on which Old
Earth beliefs rest is the Big Bang, and the proposed slow expansion of the Universe.
However, recent discoveries suggest that something is wrong
with the Big Bang theory itself and the way it has been portrayed to the public.
That's because astronomers and cosmologists really DON'T have it all figured
out. For example, it
has been said that:
"The currently popular cosmological
model is subject to many doubts based upon observational data which suggest
that, perhaps, there never was a Big Bang." 1
This statement came from three
well respected astronomers and was published
in a prestigious scientific journal in 1990. Another article carried the following introductory headline:
"There's not one crisis but two: the universe
seems to be younger than the stars in it, and a huge chunk of it is headed in
the wrong direction, fast. As cosmologists scramble for answers, no
theory is safe anymore." 2
A more recent article
stated the following about the "Standard" (Big Bang) model.
based on the Big Bang can account for less than 20% of the mass and density of
the known, observable Hubble length universe. Nor can this theory explain
gravity, the discordant data on red shifts, galaxy distribution, colliding
galaxies, the abundance of hydrogen and helium, the existence of elementary
particles, and why the movement of distant galaxies appears to be
of the standard model say that only the addition of ad hoc hypothetical
appendages and parameters which are constantly adjusted have prevented the Big
Bang theory from complete collapse." 3
History of the Bang:
The theory of the Big Bang was first conceived as a result of the work of
American astronomer, Edwin Hubble. Hubble was the first to propose
the idea of an expanding Universe. 4
If he is correct, and if we could
travel back into the past, to the beginning of time, before it all expanded
(or so the theory goes), then there must have been a time when everything was clumped together into one tiny ball of matter. And then we are told
that something happened ...
Suddenly this tiny clump of matter is supposed
to have exploded into a Big Bang, and then Voila! Seven to 20 billion years
later (depending on whom you ask, and what year you asked them), here we are... without any sort of Intelligence to plan out, or act upon any of that
matter. And as preposterous as this is to the laws of nature,
and logic, and common sense itself, it is still the ONLY viewpoint that is allowed to be taught
in public school classrooms today: for any viewpoint that even hints at the
strong probability of a Creator being involved is said to be off limits to so-called
"science" and logic, and out of the
realm of "science", and therefore should not be allowed to
be examined and
explored, much less even mentioned to curious students: who we are supposed
to believe shouldn't be exposed to logic and common sense, but rather only to
progressive liberal fantasies that don't make sense.
Those who promote this theory also usually speculate that this small clump of matter,
that contained all the matter in the universe, was no larger than a golf ball.
In other words, the Big Bang theory speculates that out of a great chaotic
explosion came all of the order and complexity that we see around us today, with
no intelligence required to plan out, design or build anything. In reality
though, this theory is nothing more than an attempt by men (whose knowledge is
quite limited) to try and explain how they think we might have been created without
a Creator. For this reason, the Big Bang theory goes hand in hand with the
theory of evolution, which is an attempt to do likewise. Small wonder that
those who promote the Big Bang are also, more often than not, believers in
In reality though, astronomers are not even sure that the Universe is
That's because no one has ever seen it doing so.
Rather the expansion of the Universe (theory) is based on indirect evidence,
such as the red shift of many stars and galaxies.
Some scientists are also trying to tell us that the cosmic microwave
background radiation (or CMB) also supports the belief in an expanding
Universe. The actual data appears to contradict
Even if the Universe is expanding, speculative theories such as the Big Bang
still cannot account for the order and complexity that we see around
us. This is because, explosions are never observed to create order, but rather disorder and chaos.
Also because we never
actually observe self-replicating
organisms, or anything even remotely similar to them forming by themselves in
laboratories or slime pools or ocean vents: nor have we been able to make one ourselves by (LOTS and LOTS of) DNA
programming (i.e. ordering), and organizing (i.e. planning, designing and
ordering) all sorts of different
and even more complicated structures that are found inside of virtually all living organisms.
And even IF we ever get to the point where we can DESIGN one (???) ... it takes an almost
preposterous amount of faith to expect or suppose that
the blind and destructive forces of nature could -- over any amount of
time -- accomplish a feat or this magnitude. For to do so would be like
randomly typing characters on a typewriter and coming up with a dictionary, or a
book or some sort... with readable data that was highly organized.
