Creation scientists

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Here is a little dated good one, showing a link between science so called, and lefty progressivism. My comments in blue.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/denial-of-evolution-is-a-form-of-white-supremacy/

Delusional is, as delusional does. One delusion leads to another. I don't know who is more delusional, this guy for believing in evolution as the mechanism responsible for our existence, or whatever people there are who think they know the color of the skin of Adam and Eve, and or that such really matters at all. Go figure.

The article is an interesting insight into how people think about this.

I think the author has mistaken correlation for causation.  There is a correlation - in the South, those who are hanging onto segregation tend to be the same people who oppose teaching evolution in schools.  That doesn't mean the former leads to the latter.

The idea of a white Adam and black Cain that he uses to link the two is dodgy-at-best.  That teaching isn't in the Bible; it's a speculative interpretation of the Bible.  That teaching comes from British Israelism into Armstrongism, which is rightly seen as a cult by most Christians.  Also, Armstrongism isn't popular in the South - it exists mostly in Texas and Ohio, and the UK.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcybvVOJ_xU

Another good one from Answers in Genesis Canada

[Amo]

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf

Dissenters of Darwinism.

[4WD]

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf

Dissenters of Darwinism.

I have no doubt that those listed, in one way or another, question various elements of Darwinism.  The real question you have not addressed is how many of those dissenters would come close to your view of the origin and spread of life on earth.  My guess is that most of those listed would be in closer agreement with Darwinism than with Amoism.

[Rella]

I have no doubt that those listed, in one way or another, question various elements of Darwinism.  The real question you have not addressed is how many of those dissenters would come close to your view of the origin and spread of life on earth.  My guess is that most of those listed would be in closer agreement with Darwinism than with Amoism.

Last comment for this morning....

Do you have or refernce actual concrete proof that AMO is wrong... about everything, as you seem to suggest?

Just curious, being on the fence between everyone with my own views, beliefs and understandings.

I got shot down on the giant end of things... from those who dispute what is actually written in the Holy Book as being"misunderstood", but not offering a word of proof other then common logic that they wont admit but is their understanding.

So Amo gives you links to people and such and you question their
veracity.

How is it possible to question what is not provable?

Ok... out the door 

[4WD]

Last comment for this morning....

Do you have or refernce actual concrete proof that AMO is wrong... about everything, as you seem to suggest?

Just curious, being on the fence between everyone with my own views, beliefs and understandings.

I got shot down on the giant end of things... from those who dispute what is actually written in the Holy Book as being"misunderstood", but not offering a word of proof other then common logic that they wont admit but is their understanding.

So Amo gives you links to people and such and you question their
veracity.

How is it possible to question what is not provable?

Ok... out the door 

Rella, what is provable is a really touchy subject.  Even most of what we read in the Bible is not provable.  It is taken on faith.  I believe that is intentional. In our dealings with God, faith is  key. There are some things in the Bible that are provable. And even though those things are relatively rare, for folks like us, that is sufficient to give us confidence in the truth of the Bible. Given that confidence of truth, we believe the rest of what is said and then believe in the author of it.

With respect to the physical world, it is much the same.  There are few things that are actually provable.  But there are some things that give us confidence of what is given. We all experience gravity for example.  So then when given Newton's formula for calculating the force of gravity, most of us simply accept that without needing to independently verify it, even though with a little help, most of us could. And that in a sense is proof enough for us. 

But given Einstein's work on gravity, most do not even understand it, let alone be able to verify it independently.  Even most of those gifted enough to truly understand it are not really able to independently verify it. Some things, such as the ubiquitous presence of GPS in our lives today and the absolutely dependence of the functioning of GPS on Einstein's theories about it gives us some confidence that his theory is correct.  Other things can similarly be documented to give us confidence in it.

Similarly, things like "red shift", "radiometric dating" or the "speed of light" are things that most of us must rely of others for "proof".  Such proof can only be accepted by having the confidence of others work in the area.  And that is a very individual thing which will depend upon the individual's direct and indirect association, or lack thereof, with people in those areas.

