The
Layman’s Guide to
The Amazing but Totally True . .
. Scientific
Facts of Creation
By
Wendy S. Scott
Updated 7/27/09
Contents:
The Laws of Physics
The First Law of
Thermodynamics
The Second Law of
Thermodynamics
As a Matter of
Fact—The Facts of Matter
Hawking: Science Divided Against Itself
“The Lord by wisdom has founded the earth: by understanding
has He established the heavens.”
Proverbs 3:19
PHYSICS
1) First
law of Thermodynamics
4)
All matter would have pre-existed Big Bang
5)
Gravity is a weak force and the product
of mass
6)
Matter is not eternal, Energy is not eternal
7)
Matter comes only from Matter
8)
Energy and matter (mass) are relative (E=MC2)
9)
Second law of Thermodynamics (entropy)
10)
Big Bang cannot be the beginning of time
11)
Time is observed in changes in matter
11)
Gases naturally repel, not condense
12)
For every effect there is a cause
13)
Structure of atom would predate Big Bang
14) Fundamental
forces defy Big Bang behavior of matter: Gravity,
Electromagnetic,
and Nuclear
15)
Laws of motion prevent Big Bang behavior of matter, (and Angular momentum)
16)
Facts of solar system defy laws of matter and motion
17)
Gravity too weak to capture moving bodies
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
Disclaimer: The author of this guide is not a research
scientist. This information has been
compiled from an abundance of easily accessible and confirmed scientific
authorities. The majority of the
information is common knowledge in the scientific realm, while lesser known
facts are cited. Do not quote the author as a scientific authority. This guide is intended to systematically
build the case for Biblical Creation through the logical alignment and
application of the abundance of established scientific facts.
True Blue
All undisputed facts in this guide are in bright
blue.
“I am the Lord that makes
all things; that stretched forth the heavens alone; that spread abroad the
earth by myself.”
Isaiah
44:24
As the reader goes through this entire book,
know that at the time of writing, the most current theories concerning
evolution have been addressed. If at any
time one hears the argument “That is not what we think any more,” recognize
what this criticism reveals. Rather than
viewing it as a condemnation of the Creation argument, realize it is a
confirmation of the main Creationist stance.
That a naturalistic origin for the universe and life is impossible
through the known laws of nature, and although evolutionists cannot find a way
around this, they insist that it is nonetheless a fact. As sure as they are about today’s theory,
they will be equally as sure about a future theory. This is their fact. And it changes all the time.
The idea that the universe formed from purely
naturalistic causes presents overwhelming contradictions for scientists. Each theory faces insurmountable
obstructions, forcing evolutionists to continually counterbalance these flaws
with a patchwork of hypothesis and revisions.
No single concept can account for every known factor. Publicly, scientists offer these many
possible theories to comfort the people with the impression that somehow, among
them, the truth has been discovered. We
don’t realize that so many theories exist because each concept generally rules
out another, while none of them completely fit the evidence. This smokescreen of theories, though
impractical, is nonetheless the evolutionists’ unified front against revealing
to the public that it is scientifically impossible for the universe to have
created itself.
Currently, the most popular theory about the
naturalistic cause of the universe is the Big Bang. There are several variations on the minor
details of this premise, but they are all intended to prop up the same
essential concept. There have also been
a few strange offerings aside from the Big Bang, such as an older theory called
the Steady State, which claims that the universe has always existed essentially
as it is. This theory in its formal
construct has been rejected by scientists, (for obvious reasons) and will not
be specifically addressed here.
A third concept, the Plasma Universe, was
formulated specifically as an alternative configuration to the Big Bang. It addresses the unique motions and
relationships of matter throughout the universe that the Big Bang falters in
accounting for. Both, however, cannot be
true, so one must choose between them.
The theories birthed in order to explain the origin of the universe have
gone through so many phases, it is nearly impossible to keep up. More than likely, by the time this guide is
published, whatever specifics are discussed will already be considered
outmoded, and evolutionists will not see that as detrimental to their absolute
certainty. However, regardless of any
new trends in the Big Bang, any facet of the natural origins theory will still
engender the same inescapable flaws.
If one wishes to save a lot of time, instead of
reading the rest of this book, accept the Creation model outright based on this
one unanswerable question—where did the stuff for the Big Bang come from
without God? There is no explanation
within the natural laws for the origin of matter in order to even produce a Big
Bang.
Since there is absolutely no rational
naturalistic explanation for the origins of the Big Bang materials, there is no
point in discussing the details that are proposed to follow as a result of the
Big Bang. They are not even
possible. If the Big Bang couldn’t
have happened naturalistically, then evolution absolutely did not happen as a
side effect. This assertion is not in
doubt. It is a fact. Scientists just prefer to bypass the
impediment.
But, if simply out of curiosity, the reader is
willing to review the minutia of each defective aspect of a naturalistic origin
for the universe, this will not be the last scientific obstacle for
evolutionists. For the open-minded
inquirer, there will be some surprising concepts ahead, and likely, that
nagging logical intuition the reader has always had about naturalism will
ultimately be confirmed. So, back to the
book.
The Big Bang has persisted as the most popular
origins theory. Despite the evolutionary
unity behind this theory, its many versions and hypothesis are full of problems
and contradictions that cannot be resolved.
The median tenets of the Big Bang agree on certain concepts, regardless
of what the evidence suggests. This
model has been derived from essentially observing the configuration of the
universe today, and working it backwards until it reaches the first moment of
this universe defining explosion.
Evolutionists believe that this Big Bang was a
giant explosion of infinitely condensed matter called a “singularity,” which
was the moment that time began, initiating the events that created the
universe. (as a side note, Old Earth
Creationists redefine the Big Bang as a carefully controlled spreading out of matter
by God. Since evolutionists must reject
God’s assistance in order to legitimize a purely naturalistic origin, this
concept is only useful in compromising the Biblical account to acquiesce to
current scientific presumptions, and will be discussed further in the section
entitled “The Case Against Old Earth Creation.”)
Some scientists call this Big Bang moment simply
a sudden expansion of matter to avoid the subsequent problems with an
explosion, but really, a sudden expansion of energy and matter is inescapably
an explosion. While characterizations
vary, this is further evidence of the uncertainty inherent in any naturalistic
origins model.
Theoretically, as the Big Bang fireball
expanded, the light waves were stretched out in the explosion, which
evolutionists believe are still detectable.
This perceived residual effect is called the “red shift,” which is
thought to be a signature of background radiation that demonstrates that the
universe is still expanding even today.
After the explosion, this expansion re-formed into atoms, and an atomic
vapor gradually collected and developed pockets of empty space, and matter
eventually congealed into the galaxies and stars, and planets, which led to the
formation of everything in the universe.
One of several problems with this theory is that
the background radiation
(whether or not it is expanding) is actually smooth, and does not reveal any
history of the necessary hot or cold spots that should remain as evidence of
where matter had condensed. Scientists recognize this
as a significant dilemma. In fact, after years of
searching, no more than 1/100th of a degree of difference has ever
been detected, casting serious doubt on the entire Big Bang scenario since this
interpretation of the radiation is the very evidence that scientists use for
support of the Big Bang at all. More
importantly, scientists recognize the difficulties in explaining the
configurations of the universe as the result of such an explosion with matter
so spread out, and great gaps between, as well as the nearly universal circular
motions of matter.
These difficulties once spawned a bizarre
alternative theory called the Plasma Universe, which simply observed the
configuration of the universe, and then assigned to it a cartoon
rationale. Plasma is the term given to
the atomic state that is created in extremely hot gases such as in fusion
reactions like the sun. Plasma is deconstructed
atomic material in which the incredible heat has separated outer electrons from
the nuclei.
The few scientists who have promoted the Plasma
theory believed that the galaxies and stars began in this hot vapor of
deconstructed atomic material.
Mysterious gigantic filaments then formed all over the universe, and
began twisting around each other like tornados, drawing the plasma
together. These numerous twisting,
filament structures began to compress and metamorphose the plasma into the
materials that formed stars and planets and galaxies all over the universe,
setting them in motion. This unusually
fantastic vision, remarkably, offered no actual scientific evidence for the
existence of these giant twisters, or any other aspect of the theory, or that
it is even possible.
