The Big Bang Fails Science

Evidence for a Supernatural First Cause
The Cosmological Argument
Problems for a Naturalistic Big Bang
The Horizon Problem
Occilating Universe Theory
Refuting an Eternal Universe
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
Why physicists Can't avoid a creation event


Evidence for a Supernatural First Cause
Physics and the Philosophy of Science show that the universe was created by a SUPERnatural cause since there is no "something" to create energy prior to the existance of the universe, and because material causes cannot have created the univers' energy. Therefore, material causes do not explain the existance of the universe.

If there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.

The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions.

The observable universe contains between 10^22 and 10^24 stars (between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars). Why is it plausible to believe millions of stars formed per second during the history of the universe when it is believed by astronomers that it takes many millions of yrs for a star to form?


The Cosmological Argument

This argument is a form of the cosmological argument which originated in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, and was refined by Thomas Aquinas and the Kalam cosmological argument:

1. Everything that has a beginning needs a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. The universe needs a cause
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of caused causes
5. There must therefore be a cause for all else which has no beginning and needs no cause for its own existence


In physics, the law of Conservation of Energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time. In other words, this law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy


Problems for a Naturalistic Big Bang

1. Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies
2. Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist
3. Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them in the age of the cosmos
4. Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies
5. Spiral galaxies missing millions of years of collisions
6. Surface brightness of furthest galaxies identical to nearest galaxies
7. Nine billion years of missing metal in a trillion stars
8. Missing Population III stars
9. Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity
10. Solar system formation theory wrong too
11. It is "philosophy" that claims the universe has no center
12. Amassing evidence suggests the universe has a center
13. Sun is missing nearly 100% of its big-bang predicted spin
14. An entire universe worth of missing antimatter
15. Supernova chemical evolution theory in crisis
16. Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes
17. Missing shadow of the big bang
18.The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe


The Great Wall

The Great Wall is the largest known structure in the universe at present, having superceded sundry superclusters and clusters of superclusters. The Wall is a "thin" (15 million-light-year) sheet of galaxies 500 million light years long by 200 wide; and it may extend even farther. It is emplaced some 200-300 million light years from earth. It helps outline contiguaous parts of vast "bubbles" of nearly empty space. Both the Wall and the adjacent voids are just too large for current theories to deal with. M.J. Geller, codiscoverer of the Great Wall with J.P. Huchra, remarked: "My view is that there is something fundamentally wrong in our approach to understanding such large-scale structure -- some key piece of the puzzle that we're missing." -- Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall, Waldrop, M. Mitchell, Science, 246:885, 1989. Geller, Margaret J., and Huchra, John P.; "Mapping the Universe," Science, 246:897, 1989. And: McKenzie, A.; "Cosmic Cartographers Find 'Great Wall,'" Science News, 136:340, 1989.


The Horizon Problem

"If you considered the ultimate lookback time as 14 billion years (14 thousand million ) as obtained from a Hubble constant of 71 km/s per megaparsec as suggested by WMAP , then these remote parts of the universe are 28 billion light years apart, so why do they have exactly the same temperature? Being twice the age of the universe apart is enough to make the point about the horizon problem, but as Schramm points out, if you look at this problem from earlier perspectives it is even more severe. At the time the photons were actually emitted, they would have been 100 times the age of the universe apart, or 100 times causally disconnected." -- The Horizon Problem, Georgia State University


Occilating Universe Theory

In 1934, the work by Richard C. Tolman showed that the oscillating model is hardly possible because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase. This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it.

"The probability of a Big Bounce, or even a Big Crunch for that matter, is however becoming negligible. The most recent measurements of the CMBR or cosmic microwave background radiation shows that the Universe will continue on expanding and will most likely end in what is known as a Big Freeze or Heat Death." -- Universe Today, John Carl Villanueva, Oscillating Universe Theory, 24 Aug , 2009


Refuting an Eternal Universe

When light is converted to matter, these metric and distributional symmetries (among others) are broken. The broken symmetries of light are conserved (in accordance with Noether's theorem) as time and the gravitational forces of spacetime, and as the various charges (and spin) of matter. The principle of symmetry conservation is therefore most familiar to us (after symmetry breaking) through the principles of charge conservation, gravitation, and time; before symmetry breaking, we see them manifesting in light's intrinsic motion, metric symmetry, the inertial forces of spacetime, and the suppression of mass, charge, time, and gravity. It is the broken "non-local" metric and distributional symmetries of light that give rise to the "location" charge of gravitation, a charge whose active principle is time. The function of all conserved charges is to produce forces which will eventually return the material system to its original symmetric state." -- John A. Gowan, Gravity, Entropy, and Thermodynamics, Cornell University

How many seconds are there in half of an infinite number of seconds (in an infinitely existing universe)? Half of an infinite number is still an infinite number! This is a logical fallacy. The premise that there is an infinite number of seconds to the universe into the past is therefore false.

If the universe were infinite, the amount of light falling on the earth would also be infinite. The reason for this is that the volume of the universe increases 8-fold with doubling of distance, while the decrease of light is only 4-fold with the doubling of the distance. The result is that the amount of light falling in the earth would double every time the size of the universe is doubled. Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not expect the sky to be dark at night. Since the night sky is dark, we know that the universe could not be infinite.

1 The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else).

2 The universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back into a single point. Also, note that the universe is not expanding into space, but space itself is expanding.

3 The radiation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965. What is it? It is the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe exploded.

4 Galaxy Seeds. Scientists believe that, if the Big Bang is true (first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being), then temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. To discover whether these ripples exist, the Cosmic Background Explorer – COBE – was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992. What COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that, sure enough, enable galaxies to form. So critical and spectacular was this finding that the NASA lead for COBE, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”

5 Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted, Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world.”


An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
www.cosmologystatement.org /


"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.

In addition to causality-information and the first and second thermodynamic laws, we require a 4th principle, the conservation of energetic symmetry, which is not a thermodynamic law, but is nevertheless related to causality and both the first and second laws in significant ways." -- John A. Gowan, Gravity, Entropy, and Thermodynamics, Cornell University


Why physicists Can't avoid a creation event

"In his presentation, Professor Vilenkin discussed three theories which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. One popular theory is eternal inflation. Most readers will be familiar with the theory of inflation, which says that the universe increased in volume by a factor of at least 10^78 in its very early stages (from 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds), before settling into the slower rate of expansion that we see today. The theory of eternal inflation goes further, and holds that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller “bubble” universes within an ever-expanding multiverse. Each bubble universe undergoes its own initial period of inflation. In some versions of the theory, the bubbles go both backwards and forwards in time, allowing the possibility of an infinite past. Trouble is, the value of one particular cosmic parameter rules out that possibility: But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn’t work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). “You can’t construct a space-time with this property,” says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past,” says Vilenkin. “There must be some kind of boundary.” -- Why physicists Can't avoid a creation event", New Scientist, 11 January 2012, Lisa Grossman

 Evolution Becomes a Bigger Joke With Every New Discovery in Biology

Evolution became a laughable myth in the 20th century, during which it was disproved by millions of discoveries. One such discovery is that polymerase is a product of it's own translation, which proves Special Creation. Another is the discovery that the cell's structural design is not generated by genetic information, but is instead passed on by reproduction form the reproductive cells of the parents (Cortical Inheritance). Evolutionism is a philosophy which is contradicted by science. It arose from a rejection of Christian values in the 18th century, leading to a rise in secular humanism which required a materialistic explanation for man's existance free of God. This rise in humanism was fueled by a lack of adequate effort of Christians to defend the truth against new false ideas that were nothing more than replacements for one truth or another, as well as the outsourcing academic and scientific control to those who are non-believers. Rejection of truths for imaginary ideas has caused many to fall into believing that philosophical ideas from the secular world scientific because secular men of science said it was so. Today the tables are turning, and there increasing support in both the scientific community and the general public for creationism and the Intelligent Design that has so greatly threatened the control over academia that secular men of science who are resorting more than ever to harsh treatment of evolution doubters or disbelievers. The threat is so great that the preachers of evolutionism are now typically afraid to debate the subject of evolution and creation on college campuses for fear of being refuted in front of their own students and the media.