So then, can I prove that the universe is more than 6,000 to 10,000 years old?  No, I cannot. I am convinced that it is? Yes.  And I could go on for pages and pages telling you why I am convinced of it, but I won't and will stop for now.

[Amo]

The article is an interesting insight into how people think about this.

I think the author has mistaken correlation for causation.  There is a correlation - in the South, those who are hanging onto segregation tend to be the same people who oppose teaching evolution in schools.  That doesn't mean the former leads to the latter.

The idea of a white Adam and black Cain that he uses to link the two is dodgy-at-best.  That teaching isn't in the Bible; it's a speculative interpretation of the Bible.  That teaching comes from British Israelism into Armstrongism, which is rightly seen as a cult by most Christians.  Also, Armstrongism isn't popular in the South - it exists mostly in Texas and Ohio, and the UK.

I've lived in the south for thirty eight years now, I'd say your speculated correlation between segregationists and those who don't want evolution taught in schools, is a bit dated. If there ever was truly such a correlation.

[Amo]

I have no doubt that those listed, in one way or another, question various elements of Darwinism.  The real question you have not addressed is how many of those dissenters would come close to your view of the origin and spread of life on earth.  My guess is that most of those listed would be in closer agreement with Darwinism than with Amoism.

You may guess as you wish of course. Nevertheless, the following titled statement that all the dissenters agree with, pretty much says it all.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Take away random mutations and natural selection as the driving force or mechanism of our present extremely complex state of being, and you take away Darwinism. I am sure many of the dissenters are not necessarily professed Young Earth Creationists, they are just an increasing number of those who doubt Darwinism. And rightly so, as YEC's see and understand the issues.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiTyyqt3NKU

A good video by Dr. Kurt Wise, making observations about the eruption of Mount St. Helens, and the after effects in comparison to  the evidence we can observe on our planet in relation to the biblical account of a global flood. I found the part about how rapid water movement forms canyons particularly interesting. Concerning the zig zag formation of canyons it produces, including 90 degree channeling away from the main course of the water flow. As we see in the Grand Canyon. 

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r96ewpbVgs

Good video by Dr. James Tour. Challenging His contemporaries to be more honest and transparent about the reality of major problems for the theory of evolution from the perspective of a Chemist. And to stop giving the public false impressions and scenarios to bolster their personal views.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRoQL7W5jg8

Good video about the flood.

[Amo]

https://christianityhouse.com/2023/12/08/is-the-big-bang-theory-fizzling-scientific-faith-wobbles-on-its-flimsy-axis/

Quoted article below from link above.

Is the Big Bang "Theory" Fizzling?: Scientific Faith Wobbles on its Flimsy Axis

Science has long sought to unravel the mysteries of the universe's creation from inanimate mass and explain life through the theory of evolution, attributing the diversity of earthly life to this miraculous process. Both beliefs rest on faith, presenting scientific theories rather than evidentiary proof. As new evidence emerges, challenging fantastical pseudo-scientific theories, the guardians of scientific "reason" manipulate data to reinforce their predetermined notion of omniscience.

Recent evidence from the James Webb Space Telescope, humanity's most advanced telescope, revealed the existence of massive, distant galaxies beyond the previously known universe, conflicting with the long-standing Big Bang Theory dominating secular culture. Secular scientists swiftly responded by creating "models" in an attempt to reconcile the new evidence with the old theory, bending facts to resurrect the Big Bang theory within a quasi-religious framework.

According to Space.com, scientists questioning the Big Bang were deemed errant:

"Building galaxies is no easy task. While pen-and-paper mathematics can allow cosmologists to chart the overall history and evolution of the cosmos within the ΛCDM model, galaxy formation involves the complex interplay of many kinds of physics ... Accounting for all these interactions requires the use of supercomputer simulations that take the raw, primal state of the universe as it was billions of years ago and follow the laws of physics to build artificial galaxies. ....The simulations allowed the researchers to play around with many kinds of models. If no models could generate galaxies of that mass at that age, then ΛCDM would be in trouble. Thankfully, there were no such problems...."