The theory was developed out of a need to
explain the circular motions and features in galaxies, the presence of heat
throughout the universe evidenced in stars, and especially, the presence of
smooth background radiation.
Unfortunately, the questions raised by this theory are more serious to
the average person than the issue of smooth background radiation. For instance, this theory assumes first that
this plasma can pre-exist the formation of the atom, when actually it is always a
result of more structured, pre-existing atomic material that has been torn
apart, in the that way parts of
a plane can be recognized after it has exploded.
Secondly, the theory insists that the twisting
filaments and plasma are also eternal, and simply skips over the origins and
the source of this material to a more convenient setting in which to carry out
the scenario. Though this theory seems
ridiculous and irrelevant to the issues of the origins of matter, it has been
presented in complicated authoritative language, from which it derives its
credibility.
Most scientists only seriously consider the Big
Bang, and have merely resorted to such unacceptable proposals as the Plasma
Universe in order to provide configuration options to circumvent the Big Bang
impediments. Origin theories are so
innately burdened with inconsistencies that evolutionists offer dozens of
revisions and new angles as plaster for their overwhelming breaches in
science. Regardless of the differences,
all of the origin theories share certain inexplicable aspects that cannot avoid
fundamental contradictions with the laws of physics.
This section, therefore, deals with many basic
issues that apply to all the origin concepts, and will point out the
significant applications of each fact.
While it is impossible to discuss every minor nuance, every theory is
negated by these laws of Physics.
Whether one is talking about the formal Steady State, the multitudinous
views of the Big Bang, or the new twist of the Plasma Universe, certain
problems remain. There has always been a
cause for everything, nothing lasts forever, and the only way the universe could have
formed itself is if it had a mind to do so.
These issues are not just a matter of intuition, but a matter of
scientific evidence, and this evidence, very securely, confirms the Creation
model.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
The most significant evidence supporting the
Creation model rests in basic, universally accepted laws of physics. Though there are numerous laws that support
the Creation model, almost all of them (not limited to this list) support the
Creation model to the exclusion of the Evolution model. The most foundational of these are the First
and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. No
rational scientist denies the validity of these laws, they just circumvent
them. The First Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of
Conservation) states that mass/energy is neither created nor destroyed—that the
same quantity exists as it did from the beginning of time.
Though many scientists would like
to say that the universe itself is the exception to this law, and that matter
and energy can be generated without a cause, this law is nonetheless
secure. It is a law because it is the
unwavering result of every last experiment ever conducted, as well as
applications of known principles to a larger scale. Once we know what happens in the tenure of a
single atom, we know essentially what happens to all of them across the
universe. Of course you don’t have to be
a scientist to recognize that something cannot come from nothing. This is
irrational. So evolutionists complicate
this process by adding more steps, thereby camouflaging the irrational with
many words.
This law of conservation supports the Creation
model, which holds that the universe and all its laws and principles were created suddenly
at a specific time by God, and that no new matter or energy has been created or destroyed since. The law, however, is in direct opposition
with the evolution model, which cannot explain the origins of matter within
the universe.
The Creation model specifically professes that
God is eternal, and the source of time, space, matter, and the
laws that govern them, in the same way a man is the source of ideas, which he
turns into things that operate, and sets constructs by which they can continue
to operate--like a watch. If one
contends that a watch cannot be made by a man because one does not know who the
man is, then the claimant must produce a rational, testable means by which the
watch created itself. Such an
accusation that the existence of an eternal God is illogical fails to recognize
the greater detriment that something must be eternal.
Most people errantly believe the Big Bang
explains the origins of the universe through the creation of matter and energy,
but the theory actually gave up on that ambition a long time ago, and
scientists don’t bother to effectively correct the misconception. The Big Bang theory does not propose the
sudden creation of matter and energy in an explosion out of nothing. Again, this would be a scientific impossibility based on
the law of conservation. Nothingness
cannot generate everything because that breaks this law.
