Big Bang or Big Bust Concept: Big Bang Cosmology violates fundamental scientific principles and cannot be classified as an observable event.

The Big Bang is the popularized version of evolutionary cosmology. It states that matter, energy, and space were all compressed many billions of times smaller than a proton and then exploded for some undetermined reason to create an expanding universe which continues to spread today. There are presently some 50 theories proposed by cosmologists to explain the Big Bang, all of which are nothing but mathematical models. Why so many theories? It is apparent that the verdict is still out.

If the Big Bang is true as presented by the cosmologists, they must have scientific ground to stand on. To propose that the universe came about by a big explosion has far-reaching implications that affect every human being. For cosmic evolution to be accepted the questions below must be answered not just with speculative theory or creative mathematical formulations, but with hard empirical evidence.

1. What causes particles of matter to coalesce into heavenly bodies?

This basic question has to be answered. If the Big Bang caused matter and energy to separate and move outward at tremendous speeds, at some time that matter had to coalesce and come together. The explanation offered is that as cooling occurs; particles slow down and clump together. The problem is, however, that these celestial objects are moving at relatively high speeds away from each other. There is no empirical evidence to support the star formation theory proposed by evolutionary cosmologists. No star or galaxy has ever been seen to form in space from star gas. As the Harvard astrophysicist, Abraham Loeb stated, “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.” (Abram Loeb, as cited by Marcus Chown, “Let there be Light,” New Scientist, vol. 157, February 7, 1998 p.30)

2.Can an explosion produce order?

The second law of thermodynamics, as noted above, tends to bring a system to disorder. The cosmos is not exempt from the second law. When one observes the universe, the second law is apparent everywhere. The sun is wearing down slowly; stars are burning out and even exploding. It is obvious that the second law of disorder is here to stay.

Big Bang theory contradicts the Second Law because it requires particles to organize and cohere on a cosmic scale. There is no scientific evidence for this claim. It is much like the expectation that dropping a nuclear bomb on a mountain will yield neat piles of earth rather than utter destruction. What we see in the universe is directly opposite to the expectation of evolutionary cosmologists. We observe a decaying universe whose order of complexity is in decline. Evolution Cosmology directly defies this great law of science.

3. What was before the Big Bang?

While some say that matter and energy are eternal and were always present, the question remains: Where did everything come from? It had to come from an outside source. How did it begin? Again, the answer is that an outside source initiated it. Everything observed has a beginning and an end. Matter and energy are no exceptions. The beginning came from an outside source: God.

4. Is expansion of the universe observable?

Red shifts – the movement of light coming from objects in space to the red end of the spectrum – are regarded as evidence for the expansion of the universe. However, there are some 50 models for the process of expansion. There is confusion and little consensus on this issue. That is not surprising. After all, one is dealing with a gigantic universe from a limited frame of reference. There are no clear answers at this time, just creative speculation. This is illustrated by cosmology’s concept for the beginning—what has been termed the “cosmic egg.”

Never observed, the cosmic egg idea for the origin of the universe takes the universe backwards in time and shrinks all matter down many billions of times smaller than a single proton. The idea that all matter and energy could be collected in one place staggers the imagination, and, of course, has no empirical foundation. Yet, there are mathematical models that depict the precise fraction of a second when this took place. This is presented as scientific fact and needs to be challenged.

Recommended Resource: Dismantling the Big Bang

About these ads

~ by creation101 on June 6, 2008.

11 Responses to “Big Bang or Big Bust”

  1. While some say that God is eternal and wasalways present, the question remains: Where did God come from? He had to come from an outside source. How did it begin? Again, the answer is that an outside source initiated him. Everything observed has a beginning and an end. God are no exceptions. The beginning came from an outside source: Another God.

  2. The concept that God must have had a beginning is inconsistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Bible teaches us that God is the uncreated, self-existing, Creator of all. He has no beginning and no end; He is the Eternal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If our universe did not exist, God would still exist. This faulty understanding is rooted in a naturalistic worldview that denies what the Creator has revealed about Himself and replaces His Word with the finite philosophies of man.

    “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty, Rev. 1:8. So the premise that everything has a beginning is not applicable to the Creator of the space time continuum we exist in. We are mistaken when we take our finite views and attempt to invalidate or demean our Creator using a fallacious presupposition.

  3. I have been on and off on several forums and sites which talk about evolution vs creation. All the more I am convinced of the hardness and stupidity of the human heart to believe in error and how true it is the same thing that Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans “the wrath of GOD is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” and “claiming to be wise they became fools” because “even though they knew GOD, they did not honor HIM as GOD or give thanks, but became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened.” How true this is – “futile” and “speculations” – these two terms signify the theory of evolution. No basis, just mere rumors and gossips that men have made up just to not honor GOD whose benevolence they are enjoying. How easily the weak minds and the naive minds fall into the trap! I am amazed at the wickedness of human heart and grateful to GOD for revealing His truth to me – a wretch like me! The point is man would believe anything if they can keep GOD of the universe out of the picture and this “anything” includes people who worship rats as GODs and other human beings as GODs, and people who believe there is no GOD, people who claim they don’t believe in anything (but not realizing that they are still believing in nothing)… May the LORD have mercy on them…I pray.

  4. In the beginning…we all believe something or someone existed without being created. Either matter has always existed or God has. I find it easier to believe God existed first and created all we see instead of the existence of matter and random, disorderly appearance of planets, plants, animals, and humans.

  5. There is a contemporary push to convince the Christian community to accept the Big Bang Theory as a way to counter the atheistic view. The simple “logic” given is this: The atheist does not accept the Big Bang Theory as taught since it points to a beginning, therefore, possibly to a creator, if you will. Therefore the creationist should use that theory to push creationism because it is readily accepted by the scientific community, and supposedly does not subject the creationist to embarassment due to being “scientifically challenged” by the Big Bang Theory. But this is in direct contradiction to the Word and as such does not offer a satrisfactory challenge to the atheist. Just the opposite as it supports his view that the Bible simply can not be true. If the Word states a six day creation, it then happened in six days, or God can’t be true. Therefore we must look by faith for the holes in the arguments for any theory that stands against the revealed Word of God, and thankfully the folks on this site have done just that. I have been able to renew my faith in a God Who plays no mind games when it comes to revealing His truth, rather than a so-called poem of creation as touted by Rob Bell and the like. “One day is as a thousand years” is not the same as one day is as billions of years, nor does that phrase mean anything other than the very patience of the Lord towards them that resist Him and has to do with the timing of His return, not the creation.

  6. Tim raises an important issue. Should believers use concepts and models other than the young earth creationist model in an attempt to avoid ridicule, find common ground and perhaps be able to reach those who in agreement with the Big Bang and/or prolonged evolutionary timescales? While I would always encourage others to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit when sharing biblical truth with others, I would refrain from attempting to present God’s truth using what can only be described as flawed, secular model, e.g. the Big Bang.
    I would add to this that if you are a believer who ascribes to something other than the young earth model, you might want to prayerfully consider your own reasons for rejecting the Genesis account as stated and ascribing to a timeline that is supportive of the ‘molecules to men’ Theory of Evolution. There are many young earth chronometers that are not promoted in the scientific community because they contradict the evolutionary scenario.
    That does not mean that you shouldn’t confront others with the implications of their belief systems, e.g. The Big Bang model does imply a beginning, just a Tim notes. I am in complete agreement with Tim that our standard must always be the Word of God. There is only one divinely revealed account of the beginning. That account is the Genesis account and it alone remains the true account of the creation of the universe and all that is contained therein.
    Playing semantic games, e.g. the Day-Age theory of old-earth and progressive creationists, or the theological gymnastics of the Gap theorists a.k.a. the ruin-restoration creationists, only serve to compromise the clear teaching of Scripture and diminish the power and glory of our Creator.
    We do well to remember that it is the Gospel that is truly Good News. That Gospel transforms sinners into saints and enables us to see with eyes of faith what is true and what is not. When discussing the origins of man, life, the universe, we should always point others to our Creator, Messiah Jesus, and the awesome work He continues to do creating men and women as new creations in Christ.

  7. Thank-you for putting “things” in the right perspective. I admit I had trouble earlier between “Hollywood and “Wise Men” but I see “The Light”. God scoffs at Wise Men and he is truly the Alpha and the Omega! Let us all bear fruit for THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

  8. I agree with what Tom and Steve wrote regarding using the “big Bang” to argue for the existence of God. Many top notch theists argue that way including William Lane Craig and Giesler. I was recently given Giesler’s book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist” in which He teaches you how to remember and argue for the big bang. It is unfortunate that such a good book from a scholar like Giesler can sow seeds of doubt and deceive it’s readers. Maybe there are some valuable points that can be used like the evidence against an eternal universe and that only a personal transcendent God can create “something out of nothing”.I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are some good points, but to argue the big bang is suicidal if you want to honor God’s revelation.How can We present the gospel as contained in the Bible, if We begin by showing the Genesis account is false?! How does that honor God! Unfortunately some of these theists go so far as to present theistic evolution as a possibility in order to sound “scientific” and not be too “religious”.

  9. Thank you Tyler for your kind and cogent thoughts. I too am a fan of Norman Giesler’s work.

  10. True words, some unadulterated words man. Totally made my day!!

  11. Thanks for the encouraging words. For an interesting essay on the problem of starlight and time from a young earth creationist point of view, check out the headline “Scientist’s see blast from the past.. – or did they?” It’s on the Creation Studies Institute’s homepage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: