Friday, December 4, 2009

I Guess They Never Got The Memo...

Something that has puzzled me for some time is the trend among young-earth creationists to deny the Big Bang Theory. I was in fact one of these big bang deniers at one stage, because I was enthralled by people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. Luckily that phase didn't last too long because I now realise how incredibly ridiculous their position is. When the red-shift of the universe was first discovered after it was predicted by Einstein, it caused many scientists to revise their current ideas about the universe. Many scientists up until that point had conceived that the universe may have been eternal. The discovery that the universe was expanding rapidly, lead to the conclusion that the universe was once smaller than it is now. Thus came the idea that the universe had a 'beginning' of sorts. Out of intellectual honesty and integrity, many scientists revised their position based on new evidence. This is how science works, you do not dogmatically 'stick to your guns' if new evidence contradicts current knowledge, you research further and come to new conclusions. Along come these moronic young earth creationists, and go around telling people how the big bang is wrong and so on and so forth. I guess they never got the memo that the big bang theory agrees with them on one very important point, that the universe had a beginning. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink...


  1. The Big Bang Theory always seemed to me to be rather reminiscient of another theory - in the beginning, there was darkness... and then there was light...

  2. Ah yes, this is true. Except the theory you are referring to, unlike scientific theory, assumes it is correct, and is not open to interpretation or change in light of new evidence. And as far as i knew, theories don't damn you to an eternity of suffering if you dont agree with them either. :D

  3. Exactly Karl, which is why it puzzles me so much why people like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort are so opposed to the big bang theory. It is quite possibly the only theory that (almost) fits with their warped sense of reality.

  4. All together now!
    The whole universe was in a hot, dense state....

  5. LOL points for MT....

    -Scientific theories also assume they are correct.

    -Genesis 1 has always been and always will be open to interpretation.

    -And 'new' evidence will never rule out the possibility of the supernatural.

    Go get a life mate :D

  6. You spent time specifically writing a comment to shoot down a guy you don't even know on the internet... and You are telling ME to get a life?? LOL.

    "And 'new' evidence will never rule out the possibility of the supernatural"... -define?

  7. "Scientific theories also assume they are correct"

    Wow... you have totally missed the point.

    That is how science works mate. You ASSUME that you are right, then you go and test that. And most of the time, you find out your guess was wrong. So then you take the new evidence, and try to form a new theory. Then you ASSUME the new theory is correct, and go and test it again. Now you form another theory based on your new evidence. etc.

    Rinse and repeat till you aren't wrong anymore.

    Repeat after me.


    Occasionally science makes a guess that is 100% correct the first time. This happens extremely rarely. The reason the big bang theory is assumed to be correct (or at least pretty accurate) is because all of the evidence we have seems to agree with the general concept of it.

    Oh and btw, Genesis 1 was most definitely NOT open to interpretation (among fellow Christians) when I was growing up. Go back 500 years and I can guarantee that Christians weren't debating the accuracy of it. The fact that science has pretty much proven wrong everything it says has forced many Christians to consider other interpretations.


    You have science to thank for people using alternate interpretations of Genesis.

  8. Theory and guess are not synonymous in science, Thanks.

  9. Mate, a theory usually starts as nothing much more than a best guess based on the current evidence. Once you get more evidence, the theory changes and becomes less guess, more evidence.

    I am NOT using the word guess as a synonym for theory. I am using it as what a person or persons do when they are forming a theory. They take a guess as to what the solution to a problem is based on the available evidence, and form a theory.

  10. A better word would be hypothesis. A Theory in science is what you get once you've shown the evidence supports your hypothesis. At least that's how I understand the terms. I am frequently wrong about things.

  11. Probably would be a better word only because people have an immediate negative reaction to the word 'guess' because it can be used to mean a wild stab in the dark.

    Wasn't how I was intending it, but that's the internet for you, intent is often misinterpreted. ;)

    Feel free to replace all my former 'guess' with 'hypothesis'! ;D

  12. *sighs then sings* ♪♫ Why can't we be friends, ♪♫ why can't we be friends, ♪♫ why can't we be friends.... ♪♫