In fact, every scientist knows that it is not possible for the
vast empty universe to suddenly explode and bring about out of nothingness all
matter and energy. This law is so
irrefutable that it is a source of contention even among evolutionists,
resulting in numerous conflicting theories.
However, every single theory must make the same unattainable leap
of faith—that matter, in some form, pre-existed the Big Bang.
This incredible, scientific theory for the
origins of the universe, pretty much begins with the presumption “All
matter got together, and blew up.”
What matter, you might reasonably inquire? This is when scientists click their Ruby
Slippers together in hopes of transporting you to another dimension, outside of
scientific feasibility, through the hypnosis of scientific enchantments. If you wish hard enough, all the questions
about the origins of matter will disappear, and one can simply surrender to the
magic spell of the Big Bang.
Another phrasing of the First Law of Thermodynamics
specifies that energy and matter are not created or destroyed within this
system. The law of constant mass, states that the total mass
of a system (the universe) cannot change unless mass is taken from, or given to
the outside (outside the universe would be God). Matter
and energy do not arise naturalistically within this system. If the present amount of matter has remained
constant, though in different forms, then again the Big Bang must have merely
blown up what was already here (there will be more evidence on this
later).
Regardless of how small the particles were,
there had to be enough of them to account for every atom of matter in the
universe according to this law. This moment of singularity
or pre-expansion, no matter how tightly it was condensed, had
to contain every particle that exists today,
according to this law. At the same time
that scientists know this, some feel that when they observe photons emitting
from atoms, that these energy packets actually exhibit the creation
of matter. This is a willing error,
however, because they know that when this particle is released from an atom, it
is only through the use of energy, and results in the loss
of mass to the original atom. It would be like saying
that burning a cigarette creates matter because smoke and ashes result. But matter only comes from matter, no matter
how small.
Most people believe that the Big Bang explains
how nothing became something when it suddenly exploded into everything. The evolutionist option, for most people, is not
satisfying—that matter and the universe are eternal, and have no cause or
beginning. The Big Bang, though, (as
mentioned earlier) is really the theory that, by necessity, this “nothingness”
that exploded was actually something to begin with—a dense collection
of atomic particles. These particles had
somehow condensed to a single point, which built up enough energy to explode
into outer space, which started the entire chain of events that led to this
configuration of matter in the universe.
The common confusion that allows the public to
accept this explanation is in viewing atomic particles as something that does
not need to be created. But the whole
purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain our beginnings naturalistically. The error in regarding atomic particles as
too simple to require an origin, is only to remove the creation process one
step back from the existence of solid matter to a more ethereal substance.
Fortunately, rudimentary scientific observation
has revealed that even one atom of gas is unique, possesses energy, and is
distinguishable from other types of atoms. We know
this, and that is why they each have a name.
Even a single particle needs to have an origin because all of matter is built on
these collected particles. Tearing them
apart doesn’t make less matter. It is
just messy matter. Evolutionists want to
place all the complexity of matter, energy, and life in the entire universe on
the chance combinations of these simple particles, but imply that they
themselves are insignificant and need no origin.
Moreover, the construction of some theories suggests
that all matter was not necessarily contained in the singularity, but that the
particles were in some manner the seeds out of which the universe grew. This specifically conflicts with the First
Law of Thermodynamics (as well as all reason)
because, atoms absolutely do not reproduce.
The greatest majority of evolutionists believe
in some facet of the Big Bang, but while it gives the impression of creating
matter, these scientists must actually believe that all energy and matter (in
whatever form) is eternal. In declaring
matter and energy to be eternal through executive order certainly gives
scientists a lot more room for their theories by removing the conflict with the
First Law of Thermodynamics, but it does so without a scientific, or even
rational, confederacy. In hoping we
won’t question the impossibility, theorists simply conspire to obscure the
issue about the origins of the energy and matter that would even make the Big
Bang, and therefore the universe, possible.
Since evolution claims to be the scientific
naturalistic explanation of the entire universe, this hypothesis lacks greatly
in its credibility over the Creation model.