However, in spite of these facts many scientists apparently Want to believe
that somehow, in a land far, far away, on Planet Somewhere, the
Impossible happened. Not only
that, but they also Want us to believe likewise. It's as if they
to believe in anything but the very Creator who made them: even when that is where the evidence
clearly leads. Why this is we may never know. Perhaps because they don't like the idea
that they were created by a being far greater, and wiser than they, or perhaps because they're upset that this Creator
would dare to try to assert any control
over them and their
lives: and especially if it were to involve any of their time, talents, or
money. Or perhaps they're simply too Proud to admit that they were wrong, or that they are afraid their colleagues Won't Approve of them if they were to admit that a Creator is, in fact, the best and
logical explanation of how we got here.
There once was an astronomer whose name was Hubble. And Mr.
Hubble noticed that some stars have an orange or reddish color to them while
others are white or green or bluish. So Mr. Hubble theorized that this was because
they were either (in the case of orange or reddish stars) moving away from us, or (in
the case of bluish ones) moving toward us. For when one
considers that red colors have a longer wavelength than blue colors, and that a
glowing object that is moving away from an observer will have a stretched out
(or longer) wavelength than if it were stationary, or moving toward that
observer, then the idea of red shift (or that reddish colored stars or galaxies
are red because they are moving away from us) seems logical. And since
many stars outside of our own Milky Way galaxy are shifted to the red side of
the color spectrum, many scientists have interpreted this as evidence that the
Universe is expanding.
However, there are a few unexplained problems with the data: one of
which is that almost all of the most distant galaxies are blue.
This suggests that they are moving toward us, and
that the Universe is not expanding, but rather imploding or coming back together.
Another problem with regard to the red-shift / expansion theory concerns some
observations made by American astronomer William Tiff, and later
verified by British astronomers Bruce Guthrie and William Napier, who reported that:
"New evidence has been found to support the controversial claim
that the red shifts or nearby galaxies show a periodic pattern: that is, they
are 'bunched' together at regular intervals..." And
that "...new physics is needed to explain
They also reported that the odds of the stair-stepped (periodic) pattern occurring in
the red shift were about 1 in 100,000.
This means that, if the
Universe is (or was) expanding, then it appears that the expansion
itself was controlled, as opposed to being a randomly scattered explosion. To those who reject the idea of (and belief in)
a Creator/God, this evidence may be unsettling; however, to those who believe in
God, such a concept it is
readily acceptable since we are told very plainly in Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah
40:22, and various other places in the Old Testament, that God, in fact, S-T-R-E-T-C-H-E-D
-- O-U-T the Heavens: meaning that before He did so, the whole
universe was much closer together.
also explains how light beams from far away galaxies could reach the earth in a
of time: since before it was stretched out -- or when it was first created
-- everything was much closer together, and therefore the light had a much
shorter distance to travel to reach the Earth.
In this regard, it is
likely that the whole universe was stretched out like a rubber band,
exponentially, and in short order: and that just as a rubber band stretches out
at every place along its length (or exponentially), so also was the universe --
meaning that it would not take very long to do so.
For a more detailed explanation of
this topic see
by D. Russell
Ph.D.. See also: How can we see
distant stars in a young universe?, and
... withstands Attacks.
Another major problem with the red-shift expansion theory are observations by
Halton Arp and Fred
For they have discovered galaxies
with “very different red shifts”
that “appear to be connected.”
See Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle 11
and, More evidence for galactic "shells".
If the Data doesn't Fit, change the Rules a Bit:
In effect, astronomers are now saying that many of the closer
galaxies are red shifted because they are moving away from us, but the furthest ones
are blue shifted -- not because they are moving toward us, but -- because they are younger.
In other words, since
the blue-shift (for-furthest-galaxies) data doesn't fit with the red shift
theory, for objects that are supposed to be moving away from us, and since we are not ready to
completely dump the Big Bang, then we'll simply
change the rules a bit, by saying that the furthest galaxies are blue
shifted, not because they are moving toward us, but because they are young,
while the red ones are red (not because they are old, but) because they
are moving away from us. In other words, they want it both ways.
For if the Universe were indeed expanding, and if the galaxies were all
created as the result of a Big Bang, then they would all have formed at about
the same time: meaning that the furthest galaxies should have the highest
degree of red shift (and actually be red, as opposed to blue). But since
they don't, astronomers are now saying that the blue color
has nothing at all
to do with their motion, but is simply a sign of their age.
Other problems also spell trouble for the Big Bang. For example, measurements made by two separate teams of
astronomers contradict what
astrophysicists have been saying
for years: i.e. that:
"... there is almost no doubt that the oldest stars
in the Milky Way... are at least 14 billion years old." 13
However two separate studies by well respected
teams of astronomers, have indicated that the Universe is only 7-12 billion years old. This, of course,
presents a problem for cosmology, since:
"A universe younger than the stars it contains is,
to say the least, a fundamental contradiction." 13
Regarding these measurements, and other unexplained data, one
astronomer remarked that:
"It would be premature to panic... But if these
results are confirmed, we theorists will be in big trouble. We really
have no good ways of explaining these observations. 13
And regarding attempts to reconcile this age problem by
stretching the theoretical formulas that (supposedly) prove such great ages for
"old" stars, one astrophysicist said that:
As in 17 billion years for the age of the oldest stars..., and that:
"We really are happier with 17."
"Reports that the big bang is dead may be premature. But the
theory that the universe originated in a single, gigantic explosion of matter
has definitely been dealt some savage blows in recent years."
"Observations of red supergiant stars in a nearby galaxy... suggest
that the universe is less than 10 b.y. (billion years) old ... This is ... less than the
... age of some stars, posing an awkward problem for cosmologists." 16
In the above referenced article we note that Sandage and
Tamman came up with an age of between 13-17 billion years for the
universe, while Pierce, Ressler, and Sure came up with around 8 billion.
The latter group stated that:
"These values... imply that the Universe is only 7.6 to 9.6 b.y.
Isn't it amazing how astronomers know so much about stars that they can
declare their ages just by
looking at them? And isn't it noteworthy how one team of astronomers can
come up with 13-17 billion years for the age of the universe, while a few years later another team
comes up with half that much. 17 Is it not possible, if not probable, that neither astronomers nor
cosmologists really know how old the universe is?
One of the problems is the fact that the Universe is quite large, and the stars and galaxies in it are
simply too far away to measure directly, or even with much accuracy. For example, it is said that:
"The speed of a galaxy can be deduced from its Doppler shift of the
lines in its spectrum. Most of the motion of nearby galaxies is caused by
the gravitational effects of their neighbors, so astronomers have to study
galaxies at least 20 or 30 million light years away to disentangle the effects
of the expanding universe." 17
The Big Bang's Foundation:
The evidence for the Big Bang consists of the following:
1. The alleged expansion of the Universe, based on the red shift.
2. The Microwave Background Radiation.
3. The abundance of helium in the Universe. 18,19
None of the above theoretical constructs are proof of a big bang, since
each can be accounted for by things other than an explosion.
In this regard, the editors of New Scientist remarked that:
"Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such
And that: "... the big bang theory will definitely need some major
modifications if it is to survive into the future." 21
From Big Bang to Long ... Smooth
The Jan. 1997 issue of Discover stated that:
"with the flood of (new) data, old ideas
about galaxy formation are
toppling. Particularly imperiled is the notion that virtually all galaxies
came into existence at the same moment in the distant past, emitting a
collective burst of light like some grand fireworks display." 22
"Now...astronomers believe that
galaxies (were created) ... "not all at once but continuously ...
over billions of years." 22
The only thing the author didn't tell us is what it was that made astronomers
change their "notion" about the "collective burst of light"
(i.e. their former belief in the Big Bang) and why they now think that new galaxies are
continually being created. However, the author did give a clue when she stated that
"... figured there was a precise era when galaxies were first
constructed, when all those islands of new stars 'turned on' in relative unison
... (they) therefore were looking for signs of a sudden eruption of light
in the distant cosmos." 22
"For years they probed the distant cosmos and came up empty
handed. They could say only that distant galaxies and clusters looked a
bit 'bluer,' a sign perhaps of heightened star formation. Young and
massive stars... tend to put out more blue light." 22
At least that's what we are being told to believe.
Perhaps astronomers and cosmologists really don't know all that much
about how our universe (and the stars in it) were created, or even when it was
created? Perhaps they don't even know whether it is expanding or collapsing? For those who doubt this,
consider the following remarks from Astronomy magazine:
"Four years ago an ambitious pair of young astronomers ... looked
deep into the ... sky trying to confirm a prediction made by every
respectable cosmological theory. On very large scales, these theories
said, the universe should be moving just one way -- outward..."
"That is not the way it worked out.
