The Big Bang (Creationism vs. Science)

Most of this article, for example the latter part, is nothing but name calling, strawmen, and pointless ranting, thus it will be ignored. The author only makes three real points throughout the whole thing.

"He claims that the great age of the universe is established solely from the distance and speed of star and galaxy recession. This is untrue; for example, regardless of how distant supernovae are, we know that they must be billions of years old simply because that's how long it takes for a star to form, live, and die. An entire generation of stars had to live and die before our solar system ever existed, because the iron in our planet could only have been formed in a dying star."

This is complete nonsense. It ignores a creationist model. For example, white hole cosmology would produce the earth without the need of stars and this argument ASSUMES a naturalistic origin of planet earth. Thus this need not apply to creationism.

It is also not a fact that the current model for star formation is even right, but the authors argument assumes that it is.

Please read Star formation for a closer look at naturalistic theories of star formation, data from helioseismology, and protostars.

"He claims that the method of estimating the age of the universe through measurement of its expansion "presupposes" a Big Bang. He then states that the Big Bang is "far from being scientifically established". However, the Big Bang is neither presupposition or theory; it is an observation. The universe has been observed to be expanding at great velocity. There is no scientific dispute whatsoever about this observation; it was derived through observation of Doppler-effect frequency shift in the light from distant galaxies. YECs have never produced anything remotely resembling a satisfactory alternate explanation for the redshift, which isn't surprising since the Doppler effect is a consequence of basic wave theory and can be easily reproduced under laboratory conditions."

Most young Earth creationists do not doubt that the redshift is do to the expansion of the universe, but the author is making a fatal mistake. He is assuming that an expanding universe equals the Big Bang.

Under some creationist models, the rate of the expansion is completely separated from the age of the universe due to time dilation. This argument DOES assumes the Big Bang.

Please read white hole cosmology and Cosmological relativity for details.

"He claims that the speeds and distances are "hotly contested", which is an obvious attempt at deception. The wording of his attack is designed to imply that the speeds and distances are hotly contested within the scientific community, when they are not. They are only contested by YECs like him, not by qualified astronomers. No qualified astronomer in the world contests the assertion that the universe is billions of years old. In order to refute the speed and distance estimates made by astronomers, our YEC friend would have to refute the concepts of Doppler shift (even though it's experimentally verifiable) and trigonometry (even though it's mathematically proven). I guess this means that even mathematicians are part of the grand world-wide conspiracy of "evolutionists". It must be an even bigger conspiracy than he thought :)"

Cosmic distances are completely useless in measuring the age of the universe because of time dilation models and many NON creationist are arguing over cosmic distances. Secular professors such as Halton Arp have been publishing works that cast doubt of the expansion of the universe for years.

O Big Bang (Creationism vs. Science)