The Big Bang or the Bible?

We found this at a website we never heard of before — NOQ Report. Their headline is Exploding the myth of the Big Bang.

Wikipedia has a very brief write-up on NOQ Report. They’re described as “a conservative online news and opinion source,” but the footnoted source for that definition is none other than the website of NOQ Report. It appears that they’re using the word “conservative” in a theological sense to mean the ideas of Jerry Falwell, and not the way a political conservative like Barry Goldwater used it. So in this context, “conservative” means drooling creationist.

It’s always entertaining to see what creationists have to say about the Big Bang, so we took a look. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Secular scientists have mostly embraced the Big Bang theory as the most likely scenario for the creation of the universe. [They’re fools!] The theory works on mathematical models that seem to work all the way into just prior to the alleged Big Bang incident itself.

It’s not just math; there’s plenty of Observational evidence, especially the Cosmic microwave background. Anyway, then they say:

While this may seem like proof of its validity, the breaking of the math at the point of origin itself should be enough to debunk it. However, it persists.

Groan. The “breaking of the math” is a crude reference to the fact that general relativity doesn’t describe a singularity of infinite density. So what? No one knows if the matter that suddenly began expanding to become what we call the visible universe actually was a singularity of infinite density. If it were, then we need something other than general relativity to describe it — but that doesn’t discredit the so-called Big Bang theory — except for creationists.

Faced with this crisis, NOQ Report turns to a great scientific source of information. They tell us:

Answers in Genesis [ol’ Hambo’s ministry] put out an excellent video featuring Dr. Terry Mortenson that “explodes” the myth of the Big Bang theory.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Mortenson is one of ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists. The last time we wrote about him was AIG: The Heresy of Millions of Years. According to AIG’s write-up, Dr. Terry Mortenson “earned an MDiv (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) and a PhD in the history of geology (Coventry University).”

That’s the guy NOQ Report is using as an expert on the Big Bang. His video is at their website, but we haven’t looked at it. They continue:

Clearly, he holds to a Biblical worldview instead of a secular scientific worldview, which we’ve covered ourselves in the recent past. By applying what we know about creation from a scientific perspective, honest observers [Hee hee!] can only come to one conclusion: that the Biblical description of creation is absolutely correct.

Ah yes, that’s the only conclusion an “honest observer” can have. Let’s read on:

From a Biblical worldview, we draw on two assumptions:

1. The eternal, good, all-knowing, all-powerful, holy God exists and He created everything else.

2. The Bible, God’s completely truthful eyewitness testimony, explains the key events in history so that we can correctly interpret the evidence from the origin and history of the creation.

Those are perfectly reasonable assumptions. Another excerpt:

Mortenson compares the two worldviews from the perspective of creation by applying actual science. Understanding that science is actually on the side of those with a Biblical worldview is very important if we’re to have an honest debate on this issue.

Mortenson says that “actual science” is “actually on the side of those with a Biblical worldview.” That’s good to know. And now we come to the end:

This hour-long video from Answers in Genesis is a must-watch for anyone who either seeks clarity to improve themselves as apologists or who has questions of their own about our origins.

If you want to watch Mortenson for an hour, click on our link to NOQ Report. The video is right there below their headline. Let us know what we’re missing.

Copyright © 2019. 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

13 responses to “The Big Bang or the Bible?

  1. Mortenson tells us “The Bible, God’s completely truthful eyewitness testimony…” . Ah, that explains the contradictions and confusion in it. Forensic scientists know eye witness testimony is generally unreliable.

  2. God’s completely truthful eyewitness testimony,
    The Bible does not claim to be God’s completely truthful eyewitness testimony.
    I don’t know when and where that idea comes from.
    As it stands, it is an anonymous report. There is an ancient traditon that Genesis was written by Moses, perhaps on Do’s dictation, or perhaps handed down from Adam through several generatons. In either case, it does not qualify as eyewitness testimony.
    If I testified in court that someone told me that they saw what happened, that would not be accepted as eyewitness testimony. That’s what “eyewitness testimony” means. (If you don’t like what legal terms mean, then don;t use legal terms.)
    I don’t know that the Bible says anywhere that Genesis 1 is “completely truthful”. (The standard proof-text is 2 Timothy 3:16, but it says is that scripture is “profitable” for certain specific uses. It doesn’t say anything about “completely truthful” or about scientific uses.)
    Anyway, geting to substance. Genesis 1 does not say that God created “everything else”. It mentions some specific things which were created, such as the “firmament”, which is to separate the waters above from below (the existence of waters is presupposed at the begining of God’s creation, and doesn’t say anything about where they came from).