Really, if one chooses to believe that energy and matter always existed,
it would be equal to conceding that something else had to make
it. Only a willing disregard for the
evidence, and a strong faith in the supernatural powers (outside
of the laws of nature) of the universe could allow scientists to assert by fact
that energy and matter always existed of its own accord, but to absolutely
exclude the possibility that all this complexity was intentionally designed by
a Creator.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
The Big Bang also presents a few completely
opposing models for scientists to choose from concerning the nature of the
point of expansion. Physicists are faced
with answering what kind of configuration would produce the desired effects of
the universe. This explosion would need
to naturally result in the formation of all matter, and likely space itself as
well. Some models adhere to the prediction of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
that space could not pre-exist the Big Bang, but that all the matter that resulted would have
pushed out and created space as it expanded.
There are two problems with this
concept. The biggest one is in trying to
explain this crazy proposition that a tight ball of complex atoms actually
existed before the beginning of time, but that simple space didn’t even exist
yet. Aside from this, there is still a
question of how such an explosion would create more space than was needed to
contain the matter. It would be a lot
like squeezing a catsup bottle into a collapsed plastic baggie. Unless there was air in the catsup bottle
already, the whole mass would stay together, and there would be no empty space
in which a definition or separation of matter could occur.
It is difficult to envision what factors in this
scenario would cause matter to divide from space. Like a cloud of vapor, or fog that completely
fills the space with particles, there should be nothing to cause gaps between
them. The next time you are standing in
fog, imagine something like, say, the earth or the sun forming spontaneously
from it. Remember that fog is a great
deal more substantial than this Big Bang vapor would be.
Fog is the product of unified atomic elements
that have already formed molecules, such as water, from hydrogen and oxygen
atoms. Along with a great many other
elements in the air, fog has the additional advantage of the earth’s gravity to
keeping it hovering around together. The Big
Bang could not offer these factors.
However, this would be one or two steps away from forming a planet as
far as cosmologists are concerned.
The problem with this concept, though, is that the universe is not full of
a dense fog. Instead of finding a vapor of heat, or a
vapor of cold particles, we see widespread energy in the form of stars throughout the
universe, with vast distances of cold space between them. How was the space, or separation between
matter, created?
As the Big Bang particles cooled, this vapor of emerging
matter would need to continue pushing out and creating new space to form the
distant universe. Somehow, the vapor
would have to divide itself from space in order to begin drawing together and
interacting to form stars. There are no
physical laws to help activate this scenario.
First the vapor of matter must spread out nearly infinitely, and then it
must manage to separate from space so fastidiously, that it compels the matter
to unite into tightly formed stars with vast distances of space between
them. It is not feasible for space, and
consequently the space between matter, to be created through the Big Bang.
The most common concept of the Big Bang is that
this point of ignition was a sort of cosmic ball in a pre-existing sea of
space. People visualize that this
drifting mass of ethereal energy and gas atoms got together one day, and blew
up, spreading out into the greater surrounding darkness. Scientists have difficulty reconciling the
existence of space prior to the Big Bang with the prediction based on
Einstein’s theory of Relativity, but this concept is more conducive for the
separation of matter. The individual
particles could theoretically achieve separation during the explosion since the
particles themselves would not be tearing space out of whatever unimaginable
force it was that contained the singularity.
Whether space already existed, or space was
created by the Big Bang, there are still more issues to address after the
explosion. A major difficulty is in
explaining how matter actually combined while it was flying through space away
from an explosion (or sudden expansion).
Space has no gravity, and there could be no
pre-existing particles or bodies out in space to affect the direction of the
flying particles. Without some force or
friction to slow down the expanding particles, it would be impossible for them
to combine with each other and form into matter. This
prerequisite is so inescapable, that without a sound principle to activate a
slow-down, the unification of matter after the Big Bang is impossible. More details of this will be discussed later.
Evolutionists recognize this difficulty, and
propose that the matter that comprised this initial point of singularity was so
tightly condensed that it produced a powerful central gravitational pull. With a long reaching gravitational pull at the
source of the Big Bang, these scientists believe that the expansion of
particles would retard and begin to catch up and attract to each other. Unfortunately, Gravity is a weak force, and only acts
effectively between large masses, so an incredibly powerful gravitational field
would be necessary to have an effect on these small particles as they expanded
even as far as the furthest star is today.
Scientists contend that the starting point of a
singularity of infinite density would provide this powerful gravity, but of
course we know that it would have ceased to be a singularity once it
expanded. In order for the theory to
work, then, this incredible epicenter would have to be the source of both an
extraordinary explosion and an equally extraordinarily powerful gravitational
force. So in effect, while the biggest explosion the universe has ever seen was
expanding outward, that same point would somehow need to possess a
gravitational force that worked in complete opposition to the nature of the
explosion.
This hypothetical expansion/ contraction effect
would have had to keep these smallest particles in existence from flying
endlessly through space, even though atomic particles are hardly affected by gravity at even
close range.
The circumstances created by such a requirement are blatantly paradoxical. The initial conflict lies in the need for
this unimaginably powerful source of gravity to be an explosion
(what the average non-genius would consider the opposite of holding things
together). However, even if this matter
were originally so dense as to create a gravitational force powerful enough to
have an effect on flying particles at the outer edge of the visible universe,
this singularity would be, by definition, an incredibly powerful Black
Hole.
Inescapable gravity is what defines Black Holes. But if it were a Black Hole, however, nothing
could escape,
and we are not here. However, not only
are we here, but stars have formed at incomprehensible distances from any
possible epicenter, proving that the inertia which could have held it together
had been broken. There is no evidence of
a powerful central gravitational force in the universe today, or to explain why
the universe would still be expanding if this force were so effective. Whatever principle is imposed on this
scenario, it is impossible for any amount of gravity to affect these atomic
particles as the result of a tremendous, universe defining explosion.
There are various other theories that attempt to
explain the formation of pockets of matter after the Big Bang, but they simply
impose a retarded expansion outside of permissible laws of physics. These theories offer so many nuances and are
often so divergent, it is evident that physics does not provide any observable
principle to allow the formation of matter as the result of the Big Bang
explosion in any form.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
Scientists imply that the Big Bang created
matter, and lead people to believe that these few eternal atomic particles
created even more matter in the explosion.
If people knew that scientists don’t really believe this, they would wonder
why they bother with the explosion.
Again, even though evolutionists imply this, all scientists ought to
know that the creation of more matter from a little matter really is
impossible.
As stated, this breaks the law of conservation,
and suggests that matter is capable of reproducing, which is absolutely
impossible. It takes matter to make matter. Einstein himself actually,
unwittingly, provides the best evidence against this basic concept that
essentially nothing exploded into everything.
That the ethereal became tangible.
That an explosion of nothingness was the cause of the increasing
complexity of all matter.
Although Relativity necessarily predicts a single
moment from which all matter and time originated, (the same as the Creation account) it does not
satisfy questions on the origin or source of that moment. However, other aspects of his theory give us
tremendous insight into the nature of matter and energy. His theory of relativity concerning the
relationship of mass to energy proves that one does not exist without the
other. Accordingly, mass possesses energy, and energy is
derived from mass. The essence of his
famous equation, E=MC2, is that the Energy (E) available is equal to
the Mass (M) of matter converted times the speed of light (C) squared (2).
The Big Bang could not create the universe
because energy does not create matter. One prediction misguidedly theorizes
that if it were possible for matter to reach light speeds, its size would become
infinite. This is only due to the paradox
it creates because it would require an equivalent amount of mass to provide
sufficient energy to propel matter to this fastest speed known. It would not grow to that size, it
would take that size to provide the energy.
In other words, theoretically if a tiny atom
could be propelled to light speed, it would suddenly blow up to a giant soufflé
as it shoots through space. This is
preposterous, and even if it were possible, it would necessarily not remain
enlarged at normal speed. Either way,
speed could not create more matter.
