For an interesting website defending the Old Earth Perspective from a biblical point of view:
• God and Science

Bottom line of what I’m saying – unless it “banged” because God said it, no one can convince me that the supposed “big bang” happened.

It is also quite egoistic to assume that all scientists (oh, and James Cameron) are simply out to destroy your own personal belief system. Perhaps we would all like to be martyrs in our far-flung fantasies, but the fact is that scientists are among the most objective people in our society and they seek TRUTH where they can.

This might sound like an overly bold statement, but if you think about it, it is not: God didn’t say that he created the universe in six twenty-four hour periods. That was the simple-minded assumption of men who read the scriptures much, much too literally. if the Bible DOES speak the truth, then it must also corroborate with known facts. “Young-earth” creationism doesn’t do it. And, of course, young earth creationism isn’t the only option on the table for Christians, no matter how vociferously they have proclaimed it so in the past.

By my understanding, scientists are basing how they say the earth was created on what they see. Since when do believers go by what is seen, vs what God says?

If we believe that God can do what He says He can do when He says He will do (or did) it, then how is it so hard to believe that He created the earth in 6 days, and rested on the 7th?

It seems to me that too much research has been going into trying to disprove that God created the universe – or that there even is a God. Call me brainwashed or “anti-intellectual” but I choose to not allow the truth (what the Bible says) to be changed by scientists, many of whom would desire to discredit that foundation of truth with things that appear real to their five senses. As a response, creation scientists are trying to prove these secular scientists wrong with the same tactics to defend what we know (based on FAITH). So now, we have James Cameron doing a documentary saying that he found the bones of Jesus, and has Christians trembling. Am I worried? Am I going to change my belief and say, “maybe Jesus was crucified and resurrected ‘spiritually’ and continued until his ‘physical’ death? PLEASE!

I’m quite certain that you’ve no wish to join in a protracted debate with me about astrophysicists (especially since neither of us is an astrophysicist), yet I must point out that you are the one who seems to be willfully (wishfully, perhaps) accepting outdated and unsupported suppositions, not me. I read that horribly embarrassing article by Kurt Johmann only to discover that he is as ***ludicrous*** as they come. Here’s three reasons why:

1) Johmann’s entire article is based on his admittedly “cold” reading of the book Seeing Red by Halton Arp, but he is completely unaware that Arp’s theory of redshift quantization was completely discredited in the 1990’s by studies using the Hubble telescope. Arp still staunchly believes in his hypothesis that big bang theory is wrong—he has staked his fame on it—but a true scientist would have abandoned a hypothesis when it turned out to be insupportable. As it turns out, Johmann’s article is just as misguided about the implications of redshift (namely the implication that all observable matter expanding into space can be mathematically traced back to a single point of origin 15 billion years ago).

2) Kurt Johmann is not writing this article scientifically: he has “borrowed” an outdated weapon from a loner scientist, and his intention is to obfuscate known facts so as to confuse people and prod them to join his position against the mainstream scientific community (sounds almost like what you’re accusing Joe Smith of doing!). Laughably, his best argument in the article is “you don’t know what you don’t know”: this is a fallacious argument since it applies equally to everyone (even him) and does absolutely nothing to bolster or diminish either side. It’s meaningless, pseudo-intellectual misdirection. The very purpose of studying red shift is to discover what we CAN know, which is a lot more than Johmann would like for us to.

3) Lohmann proves himself to be nothing more than a radical conspiracy theorist when in the last section of his essay, titled “Black Holes as Symbols of Imperial Domination” he asserts that the United States has officially supported current astrophysical theories because they “symbolically” depict our nation which, in Johmann’s words is “dominating” “all-powerful” and “destructive.” Johmann goes so far as to write that, “Like a black hole, the American empire is an all-powerful entity that crushes other peoples (destroying their defenses, and murdering their defenders), and then absorbs those crushed peoples into itself (enslaving the survivors), with the result that the empire is bigger and more powerful than it was.”

Surely, Johmann is NOT to be taken seriously either in his outdated scientific speculations OR in his conspiracy-theorist hate speech. I hope this is not the best article out there that argues against the accepted interpretations of redshift, because I am SO not impressed.

By the way, if you want a far more entertaining view on this same article, read Scott Adam’s blog entry (Dilbert creator) about it, called “Fossils are Bull%&*#.”

