The Origin of the Universe — Explained by Hambo

There is no subject which has not been mastered Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. His incredible grasp of knowledge also embraces cosmology.

Ol’ Hambo just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: The Big Bang “Says Nothing About How the Universe Was Created”. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A short article [Ask a Scientist: How did the Big Bang begin?] appeared recently in an “Ask a Scientist” column in response to the question, “How did the Big Bang begin?” The scientist explains, “The Big Bang Theory is a timeline of the history of the universe. It says nothing about how the universe was created. As such, there is no beginning to the Big Bang, since it is a theory that merely describes the universe’s history.”

So far, Hambo accurately describes what was said by Zeke Elkins, a Ph.D. student in the Division of Biological Sciences at the University of Missouri. But then — well, judge for yourself. Hambo tells us:

He goes on to explain that in the Big Bang model (which he wrongly refers to as a theory, as there’s no observational evidence to support it [Hee hee!]), the entire universe was once packed so tightly together that normal physics wouldn’t have worked. Therefore “our current knowledge of the laws of physics tell us little to nothing about what happens at that scale. For now, the beginning of the universe is still unknown.”

Regarding Hambo’s claim that there’s “there’s no observational evidence,” Wikipedia’s article on the Big Bang has a whole section on Observational evidence. We assume Hambo means that no human observer witnessed the event, because after that he tells us:

This scientist needs to read the Bible — the beginning of the universe is not unknown! It’s not a mystery. The eyewitness Creator has told us how the universe began: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

Ooooooooooooh! Eyewitness testimony! Hambo reminds us:

As I said to Bill Nye, “The Science Guy,” when I debated him in 2014, it’s not a mystery where matter came from. I added: “we have a book that tells us” where matter and the universe came from.

Ah yes, Hambo has a book. That settles the matter. He continues

Now, many Christians who compromise God’s Word in Genesis argue that God used the Big Bang to create. They’ll even say that the Big Bang proves there was a beginning, which agrees with the Bible. But this is a very poor argument. First of all, the Big Bang model contradicts the Bible in several ways (e.g., the order of events in Genesis); secondly, it’s nothing more than a secular origins story based on naturalism. [So it’s worthless!] In other words, the idea was developed for man’s atheistic belief to try to explain the universe without the need for a Creator.

Hambo goes on about the flaws in the Big Bang model:

When Christians appeal to the Big Bang, all they are doing is sticking God into a pagan origins story. [Pagan!] Besides, the Big Bang idea has the stars existing before the sun and earth (which began as a hot molten blob, adherents say). But the Bible makes it clear that God created the earth first, that it was covered with water (not a hot, molten blob), and that the sun and stars were created after the earth.

The Big Bang model has it all wrong! Here’s more:

The Big Bang doesn’t actually explain how the universe began. According to this scientist, that’s still an “unknown.” A naturalistic origin for the universe is an idea that must be accepted by faith. [Faith? That’s stupid!] Instead of placing their faith in the Creator God [That’s the right kind of faith.], these scientists put their faith in an unknown.

Silly scientists! And now we come to the end:

I urge them to look into the Bible and get answers to their questions about the history of the universe — and to personally encounter their Creator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, there.

So there you have it, dear reader. Where will you place your faith — in a pagan origins story, or in Hambo’s book? Your decision will have eternal consequences, so choose wisely.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

26 responses to “The Origin of the Universe — Explained by Hambo

  1. “as there’s no observational evidence to support it [the Big Bang]”

    “normal physics wouldn’t have worked”
    This only applies to classical theories like Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity. Probabilistic theories work just fine. The problem rather is that there are too many theories and not enough empirical data to decide which ones are incorrect.

    “we have a book that tells us”
    And how again does Ol’Hambo know who the author was and if that author was there? Exactly, ‘cuz the book says so.

    “the idea was developed for man’s atheistic belief”
    Georges Lemaitre, the second one to suggest what’s now called the Big Bang, was a catholic. Apparently catholics according to Ol’Hambo are atheists.

    Great article by Ol’Hambo.

  2. Go easy on ol’ Kenny, that’s the only gap left for his God to fill……..

  3. The Bible does not tell us where matter comes from.
    The opening words of Genesis tell us that the first creation of God is light, and it takes place when there already was the deep water with a wind: a chaos. God goes on to create by moving stuff around. There is no mention of the appearance of space and time.
    The concept of “creation from nothing” does not appear in the Hebrew Bible.

