Last time, we took a look at the Data which is presented as observable evidence for the Big Bang (AKA: The Horrendous Space Kablooie). What about it then? Does the data point to a BIG BANG?
Would you be terribly surprised if I said I don’t think so?
Let’s take a look at Red Shift.
It is said the red shift is evidence that the galaxies are all moving away from us, or that the space between us and them is expanding. Red Shift does exist, but many people do not realize that the light source receding is only one of several possibilities.
It’s possible that the universe is not expanding, or that it had been expanded but is no longer expanding, or maybe the light is effected by gravity, or that it is rotating along a central axis like our planet does. There are actually several lines of reasoning built on this and other data which puts our galaxy in the center of the universe. You have probably never heard about that and the reason is, while plenty of scientists know this, they hate it. They make a philosophical decision to exclude that option because, as you will see, they don’t like to leave a door open for God.
The interpretation is not chosen for scientific reasons but other reasons and lines of investigation are EXCLUDED because of the foundation of atheism. Like Evolution, Big Bang cosmology is a science KILLER- an anti-scientific wolf in science sheep’s lab coat!
Edwin Hubble, who first discovered the red shift, was not the open minded scientist following the data where it leads and ending up at the Big Bang. Edwin Hubble knew the data could easily prove that our galaxy is in the center of the universe. He outright hated that option, as many atheists do, because it again points toward our having been created specially by God. He said this about the possibilities,
“Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative…But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs….Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable …” [Emphasis mine] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble
This philosophical choice to interpret the data in this manner is echoed by Stephen Hawking (As seen on the Simpsons) in his book A Brief History of time:
“..if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe…There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. …We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.”
My biggest problem with his “Modesty” is that it requires you to build a model of three dimensional space where in EVERY place in it sees itself as being in the center of a series of concentric shells. Just think of a target. A dot in a circle in a circle, etc. Now try to draw one where EVERY point on the target sees the same thing it would if it were the center dot. You can’t do it.
But rather than admit that the data gives us a special place in the universe, they call upon an unproven principle which says our OBSERVATIONS must somehow be WRONG, which Hawking attributes to ‘Modesty’ but later will admit is due to Atheism. They will not follow the data where it leads, because it leads to God, and so they choose to question the observed data and assume that other, unobservable data must exist which closes this door before a Divine foot can get in. I don’t know if you remember this from school, but science is supposed to draw logical conclusions based on the data, not exclude conclusions based on Atheism. Can you see how those two things are different? Because they are. Tell your friends.
How did the red shift show us having a special place in the universe?
It just takes a little graphing of the data. Red Shift is used to determine the distance to the galaxies. When you look at the red shifts, you see they are quantized, meaning they fall into groups. 
On the graph I have included, we see a mess of galaxies about 62 million light years away, and then far fewer 63 million light years away, and then a mess about 64, much less at 65, a lump at 66, etc, etc. To get a better understanding of this whole shebang, check out Dr Russel Humphreys explaining it all to a Canadian. He gets to the redshift analysis above about nine minutes in if you get impatient.
In generic terms, our galaxy is at the center of a bull’s eye (AKA the Target logo), and the other galaxies tend to be mostly on the rings around us. Once again, you rarely ever hear this model of the universe described, and the reason is because the atheists in the scientific community do not like the giant glaring sign it becomes, pointing to the Creator. But don’t take my word for it.
Here’s a guy who actually addresses this directly- Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis:
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” [emphasis mine]W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
To sum up all this red shifting business, if you let the observable data speak for itself, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that our galaxy is at the center of the universe. We are special, which implies we’re special TO someone- our Creator. But if you really hate that conclusion, as some people do, then you can extrapolate limitlessly into the past, build your cosmology on unobserved, imaginary features, and believe that, somehow, NOTHING exploded and is still expanding today. I’m still amazed that people have the audacity to call that science. It sounds like an Abbot and Costello skit.
What Exploded?
Nothing.
Nothing Exploded?
Yes.
So there was no explosion?
No, There WAS an explosion. A very BIG explosion.
So what Exploded?
Nothing.
HOW CAN NOTHING EXPLODE?
We don’t know that yet, but we’re optimistic to find out someday.
If you find out nothing, is THAT nothing at risk of exploding too?
[laughter/applause- fade to commercial]
We ARE at a special place in the universe. The density of stars and galaxies have allowed scientists to accurately predict the temperature of the universe between stars. None of this points to a Big Bang, but to a Big God. In the Beginning, GOD Created…
If you want to see even more amazing, make your brain hurt science about the stars, galaxies, and the universe as a whole, you need to spend some time with our good friend Dr Russel Humphreys. I’ll post some links below to get you started. Enjoy! #JesusLovesYou
Interview with Dr Russell Humphreys for Genesis Week with host Ian Juby
A Bit of Orange 
There are several problems with this post.
The first one being is that the Big Bang is actually not an explosion. It is widely affirmed that the term “Big Bang” is a misnomer. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe started out hot and dense and has expanded and cooled since then.
The second problem is that you claim that the Big Bang Theory is an atheistic theory. This could not be further from the truth. Before the BBT came, most atheists thought that the universe was static and eternal. The BBT actually threatened their atheism, because it implies that the universe had a beginning. So you actually have it backwards: atheists first rejected the BBT and Christians were the first ones to affirm the BBT. In fact, it was a Christians who came up with the BBT.
The third problem is that you say that Edwin Hubble was an atheist. This is blatantly wrong, as he was a Christian.
The fourth problem is that you say that the earth being in the center of the universe is evidence for God, but you never explain why that is the case. How is the earth being in the middle of the universe evidence for God?
LikeLike
Greetings again, Brady, and thank you for your questions.
1. This is semantic nit picking. If something starting out so small that it is considered of no size quickly enlarges until it is very large is NOT an explosion, then perhaps you can explain to me why it is not. Until then I shall maintain that when something suddenly gets much much larger, this can be called an explosion. IF the word “Expansion” can really be said to be importantly different, feel free to make the case, but I do not think in this case it can. I also fail to see how this pettifoggery is of any import. Nothing I say or defend really hinges on this choice of words, and thus this critique is not really necessary.
2. I understand that it proves atheism false and as such was rejected on philosophical grounds by atheists in its infancy, just as it is embraced for philosophical reasons by atheists now merely because it provides an alternative (or they falsely believe it does) to creation by God. I defend my assertion because Big Bang is not based on the observational data, it is not supported by scripture (and in fact contradicts in various ways) and it is now, out of desperation I suppose, the religious creation story of atheism. If one does not start with atheistic assumptions, I do not see any reason why they would embrace it. Christians may have embraced it- I do not know if that is true- but far too many churches erred in accepting evolution as well, and as I have shown several times over, Evolution is as wrong as wrong can be. (provided you define it to mean what Darwin meant)
3. From his own words I would not believe Hubble was a Christian, and I have found no evidence to support your claim. Also, he is listed on the internet as a celebrity Atheist/Agnostic, so if you are correct the error is not mine alone. If you have a source to confirm this, please share it. Once again, the point I make is not made on his being an atheist, nor is it broken by his not being one.
4. Forgive me for failing to make the case. I figured this one was obvious. Even Stephen Hawking addresses it in his work- if we are at the center of the universe, the odds are so far against it that it becomes much more likely that we were placed here by an act of will as opposed to random chance dumb luck. This is why Hawking asserts the absurd and (even he admits) unprovable proposition that the universe looks, to any observer in it, anywhere in the universe, as though they are at the center. See, the large scale map of the universe shows us as the center of a series of concentric bubbles- like being at the middle of a bull’s eye. This certainly would be unlikley. Hawking and others like him admit that this would make our place in the universe far more aligned with the special creation by God than by dumb luck, and that’s why he asserts the absurd and unprovable. In the quote I provide in the context of this article, he says “We believe it only on grounds of modesty…”
Actually, re-reading what I wrote, I do address most of your questions in the original article. Perhaps you ought to just give it a second, and more careful reading. Good advice for most situations I suspect.
Thanks again.
LikeLike
Thanks for your response!
1. Calling the Big Bang an explosion rather than an expansion has subtle, but profound implications. Explosions tend to be chaotic and messy, yet that is far from what the Big Bang actually is. The Big Bang was ordered and precise.
2. How do the Big Bang and the Bible contradict?
3. I guess I could have been mistaken. But you are right; whether he was or not is inconsequential to our discussion.
4. Sure, the earth being in the middle of the universe would have been exceedingly small odds. However, there was also a very small chance that the earth would be where it currently is. This seems to be an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
LikeLike
Greetings Brady! Always happy to give feedback when I have the time, which, by the date of your post is rare this summer. Sorry for the delay.
1. I agree that, if there was a Big Bang, it must have been more like a machine than an explosion because of how fine tuned and precise it was, but I still would argue that refusing the word “explosion” is taking that word out of its normal usage. I would argue that explosions are only messy because we think of them being inflicted on already ordered systems, like a car or a house. Explosions as such are very ordered and completely predictable events governed by the laws of physics and chemistry. But of course if you don’t want to call the Big Bang an explosion, feel free to use the terms you feel best.
2. Big Bang cosmology contradicts the Biblical account of creation primarily in the order of events and the time required for them. Big Bang is intended to be an undirected cosmic evolution which takes billions of years and has no goal. The Genesis account clearly has the earth existing before the sun moon and stars and taking a mere calendar week to complete. Also, as you accurately state in point 1, “The Big Bang was ordered and precise.” While I do not believe the big Bang is an event of history, if it was, it would be powerful evidence of the existence of God. This is the line of reasoning taken by other Christian apologists, such as William Lane Craig and Frank Turek.
3. Quite so.
4. I don’t think it is a logical fallacy, but rather an appeal to the best explanation. Because the odds against the earth being in any “privileged position” is SO GREAT, I think it a valid line of argument to suggest that it implies divine intent. Of course, if there were no other evidence for God’s existence, this would be weak indeed, but this is merely a small part of a great cumulative case, and as such it is valid. Besides, if it is a logical fallacy, it is one shared by Creationists and Atheists alike.
When looking for the fingerprints of God in the universe, you must start out with an agnostic position- assume that God MIGHT exist, and then examine the evidence to see if it makes more sense as a result of his actions or his absence. If you determine from the start that God does not exist, then it is not only easy but your ONLY option to say, “This is HIGHLY unlikely, but there it is. Chance must be a sufficient explaination.” Similarly, if you decide to investigate the death of President Kennedy (AKA: JFK), you must allow for the existence of a murderer, otherwise, you are going to find it to be a case of death by natural causes, the causes of which are AMAZINGLY improbable, but none the less the only possible options. Along those lines, does it make more sense to say the universe burst into being in an “ordered and precise” Big Bang with no intelligence guiding it, or in the absence of an intelligence guiding it?
Thanks again for your comments and questions.
LikeLike
Pingback: Was Genesis 1 Written for a Poetry Slam? | Feedback Friday! | A Bit of Orange
Pingback: My Boy Brady and The Big Bang | Feedback Friday! | A Bit of Orange