Instead, Laur and Postman
found that a huge chunk of the universe appears to be heading off ... toward
some far off point in the direction of Virgo ..." 23
Laur and Postman's results sent shock waves through the world of
cosmology. If all that mass is moving away on so large a scale, then
the big bang was not as smooth and uniform as virtually all modern
cosmological theories demand. As one astronomer put it, 'If this
result is true then we know less than nothing.'"
Cepheid Variables and Great Distances
Because the universe is so large, astronomers are unable to measure
distances to the overwhelming majority of stars and galaxies
directly, but must devise other (indirect) methods of doing so, such as the
use of stars called Cepheid variables.
Cepheids are stars that vary
in brightness over time. The time it takes for them to go from their
brightest phase to their dimmest and back again is referred to as the
period. It usually varies from several hours to ten days. But
perhaps the most interesting thing about these stars is not that they vary,
but rather that the individual star's period is believed to be proportional to its
brightness, and therefore, it is believed that:
"... the distance to a Cepheid can be calculated from its period
and its average brightness (or luminosity as observed from the earth)."
In principle, determining the value of the (proposed) expansion rate of
the Universe (referred to as the Hubble Constant, or H.C.) is rather
simple, requiring only a measurement of distance and velocity. 23
And although it is said that:
"... measuring the velocity of a
galaxy is straightforward, gauging the distance is rather difficult."
It should also be mentioned here that the "straightforward"
method used to determine a galaxy's velocity is its red shift, 24
and that determining the distance to a galaxy requires the use of a
of complicated methods"
none of which are "perfect." 24
addition, each of the methods requires the use of Cepheid Variables.
Difficulties with Cepheids and Great Distances
Even if astronomers are correct in saying that a Cepheid's period is
related to its brightness, there are still assumptions which must be made in
order to use this technique to calculate how far away a given Cepheid is. And
even if their assumptions are correct, there are still other significant
For example, it must be assumed that Cepheids with similar periods are also
the same size, and therefore the same brightness. While this may be a reasonable
assumption, it is an assumption nevertheless.
But then there is the
problem of Polaris:
for although it is a Cepheid, its
pulse "mysteriously stopped beating" 24 for several years, and then, just as
mysteriously, started up again at a different pulse rate, and now it appears to
be slowing down again rather fast. 25,26,27,28,29
Another problem with using Cepheids as distances ladders (or yardsticks) is that their
luminosity can be diminished by space dust. To compensate
for this "astronomers either observe" (them) at infrared
wavelengths where the effects are less significant," or "... at many different wavelengths so they can assess the effects and correct
for them." 30
Then there is the local vicinity (or nearness) problem, since Cepheids are
"... bright enough to be observed only in the nearest galaxies, not the distant ones."
30 And although we are told that nearby galaxies are
"participating in the
expansion of the universe, the gravitational interactions among the neighbors
may be causing some to move faster or slower than the rest of the universe"
-- except for the huge chunk
(which we are part of) that is moving toward Virgo.
to calculate the Hubble
Constant, astronomers must accurately determine the distances to remote
galaxies, and the task is extremely difficult."
Translation: Although Cepheids are used as a "standard candle" to
measure distances, they are not all
that accurate, and especially when it comes to measuring distances to far-off
galaxies. Nevertheless, we are told that:
developed several methods for determining distances to remote galaxies,"
but "Because many of these techniques must be calibrated using the
Cepheid distance scale, they are considered secondary distance indicators ... Yet
scientists cannot reach a consensus about which, if any, secondary indicators
"Furthermore," (astronomers) "disagree about how they
should apply any of the methods and then whether they should adjust the
results to account for various effects that might bias the results."
What is CMB and Does it
CMB is short for Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.
It is supposed to be radiation left over from the
Big Bang that we are told occurred from 7-20 billion years ago.
Scientists were hoping they could point a directional radiation detector in a certain
direction in outer space, and come up with a greater amount
of radiation coming from that direction. They were hoping that such would be an indication of
the direction that the far off bang is supposed to have come from, and provide a
bit of confirmation for the Big Bang theory. However, what they found is that no matter
what direction they pointed their detector in, they got (almost exactly) the
same result. This was a big disappointment to Big Bang theorists and required some fancy
footwork to "recover" (their theory) from.
Below are a few quotes with regard to this episode.
"...cosmic background radiation now seems to be
contradicting our very existence, by telling us that matter in the early
universe was distributed extremely smoothly, with no evidence of any lumpiness
out of which galaxies could have condensed."