With Joseph Smith, all we have is his word – one that I’m not willing to accept. In fact, I think Joseph Smith was a false prophet. If Joseph Smith never existed, we would still have Christianity. He added nothing to it except confusion and false doctrine.

Today the LDS church is a monolithic and extremely wealthy organization. I’m deeply impressed by the thousands of young people it has mobilized, though I’m chagrined that they are taught that their mission somehow adds to their standing before God and that someday their complete obedience will result in themselves being gods of their own planet.

I will admit that there are other branches of real Christianity that are corrupt and in error as well. There is not one strand that is perfect. However, what the LDS church has wrong, it has it REALLY wrong. It’s teachings are misleading, confusing, and damaging. I’ll be glad to correspond via email with you about this, if you’d like. I doubt I’d have the room n this forum.

Again, I appreciate the time you’ve taken to respond; however, your knowledge has not led you to truth.

…

Mark,

I’m surprised and shocked that anyone as educated as you would say, “absolutely undisputed evidence in astrophysics that proves the universe began in the big bang.” That too is ludicrous. What evidence? Can we really have indisputable evidence for something like this?

There are hundreds of scientists that would line up to dispute your statement. I will agree that it’s a “a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe.” (This from NASA).

In addition, at least one (and there are many more) astrophysicist – George F. R. Ellis – has called it like he sees it, when he says that any explanation of the origins of the universe begin primarily in one’s philosophical worldview. He said, “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. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. 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.” (italics mine) Source.

There have been significant alternative theories proposed, even in the last four years. Others are also asking questions. The Big Bang Theory does seem to answer a lot of questions, but it has also left others significantly untouched.

There are many highly intelligent people (way beyond you and I) that actively dispute even some of the most basic premises behind the theory.

In fact, Mark, I’m somewhat shocked that you would assert such a thing when in 2005, numerous headlines proclaimed that the Big Bang had even been disproved, with a Nobel laureate, Hannes Alfvén, the father of plasma physics, reigning in to say that cosmologists are mistaken in some of their most basic premises.

And again, please, where are you getting such statements like this: “All other Western nations are much more accepting of evolutionary theory?” The dispute over evolution is not just from American scientists but it’s a worldwide one.

And finally, I think there’s been a lot of change in Mormon belief, as you pointed out. The almost 4000 changes to their scriptures (in just the past 150 years!) are not significant. To say that the Mormon prophets are receiving instructions from God, one has to conclude that the God they are serving must be very confused.

Their positions and beliefs have changed (by official pronouncement, changing what Joseph Smith said) in some significant social arenas, including racism, abortion, and even polygamy.

Sorry, I just couldn’t let these assertions remain as stated. They were quite dogmatic, and at the very least, I’d like to at least shove the pendulum back toward the middle here.

For more reading:
Kurt Johmann’s Debunking the Big Bang

1) I was also going to point out the two inaccuracies in Mormon belief that Alma responded to in his first comment. Having conversed much on LDS beliefs with a good friend of mine, I am somewhat knowledgeable, I’d say. I’ll also point out that LDS “leaders” don’t change beliefs, but much like the Roman Catholic faith, Mormon’s believe that their prophet on earth does receive instruction from God. As for Mormon’s changing their tune alongside new findings…isn’t that what Creation Scientists have been doing for years?

2) In my experience, most conservative Christians in America only want to look as deep as the “monkey into man” time frame of macro-evolution. Even evolutionists still dispute the exact lines of descent of modern primate populations…this is small potatoes. What anti-Darwinist people often fail to realize, however, is that there is absolutely undisputed evidence in astrophysics that proves the universe began in the “big bang.” Smart Christians (at least those who also have scientific training) understand that the discovery of the big bang seals the age of the universe and also the age of the planet. So-called “young earth” creationism has become silly in its back-stepping and downright ludicrous in its wild assumptions about a creation of “seven twenty-four-hour periods.” Anyone who has read any of the astrophysical evidence will at least admit an “old earth” creationism is more likely, one in which the big bang and geological and biological evolution exist as mechanisms under the will of the creator.

3) In a final note: the statistics on acceptance of evolution which include only America are not representative of the globe. All other Western nations are much more accepting of evolutionary theory AND are aware that the United States (from a global perspective) tends to be highly conservative, especially in favor of traditional Christian beliefs. As Americans, we tend to see our nation as liberal (we are much more than at any time since the great depression), but we are still global conservatives, have always been so, and our bias against evolution is one thing that sets us apart from the rest of the world.