Rediscovering The Truth About Creation

Without becoming too technical, it is accurate to say that each of these three pieces of data is considered vital to accepting and trusting the entire Big Bang theory. If any of the three can be found to be untrue or inconsistent with other observed data, then such a discovery would cast serious doubt on the whole theory. With that position having been established, let us now consider the current status of this theory!

Cosmologists have described the whole universe as having once existed in a single mass, as one tiny clump of infinitely hot, infinitely dense matter and energy. At a particular instant in time, that single mass exploded, casting off particles at great speed in all different directions. According to the theory, this single clump of very dense matter and energy broke into many pieces, and that great separation led to the development of our universe. As these events were unfolding, space was literally being expanded and created. According to Big Bang theorists, this is how everything in our world got started, and most reputable scientists and educators have readily accepted this theory as truth! However, such quick, widespread acceptance by so many leads to the second question, which is how reasonable is all of this evidence for a big bang?

Actually, the first piece of evidence, that is that all the galaxies are moving away from each other, is what initially led to the whole idea of a big bang, and this bit of evidence, which was first observed by Mr. Edwin Hubble in 1929, is very convincing. By analyzing the redshifted light that was being emitted from nearby galaxies, Mr. Hubble was able to confirm the recession or moving away of those galaxies. After that, he was able to show that the observed galaxies receded even more rapidly as they got farther away. He and other astrophysicists, then, hypothesized that the movement among those galaxies had probably originated at some common point, at some common time in our very distant past.

Because of a simple, yet necessary condition, such an hypothesis about a common point and time many, many millions or even billions of years ago is very much critical to the entire Big Bang theory. All matter, since it is said to have initially existed as a single mass, would also have had to exist in a single place at the same moment in time. Otherwise, the theory would not work! The fact that the observed galaxies are all receding is strong motivation for assuming that those galaxies might have somehow backed up to an imagined, common origin at some common time in the past. The early problem with this initial assumption, however, was that scientists did not have any additional corroborating evidence to fully substantiate or prove their hypothesis. For a long time, all they had for evidence was the single fact that the galaxies were receding.

Then came something from which they could fashion a proof. At least, this is what they thought and even still think. This second piece of evidence, which was also listed above by Mr. Ronan, was the discovery in 1964 of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

This form of radiation is clearly described by Mr. Michael D. Lemonick in his book, The Light at the Edge of the Universe [2]. He writes that the cosmic microwave background radiation is the oldest light being seen in the universe and that it shows the imprint of the universe's structure at the time when the electrically charged particles of the big bang fireball and the electromagnetic radiation of the fireball originally broke free from each other. That breaking free of the radiation from those particles, according to theorists, would have occurred at about three hundred thousand years following the big bang explosion, as the temperature of the fireball dropped below five thousand degrees Kelvin.

The observation of this cooled microwave radiation is critically important to the Big Bang theory. According to Mr. Lemonick, the very existence of such radiation shows that there was a big bang! It is like the residue which remains after a huge explosion. He, then, goes on to explain how that that radiation would have been retained over the years and how that scientists would have been able to interpret the data. Those areas in the relatively young, three hundred thousand year old universe with more matter, hence those areas that were more dense, would have trapped more of this background radiation. Those areas with less matter, hence those which were less dense, would have trapped less.

The result of these two phenomena would have been a radiation which fluctuated in intensity as the density of the universe varied. The fact that scientists were recording equally intense radiation from every direction of the universe was significant because it meant that the early universe had probably been, or at least had possibly been, equally dense throughout, a property which is commonly referred to as homogeneity. What this means is that the particles from the big bang explosion seemed to be evenly distributed throughout Space. One part of the sky did not appear to contain more matter than another, but all parts appeared to be approximately equal. As a result of these findings, findings that scientists thought to be consistent with a valid big bang type of explosion, an initial belief of the Big Bang theory, based entirely on this observation of equally intense microwave radiation, was that the young universe had been homogeneous.

The third piece of evidence, that of the predictable ratios between hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, is also convincing. In a study conducted by cosmologists, Mr. Lemonick describes the activities of Mr. David Schramm and his Chicago collaborators [3]. In their research during the early 1970s, these gentlemen began by initially assuming that the Big Bang theory is true.

