Episode Transcript
Speaker 1 00:01 Okay.
Speaker 0 00:02 In the fifth chapter, Saint John's Gospel, our Lord rebukes the Jews for refusing to believe in him. Quote, if you believed in Moses, you would believe me, but you do not believe his writings. How will you believe my words? Close quote, God, the son. Well, I just point out to the Jews, and if you don't believe the revelation written down by Moses in the first five books of the Bible, that's Genesis, exodus, Leviticus, numbers, and Deuteronomy. If you don't believe those writings and you won't believe the revelation spoken to you by the word of God made flesh alerts, making it clear that the writings of Moses are foundation for the true faith. Without this firm, foundation of faith, revelations of Christ have nothing to build on. That's just as true today as it was back then. In fact, your Lord makes this point clear in Luke 21 when he says, quote heaven, Earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Speaker 0 01:03 Close quote God, the son, heaven earth will pass away. My words will not pass away. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, but if you not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? Now, in that regard, today we're going to briefly consider one of the major obstacles for people believing in Moses, and that is the current standard model, naturalistic explanation, origin of the universe, known as the Big Bang. Now, just in case there's anyone here who isn't familiar with this theory, we'll make a very brief overview of the big bang in the most general terms. All right, and brief. Astronomers analyzing light from galaxies without getting any technical details have noticed something in one possible way of interpreting these results. Is it the galaxies for the most part seem to be moving apart. In other words, the universe appears to be expanding if the universe is currently expanding.
Speaker 0 02:02 So the reasoning goes then if we look backwards in time, if we run the movie backwards so to speak, the universe would be contracting. It's reasonable enough. In fact, according to this theory, there was once a time, roughly 15 billion years ago when the whole universe was squished together to point much smaller than a proton. Yes, you heard that right? I'm not making that up. The whole Shebang was squished together. By everything they mean all the energy, all this space, all the time squished together into point, much smaller than a proton, a point of infinite density and temperature. In his bestselling book, a brief history of time, the famous theoretical astrophysicist, Professor Stephen Hawkings of Cambridge University claims that initially the universe had no size whatsoever. Not sure what this means, but here we go quote at the Big Bang itself. The Universe is thought to have had zero size and so to have been infinitely hot, close quote and then suddenly for apparent reason, the big bang happens.
Speaker 0 03:01 Everything begins exploding outward and then as the universe expands outwards and cools, the energy begins to condense into matter until the universe becomes a giant transparent expanding cloud of gas made mostly of hydrogen with some helium as well as traces of lithium and deuterium. Over time inside this expanding immense gas cloud under the force of gravity, vast areas of gas slowly began to coagulate, took galaxies and stars are somehow formed until ultimately after roughly 15 billion years. We have the current universe as we see it today. So that's a thumbnail sketch of the big bang. So what's the problem with it? If that's what scientists told us, what happened, what's wrong with that? There's plenty wrong with that. We don't have the time to consider a few of the problems. We'll take a quick look at two areas. First, we'll consider a few scientific problems that you may not be aware of and then we'll consider a few problems with the methodology.
Speaker 0 04:01 A few scientific problems, you may not be aware of. First problems, the problem with the thought police in an open letter to the scientific community published a new scientist in May, 2004 30 prominent scientists from around the world. These are not creationist by any stretch of imagination. Just a physicist. 30 prominent scientists from around the world raised some of the same points we're about to consider. I'll read some excerpts from their letter in the beginning. They'll discuss a few of the problems and at the end we'll talk about the thought police in these excerpts. Quote to Big Bang today. Realize in a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there'd be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the Big Bang theory in no other field of physics with this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation, but the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
Speaker 0 05:07 These are scientists in the field in cosmology today, doubt and descent are not tolerated and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard Big Bang model. Those who dug the big bang through that saying so will cost them their funding close quote. In other words, the Big Bang theory is absurd, and yet if a scientist in the field dares to question the Big Bang theory, then bang, he's expelled. Does that sound like science? Second problem, problem with the formation of stars and galaxies. In a brief history of times bestselling work. Stephanie Hockey of Cambridge, claims at Big Bang theory as quote in agreement with all the observational evidence we have today. Close quote right after this, a few sentences later. He also states that one of the more important questions that leaves unanswered is a question of the origin of stars and galaxies.
Speaker 0 06:10 Okay, great. So he tells it's an agreement with all the observational evidence. There's theory that supposedly explains the formation of the universe, can't even explain the formation of stars and galaxies, which are actually the main components in the universe. Does this sound like science or are we actually supposed to believe this is science emperor? Where are your clothes gets worse? Third problem. Problem of the missing matter. As we've seen according to this theory, under the force of gravity, fast Aries of gas begin to clump together in some fashion until galaxies and stars are somehow formed and the strength of gravity depends on the amount of matter, the amount of stuff. The more matter, the more gravity. Okay? Those of it older can remember the guy, the astronauts on the moon jumping around because the force of gravity is so much smaller on the moon because the moon is smaller. There's not as much stuff there.
Speaker 0 07:05 Not as much matter. Okay. So the more matter, the more gravity. So they've surveyed the skies and calculate the amount of matter that scattered out there across space. And here's where the problem lies. See, according to this theory, there needs to be a lot of matter in order to have large enough gravitational force to pull all the stars and galaxies and galactic clusters and superclusters together within the so called 15 billion year age of the universe. Okay. That's the problem. In order for the Big Bang gravitational scenario to work, there needs to be more matter in the universe than what they found. Okay. Father, how much more matter? Well, the exact percentage varies according to which sources you consult, but generally speaking, the amount of matter that is missing percentage wise is estimated to be from 90 to 99.8%
Speaker 2 07:56 yeah.
Speaker 0 07:59 Wait a minute. Father did you say? In order for the Big Bang theory to even begin to explain the formation of the visible universe on their own terms, there needs to be 90 to 99% more matter than there actually is. This is a joke. No, it's not. I can spend about an hour on this one point, we'll just summarize it by saying, as a chairman of the astronomy department at the University of Washington, put it quote, it is a fairly embarrassing situation and yet we can't find 90% of the universe close quote you. Okay. I can see why that would be a little embarrassing astrophysicist to his wife. Hey honey, do you know where I put the universe? I can't find 90% of it. This isn't science. I'm trying to decide is this isn't science. This is a fairy tale. It's a fairy tale in the real world.
Speaker 0 08:44 Just hearsay claim that anything whatsoever a pebble, you pick up a house, a mountain, or even more idiotic everything. An entire universe could have possibly compacted it an infinitely dense, smarter than a proton or even into zero size, and then suddenly ballooned out in what you've got in front of you would result in you being laughed to scorn or maybe even locked up in rubber room. But in the big bang world, Hey, he become a best selling author and professor of physics at Cambridge. In the real world, explosions are destructive. We've noticed that that's what we drop bombs. Many people have also noticed that they make a big mess, but in the big bang world, hey, explosions are creative. They produce beauty in order, and if you wait long enough, Cambridge professors in the real world answers that are 90 to 99.8% wrong, are not generally considered to be adequate good work.
Speaker 0 09:38 It's not quality work, but in the big bang world, Hey, this is serious science and heavily funded by your tax dollars. We could keep going, but the point is obvious. This isn't science. It's a fairy tale. It's a fairy tale and unfortunately just don't have the time to treat it with a contempt. It's so richly deserves. Now let's take a quick look at and methological problems. We'll start by stepping back and asking themselves two very basic questions. First, what's the actual goal of the Big Bang theory? In other words, what are they trying to accomplish? And second, are there any hidden assumptions? So what's the actual goal of the Big Bang theory in? Are there any hidden assumptions? Start with the first one. What's the actual goal? It's obvious they're attempting to give a historical count of the universe, like the title of Stephen Hawking's book, not to pick on, I'm a brief history of time.
Speaker 0 10:32 They're tempting to give a historical count of the universe where it came from, how and why it began. Actually, they also talk about huddle and as well, but we're not going to deal with that right now. In other words, they're trying to solve historical questions as if they're actually physics problems and that's problematic. After all, if someone wants to study history, say the battle of Gettysburg is the first step to master whole series of mathematical equations and then study a lot of experiments. Is that how we start studying history? Of course not and why not? Because although in some cases mathematics and science can make positive contributions to historical studies, that's not a question. History in itself is not a math prob.
Speaker 3 11:17 Wow.
Speaker 0 11:18 History in itself is not a science problem. History is a question of evidence. If you want to answer historical questions, we look at the evidence. For example, what are we talking about with evidence? We ask ourselves, are the witnesses other documents? Are there artifacts? Things like photos, tapes, arrowheads crosses, so forth. Are they consistent? Are they reliable?
Speaker 0 11:47 We judge the claims of history on the basis of evidence. It's like being a jury member. We've talked about before. When you're jury member on a trial, if we become jury members, what are we supposed to do? We're supposed to weigh the testimony. We're supposed to consider whether or not they're witnesses, whether or not the witnesses are consistent, whether or not the witnesses are reliable. We're supposed to consider the documentation. Is this consistent and reliable with what we've heard? We're supposed to consider the artifacts, the tapes or videos or photos or bullets or whatever it is. Are they consistent with the documentation and the testimony of the witnesses? And then after weighing the evidence, we ask herself, does this evidence convince me beyond a reasonable doubt, right? That's history. It's the same procedure. Are the witnesses or their documents? Are The artifacts? Are they consistent?
Speaker 0 12:35 Are they reliable? Now we, once we see this, then the hidden assumptions suddenly come into focus. See, the history of the universe is being treated as if the only available evidence is the universe itself, which is a collection of artifacts. The history of the universe is being treated as if the only available evidence is the universe itself to collection artifacts and that hidden assumption that the only available evidence artifacts makes it possible for the Big Bang dreamers to act. On the one hand as if this whole historical question is simply and strictly a question of science and math, and on the other hand, they act as if it were not a question of history, even though they caught history, but that's not all. This first kitten assumption that the only available evidence for understanding origin of the universe or artifacts, that first hidden assumption immediately implies another hidden assumption.
Speaker 0 13:43 Now, in this case, there are two possibilities. Possibility, a, the origin of the universe was not witnessed and therefore there are no documents or possibility be the origin of the universe was witnessed, but there are no reliable documents. Possibility a, the origin of the universe was not witnessed and therefore there are no documents or possibility be the origin of the universe was witnessed. There's no reliable documentation either. No witnesses and no documents or witness, no documents. Okay. What does that mean in plain terms? Possibility. A No witness means no god. So of course there can't be any historical counts of the origin of the universe. Possibility B is there is a god, but he left us absolutely no reliable documentation. He left us absolutely no historical counts of the origin of the universe. So the methological problem with the Big Bang theory is that a purely historical question is not being treated as a historical question at all, but rather as a complex problem in physics as if the only available evidence of the origin of the universe, artifacts as if there were no witnesses and no god at all, or if there is a god, then nonetheless, he has told us absolutely nothing with any real historical value concerning the origin of the universe.
Speaker 0 15:01 In either event, the big bang immediately applies that there are absolutely no historical accounts available about the origin of the universe and this means that in either event, Moses is to be completely ignored at best or ridiculed at worst because his account of the origin of the universe doesn't mean a thing. It's not reliable historical documentation, which brings us around again to the words of the son of God, the song warning of the word made flesh, lot of ringing in our ears. Every time we hear someone defend fantastical fairytale, it's like the big bang. If you believed in Moses, you would believe in me. But if you do not believe his writings, how you believe my words, heaven and earth will pass away. My words will not pass away. You do not believe the writings of Moses, how he believe my words.
