Skip to main content

Big Bang revisited

In response to Stephen Hawking's latest declaration that gravity alone explains the origin of the universe, Answers in Genesis declared that they actually agree with Hawking on one point: God did not use the Big Bang to create the universe. AiG stipulates that for a simple reason: the Big Bang is not an accurate model of universal origin.

As reported earlier, Stephen Hawking said that very existence of the law of gravity was sufficient to explain how the universe could come to be from nothing at all. The Reuters news service inferred from his remarks that Hawking was saying that the Big Bang was inevitable, given the law of gravity and other laws of physics.

Today Ken Ham, writing in his blog, promised a review of Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design, at AiG's weekly Web bulletin, News to Note. Until that happens, or the book appears on bookshelves, the accuracy of the Reuters article's inference is impossible to determine. Ham also reminded his readers that his colleagues had already dealt with the Big Bang, and found it not only incompatible with the Genesis account but also an inaccurate summary of the universe' early history.

The Big Bang model posits a singularity that expanded rapidly into a very hot space that cooled and formed hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium. A singularity could scarcely be "an inevitable consequence of physical law" because it is beyond it. Furthermore, as this Examiner has pointed out, the concept becomes non-falsifiable: any of a number of scenarios are possible, and none of them are testable.

That aside, the Big Bang does project hydrogen and helium in a roughly 3:1 ratio, which most astronomers observe. But Jason Lisle (Lisle J, "Does the big bang fit with the Bible?," in War of the Worldviews, Ken Ham, ed., Answers in Genesis-US, 2005) points out several other predictions that classic Big Bang theory makes, that no one has observed. They are:

• Magnetic monopoles.

Antimatter equal in quantity to the observed quantity of matter.

• The "first-generation" stars created in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, which should be comprised only of hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium.

In fact, monopoles have never been isolated, antimatter has been seen only in the laboratory, and no one has reported one single star that does not have traces of elements heavier than lithium. (The heaviest trace element seen in any star is iron, as would be expected: iron, and particularly iron-56, has the highest binding energy per unit of atomic weight.) Under the classic theory, these first-generation stars should be able to survive longer than the universe itself; yet they are not in evidence.

Lisle also mentioned that the universe appears to be "flat," in that gravity exactly balanced its expansion. He found such an equisite balance too great a coincidence to accept. The Carmeli-Hartnett cosmological-relativity solution predicts a flat space, but classic Big Bang theory does not.

Various cosmologists and astronomers have invented a number of "fudges" to attempt to save the theory. Lisle and Danny Faulkner describe one: inflation, which allegedly occurred at a speed orders of magnitude faster than light. What started it, and then stopped it, is unclear. Nor is this kind of "inflation" evident today. The two more famous fudges are "dark matter and energy," invented to explain large far-off objects spinning more rapidly than their luminous masses would allow, and an apparent acceleration of universal expansion in the past. The Biblically compatible cosmogony of Hartnett obviates both, and posits a rapid expansion of the universe on Day Four of creation. (See also this series.)

Whether Hawking was actually defending the Big Bang, hopefully AiG's review will settle. In any event, the Big Bang has failed according to the very method that secular scientists profess to uphold. Astronomers have tested it and found it false, whether they want to admit that or not.

Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.

Comments

  • Chris Moore 4 years ago

    In any event, AIG is ready to settle any argument, evidence. or theory.

    Didn't Lisle recently explain to the faithful, "Whatever scientists discover about the universe from the LHC, it will show that the universe is upheld by God in a consistent way. This will therefore confirm that the Bible is true."

    Ken Ham meanwhile has already dealt his "death blow to the big bang. Hawking is an easy take down. I' m sure Hovind will soon do a followup, but he's in line waiting to access the internet from his prison cell.

    AND

    In before Carol's response. >>>>interesting article<<<<<<

  • Niick 4 years ago

    ">>>Ham also reminded his readers that his colleagues had already dealt with the Big Bang, and found it not only incompatible with the Genesis account but also an inaccurate summary of the universe' early history."

    Of course. It's all in AIG's statement of faith (which Terry also supports) - the Bible is true cuz the Bible sez so.

    >>>"the concept becomes non-falsifiable: any of a number of scenarios are possible, and none of them are testable."

    IRONY METER ALERT! Terry has a problem with falsifiability all of a sudden despite his own claims that the invisible undetectable unobservable God can do anything it likes in any way, anywhere, anytime using the "scientific mechanism" of MAGIC! Let's just forget about things like how the Big Bang model successfully predicted things like cosmic background radiation and such.

    >>>"The Biblically compatible cosmogony of Hartnett obviates both, and posits a rapid expansion of the universe on Day Four of creation."

    So inflation is scientifically problematic unless creationists claim it happened. Got it.

    >>>"Astronomers have tested it and found it false, whether they want to admit that or not."

    Ah, blatant lies now, I see. So, Mr non-falsifiability, why do you continue to lie and pretend you're being scientific?

  • BathTub 4 years ago

    Yes Terry, we understand that nothing that contradicts your personal interpretation of your favourite holy book can be true.

  • Profile picture of Hugh Kramer
    Hugh Kramer 4 years ago

    Ah, a Ken Ham review of Stephen Hawking's book. That ought to be even better than a Ray Comfort review. At least there should be no bananas involved; just dinosaurs with riding saddles on their backs.

  • Niick 4 years ago

    And I wonder if it will have the support of AIG Australia? *grin*

  • Pastafarian 4 years ago

    Jason Lisle???

    Bwa hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

    Those with an open mind, google "When astrophysicists go bad" for an excellent takedown of this flake.

  • Martin Anderson 4 years ago

    On the anti-matter issue, check out CP violation. Do some research Terry.

  • Ben Tousey 4 years ago

    I find myself getting more and more confused every day by this argument. We have amazing minds like Stephen Hawking, with an IQ that’s off the charts, and some guy who was probably homeschooled and couldn’t win an argument with a sixth-grader decides he’s going to review Mr. Hawking’s book, with the sole purpose of “discrediting” him.

    What is it about how our Universe came to be that frightens you so? Seriously, I’m asking. Why are you fighting this so hard? What are you hoping to accomplish? There’s no way you’re going to change what’s happened.

    In 1543 c.e., Nicolaus Copernicus published his theory “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres,” and noted, among other things, “All the spheres revolve about the sun as their mid-point, and therefore the sun is the center of the universe.”

    The church went apoplectic because the Bible said that the sun and the moon and the stars all revolved around the Earth.

    Only a few years later, in 1610, Galileo Galilei decided that he agreed with Copernicus. They called it “false and contrary to Scripture.” When he later defended his views in “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” in 1632, he was tried by Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” forced to recant, and remanded to house arrest, where he would spend the rest of his life.

    In the mean time, the Earth orbited the Sun at sixty-seven thousand miles per hour, taking it just over 365 days to do so.

    Today, we have telescopes, high-powered equipment, and satellites and probes—science. I’m very curious as to why you would oppose “truth.” It reminds me of a conversation between Alice and the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland.

    Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
    Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
    Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
    Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.