  4. @FrankB
    Atheists traditionally assumed that the universe was eternal. They didn’t like the Big Bang at first – too much like creation.

  5. Not only silly scientists, but decidedly unsexy, as well. Bill Nye has all the sex appeal of…well, Ken Ham himself when he gives us one of his death-mask grins. Who wants to watch two dried-up stalks of celery in a debate about origins?

    No, clearly we need celebs with star magnetism and husky, low voices steaming up the auditorium at Creation Museum. Let’s have Ham debate Scarlett Johansson or Jennifer Lawrence on the Big Bang, and see how he fares.

  6. @ChrisS – I’d nominate Kelly from the Rational Response Squad, but they’d just focus on her pr0n career and start a smear campaign…….

  7. Wow. And where did your creator come from then???? Thats okay. We’ll wait for an explanation.

  8. Actually, Hambone’s preferred god-guy story is a “pagan origins story”, since most religions generally consider all the other ones pagan. And I think I recall from a college religion class long ago that most, if not all, of Hambone’s favorite story was cribbed from those of other religions, which I think Hambone would consider pagan. One of the people here who have studied religion recently might have more exact information.

  9. @ChrisS I think you’re onto to something there.

    My dear SC, perhaps the next Free Fire Zone could focus on who we would nominate for a second debate with Ken Ham.

    My early postal vote goes to Pope Francis.

  10. FrankB asks: “And how again does Ol’Hambo know who the author was and if that author was there?” and answers himself: “Exactly, ‘cuz the book says so.”

    I know this will be dismissed as an irrelevance – and to the question of whether Genesis is factual or not, it is indeed an irrelevance – but Ham’s Book DOES NOT say who its author was, nor avow that he – He, if you will -was there. Those assertions are Ham’s alone, made up from thin air, added to the meaning of the text in flat blank defiance of the last verse of the canonical Bible, out of nothing but arrogant assumption of his own authority – piss and wind, as my father would say.

    The factual truth about the history of the Earth and of life is vitally important, but I hold that exposing that arrogance, that presumption, and that hypocrisy is just as important; and letting Ham get away with saying that “the Bible tells me so” when it doesn’t, is conceding a point to him that shouldn’t be conceded.

    I know it isn’t an important point to a realist. I know of course that the obviously circular reasoning of “the Bible is an authority because the Bible says that it’s an authority, and what the Bible says must be true, because the Bible is an authority” is merely risible. But to hundreds of millions of people, the Bible is an authority. It will mean more to them that Ham is inventing and adding to the text than all the radioisotope dating methods and cosmology ever discovered.

    And above all, why should a con-man and a fraud be allowed to get away with anything?

  11. @Dave Luckett
    It irritated me when Nye let the claim be made that the book had something to say about such-and-such. Genesis does not claim to be an eye witness account, it does not tell about the creation of space, time and matter, etc.
    Let’s hear a debate between a YEC and
    someone who knows something about the Bible. A real Biblical scholar couldn’t be bothered, but why not an OEC or an IDist?

  12. Brave Ham, sticking it (after his fashion) to a PhD biology student.

    Jewish tradition is that the Pentateuch (except maybe for the very end bit) was dictated to God by Moses. Does anyone know when this idea arose? ISTR Christian biblical literalists describing the Pentateuch as “dictated” rather than merely “revealed”, a carry-over of this idea

    Notice that Ham has gone full loony-tunes here, with the Earth being originally created by God as cold and wet [as TomS points out, such an origin for this primal state is not in the Book], with the Sun and stars afterwards

  13. @Kosh pities Ol’Hambo: “Go easy on ol’ Kenny, that’s the only gap left for his God to fill……..”
    There is also superconductivity at relatively high temperatures, but for some obscure reason that one is not popular.

    @TomS doesn’t know his history of physics and hence becomes a victim of christian propaganda: “Atheists ….. didn’t like the Big Bang at first – too much like creation.”
    Alexander Friedmann and Georgij Gamov were both atheists, while Ralph Alpher considered himself an agnost. I couldn’t find anything about Willem de Sitter, Howard Robinson and Arthur Walker.
    Apologists fond of this argument typically “forget” to name any atheist rejecting the Big Bang but Fred Hoyle. Even with him it’s not clear whether he rejected it ‘cuz atheism or for other reasons.

    @DaveL correctly points out: “but Ham’s Book DOES NOT say who its author was”
    Indeed, it’s just what Ol’Hambo says. Thanks for the addition.

    “why should a con-man and a fraud be allowed to get away with anything?”
    The problem with creacrappers is that a complete refutation takes more words than the creacrap they produce itself. The positive side is that many of us can have fun with Ol’Hambo, the Idiots from Seattle and other creafrauds.
    So I never object any addition. Instead I enjoy from how many angles creacrap is and remains a total failure.
    But except for less than a handful of exceptions I prefer to stay away from any claim of what the Bible says and doesn’t say. The reason is that I don’t care.

  14. @FrankB
    As far as who liked the Big Bang at first.
    Nobody liked it at first. For example, Einstein. He reworked his equations to avoid it. On the other hand the Pope liked it, because of the denial of the eternal universe, something which was an old problem for Christianity, back to the 13th century.
    This, rather than being creationist propaganda, is something that they would rather ignore. The BB was adopted, not because of atheism, but because of the evidence.

  15. @Paul Braterman
    The Wipedia article on Mosaic authorship suggests that idea appeared, in its full form, in the Babylonian Talmud.
    Maimonides taught that it was important to Judaism.

  16. @TomS, thanks, that sounds about right. Within Orthodox Judaism (the kind I was brought up in, not the know nothing radical Haredi cult) the question is contentious. Around fifty years ago, a very promising candidate for the role of Chief Rabbi of the UK was blocked because of his denial of Mosaic authorship. My stepfather thought that indeed he should be blocked. He (my stepfather) didn’t believe in Mosaic authorship either, but thought that a Chief Rabbi should be held to a higher standard

  17. Ham: The eyewitness Creator has told us how the universe began

    Does the defence wish to let the defendant be their own witness? Dismissed.

  18. @Draken
    No, it’s worse than that. There is no problem with defendants testifying on their own behalf.
    The Bible has NOT told us:
    1) that what the Bible says is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator
    2) how universe began

  19. BTW, the analogy of a trial is not appropriate, because the purpose of a trial is not to arrive at the truth. It is for justice.
    For example:
    *Testimony can be not allowed because it was unjustly obtained – by torture, by stealing it, etc.
    *A verdict must be obtained after a limited time.
    *The verdict is for the prosecution or the defense. It can’t about someone else.
    And I wonder whether creatioism should be considered as the defense or the prosecution.
    Is the prosecution able to testify on its own case? At least in the USA, the lawyers are not allowed to testify.

  20. @TomS, I thought lawyers could testify if willing to do so. Like Bryan at the Scopes trial

  21. Paul Braterman says: “I thought lawyers could testify if willing to do so. Like Bryan at the Scopes trial”

    Only witnesses (including experts, as when DNA is an issue), can testify. Bryan was allowed to testify as an expert on the bible.

  22. The eyewitness Creator has told us how the universe began: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

    Yes but is he a reliable and credible witness?

  23. Understood, SC; if one were neither a witness nor an expert, one would have nothing to testify about. So we are agreed that lawyers don’t get to testify by virtue of being lawyers, except maybe where what is at issue is the law. (I suspect even that isn’t called testifying, but arguing an opinion, depending on what court in what jurisdiction, but claim no knowledge of such fine distinctions)

    Not sure how we got into this side-issue, but I think we’re all agreed about it now

  24. @Richard Staller; no. He is known (See Genesis 6ff) to drown kittens

  25. @Richard Staller
    First of all, there is nothing in the Bible which tells us who is “testifying” in the opening of Genesis. There is an ancient tradition that this was written by Moses. Perhaps on God’s inspiration, but that would make it, at best, “hearsay” evidence. If we had the original manuscripts, about which we don’t even know that there were original manuscripts.
    Second, it is well known that eyewitness testimony is not as reliable as physical evidence.
    Third, many scholars of Biblical Hebrew tell us that the traditional translation is misleading. Something like “In the begining of God’s creation” or “When God began to create” is better.
    Fourth, however one translates it, it doesn’t give a hint about the origin, if any, of the chaos of water and wind at the beginning. Nothng about the origins, if any, of spiritual or supernatural beings, or of morality, beauty, etc.. Nothing about space, time and matter. Nothing about mathematics.
    Finally, as to the “how” the creation took place, God said “let there be light”, and “let the water and ground bring forth animals and plants” (nothing about bacteria and archaea, the majority of life, btw), and the other creating was moving around stuff.
    Anything else in the way of descripton of the how of creation is a product of mere finite, falllible human thuoght.