Over 100 yrs ago, Evolution Theory was plausible for naturalists because of their rejection of God. Biological science was rudimentary and archaic, and provided no information about the operations of the cell. Modern biology has very greatly changed what is known of genetics and biology. It has been discovered that life is based upon information which is digitally encoded and stored in a more compressed form than man's best computer compression schemes.

DNA is a material medium encoded with information which is organized to conform to linguistics laws, posesses algorithmic operations, and posesses the human language properties of phonetics, semantics, punctuation, syntax, grammar, and aprobatics. Information, algorithms, and linguistics are non-physical fundamental entities that are produced by intelligence. The material processes of chemistry and physics cannot create them. This fact is proof that all life was designed by a mind of supreme intelligence. Evolution is impossible and creation has been proved for this reason alone. The information input and output processing of DNA includes the analytical operations of proofreading, information comparison, cut, insert, copy-and-past, backup, and restore, all of which operate by algorithmic operations.

DNA is a 4-dimentional (3 dimentions + time) operating system which is far more complex than man's computer software technology, posessing many thousands of information hierarchies and pathways in the cell. When the DNA molecule is supercoiled as chromatin, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when the molecule is uncoiled, and when it is not supercoiled, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when it is supercoiled. DNA is a dual-directional information package, providing different information depending upon which direction the machinery of the cell is traveling down the molecule as it transcribes it. Man does not know how to to write computer software that can do this, wherein lines of code provide different information depending upon whether it is read top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top. DNA's individual information sequences are overlapping and nested sharing nucleotides between sequences, and information in different locations of the molecule are interdependant with each other -- a feature which exemplifies why chemical processes cannot design DNA. DNA posesses codes built upon codes which regulate the use of each other, even when they are distant from each other in the molecule.

During an organism's development, the genetic information instructs the cell on how to turn on and off, like chemical switches, many sequences of information of the DNA in a supremely complex and yet to be understood orchestral arrangement of various groupings and orders so as to build the structures of the organism. These patterns of genes being switched on and off is so complex that man will likely never be able to decipher it.

If you want to believe in evolution because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of our creator, nobody can stop you. But doing so is to be a denialists of the discoveries of modern science - things which the outdated concept of Charles Darwin over 150 yrs ago could not have predicted. Believing in evolution today is as antiquated as it was to believe that flies arose from meat or frogs arose from mud a century prior to Darwin. Eugenie Scott, the popular militant defender of evolutionism has stated, "If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team. And you probably will get beaten."

Atheists in fact hate the Scientific Method and refuse to employ it. Example: 100 years of random genetic mutation experimentation provides consistent results demonstrating that random mutations are destructive and negative to organisms, both biochemically and anatomically, and does not add anything incrementally to the anatomy of organisms. Conclusion? Mutation cannot be a mechanism for accruing change that results in macroevolution. But what does the atheist conclude despite the evidence? They continue believing that random mutation IS a mechanism for accruing change that results in mind-bending complexity, microscopic interdependent machinery, and macroevolution, not because of science, but because their worldview requires it to be, since if evolution were true, random mutation would have to be the base mechanism for evolution, since genetic information defines organisms. In this way, they refuse to come to the correct conclusion because of their paradigm, tossing out the Scientific Method and the conclusion it would require them to accept.

Examples of how atheists refuse to comply with the Scientific Method are nearly countless, and found in all fields of science. I would say that based upon this fact, atheists are incapable of being objective, responsible scientists in any field of science which relates to the universe, organic life, or history.

Anthony Flew, once the word's foremost atheist academic who's former arguments are the posters upheld by atheists today, converted to a theist and creationist because of the biological evidence. See him discuss his conversion: