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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


7 Responses to “Big Bang or Big Bust?”

  1. 1 Mark Bell
    October 5, 2012 at 9:48 am

    I stumbled across your site today… I’m terribly sorry but, Mr Parsons, you desperately need to check your facts.
    A quick google of elementary cosmology should help but here’s a few pointers to get you started.
    1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Surely a man of faith can appreciate this! The universe is a very big place that our species is only just beginning to explore. If magnetic monopoles exist, they will be found eventually (assuming they are observable, unlike most of the energy in the universe…).
    2. An infinitesimal imbalance between matter and antimatter immediately after the big bang would produce the universe we see today, where all or most of the antimatter has been annihilated. Conversely, there’s nothing to suggest that clumps of antimatter (such as distant galaxies) can’t be made from antimatter. From that distance, we couldn’t tell the difference.
    3. First generation stars are predicted to have been truly gigantic, probably about 1000 times the mass of our sun, and much bigger than the biggest hyper-giant stars seen today. The more massive a star, the faster it burns through it’s fuel and the shorter it’s lifespan. Our sun has a lifespan of around 9 billion years, or so. In contrast, much lighter stars, red dwarfs are thought to have lifespans of Trillions of years. At the other end of the scale a first generation giant star would have had a lifespan much shorter than a million years. so we don’t see them because they have not existed for over 13 billion years.

    4. The Anthropic principle has it backwards. We can marvel all we like at how finely tuned the universe is for us but that is exactly wrong! We are finely tuned for the universe! If the universe was different, we would be!

    There is no reason to see the big bang theory as a threat to religious beliefs. Is it not possible that God chose to create our world through that mechanism, and continues to exert his will on upon it? Personally I do not take the bible to be literal truth for one good reason: it has been revised far to often. I don’t believe God requires rewrites!

    • October 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm

      Mark Bell,

      With all due respect, you have merely offered your belief that the Big Bang is true. In no way have you refuted Mr. Parson’s points by your credulous affirmation of Big Bang mythos.

      Contrary to your position that the Big Bang is no threat to the traditional religious beliefs of Christianity, the Big Bang mythos is an all-natural substiture for God as the uncaused First Cause of the universe, as Hawking amply pointed out in his most recent book. It undermines traditional religious belief precisely because it is a component of an all-natural history which seeks to supplant the Biblical history of the universe, which holds that the universe was supernaturally [not naturally] created over the course of six clandar days, has fallen into ruin and evil from its previously perfect state and that the earth has further suffered violence as the result of a year-long flood in the days of Noah.

      While Christians affirm the uniformity of nature, we do so from the basis of the Biblical post-Flood promise of Genesis 8:22; we presume no absolute uniformity of nature prior to the Flood. Men who reject Biblical authority [or seek to re-interprtet it based on the all-natural history which seeks to supplant the Biblical revelation of history] have no non-arbitrary, logically consistent basis for the uniformity of nature.

      It is no surpise that you do not take the Bible to be literal truth, for you, by faith, take the all-natural history of the world proposed by men whose minds are revealed to be at emnity with God, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, to be literal truth instead.

      You are correct about one thing and one thing only: God does not require rewrites; rather we should trust the revealed Word of the infallible Creator God who was there, knows everything and never lies rather than the fallible, finite, ever-changing notions of men who weren’t there, don’t know everything and have exchanged the truth of God for all-natural fables designed to replace Him!

      Tony Breeden

  2. October 8, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    Thank you for your comments Mr Breeden. I find it a pity that you take my comments as a personal attack on your beliefs, without checking your facts. It does not take much research to find the myriad revisions of The Holy Bible that have been undertaken since the various scriptures were compiled during the first few hundred years of Christianity. All of which were translated from Hebrew, or Greek into Latin by the early church. And that is why I say I cannot accept it as literal truth. The Bible is open to interpretation, and has been re-interpreted during it’s rewrites over the last two millenia. And I do not just refer to translation and updates of spelling and grammar. Entire books have been excised from the New Testament during it’s history! It may surprise you to hear that I do not adhere to all of Stephen Hawkings pronouncements. Though I do believe his physics is solid, his opinions on spirituallity are much less compelling. I also find the comments of Richard Dawkins to be as distasteful as those of any other fanatic.

    In the defence of physics, if it is so grossly incorrect about the age of the universe, there will be be a whole load of criminal cases that need re-evaluating: all physics is based on the same fundamental principals, whether it is used for forensic evidence, or exploring the bounds of our world. If it is wrong in one area, chances are it is invalid in all areas.

    It is your right to choose to ignore the findings of science if you wish (though I would like to point out that if quantum physics was wrong your computer or cell phone would not work!) but I do believe it is wrong to condemn other human beings as evil, just for the audacity of having different beliefs.

    On a personal note, you appear to presume that I am not a Christian and do not believe in God. I do not see science as an ungodly pursuit, and I do not believe it is wrong of us to discover more about the inner workings of our universe. I also do not believe we can ever discover all the laws of the universe. In those dark spaces that remain beyond our knowledge: there lies God. Spirituality + Science x humility = Human Ideal.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mark Bell

  3. February 16, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    Your method of telling everything in this piece of writing is actually
    pleasant, all be able to simply know it, Thanks a lot.

  4. August 22, 2015 at 10:41 am

    This is good but needs developing. Unmentioned is the horizon problem the BB has, where there is uniformity of temperature in the galaxies (let alone universe) with insufficient time for light to cause it. CMBR readings are also inconsistent between closer and more distant objects, and no shadows occur as would be expected if the cosmic microwaves had a distant source.

    • 6 jrobbiep
      August 22, 2015 at 12:29 pm

      Please understand that while this article contains Biblical Creation information, and is for Biblical Creationists, it is meant to be a “primer.” The goal of this ministry is to adequately equip the AVERAGE born-again believer defend their faith in a relevant and accurate way. To flood the average believer with too much information would overwhelm them an have them throwing up their hands and walking away…

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 18,390 hits
February 2019
« Dec    

%d bloggers like this: