Falsification of the "Big Bang" Theory

The Genesis account of creation is clear, and allows no room for any sort of "big bang." As this article will seek to demonstrate, that many astronomical discoveries were not predicted by the "Big Bang" theory, and does in fact serve to falsify it. Like the theory of evolution in general, the "Big Bang" should have been abandoned long ago.

"Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no 'science' is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma." Roy C. Martin, Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.

"The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the 'background' radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the 'temperature of space' produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin." Tom Van Flandern, "Did the Universe Have a Beginning?" Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33.

The big bang theory predicts that the universe would be found to still be expanding, but expansion rates should be slowing over time. The exact opposite appears to be the case.

"Not only don't we see the universe slowing down; we see it speeding up." Adam Riess, as quoted by James Glanz, "Astronomers See a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work", Science, Vol. 279, 27 Feb., 1998, p. 1298

"One of the great results of twentieth century science, NSF-funded astronomers have shown both that the universe does not contain enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion, and that the rate of expansion actually increases with distance. Why? Nobody knows yet." National Science Foundation Advertisement, "Astronomy: Fifty Years of Astronomical Excellence", Discover, September 2000, p. 7

"Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it." Tom Van Flandern, "Did the Universe Have a Beginning?" Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33

If the universe has been expanding for the last fifteen billion years, we should note a difference in the spatial density of galaxies. Galaxies far out should be closer together than galaxies closer to our own [Milky Way] galaxy, since they are closer in time to the big bang event. This prediction of the bib bang theory also fails:

"But it is a misfortune for the observer, as I emphasized earlier on, that we do not find any change even in what we call the spatial density of the galaxies. We find that the number of galaxies per given volume of space, per cubic megaparasec, as we say, is the same at the distance of four billion light years as it is in the region around our own system."

Sir Bernard Lovell, "Bones of Contention", by Marvin Lubenow, 1998, p. 211

Not only is the spatial density of galaxies not what the theory predicted, but matter distribution throughout the universe appears orchestrated:

"In fact, studies have shown that the distribution of matter is fractal, just like a tree or a cloud."

Francesco Sylos Labini as quoted by Marcus Chown, "Fractured Universe", New Scientist, vol. 163, 21 Aug., 1999, p. 23

Dr. James Trefil, Professor of physics at George Mason University, Virginia has stated ("The Dark Side of the Universe, 1988, pp. 3, 55):

"There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped the way they are…The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proven to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. Its hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."

"And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that otherwise would have been judged as failures." Van Flandern, p. 33

Astronomer Danny Faulkner ("He Made Stars Also", Creation, 19(4):42-44) states:

"Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don't spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shockwave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can't account for the origin of stars in the first place."

Further, in order for a gas cloud to collapse, some mechanism must be in place to radiate heat away. Molecules are required to accomplish this, yet the big bang produced mainly hydrogen and helium, which could only produce H₂. But as Jonathon Sarfati points out ("Refuting Evolution", p. 94):

"[H₂] would be destroyed rapidly under the ultraviolet light present, and…usually needs dust grains for its formation - and dust grains require heavier elements. The heavier elements, according to the theory, require pre-existing stars. Again, there is a chicken and egg problem of needing stars to produce stars."

The Formation of Stellar Bodies

According to the Big bang theory, the first stars that evolved were composed of hydrogen and helium. The first problem with this notion is that star formation has never been observed, nor is it understood at even a fundamental level. Cosmic background radiation (CBR) @2.73 degrees Kelvin is thought by many to be an "energy echo", left over from the Big Bang event. The CBR, if interpreted correctly, reveals a very homogenous universe moments after the Big Bang. No one has adequately explained how matter uniformly distributed could have condensed into stellar bodies such as stars, planets, and galaxies.

"Not even Zektovich had predicted a universe as lumpy as that described by Tully. A Cosmological model that could produce such vast structures would have to include large density fluctuations in the moments after the Big Bang. The catch, of course, is that the resulting uneven expansion should also be reflected in irregularities in the background radiation-which is in fact extremely smooth … The enigma of large-scale structures continues to defy solution."-Peter Pocock. Galaxies (1988), p.121.

Fluctuations in the CBR

In 1992, it was announced that scientists had discovered slight concentrations in the CBR, indicating that matter was no entirely uniformly distributed after the "Big Bang" event. Therefore, it was argued, the "Big Bang" was still a valid explanation for the origin if the universe. Some major shortcomings to this discovery were downplayed (see "In the Beginning", 7th Ed., p. 71):

1) The concentrations were less than one part in 10,000 - not much more than the errors in the instruments. Such slight concentrations could not be expected to initiate much clustering

"Gravity can't, over the age of the universe, amplify these irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies]." Margret Geller, as cited by John Travis, "Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky", Science, Vol. 263, March 25, 1994, p. 1684

2) Slight errors or omissions in the many data processing steps could easily account for the signal

3) Typical variations in the CBR spanned areas of the sky that were 100 or 1,000 times too broad to produce galaxies.

Brown summarizes (p. 71):

"Whatever caused these slight temperature variations (0.00003 o C) probably had nothing to do with the "Big Bang."

Cosmological Observations and Interpretations

The Redshift

Scientists have determined which colors are reflected and absorbed by which elements. Spectrographic studies of stars have allowed astronomers to determine what elements stars are composed of. Distant starlight appears to be red-shifted.

Interpretation #1: The Universe is Expanding

The red-shift of distant starlight is a fact. Many have interpreted this fact as indicative of the Doppler effect, that is, as space expands, the wavelengths of light emitted from stars are stretched, becoming longer or redder. This interpretation of the data is being used by the evolutionist as proof of the "Big Bang", since this theory predicts that we should observe a continuing expansion of the universe.

Interpretation #2: The Universe had already Expanded

This concept, that energy is now flooding into the universe as its fabric "relaxes", not only explains the red-shift, but also one of the most common arguments against a recent creation, that is, that we can observe star-light which has supposedly taken millions of years to reach us. Such an argument must assume, however, that the speed of light has been constant throughout the entire history of the universe.

When energy forces an electron away from the nucleus, the electron gains some energy. Upon return, it releases the extra energy it received and this energy release causes an emission of light. So light begins at the atomic level. Setterfield and others argue that universe has finished expanding and that potential energy is being released from the universe's "fabric" into itself. This energy release would show up as a measurable increase in zero point energy (atomic oscillation at absolute zero) as well as a decrease in the speed of light. The decrease in light speed results from virtual particles (matter derived from the influx of energy which fluctuates between two states, matter and energy). Light must be absorbed by the increasing number of virtual particles and then re-emitted. The net result is decreased speed of light.

"We have shown how a time varying speed of light could provide a resolution to the well known cosmological puzzles."

~Andreas Albrecht and Joao Magueijo, "A Time Varying Speed of Light as a Solution to Cosmological Puzzles", Physical Review D, 15 Feb., 1999, p. 043516-9.

"If light initially moved much faster than it does today and then decelerated sufficiently rapidly early in the history of the universe, then all three cosmological problems - the horizon, flatness and lambda problems - can be solved at once."

~John D Barrow, Professor of Astronomy and Director of the Astronomy Centre at the University of Sussex, as quoted by Steve Farrar, "Speed of Light Slowing Down", London Sunday Times, 15 November 1998

Historically, both the speed of light and zero point energy have changed in agreement with Setterfield's hypothesis. What's more, such a Setterfield's hypothesis also accounts for the redshift.. Since more energy is being pumped into the universe, light is being emitted from atoms at a higher frequency - blue shifted. When we look at distant stars - and see red shifted light - we may be looking back in time to a universe where less energy was available to atoms. The light emitted at this time would all be red shifted.

William Tiff, and astronomer from Arizona, has sped 20 years studying red shifts. He has proven that red shifts are "quantized." (Brown, p. 234, William G. Tifft, "Properties of the Redshift. III. Temporal Variation", The Atrophisics Journal, Vol. 382, I December 1991, p. 184). If the red shift is due to recessional velocity, then it looks as though stars can only travel at certain, fixed speeds. This seems very unlikely.

Setterfield believes that as energy is released from the universe's fabric into itself, atomic arrangements "resist" change until a certain critical point is reached. When this happens, light is emitted at a higher frequency - it is now blue shifted. These phenomena would have occurred many times universally.

Significantly, the Bible speaks of God "stretching out" the heavens in several passages of scripture (Isaiah 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Zechariah 12:1, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15)

For an in -depth look at this topic see the following sources:

1) Walt Brown, (www.creationscience.com) Contains much information and sources

2) Selected research papers by astronomer Barry Setterfield can be found at www.ldolphin.org

Other Considerations: The Effect on Radiometric Dates

If the speed of light has indeed decreased over time, the effect on radioisotopic decay would be profound. Brown (p. 233) explains:

"If atomic time is slowing, then clocks based on the radioactive decay of atoms should also be slowing. Radiometric dating techniques would give ages that are too old. This would bring radiometric clocks more in line with most other dating clocks. This would also explain why no primordial isotopes have half-lives of less than 50 million years. Such isotopes simply decayed away when radioactive decay rates were much greater."

The Mystery of Star Formation

"…no one has unambiguously observed material falling into an embryonic star, which should be happening if the star is truly still forming. And no one has caught a molecular cloud in the act of collapsing." Ivan Peterson, "The Winds of Starbirth", Science News, Vol. 137, 30 June, 1990, p. 409

"Precisely how a section of an interstellar cloud collapses gravitationally into a star - a double or multiple star, or a solar system - is still a challenging theoretical problem. …Astronomers have yet to find an interstellar cloud in the actual process of collapse." Fred L. Wipple, "The Mystery of Comets", 1985, p. 211, 213

"The Origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics." Charles J. Lada and Frank S. Shu, "The Formation of Sunlike Stars", Science, Vol. 248, 4 May 1990, p. 564

"No one really understands how star formation proceeds. Its really remarkable." Rogier A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, "A Matter of Timing", Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p. 30

The Eagle Nebula - An Interstellar Nursery?

The images taken of the eagle nebula are said to be stars in the process of forming. Direct measurements were never published which would demonstrate this. Most likely what we're seeing is the collision of dark nebula (dust) with emission nebula (florescent gas). The collision is causing a temperature increase to an estimated 10,000 degrees Kelvin. The nebula will glow, but the temperature is too hot to allow for collapse. (See Dr. Ronald D Samec, "Are Stars Forming Today?", first published in Creation Ex Nihilo, 19(1):5, Dec 1996- Feb 1997)

Walt Brown ("In the Beginning", 7th Ed., p. 26) comments:

"Just as the sun's gravity does not pull planets into the Sun, gravity does not pull gas and dust into a tight ball that then ignites as a star. Each cloud of dust and gas in space in space has s specific amount of kinetic and potential energy, angular momentum, and magnetic energy that must be removed for even a slight collapse. Evidence of that removal is missing. Furthermore, any collapse would only increase the cloud's temperature and pressure, which, in turn, would expand the cloud."

Heavy Elements in Distant Stars

The heavier elements, it is theorized, were formed within the interiors of the first stars to be formed after the "Big Bang" event, and were expelled into space at the end of the stars' lifecycle. The next generation of stars, which we see today, have all evolved since.

"…the first stars must have been derived from clouds of gas that consisted almost entirely of hydrogen. When nuclear fission began in these first stars, helium was produced…In this way the original hydrogen clouds of the early universe would have become enriched by heavier elements." Strahler: Science & Earth History, p. 101

This poses a second problem since spectrographic studies have shown that even the most distant stars contain these heavy elements:

"One might expect Population III stars [stars with only hydrogen and helium and no heavier elements] to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the Sun) still to be burning their nuclear fuel. The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star." Bernard Carr, "Where Is Population III?" Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, p. 829.

"Are there any stars older than Population II [i. e., Population III stars] ? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe [i. e., the big bang theory] are correct. … There is no statistically significant evidence for Population III objects [stars]." Leif J. Robinson, "Where Is Population III?" Sky and Telescope, July 1982, p. 20.

If the distances to the furthest stars has been calculated correctly, and the speed of light has been constant, note all that must have taken place within the universe's history:

1. After the Big bang the first generation of stars formed.
2. These stars, composed of hydrogen and helium, go through their lifecycles and finally explode as supernovas to produce the heavier elements.
3. This matter was somehow recollected and condensed to form the next generation of stars.
4. Transmit light from these heavy elements to earth from immense distances away.

If the universe is 10 billion years old, then it has taken 94% of the age of the universe for this light to reach us. This means that only 6% of the universe's age is available to accomplish points a-c above. This amounts to only 0.6 billion years.

It's important to understand that because certain phenomena defy explanation by naturalistic science, this does not necessarily denote that the solar system was designed and created. The earmarks of design would be a system that simply could not work any other way. Having said this, it is still important to note that in the absence of any naturalistic theory which can explain all the data, appealing to a Designer / Creator should be allowed into the pool of possible explanations for our solar system's existence.

The Moon

"A veteran student of the moon once said that it would be easier to explain the non-existence of the moon than its existence. Time, and all the evidence from Apollo has not altered the truth of that statement."

National Geographic, "Have We Solved the Mysteries of the Moon?", September, 1973, p. 320

"Severe problems beset each theory. The marked chemical differences between earth and moon make it difficult to see how the satellite could have been torn from the earth, or how the moon and earth could be twin planets. And problems of orbital dynamics argue that the earth's gravity could not easily have captured the moon and swung it into its present orbit."

National Geographic, "Have We Solved the Mysteries of the Moon?", September, 1973, p. 320

The Solar System

"One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum."

~Frank D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth, 1969, p. 4

Some have suggested that a transfer of angular momentum from the sun to the planets took place by "magnetic linking". The case is far from being proved. McCrea states:

"However, I scarcely think it has yet been established that the postulated processes would inevitably occur, or that if they did they would operate with the extreme efficiency needed in order to achieve the required transfer of angular momentum."

William Hunter McCrea, "Origin of the Solar System", Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System, (Paris, France; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), p. 8

Strange Planets

"Venus' spin, like it's orbit, also sustains a rhythmic relationship to Earth's orbit…These obvious synchronizations are a bit bothersome…We have some theories about how the spin of Venus may have been pulled into sync with Earth. Unfortunately, they don't really work, at least not yet." David Harry Grinspoon, Assistant Professor of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, University of Colorado, From "Venus Revealed", 1997, p. 204

"…We haven't exactly learned to decipher these clues yet, and the theory of the origin of planetary rotation is currently slightly confused." p. 47

"…if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, prograde rotation just can't be explained. The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day."

~Richard A Kerr, "Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets", Science vol. 258, 23 Oct., 1992, p. 458

"It seems we will never have a theory predicting in detail how a solar system arises from a disc." Grinspoon, p.193

The Origin of Rotary Movements Remains a Mystery

"There's no way to explain how a "Big Bang" could have caused all the rotary movements we see throughout the universe."

From "Discover" Magazine, Vol. 24, No. 7, July, 2003, p. 30:

"The one thing out there that seems not to turn is the universe itself. Astronomers have tried to measure cosmic rotation by looking for distortions in the faint glow of microwaves left over from the Big Bang. In 1996 Emory F. Bunn of the University of Richmond and his colleagues scrutinized those microwaves and found no sign of motion. The results imply that the universe has completed no more than one-millionth of a revolution since it was born some 13.7 billion years ago."