Rediscovering The Truth About Creation

We begin by taking another look at the Big Bang theory. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, astrophysicists observed that all the galaxies appeared to be receding, that is that they were all moving away from each other. Recall that that discovery was identified above as Fact 5A-1! The follow-up analysis, which resulted from that single bit of information, then led to this whole idea of a big bang. Astrophysicists and cosmologists reasoned that objects moving away from each other might have been, at some time in the past, located in the same general area. On the presumption that that idea was possibly true, they then began searching for additional, corroborating evidence.

In 1964, the evidence came in the form of equally intense cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). With that discovery, scientists next predicted that the universe would be smooth or homogeneous. Then, they said that all the light chemical elements in Space - hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium - would exist according to certain ratios. Interestingly enough, their initial research, as was stated in Facts 5A-2 and 5A-3, did seem to support the early theory and its predictions.

But then, more studies were performed, and with each study, new findings turned up which seemed to contradict the validity of the original Big Bang theory. Fact 6INTRO-1 pointed out the conflict of trying to approximate the age of the universe, while Fact 6INTRO-2 talked about the homogeneity problem. Since both of these inconsistencies were linked directly to the unexplainable existence of galaxy superclusters, cosmologists responded by trying to modify their theory to accommodate for those superclusters.

In 1979, they came up with the idea of a two-step expansion called the Inflationary Model. About the same time, they also conjured up something called dark matter, and between the two, they thought, and even now think, that they had found a credible solution for all or most of the early problems. At the present time, their hypothesis about dark matter, which has already been described in Chapter Six as the unscientific manufacturing of invisible, unseen matter, says that this so-called undetectable form of matter might comprise as much as ninety-nine percent of all of the matter in the universe. Put into layperson terms, this means that when one peers into the night sky that he or she, according to this latest wrinkle in the theory, is only seeing about one percent of everything which is within viewing range. The other ninety-nine percent according to Big Bang theorists cannot be seen!

In more recent days, as was shared in Fact 7A-1, cosmologists have gone a step further with this notion of dark matter by suggesting that sixty-nine percent of all matter is Cold Dark Matter (CDM) and that thirty percent is Hot Dark Matter (HDM). Note that all of the HDM and all of the CDM, together, combine to equal all of the dark matter.

The whole big bang concept, as a result of all of this slick maneuvering by cosmologists, actually sounds pretty good, even almost believable. Yet, as Facts 7A-1, 7E-1, and 11A-1 point out, none of any of this has been or can be proven! These theoretical wild goose chases, as it were, by cosmologists and other scientists are all just a series of ideas from the desk of science, ideas which have gained an enormous amount of interest and credibility but yet are without any solid foundation or scientific merit! None of their conclusions about most of these very specific aspects of this theory are actually based on hard core, factual data. Nevertheless, as Fact 7E-1 reveals, these beliefs are being taught as truth to this nation's children in public classrooms and on educational television across America.

When considering the above scientific Facts, one should readily see that this theory is on very shaky, very shallow ground. According to the best, most recent information, this whole belief originated from a single, verifiable fact, one which has already been noted in Fact 5A-1 as the recession of galaxies. After that, with the exception of the CMBR mentioned in Fact 5A-2, most of what has followed has been nothing more than educated guesswork! The idea of a two-step expansion has no scientific foundation, regardless of the amount of computer model data which "seems" to corroborate such a belief.

According to Mr. John Boslough, in his book Masters of Time, published in 1992, no solid evidence has been found to support the Big Bang theory [1]. Earlier in Chapter Eleven of this book, a remark was put forth which had been made by Misters Kafatos and Nadeau. At that time, it was shared that those two authors questioned whether the Inflationary Model of the Big Bang is even a viable physical theory, and as we shall see below in considering some of the very latest Big Bang theory information, the reasoning behind their comment is not, at all, unreasonable or unfair.

In November 1989, a NASA-sponsored Space Probe, called the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) was sent into Space to collect additional information about the critically important cosmic microwave background radiation. Recall that this radio signal is useful for showing what the universe probably looked like "soon" after the big bang, soon in this case being about three hundred thousand years! Also remember the inconsistency or discrepancy which was found between the "originally" smooth, homogeneous microwave radiation readings and the subsequent discovery of the non-homogeneous galaxy superclusters! While the CMBR readings had indicated a young smooth, homogeneous universe, the galaxy superclusters showed a very different, very clumpy, non-homogeneous universe; thus, an obvious contradiction! These findings and the resulting conflict were recorded earlier as Facts 5A-2 and 6INTRO-2.

Then, according to Mr. John Gribbin, in his book In the Beginning - After COBE and Before the Big Bang, the results which were received from COBE and then later reported to the scientific community in April 1992, turned out to be totally consistent with the Big Bang Inflationary Model. Plus, according to him and others, those new findings also resolved the apparent contradictions of the clumpy universe conflict! As he goes on to explain in his book, the results showed ripples in the patterns, ripples which had never before been seen [2].

One should note that those ripples are believed to be highly significant for dealing with the homogeneity problem. They can, by their very presence, evidently help explain the lack of smoothness in the present-day universe, but they also suggest that the very early CMBR readings really had not been equally intense or homogeneous, at all. Therefore, scientists are now saying that there had never been any reason for them to have assumed that the universe was or even should have been smooth and homogeneous. During those earlier years of error, they simply had not been able to accurately read and detect those ripples in the CMBR because of their less sophisticated equipment. By resorting to this form of logic, these theorists have, in essence, tried to explain away the homogeneity problem as something which had never really existed.

