Big Bang Found

That would be simpler, but the definition ship has already sailed. Creationist means someone who believes that creation occurred in the way their religious text says.What does 'believe in creation' even mean?

That's not a bad definition, either, so long as we realize that there are many different religious texts, and many different interpretations of what any single religious text says. Hence "young-earth creationists", "old-earth creationists", and "evolutionary creationists." Synonyms: "accept creation", "be convinced of creation".Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

The Institution for Creationism are denying the news quoting Isaiah. They're missing a trick, Orthodox Jewish scientists are claiming that it proves their beliefs to be true. Read more: New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist | The Times of Israel New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist | The Times of Israel

Don't worry, they'll just become more polarized.

Good point and well said. It is remarkable that we ever managed to notice anything else. I guess that both subjects involve a fascination with inflation.It is so incredible that we can actually know stuff like this. That we can figure out what happened in the first instants of time that passed some 13.8 billion yrs ago. Talk about the predictive ability of a theory. I stand in the shadow of giants.The deniers become ever less worthy of consideration and helpful only for gauging how well we are educating ourselves.

You should be standing on their shoulders, like Newton.

thanks, that explains it for me.

In contrast, old-earth creationists are embracing the discovery:

quote:

---

Big Bang 'Gravity Wave' Discovery Supports Biblical Creation, Say Old Earth Creationists

​

Some Christian scientific experts believe that the discovery of the "gravity wave," announced earlier this week by scientists working with a South Pole telescope called BICEP 2, provides confirmation for the biblical account of creation by supporting the theory of the "big bang."

​

"The Bible was the first to predict big bang cosmology," according to Hugh Ross, president and founder of Reasons to Believe, an Old Earth Creationist organization that believes Christianity and science are complementary.

---

Big Bang 'Gravity Wave' Discovery Supports Biblical Creation, Say Old Earth Creationists | U.S. NewsEdited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

I know but, alas, I am not. I take comfort in knowing that I provide someone for these guys to tower above. They make me feel a little bit less like an ape even if just by association. That and the fact that I can begin to appreciate the view.

Not in the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate. Here, a creationist is someone who denies evolution.

That BICEP2 has no connection to any religious concept, be that Genesis, Tripitaka, Bhagavad Gita, Rasa'il al-hikmah ,etc., and that the design of the experiments and the analysis of the data is oblivious to any such religious concept means the results do not lend any credence to any such concepts. The only thing the results of the BICEP2 experiments support is the concept of a major inflationary epoch in the first instant of our universe and that this epoch does not conflict with the simpler hypotheses of cosmic inflation presently under consideration while precluding a number of the more complex inflationary hypotheses.To say these results "support" such religious creationist accounts is to say that BICEP2 did not grind them into dust. By the same token BICEP2 "supports" marijuana legalization in Arizona as well.There is a logic problem here. Where is Fallacy Man when you really need him?

I don't see a logic problem here; can you clarify the logic problem that you see?Rather, I suspect there is simply a difference of interpretation regarding the biblical text. IF you interpret the biblical text as predicting Big Bang cosmology (as Hugh Ross does), THEN any discovery that supports Big Bang cosmology automatically supports the biblical text. This seems completely logical, given his interpretation of the biblical text.

Yes, that is true, but is it of any worth whatsoever? Isn't it just a tautology? If Ross mangles the Bible text so that it reads on science, then what is shown when science turns out to be right?Let's ask these questions. This new evidence supports in particular an inflationary model in which the universe expanded from a small to a large size so that widely dispersed parts can be in thermal equilibrium. So what does the Bible say about that?Or is it that just a vague "cosmic energy egg" thingy work just as well for Hugh Ross?Or we might ask how much of the Bible Ross must dismiss, (like for example the order of creation rather than just it's duration, in order to make his claim that the Bible is essentially GR written in Greek. In short is Ross's claim the least bit reasonable?Finally, I note that you stop short of endorsing Ross' interpretation. What is your actual opinion on what Ross proposes.

Hugh interprets the Bible to predict Big Bang cosmology. But Big Bang cosmology has some difficulties. "Inflation" was essentially an ad hoc theory proposed to solve some of these difficulties. But until now, there has been no direct evidence for inflation. This new evidence supporting inflation puts Big Bang cosmology on a firmer footing. And given Hugh's biblical interpretation, it also supports the Bible. Hugh makes a strong, plausible case that the biblical sequence of creation is consistent with what an observer on earth would have seen. But rather than recounting all of the details, I would recommend that you consult his books or his website (Home - Reasons to Believe). Hugh is a friend of mine. I generally agree with what he says, though I would not always word it the same way myself. Regarding this discovery I would express things a bit more like another friend, Leslie Wickman, in the blog she wrote for CNN:

quote:

---

Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?

​

The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science — and the world of religion.

​

Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics.

​

The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs.

​

...

​

So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused — or created — by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.

---

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

The Greek Cosmogonical can be interpreted to "predict" the big bang. So can the Vinminen. You could interpret The Nancy Drew Mysteries as predicting the big bang if you stretch it far enough.Lematre, Penzias & Wilson and now BICEP2 cannot support, let alone confirm, the Genesis myth since its "predictions" of the big bang were post Lematre adaptations as seen through fatuous eyes. The only connection is within the desperate minds of those searching for some gossamer threads to hold their faith. There is no connection at all and the insistence of some support, some connection, some confirmation is an illogical conclusion based on emotional wishful thinking and nothing more.And, again, the same (il)logic can say the BICEP2 results support moves to legalizing marijuana since there is a direct clear connection from big bang to the presence of marijuana in the universe.If you accept the one then you must likewise accept the other along with any number of fictions that may pop into some tiny little brains. That is the illogic of Ross's pronouncement.