Creationist Big Bang straw man

It looks like the comrade over at The Daily Creationism is back at it again. This time talking about the Big Bang (again).

The Big Bang is a Big Dud

Interesting factoid: The name Big Bang is actually not what the scientists who proposed the hypothesis called it, Big Bang was the what those opposed to it called it. Big Bang referring to how silly an idea it was. The Big Bang was not a Big Bang in space, more of a Big Expansion of space.

This scientific law (conservation of angular momentum) contradicts the Big Bang Theory which proposes that a spinning cosmic explosion started the universe into its evolutionary processes.

This is what is known as a straw man argument. Skeptics would describe it as being:

Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

The Daily Creationism goes on to say:

If the Big Bang Theory were true then all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction today.

Well first of all let's assume the universe was spinning, this is no reason for the planets to spin the same way. The planets in question are Venus and Uranus. Which do rotate backwards compared to the other 7 "planets" in the solar system. We believe this is due to impacts in their past. If we take asteroids they're rotating all over the place, why is that? I also don't recall the last time I was walking down a street and all the people were spinning the same way. Same basic thing happening, the energy in any spin of the universe, or more importantly how the cloud of gas and dust that condensed to form our solar system came together can be quite easily over come by smashing two planetary bodies together or by close gravitational encounters.

However...

Conservation of angular momentum doesn't require that everything spin the same way. All it requires is that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects.

Also...

How can you say the universe was spinning? Spinning against what? How can you measure it if space-time itself is spinning? The idea that the universe is or was spinning is absolute nonsense, and if the cosmos does spin there is no reason to expect the spin would effect how matter falls together, which is entirely random.

If we put the straw man away in the cupboard what does the Big Bang Theory really say, two things basically:

1) Everything in the universe was closer together in the past.
2) The universe (due to the above) was much hotter than it is today.

Tell me what hypothesis does the Bible put forward to explain the two key pieces of evidence for the Big Bang:

1) We see galaxies moving away from each other.
2) We see the cosmic microwave background radiation across the whole sky.

Come on what's your hypothesis?

Trackback address for this post

Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)

6 comments

Comment from: Big Bang Is A Myth [Visitor] · http://www.thedailycreationism.blogspot.com/
Thank you sooo much for those words of wisdom. I just love it when you say

"How can you say the universe was spinning? Spinning against what? How can you measure it if space-time itself is spinning?"

You are so right (in that part)

I agree how can you say that the dot was spinning if that was the only thing what would you measure it against?

But that is what the text books say.

The text books say that there was this dot and it span and span and span faster and faster...
20th June 2006 @ 16:52
Comment from: Big Bang Is A Myth [Visitor] · http://www.thedailycreationism.blogspot.com/
You say

"The universe (due to the above) was much hotter than it is today."

There are a few things that i think you should consider here.

The earth is spinning.

The earth is slowing down.


If the earth is slowing down then that means that it must have been going faster.

Because of the earth's rotation, the earth is already about 20 miles wider than it is high.

Now if the earth was hot, and the earth was spinning much faster than it is today.

Wouldn't that mean that the earth would have been stretched our like a disc?
20th June 2006 @ 17:02
Comment from: Big Bang Is A Myth [Visitor] · http://www.thedailycreationism.blogspot.com/
By the way if you see galaxies moving away from each other than doesnt that puts some kind of limit to the age of the universe.
20th June 2006 @ 17:48
Comment from: thelostmessage [Visitor] · http://www.thelostmessage.blogspot.com
I think Anthony Flew's "Death by a thousand qualifications" applies to our creationist friends.

No matter how much evidence is postulated in their direction they will always reject it. Their claims are unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. A position of faith.

21st June 2006 @ 13:25
Comment from: Big Bang Is A Myth [Visitor] · http://www.thedailycreationism.blogspot.com/
The thing that i don't understand is that there is no evidence, and yet people still believe in evolution!
21st June 2006 @ 14:27
Comment from: thelostmessage [Visitor] · http://www.thelostmessage.blogspot.com
The thing that i don't understand is that there is no evidence, and yet people still believe in evolution!

Exactly. You have proved my point!
22nd June 2006 @ 08:34

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
PoorExcellent
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)