Problems with the Big Bang Theory

[rogue06]

er, wasn't a Catholic priest the one who came up with the Big Bang Theory?

Yup. And most of the initial opposition to the Big Bang came from atheists who thought it was too similar to the creation account in Genesis.

[Yttrium]

er, wasn't a Catholic priest the one who came up with the Big Bang Theory?

And didn't Pope Pius XII sign off on that?

[rogue06]

And didn't Pope Pius XII sign off on that?

Enthusiastically.

Pius XII interpreted the Big Bang as de facto

[Duragizer]

[JohnMartin]

er, wasn't a Catholic priest the one who came up with the Big Bang Theory?

Luther, who was once a catholic, Augustinian monk left the Church and invented his own version of Christianity. Arius as a Catholic priest who held that Christ was only a created super man demi god, and not the word made flesh. Eunomius was a Catholic bishop who held to a heterodox doctrine concerning the Trinity. Alfred Loisy as a Catholic priest was a strong proponent of the heresy of Modernism. Catholic history contains many examples of Catholic clergy holding to positions that are contrary to Catholic doctrine. If George Lemaitre wanted to invent a new theory of the origin of the universe, which was contrary to all understanding of the origin of the universe as known in Catholic tradition, then he did so of his own choice.

The claim that the BB model was invented by a member of the Catholic clergy only shows the naivety of those who think all the clergy are always correct in everything they teach. Such is not the case as evidenced by Church history.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Enthusiastically.

Pius XII interpreted the Big Bang as de facto

Pius XII said this in Proofs for the existence of god in the light of modern natural science -

44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty "Fiat" pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter busting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial "Fiat lux" uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.

Of course the atheistic academy of science now thinks Pius XII is wrong, for the multi universe theory is now promulgated to account for the origin of the BB. Finally Pius XII statement is only a private address delivered to the Pontifical Academy of Science, which is not an arm of the Catholic Church. Such means Pius XII statements are only the private opinions of a member of the clergy given to a private audience.

There is nothing in the statement that infers the Popes opinion is either orthodox, or heterodox, or binding on the faithful.

The truth is there is no evidence whatever that God has revealed the universe had it beginning in a BB. No Church Father taught such either. The modern BB model is just further evidence of science myth being portrayed as rock solid reality.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Obviously, it was an irrational Catholic priest.

Even Edwin Hubble in the Observational Approach to Cosmology, thought the recession of the galaxies was very unlikely. So the Hubble law is named after a man who thought the law was probably a fraud. He calls the additional matter required to move space as disturbing features, which are not required if the redshift is not a recessional velocity.

We suppose that such internebular material would probably be in the form of dust or ionized gas. In that
case the medium would absorb light, and would be readily detected. But we find no trace of space
absorption; space is sensibly transparent. Therefore, the matter, if it exists, must be in some unlikely
form such as chunks or non-ionized gas. Even then, the necessary quantity is barely permissible. For, on
other evidence, we can set an upper limit to the possible density, regardless of the form of the material.
We find no trace of internebular material, but our investigations have been pushed only to a certain limit.
At the moment, that limit is just about the density corresponding to the curvature. Thus the theory might
be valid provided the universe were packed with matter to the very threshold of perception.
Nevertheless, the ever-expanding model of the first kind seems rather dubious. It cannot be ruled out by
the observations, but it suggests a forced interpretation of the data.

The disturbing features are all introduced by the recession factors, by the assumption that red shifts are
velocity-shifts. The departure from a linear law of red-shifts, the departure from uniform distribution, the
curvature necessary to restore homogeneity, the excess material demanded by the curvature, each of
these is merely the recession factor in another form. These elements identify a unique model among the
array of possible expanding worlds, and, in this model, the restriction in the time-scale, the limitation of
the spatial dimensions, the amount of unobserved material, is each equivalent to the recession factor.

Everyone knows the quasars don't fit the Hubble law anyway, so why hold to a law that is bogus and only accounts for some of the observational evidence?

Quasars and the Hubble Law

A few astronomers have argued that quasars are not really that far away, and that the Hubble Law does not apply to them. Astronomer Halton Arp, for example, has spent much of his long and successful career providing evidence of associations between quasars and galaxies, suggesting that they may be at similar distances. He has also amassed a large number of photographs of galaxies with widely different redshifts which appear to be interacting, as if they were near each other. His discoveries, which have taken him out of mainstream astronomy, raise serious questions about the redshifts of galaxies being caused by recessional velocity.

Another persistent voice against cosmological distances for quasars is astronomer Tom Van Flandern, formerly of the U.S. Naval Observatory.

The problem with quasars is that using the Hubble Law to compute their distance leads to extreme distance estimates -- to the edge of the universe, in fact. If quasars were not at the distances currently ascribed to them there would be no need to for them to have extraordinary energy. Non-cosmological distances would also be consistent with the observed proper motion of many quasars.

JM

[Roy]

Luther, who was once a catholic, Augustinian monk left the Church and invented his own version of Christianity. Arius as a Catholic priest who held that Christ was only a created super man demi god, and not the word made flesh. Eunomius was a Catholic bishop who held to a heterodox doctrine concerning the Trinity. Alfred Loisy as a Catholic priest was a strong proponent of the heresy of Modernism. Catholic history contains many examples of Catholic clergy holding to positions that are contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Including Thomas Aquinas, who promoted several positions that were contrary to Catholic doctrine on God's omnipotence.

[JohnMartin]

Including Thomas Aquinas, who promoted several positions that were contrary to Catholic doctrine on God's omnipotence.

An example would be good.

JM

[Sparko]

Luther, who was once a catholic, Augustinian monk left the Church and invented his own version of Christianity. Arius as a Catholic priest who held that Christ was only a created super man demi god, and not the word made flesh. Eunomius was a Catholic bishop who held to a heterodox doctrine concerning the Trinity. Alfred Loisy as a Catholic priest was a strong proponent of the heresy of Modernism. Catholic history contains many examples of Catholic clergy holding to positions that are contrary to Catholic doctrine. If George Lemaitre wanted to invent a new theory of the origin of the universe, which was contrary to all understanding of the origin of the universe as known in Catholic tradition, then he did so of his own choice.

The claim that the BB model was invented by a member of the Catholic clergy only shows the naivety of those who think all the clergy are always correct in everything they teach. Such is not the case as evidenced by Church history.

JM

The big bang fits perfectly with the story of Genesis 1. The Pope endorsed it. Therefore if you deny it, you are going against official Catholic ruling by the Pope. That makes YOU the heretic. As if we didn't already know that.

[Roy]

The big bang fits perfectly with the story of Genesis 1.

There are a few trifling differences regarding the timing and order of events....

[rogue06]

There are a few trifling differences regarding the timing and order of events....

Could you be conflating the description of the creation of earth and the appearance of life with the Big Bang?

[Roy]

Could you be conflating the description of the creation of earth and the appearance of life with the Big Bang?

No, although the relationship to the former is one discrepancy.

[JohnMartin]

The big bang fits perfectly with the story of Genesis 1. The Pope endorsed it. Therefore if you deny it, you are going against official Catholic ruling by the Pope. That makes YOU the heretic. As if we didn't already know that.

Genesis 1 was understood by the Church fathers as a literal week, with the exception of Augustine, who taught the week was an instant of creation. The consent of the Church fathers is against the big bang theory. The Church father's consent is binding on the Church. The creation event occurred in a week, whereby the earth was created first, then after the earth, the other cosmological bodies.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No, although the relationship to the former is one discrepancy.

There are numerous and large discrepancies between the creation week and the big bang theory.

JM