Scientific Exonerations Of God's Word
http://hebronics.org/index.html
God's word, God's creation, God's Son and just about anything pertaining to those words have suffered malignment since their initial exposure to man. Pseudo scientists and know-it-alls have ridiculed anything pertaining to God and His greatness over the years. It is pleasing to see archaeology, astrology, physiology, geology, and about any other -ology you wish to speak of, constantly forcing the smart-alecks to run back to the drawing board to try and explain away sound evidence. Many flatly refuse to accept anything, however compelling, as accurate if it even hints at intelligent design.
All have heard of the "Big Bang" hypothesis (or rather, a figment of their imagination) which was first given birth by Alexander Friedmann's calculations of an expanding universe. This Big Bang supposedly occurred some 13.5 billion years ago. The idea stems from a number of complicated equations concerning light spectrums from other galaxies and on and on. But as always when someone, like Friedmann and Darwin, comes up with these thoughts that they feel proves something contrary to the creation story of the Bible, the other pseudos grab it and run with it although they have no knowledge of the authenticity of it.
But this absurd idea is passing away as many others such as Darwin's Origin of Species. Modern technology combined with a vast accumulation of materials and studies, are constantly revealing facts that confirm the Bible's accuracy and inerrancy. Three astronomers, cosmologists Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar wrote a book published a few years ago A Different Approach to Cosmology which explains the true causes of those phenomena used to dream up the "Big Bang". I have not read the book, but I have read quotes from it and some great articles about it.
Let me first introduce the reader to those three outstanding scientists. These brief descriptions are taken from Wikipedia.
(1) Sir Fred Hoyle (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and his often controversial stance on other cosmological and scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory as originally coined by him. In addition to his work as an astronomer, Hoyle was a writer of science fiction, including a number of books co-written with his son Geoffrey Hoyle. Hoyle spent most of his working life at the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge and served as its director for a number of years. He died in Bournemouth, England, after a series of strokes.
(2) Geoffrey Ronald Burbidge (born September 24, 1925) is a English physics professor in the University of California, San Diego. He is married to Margaret Burbidge. He received his PhD from London in 1951. In 1957 he and his wife were co-authors, together with Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer, and William Fowler, the American physicist, of a famous paper on stellar nucleosynthesis, which was referred to as the B²FH paper, after the initials of the surnames of the four authors. In recent years Burbidge is known mostly for his alternative cosmology theory, which contradicts the Big Bang theory. According to Burbidge, the universe is oscillatory and as such expands and contracts periodically over infinite time. This theory, due to its controversial nature, has brought a certain amount of fame (or even infamy) to Burbidge. He was the Director of Kitt Peak National Observatory from 1978 to 1984.
(3) Jayant Vishnu Narlikar (born July 19,1938) is an Indian astrophysicist. Narlikar is a proponent of the steady state cosmology. He developed with Sir Fred Hoyle the conformal gravity theory, commonly known as Hoyle-Narlikar Theory. It synthesizes Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Mach's Principle. It proposes that the inertial mass of a particle is a function of the masses of all other particles, multiplied by a coupling constant, which is a function of cosmic epoch. In cosmologies based on this theory, the gravitational constant G decreases strongly with time.
Their book was published in the year 2000, by the Cambridge Press. By using new mathematical analyses of observational data they are able to explain a number of factors which have been used by most scientists to show their evidence of the Big-Bang.theory, some of which are listed here:
(1)The microwave background radiation is caused by hydrogen burning in stars rather than the afterglow of a hot big bang.
(2)Stars synthesize the chemical elements usually attributed to the Big Bang.
(3)Contrary to popular belief, there are no giant black holes in galactic cores.
(4) The high red shifts of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs), long thought to indicate extreme distance, are an illusion. In reality, QSOs are physical phenomenon associated with nearby galaxies.
I do not profess to be a scientist, my meager education is in Business Administration, but I can still read and understand what I read. These men have been blasted by their peers for doubting, and having the audacity to contradict the Big Bang idea (not worthy of being called a hypothesis) And the reason they are so adamant is because they have not one piece of empirical evidence. I have no empirical evidence for the creation theory but the evidence for it is much more compelling than the Big Bang, which is a story that a pre-teenager might dream up. That, along with macro-evolution both were formulated for no reason but to escape acknowledgement of an almighty God. I will close this with a few quotations by notable scientists.
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Evolutionist Richard Lewontin: The New York Review)
"Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans. Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science." (Wayne Friar, Ph.D, Aeropagus II America Inst., Science & Origins Associate)
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
Those scientists who dare to question the hypotheses of the hard shelled naturalists, do so at the risk of expulsion from the scientific community. Eventhough it is well known that both cannot be correct and perhaps both may be wrong! I choose to believe the dissenters because they have much to lose by speaking their beliefs.
Article submitted Friday, September 18, 2009 & read 38 times.
Please log in to leave your comments.
» left by Jean Purcell (2 years 232 days ago.)
Joel, an amazing amount of info well-presented for non-scientists like me. I did study enough of research methods to know that good scoence is theory being continually tested and re-evaluated, constantly open to new info that might turn assumptions on their heads. Thank you for this article!Jean» left by Joel Hendon (2 years 232 days ago.)
Thanks for reading and commenting Jean. I am all for science, there have been many things learned through the scientific processes and none have ever shown to be contradictory to God's word. It is only the wild imaginations of some scientists who will spend their lives trying to make something fit their predetermined ideas. Then they try and claim their ideas are 'science'.
» left by Marijo Phelps from mountain meadow CO (2 years 231 days ago.)
Very well written and understandable - Since God did speak something out of nothing with His own words (and not millions and millions of years ago) I do suspect that was a pretty "big bang" but not the one commonly referred to. Love it when non-be;ieving archeologists make "finds" that prove things in the scripture were correct and valid. Marijo
» left by Anonymous (2 years 231 days ago.)
Hi Joel, excellent. You might appreciate the series going on at wwbs by Lance Ponder. I appreciate the names of these scientists. I am going to look them up further. Blessings to you! I hope your birthday is going wonderfully! Blessings, Teresa