In essence, the techno-faithful altered their theoretical models until the new findings fit, affirming their religious belief in events unseen ten billion years ago while dismissing Jesus Christ, who appeared in the flesh a mere two thousand years ago. This faith-based conflict echoes G.K. Chesterton's observation:

"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."

Understanding existence demands more profound contemplation than a telescope alone can provide. The separation of ancient galaxies does not address the origin of life or consciousness. Charles Darwin, in later life, lamented that his "theories" had been elevated to a form of religion beyond his expectations, acknowledging, "The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God."

Is Science.com a scientific or theological publication? While claiming to be the former, it delves into the latter, concluding that the Big Bang "Theory" remains sacrosanct – a law? "In science, it's always important to keep an open mind. But the exaggerated claims made from the early Webb data aren't enough to worry about yet." Why would scientists "worry" about the Big Bang theory potentially faltering on its unstable axis? The concern might be rooted in the possibility that there is a God providing purpose to all creation and judging the sinful, causing scientific inquiry to pause.

Science has evolved into a kind of atheist anti-theology: the refusal to study God or entertain the possibility of His existence is a necessary void in this biased inquiry. Peering into the deep recesses of the universe, scientists sidestep the fundamental question of purpose posed by C.S. Lewis:

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

[Alan]

I am sure many of the dissenters are not necessarily professed Young Earth Creationists, they are just an increasing number of those who doubt Darwinism. And rightly so, as YEC's see and understand the issues.

This isn't actually a thing, the number of people believing in evolution is increasing every year, especially in nations that could be considered somewhat more religious by nature. 

[Amo]

This isn't actually a thing, the number of people believing in evolution is increasing every year, especially in nations that could be considered somewhat more religious by nature.

There is a list of dissenting scientists, which has been growing over the years. Which I have provided. I suppose it is easily possible that both groups are growing. Evolution especially because it is mandatory teaching in most schools, not because there is equal access, or funding, or exposure to opposing views. To the contrary, many evolutionists fight to deny all such. 

[4WD]

There is a list of dissenting scientists, which has been growing over the years. Which I have provided. I suppose it is easily possible that both groups are growing. Evolution especially because it is mandatory teaching in most schools, not because there is equal access, or funding, or exposure to opposing views. To the contrary, many evolutionists fight to deny all such. 

I would be willing to bet that the number of scientists "dissenting" evolution is much like the number of scientists who agree with "climate change".

[Texas Conservative]

I would be willing to bet that the number of scientists "dissenting" evolution is much like the number of scientists who agree with "climate change".

Most scientists agree with "climate change."

You would lose that bet.

[4WD]

Most scientists agree with "climate change."

You would lose that bet.

There are few people generally who don't believe in climate change.  But that is not what is meant by "climate Change", it invariably means all the rules, regulations, taxes, laws introduced to counteract climate change.  And significant numbers of even scientists do not believe and agree with all of that hype.

[Texas Conservative]

There are few people generally who don't believe in climate change.  But that is not what is meant by "climate Change", it invariably means all the rules, regulations, taxes, laws introduced to counteract climate change.  And significant numbers of even scientists do not believe and agree with all of that hype.

I would argue the significant numbers of scientists involved in "climate change" research believe in the company line because that is where the funding resides.

[Amo]

https://www.icr.org/article/evolutions-hypothetical-last-ancestor/

Quoted article below from link above. My comments in blue.

Evolution's Hypothetical Last Universal Common Ancestor

Evolutionists utilize a theoretical tree of life that takes people, plants, and animals back into deep evolutionary time to an unobserved, unknown, hypothetical last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Whatever this organism was, they maintain, it was the ancestor of all life and evolved in turn from nonliving chemicals.