Their objective, by taking the theory as a given, was to predict any other results which might have occurred, especially in the area of nuclear physics. Their hypothesis was that the universe, over time and through periods of extreme heat and pressure, would have caused a predictable ratio to be established and maintained among the elements hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. Amazingly, their observations appeared to prove the hypothesis! According to the theory, the universe should have been made up of matter which would have been consistent with the ratios of seventy-five percent hydrogen, nearly twenty-five percent helium, .01 percent deuterium, and .00000001 percent lithium. When Mr. Schramm and his associates examined primordial matter of the oldest stars, they found that those predicted ratios really did seem to happen just as expected.

Hydrogen, helium, and lithium are often referred to as the light elements because they are the most basic, hence lightest known chemical elements. According to Mr. Schramm, the second piece of evidence, which is the cosmic microwave background radiation, is significant because it gives a picture of the universe when it was only a few hundred thousand years old. Concerning the third piece of evidence, which is the ratio of the above light elements, he says the significance of those data is that they show what the universe was like when it was only one second old [4]. In using cosmic microwave background radiation and the ratio of the above light elements, cosmologists have developed firm ideas about how the universe might have appeared during various stages of its evolution.

Thus, as anyone can see, scientists have not been lazy in their pursuit of the Big Bang theory. Once the discovery of receding galaxies was confirmed, theorists immediately began hypothesizing what other evidence might exist to support their belief. The discovery of equally intense microwave radiation arriving from all parts of the universe added some much needed credibility to the belief of a big bang. Then, given that the theory really were true, cosmologists next thought that one might see a particular balance between the lightest known chemical elements, and their beliefs, in that regard, also turned out to be somewhat true.

From a lay person's point of view, the bottom line concerning the Big Bang theory is that this idea of a great explosion and the resulting expansion of space is not as far fetched as one might think. In fact, the whole theory, based on the first piece of evidence alone, is actually quite plausible. If an individual observes an aircraft in the sky, then that person can easily visualize a path behind the plane and predict with high certainty where the plane was just a few moments before. Such an approximation is quite trivial!

Using the same approach and also assuming that the plane has charted a steady course, the person can continue to project the planes path as far back as possible and ultimately arrive at the craft's original departure point. If two or more planes left the same airport at nearly the same time and each traveled a steady course, then each flight could be traced back to the same original starting point, at the same approximate time. This process of tracking backwards is essentially what cosmologists have done conceptually to evaluate the first bit of evidence, which is, of course, that all the galaxies are moving away from each other. When everything backed up to the same or nearly same departure point and time, they had the basis for their theory. The idea of a colossal explosion, hence the big bang itself, was then added as a catalyst, just to get the whole thing started.

Amazingly, the Big Bang theory really does make sense! It can be presented. It can be and has been defended. The main premises of the theory even seem logical. Yet, despite its compelling nature and some fairly convincing evidence, the Big Bang theory, like the Theory of Evolution, still has not been proven! The theory sounds good. It sounds logical, and it really does sound correct. But once again, this theory is unproved! Even though many scientists and educators believe it to be true, even though many forms of entertainment suggest that it is true, these people and their devices still lack a proof. Hence, this theory which sounds true and which even makes sense may, in actuality, be very false!

Basic scientific methods and procedures say that a theory is not true unless it can be shown to be correct in all cases. Even one problem in a theory indicates that the theory is not valid, no matter how much it has gotten right. Therefore, the question to be asked about this theory is clear! Can the Big Bang theory, which seems so logical and sounds so good, be wrong? Is this theory really reasonable, or is it just another example of clever promotion by overzealous scientists, educators, and the entertainment industry? These are good questions!

There are, interestingly enough, a few scientific alternatives to the Big Bang theory, a point which shows that not all scientists have embraced this belief so readily. Many have, but many have not! In his book, The Big Bang Never Happened, author and physicist, Mr. Eric J. Lerner, presents another theory which takes on this age-old challenge of trying to explain the origin of the universe, and this theory, too, has a following! But in leading up to the plasma cosmology alternative, a belief which in contrast to the Big Bang theory maintains an infinite universe mentality, the author initially reveals some of the critical problems with the Big Bang theory and its basic predictions. Note that the three pieces of evidence just discussed were supposed to have confirmed the theory and its predictions. But not so, according to Mr. Lerner!