  3. So a bunch of stone age tails about mythical ego boosters, rewritten by bronze age people in an identity crises, then changed a little by a bunch of losers who think the world will end in less than 100yrs, is MORE accurate and reliable then modern science!?! Ya! Right!

  4. ” mathematical models that seem to work all the way into just prior to the alleged Big Bang incident itself.” A mathematical model that worked just prior to the Big Bang, whatever that might mean, would be interesting indeed

  5. Michael Fugate

    The Bible doesn’t mention what God was doing before Genesis 1 either.

  6. “embraced the Big Bang theory”
    There are only two kind of people who use this expression: apologists and fans of a certain TV-series.

    “No one knows if the matter that suddenly began expanding to become what we call the visible universe actually was a singularity of infinite density.”
    Actually we do know and the answer is no. Because quantum mechanics.
    Our dear SC is a bit lazy today: “Let us know what we’re missing.”
    The video is actually 76 minutes and no way I’m going to watch it all. Just a couple of minutes to collect a few worthy quotes.

    “Dr. Mortinson even helps to lead creation based rafting trips through the Grand Canyon”
    How do such things work? Relying on prayer instead of life jackets?

    “Evolution is really a three-part theory to explain all of reality.”
    “That story about origins [cosmological, geological and biological evolution – FrankB] is based upon a worldview that controls science today. It is the worldview that philosophers call naturalism but it’s also know by the name atheism.”
    “There are two assumptions that are controlling science today The first assumptions is that nature and matter is all that exists.”
    “The second assumption is that everything can, and indeed must, be explained by time plus chance plus the laws of nature working on matter.”

    What shall I say? A candid admission that Dr. Mortinson rejects the scientific method as used last 200-250 years. ‘Nuff said.

    @TomS is confused: “I don’t know when and where that idea comes from.”
    The omni-everything god in extremis.

  7. Hm, Great Hand from Above – your rival, Ol’Hambo’s god, has send my comment to the spam bin or something. But I’ve been a good and faithful boy last couple of days (let’s remain silent on everything before), so I’m sure your Might Hand will stretch forward and trump that annoying loser god.

    [*Voice from above*] If you tried to comment on that creationist site, you deserve whatever fate you experience there.

  8. @Paul Braterman
    mathematical models that seem to work all the way into just prior to the alleged Big Bang incident itself
    That puzzled me for qite some time, until it struck me that they were thinking of working backward in time, so “just prior” means “the last moment that we can recover before runing into a singularity”, or, in ordinary English, “just after”.

  9. @TomS, I fear you’re right. Now we’ll never know what happened just before

  10. Karl Goldsmith

    “PhD in the history of geology (Coventry University).” Easy when that history of just 6,000 years needs to be accounted for, or is he like YECs and has to lie to get a qualfication, to then spend his life lying about he was actually taught. Seeing how there is 21 years between his math and geology qualification it seems he did it just so he could use Dr.

  11. Michael Fugate

    And his only jobs have been with Campus Crusade 1975-2001 and AiG 2001-present.
    One can see much of his PhD thesis here:
    Where he argues that there were young earth geologists in the 19th c. – impressed?

  12. I guess as a self-described “mom and a friend”, Scarlett Madison didn’t feel entirely qualified to debunk the Big Bang on her own, so she hauled out the big guns from AiG to settle the matter, once and for all.

  13. Ross Cameron

    Hope Terry doesn`t go into hospital for brain surgery by a guy who read a book about it somewhere. At least AIG`s pet geo Snelling can walk on both sides of the street at once.