Rediscovering The Truth About Creation

As a result of this slick maneuvering around Big Bang theory problem data, two questions come to mind. First, how can anyone know for certain that dark matter really exists? It cannot be seen or detected! Second, given that by some strange coincidence that it does exist, then how can anyone really know how much of it exists?

Cosmologists have come up with this concept of invisible, non-detectable dark matter as their best way to explain the existence of extremely large galaxy superclusters in a relatively young and initially homogeneous universe. The truth is that they do not really know if their best guess is even close to being correct! By using computer simulation models, which themselves can be very skewed and subjective, these theorists have merely fabricated or concocted this dark matter hypothesis as their best way to save the Big Bang theory from extinction.

Because of this and other problems with an already suspect theory, cosmologists have been and are continuing to search for credible answers. Unfortunately, their being overly zealous in this regard has probably led them to a problem of the opposite sort. They have been so anxious to justify their own position that they have begun taking wild stabs in the dark. Where the data has not closely matched the theory, they have arbitrarily and at times without scientific basis actually changed the theory to make it match. One such attempt was just discussed, the unscientific manufacturing of dark matter to explain the conflicts over the age of the universe, the existence of several exceptionally large galaxy superclusters, and a non-homogeneous universe which apparently had homogeneous beginnings. Yet, as if these were not enough, there is more!

Mr. Lerner reports another instance where big bang theorists have taken scientific license to advance their questionable belief, this time concerning the expansion rate of the universe after the so-called big bang. He reports that cosmologists have now fabricated the idea of a two-step expansion for the universe [1]. They have theorized that a very rapid expansion took place in the first fractional seconds after the explosion, followed by a sudden decline to a much more normal rate of expansion.

These scientists have somehow determined, deduced, or simply assumed that this deflationary step occurred very quickly after the actual explosion. First was the very rapid, highly accelerated expansion. Then came a sudden, unexplainable slowdown. Why would they have come up with such a ridiculous notion, one might ask? The answer is simple! The chaotic, rapid expansion of the initial big bang explosion, followed by a sudden slowdown, could have, according to them, possibly set up all the right conditions through which this dark matter, which they cannot see or detect, was created!

How convenient for them to have once again rationalized a speedy, simple solution for a complex problem, on this occasion in the form of their unorthodox, two-step expansion called inflation! Along with dark matter, their opinion is that this latest wrinkle to the original theory offers an even more complete and more credible solution to the homogeneity problem. At least, it offers a better way for them to explain away this seemingly unexplainable problem.

The Inflationary Model of the big bang, again according to these recognized specialists, solves a couple of other major problems with the overall theory, as well, namely the horizon problem and the flatness problem. While these difficulties with this theory are not presented in this discussion, they, too, have a degree of significance! Consequently, cosmologists have happily, even eagerly embraced this relatively easy solution for their difficult problems, even though they have absolutely no scientific foundation for doing so! So then, what does all this mean? It means that this theory is still on shaky ground theoretically, despite its assumed validity by many scientists and educators. The discovery of galaxy superclusters originally threw off some of the Big Bang theory's most significant calculations and predictions, especially in terms of the time and techniques needed for those superclusters to have actually been formed relative to the age of the universe. Through the years, theorists have tried to come up with various new schemes in an attempt to work around those problems, along with all the others which have popped up. For the homogeneity problem, they invented non-luminous, ordinary matter to fill in the voids around all the clumpy matter. But non-luminous matter turned out to be the wrong answer. Then, they tried a halted expansion. But that also failed!

For the handling of galaxy superclusters and the obvious conflict with the universe's age estimate, scientists conjured up the idea of dark matter to both explain and speed up the supercluster formation process. Now, to get around all of the other difficulties with the original theory, they have most recently taken this notion of dark matter and combined it with the idea of an inflationary expansion to piece together a complete scenario of the whole big bang creation process. Yet, the real concern in all this is that there is little or no hard, credible evidence to really support any of it. As one looks at the "true" history of this theory, a person is forced to ask what these cosmologists will come up with next. Sad to say, the more one examines the actual claims and evidences for the big bang theory, the less credible this theory becomes!

While such decisions to fabricate so many bogus, unfounded solutions for a troubled theory may have led to a more widespread acceptance of the Big Bang theory, the making of such choices by highly intelligent, well regarded scientists represents clumsy, irresponsible science. Altering everything else to make their theory work sheds doubt on the whole idea of a big bang and also discredits much of the research which has already been completed.

