AIG Answers in Genesis: Challenging the Big Bang Theory

[Nooj]

Answers in Genesis is a well known young-earth creationist website that says the Universe is less than 6000 years old. I was referred to this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/echoes.asp" by a creationist whom I was debating with. Now, my major interest is in biology and I was wondering if you could help me decipher what the article is about.

I remember a few years back when the WMAP and even earlier the COBE pinpointed minor fluctuations within the CMB radiation. Aren't the AIG guys saying the same thing here? How is this challenging the Big Bang theory at all? My confusion is a combination of my poor understanding of cosmology and creationism obscurity. Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

 

[Garth]

There may or may not be problems with the interpretation of the WMAP data.

Even if there are it does not mean the universe is 6,000 years old - it is a basic fact that the universe is much older and much larger that the literal creationists want to believe. We see much further out than 6,000 light years and therefore much further back than 6,000 years - about 14,000,000,000 years further in fact.

As a theologian as well as a astrophysicist I may also be qualified to point out that the opening chapters of the Genesis text itself are clear that they should not be taken literally.

There are two creation stories in the first four chapters, that are so obviously in literal contradiction with each other that it would be obvious to an ancient that they should be taken a stories or dreams/visions of our origins rather than scientific fact.

Gen 1 - 2:3 is a poem of seven stanzas, six days of creation from a watery chaos followed by a sabbath. Adam and Eve are created together at the end of the process. God is called 'Elohim'.

Genesis 2.4 - 4-end has ONE day of creation from a desert. Adam is created first then the garden of Eden then the animals and finally Eve. God is called 'Yahweh'.

Two separate sources redacted together at a later date.

As a matter of interest a third creation story begins in chapter 5.

I know this is off topic for this Forum but it is relevant in answering the 6-day creationist nonsense.

I hope it helps.

Garth

 

[Nooj]

Indeed it does. Thank you.

I find it hilarious that Paul Marmet's alternative to the Big Bang theory is the Plasma Universe hypothesis which is in no way compatible to a young Earth perspective. The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

 

[Chronos]

Creationism is logically inconsistent. How do you measure 'days' before 'days' were created? Ancient humans invented gods and mysticism as devices to manipulate people.

 

[mjsd]

unfortunately, one must accept the fact that logic in any theist universe works slightly differently. And we can't really judge it using our logic either

 

[Chronos]

I will concede that linear logic [cause and effect] is not bullet proof, it includes a time variable. But absolute logic is pretty hard to refute. Some states of reality are mutually exclusive.