupid when I based what I presented on research from valid sources?

        Like

  2. A 24-hour day/night cycle does not require sunlight. It only requires the rotation of Earth and light originating from one direction. That’s scientific fact.
    ^ That is not a scientific fact. A 24 hour day/night cycle DOES require sunlight- That is a fact. How do I know its a fact, because in our observable history we have never had a day/night cycle without the sun. To put it into Objective perspective, can a star outside our solar system illuminate the planet? Of course not, the moon in close proximity can not even illuminate the planet even while reflecting our own sun. If John Calvin had a proper telescope he might have had a better idea of light sources and day and night cycle, and you presume he asserts a necessity for a rotation of the earth which is completely historically and theologically inaccurate. It wasn’t until 50 years after his death that people conceived the notion that the earth was not infact the center of our universe, or even that the earth was spherical, so how can you assume Calvin knew the earth was rotating and not the sun and stars around it? You’re just putting words in his mouth to argue your point on a false scientific notion. If you look at the glimpse of our observable universe through the hubble you could understand how insignificant the earth is in the sea of galaxies, even how insignificant the entire milky way galaxy is in comparison to neighboring galaxies and distant stars. Genesis makes assertions that have been proven false time and time again, modern theology strays away from literal interpretation as it is inconsistent with science and history.
    As for your take on polonium, you should know that many elements are radioactive and unstable, and many of them may undergo such explosions but once again you’re assuming that these explosions would be filled with molten rock, magma’s temperature is anywhere from 700-1600 degrees Celsius depending on the precurser, those radioactive explosions are anywhere from 1000 to 100000 times hotter (could leave a hole in cooling molten rock) depending on the amount of radioactive element so to assume little holes in granite (which could have even occured after the magma cooled) is proof that the earth was not a giant molten lava planet is just another false scientific notion, granted its just a theory.
    And if you really think any modern geologist will agree that the earth is 5,000 or 10,000 years old, whatever you Christians are claiming these days, you’re out of your mind. Radioactive dating puts many of earth’s rocks at the 100 million years old mark, radioactive dating of fossils puts them at millions of years old, and to clarify you can not use carbon dating, the bones of fossils lay in the ground and eventually after being surrounded by minerals the bones composition essentially becomes one with its neighboring minerals while the carbon composition is decayed and lost. Fossils are less bones, they are actually rocks.
    It seems like none of your assertions are based on science, and rather one sided and with little regard to scientific consensus. Why believe in the outliers or use that to boast your claims, the antiquated scientists you bring up had antiquated tools at their disposal and could not understand the earth better than the illiterate farmers and shepards who wrote the old testament.

    Like

    1. [A 24 hour day/night cycle DOES require sunlight- That is a fact. How do I know its a fact, because in our observable history we have never had a day/night cycle without the sun.]

      You claim this is objective perspective but it isn’t. Earth has not always been in the condition we observe now. That’s why the Bible says it was without form and void in the beginning. Then God made changes to it as each day progressed. You’re just assuming that never happened. So on the first day were temporary lights that were replaced on the fourth day. When you create something, you get to call it what you wish. The same with God. He is the one who originally determined what a “day” is because he’s the one who created it and his “day” is not subject to your limited knowledge.

      Your theories are based on the false assumption God doesn’t exist and therefore didn’t create. But you’re wrong. The laws of thermodynamics & theory of relativity acknowledge the universe came from nothing. Nothing cannot create time, space, matter, or energy. So an intelligent being transcending time, space, matter, and energy had to have created all of them. This means he is more powerful than all forces in the universe combined. But, of course, like everyone else on Earth, you know God exists even though you try to deny it.

      So why were the sun, moon, and stars held off until the fourth day? Here’s a possible reason–“One of the possible reasons God deliberately left the creation of the sun until the fourth day is because he knew that, down through the ages, cultures would try to worship the sun as the source of life. Not only this, modern-day theories tell us that the sun came before the earth. God is showing us he made the earth and light to start with, that he can sustain it with its day and night cycle, and that the sun was created on the fourth day as a tool of his to be the bearer of light from that time.” (Ken Ham, et al. The Answers Book. Chapter 5)

      [If you look at the glimpse of our observable universe through the hubble you could understand how insignificant the earth is in the sea of galaxies, even how insignificant the entire milky way galaxy is in comparison to neighboring galaxies and distant stars]

      And Earth is the only place that is fine-tuned to sustain life. It is so fine-tuned that there are about 155 universal constants that must be in play simultaneously and/or consistently for life to thrive. We are unique.

      [Genesis makes assertions that have been proven false time and time again]

      Spoken by someone who really doesn’t know the Bible. If you did, you would know that the places and people mentioned in Genesis really did exist. It speaks of Hittites, Canaanites, the Egyptian Empire, Mesopotamia, and many other things that history proves existed. Not too long ago, they even discovered money in Egypt bearing the likeness and name of Joseph who was a Hebrew that was second in command to the Pharaoh, just as Genesis says. And I have a link on the right hand side of this website called “101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge in the Bible” that proves you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      [As for your take on polonium…those radioactive explosions are anywhere from 1000 to 100000 times hotter (could leave a hole in cooling molten rock) depending on the amount of radioactive element so to assume little holes in granite (which could have even occured after the magma cooled) is proof that the earth was not a giant molten lava planet is just another false scientific notion]

      What’s a false scientific notion is this comment from you which is based on your wishful thinking, not fact. Your scenario has never even remotely been shown to even be possible, whereas the science by Robert Gentry that I mentioned has been peer reviewed and tested time and again to try to debunk it, without any success. You’re grasping at straws, so you have to lie in an attempt to make your hogwash sound true to someone who doesn’t know better. But I know better.

      [Radioactive dating puts many of earth’s rocks at the 100 million years old mark, radioactive dating of fossils puts them at millions of years old, and to clarify you can not use carbon dating, the bones of fossils lay in the ground and eventually after being surrounded by minerals the bones composition essentially becomes one with its neighboring minerals while the carbon composition is decayed and lost.]

      Blah, blah, blah. Radiocarbon dating cannot really render millions of years. The half-life of radiocarbon proves that it cannot last millions of years. I explained this in a previous comment. And these two videos explain how untruthful this millions of years business really is:

       

      Wood petrifies rapidly 
       

      Polystrate fossils show sedimentation is rapid

      […could not understand the earth better than the illiterate farmers and shepards who wrote the old testament.]

      It’s amusing how you call them illiterate and then misspell shepherds. “Shepards” is a legal citation and verification system used in the legal field. “Shepherds” are those who watch over sheep. And the reference I gave above to the “101 Scientific Facts…” proves you’re wrong about the writers of the Bible who knew scientific facts before they were discovered. Instead of wasting time trying to tear down the truth, maybe you should spend more time following real evidence because real evidence will lead you to the many scientific, historical, and spiritual truths found in the Bible. The Bible is ultimately God’s message to you that you need to repent of your sin & turn to Jesus Christ, the only one who can save you from an eternal death in hell.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s