MarcAntony":3ttwx5cc said:
...So I come here hoping to attain a solid, scientific, and respectful rebuttal, which will allow me to resume talking about my favorite topic. Below are the two articles and thanks in advance.
I have encountered similar difficulties as you have. And, I am a Christian who also happens to defer to science in matters scientific. I have no problem with that at all. But, some do and I find myself unable to fathom their disregard for evidence staring them in the face. There is no fundamental contradiction between my beliefs and science.
I may not be able to give you the points you seek. However, it is probably a foregone conclusion they will dismiss even the most irrefutable scientific evidence simply on a whim. So, it may be that one must demonstrate their arguments are invalid to begin with - Flawed on the most basic level.
On to your conundrums then..
Where is the argument supporting their points here? There is none at all. There is not one point on the entire page that seeks to support their argument. Not one. It consists only of arguments that seek to cast doubt on the Big Bang and none that seek to scientifically support Genesis. One does not seek to support an argument by simply pointing out the deficiencies of a counter argument. That's nonsensical.
The argument represented on that page also includes classic fallacies such as the
"False Dilemma" (If our understanding of the CMB and Light is not complete then Genesis must be true even though no evidence is presented to substantiate Genesis' validity.) and
"Poisoning the Well" (If Science can't explain this then it can't explain anything.)
Also, the page neglects to present any ideas that Science does have regarding any possible discrepancies. As far as I know, there is nothing concerning the CMB that has been found to
falsify standing scientific theory or cosmology in respect to the Big Bang. In fact, the discovery of the CMB CONFIRMED that which was predicted by Science. How is that somehow a refutation of Science? That sort of argument makes absolutely no sense and I am not surprised to see it on such a website which seems to host a great deal that makes little sense.
Are there questions to be answered concerning the natural world? Sure there are. Science is an excellent way to seek answers to those questions. Ask your coworkers to give up their GPS doodads if they don't believe in Science because without relativity and our understanding of light and the effects of gravity, they wouldn't work!
After tracking down the article:
Why galaxy cluster is too grown-up for early Universe and reading blurbs, here and there, not worth pasting it's pretty apparent that there isn't anything here that truly falsifies the Big Bang model. It only requires us to acknowledge the observation and see where it fits within current cosmology and, if necessary, modify it. How is that falsification of the Big Bang? When one discovers new knowledge, surely one must acknowledge it, right? That's sort of the whole reason behind the word "acknowledge." The Big Bang is not falsified here. It is only the prior prediction that such complex structures would not have been thought to be able to form in such a way. That doesn't mean the Big Bang is somehow completely false. Certainly, in the broader sense, it doesn't cast aspersions on Science, does it? After all, without the knowledge we have gained from Science, we wouldn't have been able to detect this filament of galaxies in the first place.
Besides, the Big Bang is not "fact." It's a theory that appears to have withstood the test of time, in one shape or another, but one can't go back and observe or measure it, can one?
Cosmology is a favorite for crackpots because it is not an experimental science, per se. I can make the claim that it all started with a terrible accident involving a sno-cone a goat and wood chipper that led to the Universe that we see today and one would be hard pressed to refute it if I offered nothing measurable, observable or even detectable as proof yet somehow claimed it was still so. What I absolutely can not do is use Science to support such an argument. Science has rules and one of them is "You can't just make stuff up." As you can plainly see in the above links, the author of the articles knows fully well that he can not enter into presenting Scientific proof for his primary idea because it would be easily Scientifically refuted.
Zealots insist for some unknown reason that Science is as static as religious dogma. It is not. Science, like all knowledge, changes based on new revelations. Even religious interpretations change, why can't Science?
Again, what we have here in the above link the classic fallacy of a False Dilemma implying that because Science doesn't know "Everything at Once" (That Science is not omniscient) that their particular interpretation of Genesis must somehow have more validity. Yet, they offer not one shred of scientific proof which supports their argument. We also have the classic "Poisoning of the Well" implying that because Science is dynamic, it must some how be flawed and that because an observation upsets a specific prediction that somehow that means that all Scientific predictions are false.
Science and religion don't talk much. It is not that they are completely incompatible. It is that Science, specifically Cosmology and Physics here, has enough of its own problems addressing the Physical World and measuring, observing and making predictions regarding how it all works. Science does not address Religion because Science is not in the business of measuring that which can not be measured. Similarly, Religion should not attempt to address Science because Religion does not address the Physical World with any degree of Scientific accuracy at all. The two approaches use an entirely different language. Religion is concerned with topics that lie outside the scope of Science just as Science is incapable of addressing the foundations of Religious beliefs. They are fundamentally incompatible in their most basic methods. But, for the individual, they do not have to be. Oil and water don't mix either but, if one adds the proper solvents, the appropriate emulsifiers and surfactants, they can get along quite amiably.
and love discussing them with friends and professional colleagues. Most of the time the discussions are great, but I apparently did not realize I was irking some of the Christians in the room until recently. 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram