The Death of the Big Bang

Worth a watch. Much of this is over my head but there are key elements that we all have been taught as scientific truth since childhood that are clearly not true.

The big bang has been in its death throes for quite some time now even if much of science does not want to admit it but this well could be the nail in the coffin IMO.

 

..very interesting. Years ago I heard a very wise scientist say that most scientists will try to tell you what they know (or think they know), but will never tell you that there is far, far more they do not know. For me, I hate peer pressure of any kind. Sure, certain things can't be disputed (the world is round, not flat, etc). But I've always felt that the whole big bang/evolution thing was pushed much like global warming; You had to accept it in it's entirety as put forth by those who fully subscribe to it. And those, even in science, who questioned it or disputed it....in very technical ways, were/are ridiculed and mocked. It's just like the Shroud of Turin thing. Every so often, an article comes out like one did a few months ago, which basically states new testing shows the shroud is likely fake. When the latest such article came out, I contacted an expert on the shroud who I've been in touch with before, and he told me that the person who's opinions were the basis for the article, had long since been discredited. I was given very specific examples of how and why. In short, to me...scientists are like doctors. Many of them think they know everything. They do not.

 

Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille is a well know and accomplished man in his field. He is a radiologist though, he is not a physicist or astronomer or any other kind of scientist, nor does he have training in these areas. His ideas are considered on the crank end of the spectrum in areas outside his area of expertise.

His detractors accuse him of ignoring evidence which does not support his theories and he shows great misunderstandings in areas outside his field to the point of not even understanding basic thermodynamics. Scientists can easily shoot holes in his far-out theories. It is only when he is left to present his ideas to audiences without the proper understanding of basic physics that these arguments seem to make sense.

This appears to be more akin to flat earth "evidence" than actual science.

 

Very grateful to you Praetorian. That was what i had concluded cf the OP but had no desire to begin a possible argument with others of the forum who would naturally want to support any viewpoint that provides evidence : ' ha : more evidence that scientists are not to be trusted'

 

No problem Jerry, we must never hate science. God created physics and the laws of the natural universe. We can dislike some scientists who misuse science, but it is no more evil than cinema is. Both can be used by bad people and today both (and many other) areas of modern society are. They are rife with atheists and pagans. That, however, does not mean science is bad. No more than a movie is bad. The Church has a long history of investigating the universe through science. The Vatican has the oldest observatories in the world.

Let's not forget it was a priest, Fr. Lemaitre, who came up with the big bang theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

I think the big bang theory is an amazing and miraculous thing. Imagine everything in existence springing into being at one moment from nothing.
Can it get more mystical than that? "Let there be light!"

The modern notion that "Science is bad" or that scientists are trying to trick us about the origins of the universe has Protestant fundamentalist origins. Not Catholic ones.

In fact, dimensional science is coming dangerously close to proving Heaven is real and it is making them very uncomfortable.

I don't dislike science, but I dislike bad science like the kind Mr. Robitaille puts forth. It is really junk science presented as true science and misleads people into thinking silly things like the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old. It takes a bunch of facts that when presented in a certain way to the general populace seem to make sense, but it doesn't hold up even to light scrutiny by knowledgeable researchers.

I love science and honestly, I have not found one single place where science and faith conflict. They only conflict if we take non-Catholic starting points like the Earth is 6,000 years old and try to jam science into it. That won't work. The Earth and universe are billions of years old. There were dinosaurs. The world is round. ect. etc. etc.

To believe some of this pseudo-science honestly just makes us look silly to the rest of the world. And if they think we are basing our scientific beliefs on irrational reasoning then they will think the same way about where we draw our basis for belief in God.

 

"Very grateful to you Praetorian. That was what i had concluded cf the OP but had no desire to begin a possible argument with others of the forum who would naturally want to support any viewpoint that provides evidence : ' ha : more evidence that scientists are not to be trusted'"

...Ahhhh, but you did, in theory, begin an argument, Jerry, with those very words.
...I'm just an armchair idiot, and retain no facts when I read them. And I don't know a fraction of what, say, doctors know. But, I learned in taking care of my parents, that while they may know technicalities, they just are not always correct, often miss the big picture, and often do not like being questioned. And so, forgive me for being a little less trusting of science telling me what happened since the beginning of time that they observe points to evolution, something so grand and vast which none of us were there for (and remember, these very observant scientists more often than not do not observe creation as pointing to a creator, and I'd be curious to know what proportion of them believe that science points to life beginning at conception. I doubt most evolutionary scientists are pro life, despite science). I've read too many articles and interviews which pose questions or challenges to existing theories or parts of them, and I never do see a satisfactory answer to any of them. But, just like the accepted belief that man is largely responsible for climate change, the big bang theory and evolution are accepted as fact.....until every so often some of the facts are changed or adjusted, based on new information. Then the majority follow "that" way of thinking, usually without question.
...But, let's assume every detail taught by science is correct. Are we to assume, as good Catholics who also embrace God's science, that Mary, Joseph and Jesus Christ, Himself, had ancestors who were in some form or another, apelike? That alone, however you want to phrase it, sounds sacrilegious to me. And before that, some form of fish? And what of the soul? My biology teacher in high school told me that at some point, God inserted the soul. That really is the only argument available in the theory of evolution....that at some point, God placed a soul into that humanoid creature which had evolved from lesser evolved, animal-like creatures, because to believe otherwise is to suggest a soul was there all along, in every form of life. And that's not what Catholicism teaches. And if a soul was insterted at some point when humans began to appear as they are now, what about that human's parents? Were they less evolved than them, so they had no soul? Where was the cut off? It makes no sense. I certainly can't imagine God saying, "Ok, you've got a soul, but not your mom and dad". Sounds silly, but I believe a valid comment. And again, if evolution is entirely true, where is original sin? Well, some argue that at some point during the evolutionary process, when what is known as modern man came into existence, God must have made sure a conscience evolved...and "then" we became responsible for our actions. If that's the case, a conscience is like anything else in the evolutionary process; It didn't instantly happen. So, at what point did we become responsible for our thoughts and deeds, and if it began bit by bit...as evolution would teach, are we to expect some sort of monkey-like humanoids in Heaven, as part of those saved, because they had "some" conscience, and di the right thing?
...You will never see my questions in a science journal, and they are certainly not scientific questions posed in an attempt to poke holes in any theory. As stated, I've read or heard some questions posed by people smarter than me who question evolution in it's entirety, and the answers given are akin to political answers given when questions are asked of those who have no good answer but won't admit it. But, I believe my questions, though maybe not worded in the best way, are valid. I don't presume to have any answers, nor was "I" looking for an argument when I read this post. As for the man who gave the lecture we are discussing, he may be considered to be on the fringe, I don't know. I don't know who those are placing him in that category. Are their own scientific views ever challenged publicly, and if so do they give indisputable answers or political ones which sound educated but don't really answer the question. My guess is there are times when it's the latter, but those who challenge such views are usually dismissed as fat Earth types. To much of the world, and certainly science, I'm considered being on the fringe as a Catholic.
...But to believe that the lineage of Christ, or His body there-of, on Earth could, in theory, be traced back beyond Mary, David and Moses......and to a lesser form of life which would resemble a modern monkey, and before that some small form of sea creature, is something I'm not prepared to do in this life.

 

There is nothing wrong with evolution theory, so long as we accept that God designed it and at some point He intervened and breathed eternal life into the human souls of our first parents, and thus the whole human race, with the capacity to think with a mind and choose with a will made in his own image. Unless we understand this, we humans will have no problem falling for the lies the Antichrist will soon bring forth.

 

Exactly!

I find the recent adoption by some Catholics of the Protestant anti-science belief system very disturbing. There is absolutely no problem between evolution and Catholicism. Pope Pius XII confirmed this in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. The only caveats being we must believe that at some point God directly created the human soul and that it is not a purely materialistic creation and as long as we believe God created all things.

There is no conflict with the Big Bang, Evolution, mathematics, physics. No science yet discovered has any conflict with Catholicism.

 

Sorry, but I believe in the literal Creation in Genesis. I just wanted to say that. And I am not a cretin, nor do I hope to bring shame to the Catholic Faith. It's just after years of praying, I have come to believe it. I just posted this to give some balance to the other posts, perhaps for those lurking on the forum. Otherwise, I generally keep my views to myself. I realize I am in the minority.

 

So do I.
It is not an either/or.

 

Something scientists often ignore is the fact that the Bible correctly lists the order of creation as science has come to understand it.

First God created matter.
Then He took the formless matter and fashioned it into astronomical bodies.
Then He created light (the stars).
Then He created the planets (night and day).
Then He made ground appear out of the waters.
Then He produced plant life before animal life.
Then He made the seasons and weather become more stable.
Then He created life in the seas first (fish).
Then He created life on land (birds).
Then He created more complex life like livestock (mammals).
Then God made man.

This is the order of creation in the Bible and every scientist worth his salt agrees with this order of creation of the universe.

That's an awful lot of steps for scientifically ignorant sheepherders to guess correctly without it being Divinely Inspired.

 

...I'm not certain, but it sure sounds like Don D, and his obvious opinion there-of, have been insulted here, more than once. At the very least, his views, mine and others here have been put in a condescending light. This is the kind of discussion on evolution I loath, and expect to find in secular circles.
...It's very comfortable to speak in generalities...regarding God breathing life into humans or inserting souls. But though God's ways are mysterious, I do believe that evolution deserves scrutiny from the Catholic perspective, among others. The notion that creatures evolved from much, much lower life forms, and then God suddenly inserted a soul, begs my previous question; When this event happened, were the creatures or humanoids who received a soul more evolved than their parents or grandparents? Where was the cut-off? It's illogical, to me, that an all knowing God would insert a soul or souls in such a way where those that came fairly soon before received no soul. And if she was asked by any past or present visionaries, I can't imagine the Blessed Mother answering in the affirmative that her Earthly ancestors were apelike, fishlike or amino acids in ancient mud.
...Many times, I find myself convinced of an absolute in politics. Whatever the issue, I hear one side explain it, back it up with facts, and then I'm left with no choice to believe what I just heard. And then I hear the other side, from another source or channel, and I completely change my mind. I also realize the first set of facts was not presented to me correctly. "My own opinion" is that this all encompassing theory of evolution follows suit to my political analogy. Either by some correction in analysis that can not be ignored or denied, or because a few prominent scientists decided to think outside the box, a drastically revised theory will be espoused.
...I have read, many times from spiritual sources, some priests and some Catholic educators, that one reason the youth have so many problems, or don't care, or are suicidal and / or have no respect for life is because they are taught it's ok to kill a baby in a womb (abortion), it's ok to end one's life or help another end their life (euthanasia), "and" that they came from a prehistoric form of ape....as part of natural selection, not a divine plan. It's always those three things I read tied together.
...I have not stated what I believe about creation, because I have no idea how it happened, in specific terms. But as smart as they are, scientists are finite creatures, like me, and all the ones with us now were born within the last hundred years. For me to take an all encompassing theory they embrace, preach to the detriment of any dissenting opinions or challenges, which usually and purposely leaves out a Creator and is based "partially" on a "relatively" small amount of fossils is like asking me to believe the world is flat.
...I'm moving on, and will not revisit this page or any future replies, yay or nay. It's not the debate I mind, it's that condescending stuff, no matter how subtle, which irritates me.

 

Yep
Condescending is an excellent word choice to describe some of the responses I have received here over the past few years.
It’s almost a gut-punch when it happens. There have been a few times I was tempted to leave the forum because of it. But there are no perfect people here, and because of Blessed Mother
I have stayed. I am glad I did.
The Lord makes the crooked way straight.

 

I have some serious reservations concerning uniformitarianism which is a bedrock position of geologists who embrace evolution. However, I would be insulted if one therefore concluded I was unscientific. I don't have time to posit details right now, but I will return for the showdown at high noon. You better practice up on your sharpshooting, Praetorian!

Safe in the Father's Arms!

 

I am going to be watching from a safe place in the hotel above the saloon.

 

Big Bang Cosmology and Special Relativity were invented to try and explain away the failure of Science to experimentally detect the diurnal and annual motion of the Earth. The interferometer experiments of the 19th century had failed to detect motion of the Earth through the ether. Faced with the startling evidence that the Church had been right all along and that the Earth really was the motionless, fixed center of mass of the Universe, atheist scientists like Einstein were brought in to explain away the inconvenient results.

The first step was to deny the existence of the ether (or medium) through which light passes. This is one reason why the gatekeepers of modern science will NEVER, EVER allow an interferometer experiment to be conducted on the Moon or other heavenly body: unlike the interferometer experiments conducted on earth which gave a null result proving the Earth is motionless, an interferometer experiment conducted on the Moon would actually yield a positive result equal to the velocity of the Moon through the ether, proving that the interferometer experiments of the 19th century were correct and Einstein and Special Relativity are wrong.

The second step was to invent the idea that the Universe is expanding and isotopic. The biggest offender on this point was Edwin Hubble who admitted that the red shift of galaxies that he viewed through his telescope in the 30’s and 40’s was consistent with the Earth being the center of mass of the Universe. Edwin Hubble created the “balloon” universe with “space‐time curvature” because he wanted to escape the evidence from starlight redshift that put the Earth in the center of the universe. Here are Hubble’s exact words:

“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, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance...The unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs...Such a favored position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.”

Recent discoveries like the earth-centered-axis of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation also point to the fact that the Chruch has been right all along and Galileo and the modern materialists are wrong.

There is a great talk about this whole subject available on YouTube by Robert Sungenis and Rick Delano. Every Catholic should watch it. I never knew how much I didn’t know about Sciene and Church History:

 

I just happened to stumble upon this thread again as no one in the last few responses who responded had directly quoted me. Am I to assume people were speaking to me as condescending or someone else? I have no idea. I was not condescending to anyone. At least that was not my intent.

I strongly disagree however that Mr. Robitaille is a good source for the things he is speaking to. People are free to believe whatever they want. I never told anyone they must accept evolution, the big bang or anything else. There is however true science and junk science. That is just a fact. I have seen things posted on the forum from flat Earth "theory" to that Protestant "archeologist" who claims to have discovered everything in the Bible from the Tower of Babel to the Garden of Eden. Whenever I see these erroneous things I try to point them out. That is all. Some of this stuff is just bad science. In fact, it's not even science, it's pseudoscience.

In any case, I truly was not trying to disparage anyone's belief. I do however note a strong current in modern Catholicism that is anti-science. Something that was not there before and this comes over from fundamentalist Protestantism.

I have no desire to get into an argument about any of this. My original intent was simply to inform any who may stumble upon this thread that Mr. Robitaille is not a good source. I have done the same before about other bad sources who have been cited. I was not meaning to put anyone down in any way, shape or form. If I have offended I am sorry and I truly, truly apologize.

 

Don't apologize for your beliefs HH! It doesn't matter if you are in the minority or not. Your faith in God and His ability to create the universe is a beautiful thing.

 

I know I apologized in my last post, but I looked over what I wrote on this thread and I do not see anything I wrote that was meant in a mean-spirited tone. It seems however that perhaps people took it that way and for that reason I apologize personally to Don, Mark, Heavenly Hosts and Mario (Terry) and anyone else on the other side of the argument who might have read what I wrote and been offended. That was not my intent at all. In this realm, people are entitled to believe what they want. My sole purpose was to try to provide some distinction between good and bad science. That's all. Perhaps I failed at that.

I was not calling out particular people who posted here for the very reason that you are all entitled to believe what you wish. I have just seen family members and other people who have had their faith destroyed because they could not reconcile scientific discoveries with the Bible. My nephew, in particular, left the Church because he was unable to reconcile this and perhaps that is why I am so strident. And much of that difficulty reconciling comes not from our religion, but from Protestant beliefs such as the 6,000-year-old Earth which have become popular of late.

I'm feeling really bad right now as it seems I have upset people I consider my friends here on the forum. I think people know me well enough to know that I take direction when wrong or hurtful even if it was accidental. It was honestly not my intent to cause pain in any way, but since my zeal for this topic seems to be taken that way I will bow out from further posts. I do not wish to risk offending anyone anymore.

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think HH was saying that she thought you were being condescending towards her, but was merely commiserating that she has felt condescension from other MOG members in the past. (Sorry if I've stepped in where I shouldn't.)

Praetorian, with the majority of communication being nonverbal through facial expression, gestures, and intonation, the emotion behind a message can be very difficult to accurately convey with only the written word. As you know, the writer's intention is frequently misconstrued because of this. (Praise the Lord for emojis! I can personally attest that I frequently miss sarcasm, unless there's a winky or smiley face after it) I'm hoping that this is the situation with you right now. Maybe it's all just a misunderstanding. Your concern for others and their feelings is quite evident in your last few posts.