In his book, Ripples in the Cosmos, Mr. Michael Rowan-Robinson declares that the currently unproven inflation theory, without more concrete predictions, is an interesting idea but nothing more, certainly not a good scientific theory [2]. This author's point is well taken. Scientific discovery and presentation should be based on valid research and rational analysis, not educated guesswork!

Plasma physicists and others have also found numerous problems with the Big Bang theory, and during that process, they have developed their own thoughts about how the universe might have come into being. However, rather than focusing purely on mathematical methods and clumsy guesswork, their approach has been to understand through observation. They have basically tried to evaluate what they are able to see. They have then attempted to figure out how it got there. As a result, plasma physicists have advanced their own beliefs about the origins of the universe. They have theorized a scheme which says that the universe has always existed and always evolved. Whereas the Big Bang theory promotes a finite universe teaching, hence one which had a beginning, this theory has an infinite universe mentality in which the cosmos did not have a beginning. According to this latter theory, gravity is not the only active force within the universe, but also there is electricity and magnetism.

This controversy over how the universe actually began leads to a problem of choice. Is the latter theory of plasmologists true or false? Many cosmologists and astrophysicists would say that it is not correct. Is the Big Bang theory true or false? Many plasma physicists would say that this one is not correct. Who can tell? I do not believe that anyone can really answer these questions with much certainty, at least not based on their current respective sets of information.

Unfortunately, while opposing camps are engaging in this intellectual debate about the origin of the universe, it is really people like you and me who get trapped in the middle. We are essentially force-fed a story about the universe expanding from a small, highly dense mass. We are then taught to believe that the rate of that expansion was probably different at various stages, simply because cosmologists would like a convenient way to accommodate the different problems which have been uncovered with the Big Bang theory. Yet, there is little, or no, scientific foundation for any of this!

In his description of the two-step expansion, Mr. Kaufman again in his book, Universe, skillfully hedges his remarks by saying "one possibility [3]." But many scientists and scholars are not so careful or considerate. They, instead, have spoken and still speak of the Big Bang theory as though it were a proven fact, something which one can take to the bank. Recall the first reference used in Chapter Five concerning the Big Bang theory! That description was taken from the book, The Natural History of the Universe, and spoke about the universe as having begun in a colossal explosion. In that text, the author did not leave much doubt about his opinion. Yet, as can be seen from a careful study of this theory, such an assumed credibility for the big bang is not warranted!

The reason for even discussing the Big Bang theory and the view of the plasma physicists has not been to take sides with either. Instead, the intent has been to show how the average individual has been and is being duped and misled by scientists and educators. We have been directed by highly intelligent individuals down a path which may be and probably is wrong! There are at least three plausible explanations for the origin of the universe. The first is a finite universe as would have been produced by the big bang, the second is that the universe has always existed and always evolved, hence the infinite universe of the plasma physicists, and the third is that God created the world!

In the interest of being open-minded and of teaching the truth, educators should present all three perspectives and let the listener decide. But in our society, God is conveniently left out of such debates. He is not welcome because our system has already determined that people are supposed to have religious freedom, but this sentiment does not wash! Which recognized religion truly questions whether or not God created the world? None that I can report!

The only reason which makes sense for not allowing Him into this debate is that this system around us for whatever its reasons has decided to put as much distance between us, Him, and the truth as possible! It is as though our system were on some kind of quest, either to disprove God or to eliminate Him from our thoughts altogether. Whichever the case, one point is very clear. Something, someone, or some bodies simply do not want us to know all the facts! Instead, they, he, she, or it would have us embrace the Big Bang theory as truth rather than to consider any other possible alternatives.

The statement made earlier bears repeating. Scientific discovery and presentation should be based on valid research and rational analysis, not educated guesswork. Where scientists and educators cannot prove their position, they should at least present all the information. Concerning the origin of the universe, how is anyone really harmed by hearing all three of the theories mentioned above? The classroom should be an environment for stimulating conversation, debate, and inquiry. Learning is enhanced by comparison and contrast. It is hampered by intentional cover-ups!

School systems and professors, even scientists and those from within the entertainment world, should be open-minded enough to discuss the Big Bang theory, the infinite universe theory of the plasma physicists, and also that God might have created the universe. In like manner, since the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved, the educational process should also include all the ideas about how life on earth might have begun, including the Genesis account of Creation. Why should the system around us try to hide anything from our kids young minds? Something about all of this was not right in my younger days, and that something still is not right!