Evidence for God from Science

Hey guys, I was wondering if you have heard about this kid yet.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... ang-theory

They say he has a IQ higher than Einstein and he is hoping to disprove the big bang. I think I heard in a tv interview with him that one of his theories was supposed to show how a infinite number of causes (ie eternal universe) can be convergent. He also has stated that the current big bang models don't explain the amount of carbon present in the universe. Thoughts?

Heh, my first thought is: "Wow, if so many scientists can actually be proven wrong by a twelve-year old with less than twelve years of time to learn this stuff, what does it mean for other scientific theories?"

Doesn't Carbon form later on through nuclear fusion within massive stars? I would think that as long as there are large molecular clouds of Hydrogen (produced by the quarks that formed from the Big Bang), there will eventually be large amounts of Carbon later on.

Though I'm sure there's more to the kids arguement than that.

A few things caught my eye:

Christians worldwide should applaud Jacob’s intent to disprove one of the many theories put forth by atheists to explain away the Biblical creation. According to astronomer Paul Steidl, “The big bang was invented specifically for the purpose of doing away with the creation event. An astronomer would laugh at the naivety of anyone who chose to equate the two events.”

Similarly, evolutionist Paul Davies asserts that the Big Bang Theory “differs greatly in detail from the biblical version.” He contends, “What one cannot say is, first, that the Christian doctrine of creation ‘supports’ the Big Bang model, or second, that the Big Bang model ‘supports’ the doctrine of creation.”

I thought the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic man? In fact, I just went and looked it up to be sure:

Both Friedmann and Lemaître proposed relativistic cosmologies featuring an expanding universe. However, Lemaître was the first to propose that the expansion explains the redshift of galaxies. He further concluded that an initial "creation-like" event must have occurred.

Besides, Hugh Ross, an astronomer, would disagree with saying the two events cannot be equated.

That just made my mind boggle a little bit... Very interested in seeing where this kid goes with this new ideas.

Higher IQ's than Eisenstein are not uncommon. (there is no conclusive evidence that Einstein ever took an IQ test). Even Two serial killers in history, both had IQ above 210.

Both Friedmann and Lemaître proposed relativistic cosmologies featuring an expanding universe. However, Lemaître was the first to propose that the expansion explains the redshift of galaxies. He further concluded that an initial "creation-like" event must have occurred.

the problem with this is that even though both these scientists proposed expansions, it can not be measured since in universal time the point from where you stand and look at it is the only reference point through which one can determine a gap between two events (time). An alternative thesis do stand still which says that what if the expansion of the universe was uniform? meaning that even the universe expanded, it expanded on all sides (in equal measure of time) and since that happened in equal ratios, one can not judge relativity (thus implying, one can not calculate time as well) since all relativity remained constant.

I have no doubt about the Kid's genius. he may as well leave his mark on science but quite frankly, I do not think one can ever ever discern time zero and therefore cannot conclude what really happened billions of years ago without making some assumptions.

Also there is another thesis that says that the universe is not only expanding but shirking at the same time. ...i know...lol

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Heh, my first thought is: "Wow, if so many scientists can actually be proven wrong by a twelve-year old with less than twelve years of time to learn this stuff, what does it mean for other scientific theories?"

The same thought came through my mind as well.

But beside that, what would be the implications if the Big Bang theory was indeed disproven? Although some say otherwise, it seems to me that it's much more in line with the Christian teachings than the oscillating universe theory, which is considered rather implausible if I'm not wrong. Does anyone have a link to any resources about the oscillating universe theory?

It is quite possible that the big bang never happend, though one would have to find a way or explaining the expanding universe and such.
Of course the theories of mulitiple universes has been around for a bit, though that theory doesn't explain how THOSE universe came to be anymore than how ours did.
As for this kids view that:
" infinite number of causes (ie eternal universe) can be convergent"
That doesn't mean that they ARE, nor doe sit explain how ANY one case, much less an infinite number of causes, came to be in the first place.

Sometimes smart people just out-smart themselves, LOL !