In July of 2024, Science magazine confidently reported, "The last ancestor shared by all living organisms was a microbe that lived 4.2 billion years ago, had a fairly large genome encoding some 2600 proteins, enjoyed a diet of hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide, and harbored a rudimentary immune system for fighting off viral invaders."1

That's quite a statement that details an unknown creature living somewhere on this planet 4.2 billion years ago.

But evolutionists writing in Nature Ecology & Evolution describe the metabolism of this hypothetical creature as being contentious, not to mention its age and effect on this planet's system.

The nature of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), its age and its impact on the Earth system have been the subject of vigorous debate across diverse disciplines, often based on disparate data and methods. Age estimates for LUCA are usually based on the fossil record, varying with every reinterpretation. The nature of LUCA's metabolism has proven equally contentious, with some attributing all core metabolisms to LUCA, whereas others reconstruct a simpler life form dependent on geochemistry.2

As one can see, all of this is guesswork based on evolutionary naturalism and imaginative speculation.

Years earlier, seven evolutionists stated, "information about how and where LUCA lived is lacking." They attempted to answer this question by identifying, in part, 355 protein families that allegedly traced back to LUCA by evolutionary relationships. They concluded,

Their functions, properties and prosthetic groups depict LUCA as anaerobic, CO2-fixing, H2-dependent with a Wood–Ljungdahl pathway, N2-fixing and thermophilic. LUCA's biochemistry was replete with FeS clusters and radical reaction mechanisms. Its cofactors reveal dependence upon transition metals, flavins, S-adenosyl methionine, coenzyme A, ferredoxin, molybdopterin, corrins and selenium. Its genetic code required nucleoside modifications and S-adenosyl methionine-dependent methylations.3

All of this as the result of time, chance, and natural processes! Take, for example, nitrogen fixation ("N2-fixing") that was mentioned. The chemistry is daunting. Like any biochemical process, it is a very complex procedure that requires a large amount of energy and nitrogenases (complex enzymes) to break the strong triple covalent bond between two nitrogen atoms.

This ethereal creature also must have "harbored a rudimentary immune system for fighting off viral invaders."1 Once again, there is nothing simple about this elementary immune system the scientists think was CRISPR-Cas9 (an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats),

"LUCA likely had 19 CRISPR-Cas9 genes, an apparatus modern bacteria rely on to chop up the genetic material of viral invaders (and the inspiration for the versatile genome editor now used in many fields). 'LUCA had this early immune system as a way of avoiding viruses,'"1 said Edmund Moody, of the University of Bristol, England.

Scientists can only say they believe the CRISPR-Cas system evolved. Stating the LUCA had this immune system, however, is sheer speculation.

Evolutionists maintain the last common ancestor of all living things conveniently lived well-over four billion years ago, but it, "is still just a hypothetical organism."4 There is simply no physical evidence for this creature, nor where it lived. Only the theory of evolution demands it existed.5 Reading the evolutionary literature reveals that, from the outset, whatever this hypothetical organism was, it was enormously complex, which speaks so eloquently against evolution's mythical basis of chance and deep time.

Life only comes from the author, giver, and sustainer of life, Jesus Christ.

Why should the above faith based theory of evolution be taught as fact in our schools while biblical creationism is forbidden? What a crock.

[Amo]

https://www.icr.org/article/more-woolly-mammoth-dna/

Quoted article below from link above. My comments in blue.

More Woolly Mammoth DNA

Woolly mammoths of the Ice Age1 were once found in huge numbers in Siberia, northern Europe, and North America.

Organic remains from "prehistoric" animals such as dinosaurs are incredibly significant finds, and so it is with woolly mammoths.2 For example, scientists found a huge mammoth skull (Mammuthus primigenius) sticking out of the water of a Siberian lake on the Yamal peninsula. Wool, soft tissues, and a coprolite (fossilized dung) were also found.3 The Live Science article said these organics were over 10,000 years old.

In 2012, ICR's Dr. Brian Thomas discussed the discovery of 126 unique proteins from a frozen woolly mammoth:

A small international team analyzed the mammoth bones and published their findings in the Journal of Proteome Research. They used "the world's fastest and most sensitive ion trap mass spectrometer," according to the product's website. Older versions of similar technology could only detect large amounts of proteins, but this new machine is able to accurately identify small amounts.

The result was an unprecedented array of proteins, including serum albumin, which plays the essential role of transporting hormones in animals. Most of the proteins were actually fragmented but digitally stitched together to reconstruct their original forms.4

Supposedly the frozen mammoth from which these proteins were extracted was 43,000 years old.

But recently an even greater age has been assigned to "skin from a mammoth that died 52,000 years ago, [it] was so well-preserved that even the 3-D structure of its DNA was intact."5 How? The Science News article stated, "Rapid drying had locked the ancient DNA into a tight molecular state similar to that of glass, called chromoglass. The geneticists and a team of theoretical physicists deduced that the chromoglass structure prevented the pieces of DNA from drifting away from each other."5 Marcela Sandoval-Velasco et al. stated in Cell, "We use PaleoHi-C to map chromatin contacts and assemble its genome, yielding 28 chromosome-length scaffolds."6

Compartments of chromatin also persisted, allowing the scientists to study the mammoth's gene expression. For example, the chromoglass structure preserved a gene called Egfr, which aids in the regulation of hair and skin growth. This gene is not active in mammoths and perhaps is why they have shaggy long coats. Conversely, the gene is active in elephants.

What is interesting from a creation science perspective is that a geneticist from the Baylor College of Medicine found that mammoths have the same number of chromosomes as elephants: 28 pairs. The chromosome structure of the two creatures is also the same. This is clear evidence that woolly mammoths and elephants are of the created elephant kind.

This discovery also points to continued problems with evolution's long ages. How could the intact chromosomes be 52,000 years old? The Science News article simply stated, "The mammoth was freeze-dried and preserved in permafrost."5 But for 52,000 years? Can intact chromosomes remain after 52,000 years' worth of freezing and thawing cycles, UV radiation, the activity of invertebrates, and microorganisms such as bacteria?

Corryn Wetzel, science writer for New Scientist, describes the problem:

Because molecules of DNA begin to break down when an animal dies, scientists have previously only been able to find tiny snippets of the woolly mammoth genome – but to the researchers' surprise, the animal's chromosomes were perfectly preserved. "This does not match with anything that we have analysed before that was 52,000 years old, so that was very surprising," says Juan Antonio Rodríguez at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, a member of the research team.7

The creation model does not rely on long ages. Scientists continue to unearth preserved DNA and intact, even soft, proteins from "prehistoric" creatures. This is what is expected on the basis of the biblical timeline, which according to the genealogies and chronologies of the Hebrew Bible puts creation at about 6,000 years ago and the immediate post-Flood time in which the mammoths lived at about 4,000 years ago.

If Woolly Mammoths really were woolly because they lived in such frigid conditions, what did these huge creatures eat, that would exist or grow in such large quantities to feed such large creatures? To much about present narratives, simply does not make sense. Many of the best guesses of yesterday's evolutionary scientists, are crumbling under the weight of new information and scrutiny. 

https://wildlifefaq.com/elephantdiet/#google_vignette

Quote below from the above link.

Welcome to our article on the fascinating world of elephants and their dietary habits. In this section, we will explore the elephant diet, what elephants eat, and how they feed.

Did you know that elephants consume an astonishing amount of vegetation daily? They can devour between 149 and 169 kg (330-375 lb.) of food each day! Their menu includes a wide variety of plant-based delights, such as grasses, small plants, bushes, fruit, twigs, tree bark, and roots.

[Rella]

https://www.icr.org/article/more-woolly-mammoth-dna/

Quoted article below from link above. My comments in blue.

If Woolly Mammoths really were woolly because they lived in such frigid conditions, what did these huge creatures eat, that would exist or grow in such large quantities to feed such large creatures? To much about present narratives, simply does not make sense. Many of the best guesses of yesterday's evolutionary scientists, are crumbling under the weight of new information and scrutiny. 

https://wildlifefaq.com/elephantdiet/#google_vignette

Quote below from the above link.

Interesting

And unless I missed something here... ... no one suggested evolution between the mammoths and elephants.

[Amo]

Interesting

And unless I missed something here... ... no one suggested evolution between the mammoths and elephants.

I have not ever really looked into that. Seems obvious though, that elephants are connected to mammoths and probably mastodons as well. There are plenty of very hairy or furry animals that live in mild or even hot climates. I don't see why one must presume mammoths had to live in the cold because they had hair.

[Alan]

There is a list of dissenting scientists, which has been growing over the years. Which I have provided. I suppose it is easily possible that both groups are growing. Evolution especially because it is mandatory teaching in most schools, not because there is equal access, or funding, or exposure to opposing views. To the contrary, many evolutionists fight to deny all such. 

There aren't opposing views being presented because evolution is NOT an opinion, it's a fact. 

[Alan]

If Woolly Mammoths really were woolly because they lived in such frigid conditions, what did these huge creatures eat, that would exist or grow in such large quantities to feed such large creatures? To much about present narratives, simply does not make sense. Many of the best guesses of yesterday's evolutionary scientists, are crumbling under the weight of new information and scrutiny. 

Woolly Mammoths ate Tundra grass, it was abundant under the snow layers, and the tusks helped them move the snow to expose the grass.  

[Texas Conservative]

There aren't opposing views being presented because evolution is NOT an opinion, it's a fact.

It's a theory with evidence.  It is not a verifiable fact across the board.

[Rella]

It's a theory with evidence.  It is not a verifiable fact across the board.

Thank you TC.

Well stated.

[Alan]

It's a theory with evidence.  It is not a verifiable fact across the board.

The majority of biologists recognize evolution as fact, due to the chance of an alternative theory being correct being is so minute that evolution has become an immovable theory. 

[Amo]

There aren't opposing views being presented because evolution is NOT an opinion, it's a fact.

Yes, the faith of evolutionists in their religion is very strong. No stronger though, than many of other religions as well. Denying any opposing views though, when there most obviously are, goes beyond faith into the realm of fantasy. Akin to the left, denying that which is right in front of their faces.

The following video hosts one of the people you apparently deny exists. A good video discussion between Creationists. The special guest being a former atheistic evolutionist, a professor of zoology, who finally let certain undeniable facts reverse his faulty views. Which were based upon his wish to deny a God he misunderstood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhIKz0MHyk8

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARQSep1gQ-4

A good video about the major problems involved in trying to mix evolution and scripture together as truth.

[Alan]

Yes, the faith of evolutionists in their religion is very strong.

You need to learn the difference between faith and fact, faith is you believing the world is 6000 years old with zero evidence to support the claim. Evolution is fact based on repeated testing and observation, the evidence presents itself. 

[Amo]

You need to learn the difference between faith and fact, faith is you believing the world is 6000 years old with zero evidence to support the claim. Evolution is fact based on repeated testing and observation, the evidence presents itself.

You're a little confused. Creationists, including myself, do readily admit that they have faith in the account of holy scripture concerning the six day creation and a global flood. We also know that there is an abundance of evidence which supports our theories regarding that faith.

While evolutionists also have some theoretical evidences which seem to support their faith, they will not admit that their beliefs and unproved theories are also based upon faith in their particular world view. They also play around with the word evolution to suit their needs when debating non believers. Adaptability and change can just as easily be parts of design in a six day creation by God scenario, as a deep time God directed evolutionary scenario. 

There have been no tests or observations at all, that move the theory of evolution from the realms of theory to fact, and that is a fact which you apparently refuse. Even if actual evolution from a less to a more complex form of life were produced and observed in a lab, this would not prove that this was in fact, the mechanism of all that we presently see and observe in the world around us. To the contrary though, and as a matter of fact, nothing of the sort has been accomplished in any way shape or form. Even if it was, facilitating such in a lab with exact purpose, intent, and resolution, would be a very far cry from random chance ever accomplishing anything of the sort.

All of this is of course completely separate from the issue of life itself happening at all to begin with, apart from creation by an intelligent being with exact purpose, intent, and resolution as well. Which is even more unlikely than life already existing changing on a scale of  increasing complexity by random chance. Or do you admit of God's hand in the creation of life itself in the beginning? If so, what gives with your insistence that He was not also involved in the rest by special creation in six days, or continued involvement in an evolutionary process?

Why don't you believe the following testimony of scripture?

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

[4WD]

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Yes, He spoke and it, the Big Bang, and it was done.

[Amo]

Yes, He spoke and it, the Big Bang, and it was done.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/explosion

Explosion

Scientific definition

A violent blowing apart or bursting caused by energy released from a very fast chemical reaction, a nuclear reaction, or the escape of gases under pressure.

Something exploding, is the exact opposite of something standing fast. Nor does the big bang theory have anything to do with things being done, but rather just the beginning of a billions of years process until anything is done. If it is ever truly done at all according to the dictates of the postulated theory of evolution. Sorry, the theory of evolution and biblical teaching simply do not mix. Nevertheless, you of course free to try as you may.

[4WD]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/explosion

Something exploding, is the exact opposite of something standing fast. Nor does the big bang theory have anything to do with things being done, but rather just the beginning of a billions of years process until anything is done. If it is ever truly done at all according to the dictates of the postulated theory of evolution. Sorry, the theory of evolution and biblical teaching simply do not mix. Nevertheless, you of course free to try as you may.

You really will never stop demonstrating your ignorance of all things scientific, will you?  The name "big Bang" is just that, a name. In fact, it is the name given by one who at first denied the concept, then later admitted to it and accepted it. The name was given derogatorily, and it stuck. The name has nothing to do with what actually happened. There was no explosion, and none was postulated. It was simply the initiation of something that is still going on.  The universe is expanding, and that is observable and documented. 

[Amo]

You really will never stop demonstrating your ignorance of all things scientific, will you?  The name "big Bang" is just that, a name. In fact, it is the name given by one who at first denied the concept, then later admitted to it and accepted it. The name was given derogatorily, and it stuck. The name has nothing to do with what actually happened. There was no explosion, and none was postulated. It was simply the initiation of something that is still going on.  The universe is expanding, and that is observable and documented.

https://www.astronomy.com/science/how-did-the-big-bang-happen/

Quote below from link above.

How Did the Big Bang Happen?

Virtually all astronomers and cosmologists agree the universe began with a "big bang" — a tremendously powerful genesis of space-time that sent matter and energy reeling outward.

Sounds a whole lot like what happens in an explosion to me. I think the name is quite appropriate, derogatory or not. Explosions cause high energy rapid expansion outward from the point of event. What other observable event can or do you attribute the rapid expansion of the universe to? Did the name just stick, or did it stick because there was nothing else so short and sweet that expresses the process of a high energy release unto rapid expansion of gasses and or matter?

Apart from this of course, you know that I do not believe scientists really have a clue concerning the exact how's and why's of our existence. They are grasping at straws in the dark, and seriously handicapped at that, since they reject the plain testimony of scripture. You so confidently say a big bang has nothing to do with what actually happened, as though you know what actually happened. Which you do not.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

The scientists of today do not have a clue about the countless events which took place yesterday on this earth, let alone throughout the universe over billions of years. Their hubris alone makes them think they do.

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. 19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.