The Big Bang Theory – Creation Perspective

Posted by on Sep 30, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

 

Creation Answer:

Naturalists say that the universe is billions of years old, based on current observations, but this is again based on their assumptions of the current data. Creationists say that current observations show that the universe could not be billions of years old and the Bible, God’s historical record, describes the creation account only several thousand years ago. There are many things that point to a young universe, such as: the existence of comets, magnetic field strengths, rotations and revolutions of planetary bodies (and many of their moons), and the compositions and structures of stars, planets and galaxies.

HotStarThe Big Bang Theory, attempting to describe the universe’s initial catastrophic event, is very complex, but still leaves a lot of questions that have to be answered. Mathematicians and Physicists are still trying to work out how (and why) the universe came from nothing, proceeded to be everything in an infinitesimally small point and then eventually expanded to what it is today. They have much to try to explain, but it still won’t be able to answer questions about the naturalistic processes of the universe before the Big Bang (much of the how and why). Just because a theory has a lot to still explain doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, but is their hypothesis the best explanation of the observations? Naturalists would say “yes,” because they will not accept any supernatural explanation and will therefore throw out all creation viewpoints.

The Big Bang Theory has been plagued with many problems, including – missing magnetic monopoles, the flatness problem, missing Population III stars, and many, many more.[i] “With all the problems…it is not surprising that quite a few secular astronomers are beginning to abandon the big bang. Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004, issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists5 who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big-bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:

‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.’”[ii]

Scientists have also struggled with the problem of missing antimatter. “Physical laws indicate that equal amounts of matter and antimatter would have been created in the proposed ‘big bang.’ Therefore missing antimatter in the universe should challenge the ‘big bang’ theory, an implication none of the authors apparently is willing to entertain.”[iii]

In the Big Bang model, the universe should be spread out evenly, which studies of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) show that it is, but it is spread out too evenly as further observations are confirming. There should be evidence that there are fluctuations in the early universe that would cause large clusters of galaxies and stars to form. So to overcome this challenge, big bang theorists had to propose the inflation theory, stating that shortly after the big bang different parts of the universe expanded, or inflated, even faster to create clumping and allow star formation to occur. What causes the differences in inflation is unknown, but some suggest that it may be quantum fluctuations, or interference from other universes or dimensions, or possibly a phase change in the universe as it was cooling. “In short, the inflation and phase change theories constructed to explain cosmic structure via the big bang are themselves unverifiable speculation. Indeed, inflation resulted in ‘increasingly complicated’ models, which ‘[came] nowhere close to providing us with an understanding of the large-scale homogeneity of the universe’.”[iv] “Amazingly, there is no real supporting evidence for inflation; it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture—much like the big bang itself.”[v]

One researcher complained, “‘The Big Bang theory … fails to tell us how galaxies, stars and planets formed: If the universe began as a homogeneous soup, why did it not stay so forever?’ Finally, there were ‘widespread reports of the death of the Big Bang [but] Big Bang proponents responded with new ad hoc hypotheses’ to save the theory.”[vi]

Big Bang theorists suggest that dark matter has a role in the early formation of the universe, but “dark matter is supposed to emit no light or other electromagnetic radiation, so would be invisible, but this means that ‘its existence must remain an article of faith for the true believer in the standard model’.” Because of “galaxy clusters…the largest observable scales in the universe: the cosmos appears incorrigibly ‘lumpy’…dark matter does not really explain how this ‘lumpiness’ developed” from so little fluctuations in the CBR.[vii]

“Theorists … invented the concepts of inflation and cold dark matter to augment the big bang paradigm and keep it viable, but they, too, have come into increasing conflict with observations. In the light of all these problems, it is astounding that the big bang hypothesis is the only cosmological model that physicists have taken seriously.”[viii]

So, what caused the universe to explode or expand? Physicist Alan Guth says that “in spite of the fact that we call it the big bang theory, it really says absolutely nothing about the big bang. It doesn’t tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn’t even describe—it doesn’t really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this big bang.”[ix]

Consider the philosophy and praise given by physicist Paul Davies, as he says, “yet the laws [of physics] that permit a Universe to create itself are even more impressive than a cosmic magician. If there is a meaning or purpose beneath physical existence, then it is to those laws rather than to the big bang that we should direct our attention.”[x] This is quite similar to Romans 1:25 where it says, “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

“Modern big bang theory is an attempt to describe the universe without the Creator…It is not science in the usual repeatable laboratory experimental sense and it is very weak as one can never be certain one’s model actually describes reality. This is story-telling at its best.”[xi]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?, April 15, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/#fn_1, accessed July 18, 2014.

[ii] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?, April 15, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/#fn_1, accessed July 18, 2014.

  1. Lerner et al., An open letter to the scientific community, New Scientist 182(2448):20, May 22, 2004.

[iii] Michael Oard, Missing antimatter challenges the ‘big bang’ theory, December 1998, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 12(3):256, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/missing-antimatter-challenges-the-big-bang-theory, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iv] Earman, J. and Mosterin, J., A critical look at inflationary cosmology, Philosophy of Science 66:1–49, 1999; p. 1.

Penrose, R., Difficulties with inflationary cosmology, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 571:249–264, 1989; p. 249.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[v] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?, April 15, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/#fn_1, accessed July 18, 2014.

[vi] Ferris, T., The Red Limit, Quill, New York, p. 66, 1983.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[vii] Sandage, A., Observational tests of world models, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 26:561–630, 1988; p. 623.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[viii] Oldershaw, R., What’s wrong with the new physics? New Scientist 127(1748):56–59, 1990; p. 59.

As quoted in: Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[ix] Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics at MIT, “Before, Meanwhile and After the BIG BANG—(M-Theory)”, youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAagw6iug, 11 September 2007.

John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[x] Davies, P., Is the Universe a free lunch?, 3 March 1996; independent.co.uk.

John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[xi] John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe to Our Mailing List

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

Subscribe to Our Mailing List

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Thanks for Your Purchase!

Would you like to subscribe to our mailing list? Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team, and be the first to know about new products and special offers in our store!

Thanks for Your Purchase!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Like What You Read? Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

You have Successfully Subscribed!