However, this new discovery from COBE is probably still not good enough for validating the Big Bang theory or its Inflationary Model. The reason is simple! Based on another comment by Misters Kafatos and Nadeau, the Inflationary Model of the Big Bang predicts that the universe would have expanded by a factor of fifty times in the first ten to the minus-thirty seconds of its early life. That very small fraction of time would have been in the initial moments immediately after the big bang explosion, and it would have been much, much, much less than even one second after the explosion [3]. Yet, the ripples which have been found in the CMBR by COBE are supposed to have been relevant to a time frame that is about three hundred thousand years after the presumed big bang explosion.

This is quite a large separation in time! To place so much confidence in such findings is, in my opinion, almost absurd. To have found evidence of an event which was supposed to have occurred three hundred thousand years earlier is not nearly so good as being able to back up right to the actual moment of the event, simply because a great deal could have happened over such a long lapse in time. Therefore, the criticism offered by the above two authors concerning their still not being able to validate the inflationary model is, in my mind, well-taken!

With CMBR, as with the rest of their findings through the years, scientists have been too anxious to get their theory out the door and often too quick to overstate the significance of their evidence. With Fact 5A-2, which addresses the equally intense cosmic microwave background radiation, they thought, in 1964, that they had made the discovery of discoveries. Then came Fact 6INTRO-2, and their hopes were dashed! Now, their expectations lie in the Inflationary Model with its Hot and Cold Dark Matter. Once again, they are confident that they may be near the answer. But as Mr. Weinberg has pointed out in his work, a final theory has not yet been found, and scientists may not find it anytime soon [4]! In considering all of this conflicting information, how absurd really is the Inflationary Model with its concept of a two-step expansion? Its lack of foundation and scientific merit has already been stated. So, what really makes this theory about an accelerated big bang so ridiculous? A simple illustration should provide the answer.

The distance between California and Maine is approximately three thousand miles, give or take a little. Imagine that you are in Maine driving east at one hundred miles per hour on a super-super highway where speed limits are not important! Imagine that others also are driving on the same road, at the same pace as you. Lastly, imagine that still others around the world are doing exactly the same thing, that is that they are all in their automobile, traveling at one hundred miles per hour away from California and that each is about three thousand miles away from the same common location of that state.

Given this information, Big Bang theorists would conclude that everyone had begun their journey from the same location in California, and based on each driver's distance of three thousand miles from that common point in California, plus their current speed of one hundred miles per hour, these scientists would also conclude that everyone had left about thirty hours before. While this may be a crude example, it basically describes the early rationale that has energized the Big Bang theory for most of its life.

Next, assume that another source of information becomes available and that this data implies that the automobiles in question had only been traveling for twenty-six hours. Thus, for the time and speed already indicated, they could not have all come from the same location in California, at least not unless their speeds had somehow varied at some point during the course of their travel. No problem! We will simply assume that for the first hour, everyone traveled at five hundred miles per hour and then for the last twenty-five hours, all went one hundred.

Mathematically, this modification to the original travel plan still works! The three thousand miles can now be both traveled and explained within a twenty-six hour time frame, five hundred miles in the first hour and twenty-five hundred miles in the last twenty-five hours. But how scientific is this kind of assumption? The mathematics were clearly modified to match the new observation. Therefore, the correct answer is that this change is not at all scientific! Not only that, but this argument of everyone leaving a common departure point in California, at a common time, based on the current data would be very quickly dismissed as invalid by most scholars. Yet, this is precisely the type of sloppy maneuvering that is being used in the handling of the Inflationary Model of the Big Bang theory.

In this automobile illustration, the five hundred miles per hour assumption for the first hour may have been all wet! Perhaps, everyone traveled at three hundred miles per hour for the first two hours, then one hundred for the last twenty-four. That scenario would have worked, too. Or maybe some other speed variations occurred at other times in the journey to make the overall times and distances fit. Of course, still another possibility is that none of the cars really originated their travel from California!

The point being made here should be obvious. One cannot observe cars arbitrarily driving on a highway at a particular speed, in a particular direction and then be absolutely certain of any single automobile's location many, many hours before. The whole notion is absurd and unrealistic! Nevertheless, the Big Bang theorists have observed the recession of galaxies and tried to do exactly that! Then, when their initial theory encountered so many perplexing problems, they simply changed their ideas and equations to make the modified theory work! Most likely, as Mr. Weinberg hinted, cosmologists really are still very far from a truly valid solution!

The above discussion attempted to once again present the scientific side of the Big Bang theory. Admittedly, science does not seem to have a very solid grasp on the truth of our origin. The original Big Bang theory could not be proven and was found to have numerous inconsistencies. Its replacement or upgrade, the Inflationary Model, was founded using unscientific methods, and it, too, cannot be proven! With these clear shortfalls in mind, let us now examine the rest of the Facts and see what all of the data really seems to imply! Now might be an excellent time to call in our sharp Fifth Grader from Chapter Twenty-Seven to get us by all these difficulties.