Big Bang or Big Bust?

by Robbie Parsons

It has long been an inherent desire of mankind to know about his origins and the origins about the universe around him.  If one reads the Holy Bible plainly, he or she will learn that the Bible says that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).  As many times as this verse has been read, no one has ever read it and proposed that the process of the creation of “the heavens and the earth” had to happen by a “Big Bang.”  Plain reading of this verse in its context simply means that God designed, engineered and created everything.

 Modern day scientists, however, in rejecting the Biblical account of creation, have long sought a viable, scientific answer to answer the question of the origin of the universe.  The result is what is commonly called “The Big Bang.”  We will look at the hypothesis of the Big Bang and the problems that are presented by it.  We will examine the facts to see if this hypothesis is a Big Bang or a Big Bust.

EXPLANATION

According to the Big Bang, in the beginning, a very small and extremely hot point, called a singularity, contained all mass and energy.  All at once, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading the mass and energy.  The energy then began to cool as the universe expanded, which resulted in the formation of hydrogen and helium gas.  This hydrogen and helium gas that was formed then collapsed to form all the stars and galaxies.  In the course of time, some stars exploded, which created the other heavier elements.  This action thus formed the planets, moons and other such celestial bodies.

The Big Bang is a phenomenon that has not been derived from true observation.  Good, accurate science always relies on the ability to be tested and observed.  Thanks to the advancement of modern telescopes, we have been able to spectral bands, super novae, and nebulous clouds.  But we have yet to see the process of the formation of a star.  None of the postulates of the Big Bang have ever been observed or tested.

Many hold to the Big Bang as indisputable fact.  Many textbooks, articles, TV shows and museum exhibits present it as such.  The accurate description for the “Big Bang” would be to call it a mathematical model history – defined basically, a hypothesis (an educated GUESS based on information given).  There are other such mathematical models which theorize the origin of the universe.  In fact, one mathematical model that looks to the Holy Bible for guidance is described below:

*“Dr. Russell Humphreys has produced just such a model in his book, Starlight and Time, a readable book with technical appendicies.  Is it right?  I don’t know – he doesn’t know.  His claim is only that his mathematical model is more Biblical and more scientific than the Big Bang mathematical model.”

Finally, while the Big Bang attempts to describe the origin of our universe, it fails in our search in one more profound area.  While it does theorize and describe the singularity, it fails to answer from where the singularity originated.  Therefore, it ultimately fails to answer the question of the origin of our universe.

As mentioned earlier, there are a few scientific problems which make the foundation of the Big Bang crumble.  Those problems will be discussed in the following sections.

LACK OF MONOPOLES

When we reflect on our learning about magnets from grade school, we should remember that magnets have two different poles: positive and negative poles.  A positive pole will repel a positive pole, and a negative repels a negative.  Opposite poles attract each other.

According to particle physicists, during the process of the Big Bang, intense heat would have created magnetic monopoles that would have lasted even to today.  Monopoles are magnets that have only one pole.  The problem is that to date, no monopoles have ever been discovered.  Since no monopoles have been discoverd, the idea of the Big Bang begins to show an Achilles heel.

LACK OF ANTIMATTER

As the result of the process of the Big Bang, hydrogen and helium gas formed when the universe expanded and cooled after the singularity rapidly expanded.  The formation of hydrogen and helium gas was the formation of matter.  Physics tells us that any time matter is made from energy, an equal amount of antimatter is formed.  Antimatter is similar to matter, except that the charges of the particles are reversed.

There are two problems with the supposed formation of antimatter during the Big Bang.  The first is that no antimatter has ever been found in our universe.  The second problem is that matter and antimatter cannot co-exist.  When matter and antimatter are together, they react in such a way that they destroy each other.  Therefore, our universe would likely never have had the chance to even form, revealing another flaw in the Big Bang theory.

The basic principle that we can derive from this example is that in His wisdom and knowledge, God designed our universe to be only comprised of matter.

LACK OF FIRST GENERATION STARS

As discussed above, the Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium and some traces of lithium.  It could not form other 90 heavier elements.  Modern day astronomers have theorized that stars produce these elements at their core.  When the star dies and goes supernova, it will release these other heavier elements which are in its core.  Upon this release, second and third generation stars collect small amounts of these heavier elements.

Assuming this theory is accurate, there should still be first generation stars in existence, as their life span is for a far longer period of time than our universe has supposedly been in existence.  In our examination of the 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, all have trace amounts of heavy elements, and are not first generation stars.  Therefore, with a dearth of any first generation stars, one must assume that they have never existed, and the Big Bang cannot be accurate.

CONCLUSION

The Big Bang theory is one that, at the surface, could sound very believable to the average individual when described in articles, shows or museums.  But when such problems as the lack of monopoles, the lack of antimatter and the lack of first generation stars are presented, it becomes clear that the Big Bang cannot be accepted in whole, let alone in part.  It has never been observed, and cannot be tested.  Believing its processes would take an enormous amount of faith.

It is especially difficult to believe the odds of such a freak occurrence creating our ideal planet earth, the ideal distance from our ideal sun.  Don’t forget the fact that this ideal planet has the ideal atmosphere and breathing air for our lungs, and that there is an abundance of water for life on this same planet.  Not only that, this ideal planet revolving around our ideal sun also has an ideally sized moon with just enough gravitational pull to create the tides in the oceans so that the water would not stagnate.

Is this “scientific” mathematic model truly a Big Bang, or is it a Big Bust?

 Isn’t it much easier to believe what the Bible has said all along?  That “God created the heavens and the earth.”  Did He “use” the Big Bang to do it?  It seems more likely that a gracious, eternal God spoke, and it miraculously came into being, just like the text intends.  God has had the answer for the origin of the universe all along in His holy word.

*John Morris – Is The Big Bang Biblical? – 2003