"Another problem was the very smoothness of the
so-called background radiation. Large scale surveys of space have shown
that matter is not evenly distributed at all, but exists in the form of huge
clusters of galaxies, and even larger-scale clumping, including some huge
structures... like the Great Wall... while there are vast empty
But they wanted some (sort
"Big bang theorists decided that if they could find some variations
or ripples in the pervasive 3K radiation, this would be an adequate explanation
of the origin of the large-scale structures." And
so: "To verify this prediction, NASA designed a special satellite detector
called COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer). COBE was launched in 1989;
however, the expected ripples were never found." 32
"By 1991, no variation had been detected and the big bang theorists
were beginning to panic. Then in April of 1992 a computer program was used
to analyze the data, and at last something was detected -- hot and cold spots
differing in temperature by up to about 3/100,000ths of a degree Celsius. 9"
Other possible explanations for these minute differences (other than a big
bang) are given in references 10-13 of this
Instrument sensitivity was not listed, but this is certainly also a
What Scientists Don't want to Admit about Star
Cosmologists have theorized that stars form from huge clouds of gasses
(primarily hydrogen and helium) that somehow collapse in on themselves due to gravity. But this is only speculation.
The truth is that, as far
as we know, gasses resist being compressed. And the more they are
compressed, the greater the outward force becomes. However, in outer
space, there is nothing to keep a cloud of gas from moving (or expanding) outward
into a larger and larger area. There is also no proof that once a cloud of
gas gets so large it will somehow collapse in on itself. Therefore,
in outer space, the more gas there is, the more space that any given gas cloud
will take up. This is also why we (even today) still observe extremely
large clouds of gasses way off in outer space. And when we do so, they are
not always round, but take up all sorts of different shapes. And
although some stars may be nuclear furnaces with lots
of gas in them, we do not know how they came to be, nor have we ever
new star being created
(i.e. turn on, or light up).
33 Some may say that this is because it would take "millions of
years" for it to do so; however, such notions are nothing more than
fanciful excuses for a theory that is weak. For the fact is that once
that furnace ignited, it would immediately begin
producing light, that would immediately begin traveling outward in all
In other words, one would think that IF new stars were
indeed still forming in other galaxies, that they would be doing so almost
continuously, and that, at least some of them, somewhere in this great
universe of ours would start "popping up" somewhere. But as far
as we know, NOT ONE of them has done so; however, we have witnessed their
destruction on many occasions.
For more on this see
Idolphins "Star Formation"
The Secret Behind Dark Matter:
For some time now astronomers have been telling us that the universe
consists of 95-99% cold dark matter (CDM), that cannot be seen or even
detected except by its gravitational force. But they haven't told us why
they believe this, other than to say that the motions of stars and galaxies
What is wrong with this scenario? Are cosmologists and astronomers
hiding something from the public?
Let's take a look at some of the things that
have been said in this regard:
"With 95% of the visible universe consisting of cold dark matter of
unknown composition, we are in the humiliating position of knowing only about
5% of what we see is made of."34
And with regard to what this
consists of we are "completely
in the dark." 34
" ... calculations have shown that the detected matter in the
universe is only about 1% of the amount required to produce the gravitational
attraction needed to form all the galaxies and clumps of galaxies, even within
... 15 billion years. This problem was solved with the stroke of a
And so, to account for this: "In the early 1980's, cosmological theoreticians decided that the
universe was now made up of nearly 99% 'cold dark matter' (CDM) -- necessarily
'dark' because no one has ever seen it or detected it..."
In other words the theory of Dark Matter was
invented out of thin
try and explain why galaxies exist, and especially why they have
"structure" (i.e. spiral arms) and look as if they are quite
young -- when, of course, we just KNOW they must be very, very
For more on
this see What
Happened to all that Dark Matter?
Scientists don't really know how old the universe is, nor how old the earth is,
and many of them are heavily biased due to their overly optimistic beliefs
regarding the mysterious power of mother nature to make ordinary, dead, matter
organize itself, and come to life. The Laws of science and probability
tell us that it would never happen in a trillion, trillion, years, ... and yet
here we are. Therefore, they want you to think that.... they know a lot
more than those Creationists with regard to our origins and the age of things,
and that only they should be allowed to teach our children what they believe -- no matter how unscientific
or preposterous of a theory it turns
out to be.