Sunday, September 2, 2012

Materialists' Confessions Stating that the Universe Has a Beginning

Up until the beginning of the 20th century, the prevailing view was that the universe was of infinite dimensions, and that it had always existed, and would continue to exist for ever. According to this view, known as the Static Universe Model, there was no question of the universe having any beginning or an end.
This perspective, which represents the basis of materialist philosophy, regarded the universe as being a stable, fixed and unchanging accumulation of matter, while denying the existence of any Creator. This view is still accepted, in various forms, by evolutionists for ideological reasons. They espouse their claims by maintaining that the universe is eternal end without end. This view, refuted by science, is used by its supporters to keep the false religion of Darwinism alive, in the face of all the scientific evidence.
Today, in the 21st century, modern physics has proven with a certainty that does not permit any hesitations or objections, through many experiments, observations and calculations, that the universe had a beginning and was created in a single moment with an explosion known as the Big Bang. This utterly repudiated all evolutionists’ accounts, claims and statements to the effect that matter and the universe are without beginning or end.
In addition, it has been established that contrary to materialist claims, the universe is not fixed and stable as our Almighty Lord has declared in the Qur'an, but is rather in a constant state of flux and is also expanding. These facts are today accepted by the scientific world.
Hoimar Von Ditfurth is a German professor of neurology and a well-known evolutionist science writer:
To put it another way, scientists encountered phenomena suggesting that the universe had a beginning.
This idea seemed so revolutionary, or unscientific to put it in other terms, or odd, a word beloved of many scientists, that a number of concepts and opinions were put forward in order to avoid the striking conclusion that would be reminiscent of those in ancient myths and religions. We are not going to discuss these often complex concepts and universal models here. Because as stated at the beginning, we consider that the American Penzias and Wilson's (scientists who put forward the Big Bang theory)discoveries represent a final answer to this question. The universe did indeed have a beginning.443
Anthony Flew is a British philosopher known for several decades as an atheist but who later acknowledged that atheism is an empty philosophy and stated that he believed in Allah. He expressed his views about how the Big Bang proved Creation as follows:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also without beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story.444
 Dennis Sciama is a scientist who, together with Fred Hoyle (who came up with the steady-state theory), spent many years defending the fixed universe theory. In Stephen Hawking's words:
Defending the steady-state theory alongside Fred Hoyle for years, Dennis Sciama described the final position they had reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang theory was revealed. Sciama stated that he had taken part in the heated debate between the defenders of the steady-state theory and those who tested that theory with the hope of refuting it. He added that he had defended the steady-state theory, not because he deemed it valid, but because he wished that it were valid.
Fred Hoyle stood out against all objections as evidence against this theory began to unfold. Sciama goes on to say that he had first taken a stand along with Hoyle but, as evidence began to pile up, he had to admit that the game was over and that the steady-state theory had to be dismissed.445
Stephen W. Hawking is a British theoretical physicist and professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge:
Why should the Universe be in a state of high order at one end of time, the end that we call the past? Why is it not in a state of complete disorder at all times? After all, this might seem more probable. And why is the direction of time in which disorder increases the same as that in which the Universe expands? One possible view is that God simply chose that the Universe should be in a smooth and ordered state at the beginning of the expansion phase. We should not try to understand why, or question      His reasons because the beginning of the Universe was the work of God. But the whole history of the Universe could be said to be the work of God.446
Don N. Page is professor of physics at the University of Alberta:
There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state.447
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University and specializes in zoogeography:
Today, however, we know that infinite time and infinite space belong to God, that the universe is finite...448
Hoimar Von Ditfurth:
We cannot know what there was before this point and at its beginning. That is a sphere closed to science. Even the question of why there was a beginning is unanswerable. In addition, the questions of the origins of the first structure of the initial matter, hydrogen, its characteristics, and what gave rise to that hydrogen, are all parts of this mystery.449
Leonard Huxley is a biographer and writer, and elder professor of physics at  the University of Adelaide:
... "creation" in the ordinary sense of the world, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days... in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being.450
Prof. Fred Hoyle is a British astronomer and a mathematician at Cambridge University:
The Big Bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen below, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the Big Bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect-with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies.451

443- Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorlar›n Sessiz Gecesi 1 (The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs), p. 56.
444- Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salle II: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241.
445- Stephen Hawking, Evreni Kucaklayan Karinca, Alkim Kitapcilik ve Yayincilik, 1993, pp. 62-63.
446- Stephen W. Hawking, "The Direction of Time," New Scientist, Vol. 115, 9 July 1987, p. 47.
447- Don N. Page, "Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry," Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983, p. 40.
448- Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kal›t›m ve Evrim ["Heredity and Evolution"], p. 21.
449- Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorlar›n Sessiz Gecesi 3 ["The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 3"], p. 7.
450- Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, MacMillan, 1938, Vol.1. p. 241.
451- Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, London, 1984, pp. 184-185. 

No comments:

Post a Comment