This proposition implies that the need for more matter in
order to propel it to light speed could somehow create the matter. In the end, if matter were infinitely large
in order to propel it to light speed, there would be no matter left to propel
because it would have been converted into energy in the propulsion.
Matter and energy are relative to each other in
that the energy that matter possesses is relational to its mass, and matter is
the source of energy. Mass and energy, therefore,
are interchangeable. For example, fire is energy, but it is
limited by the energy available in matter, such as wood, or gas. There is no fire without matter to burn. In a chemical reaction, such as burning (or
oxidation) only the outer electrons are exchanged, and the amount of matter in
some form remains the same. In a nuclear
reaction, like fusion, the nuclei of the atoms are affected, and a small amount
of matter is converted to a large amount of energy. However, clearly, in either reaction, it is
impossible to create matter.
This means that the explosion of the Big Bang
could only result from a sufficient amount of pre-existing
matter, regardless of the form, in order to produce what would have to be the
biggest explosion ever. Because of the
direct ratio between the amount of matter that was necessary to create the
explosive reaction, and the amount of matter that could reemerge from this
explosion of energy, it is not possible for more mass to result after
the explosion than the mass that initiated it.
Again in the example of the wood, even if we managed to contain all the
ash, we never get more wood.
The energy of the Big Bang might be able to
convert some of the original mass into energy, but only the original amount of
mass, if not a little less mass, could reemerge from the explosion. The explosion could only result in more basic
particles—not more matter. In fact, it would take
more matter than exists now since some of it would be broken down during a
nuclear conversion to energy. Therefore, since energy is
relative to mass, and only comes from matter, everything we have today must
have already been here, whether it exploded in the Big Bang, or not. The real assertion of the Big Bang appears to
be not whether it created everything, but how the concept is worded.
One other principle (which will be discussed
more later) is the concept of time.
Evolutionists predict the processes that follow the Big Bang as if the
Big Bang were the beginning of time.
Naturally it is impossible for time not to exist before the Big Bang,
and again, Einstein’s great formula demonstrates this mathematically. According to the theory E=MC2,
Energy=Mass spent in a reaction times the speed of light, squared. This translates to the Energy of the Big Bang
explosion being equal to the matter converted in the reaction, times the speed
of light, squared. The speed of light
represents the Time necessary to produce the volatility of the reaction.
If time began at the Big Bang, then there were
no principles of time available to cause the reaction. Time would have had to predate the Big Bang in
order for the Big Bang to happen. If both
matter and time predated the Big Bang, then all the fundamental principles of
physics would have predated the Big Bang, which covers just about all of
reality, and therefore it explains nothing.
There are no scientific principles to solve the
problems with origin theories, which would require that atoms already existed
prior to the Big Bang, and that this pre-existing matter somehow created more
matter contrary to this well tested First Law of Thermodynamics, and Einstein’s
Theory of Relativity. Essentially,
origin theories all run into this same problem, only at different angles. Regardless of the complexities of the
explosion or processes, none of them address the issue of the source of matter,
only how it was cast throughout the universe.
This means that the origin of matter in the universe was a supernatural event. Because naturalistic theories cannot possibly
answer the question of the origins of matter, they must, in effect, default to
the only other option—God created it.
There is no sound or even logical solution to
the conflicts between these principles and a naturalistic origin to the
universe. To skirt the issue, scientists
point to each other’s theories for support, implying that somewhere between all
the hypotheses, the cumbersome mathematical equations, the preponderance of
scientific trivia, and academic posturing, that all the problems raised here
have been answered. They have not.
According to the well-established First Law of
Thermodynamics, energy and matter are not created within this system, and
therefore the matter that presently exists could not have been generated out of
nothing. Matter again does not reproduce
or generate more matter—it simply changes form.
Additionally, a great deal of matter would necessarily exist in order to
produce the Big Bang. If there is no certain
solution within these principles, then by logic the creation of matter in the
universe cannot be explained by the Big Bang or any other variation, and
therefore any naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe cannot be
called a fact.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (or the Law of
increasing Entropy) states that though energy and matter are not created or
destroyed, the availability of usable energy is decreasing. This law demonstrates that heat moves to
cool, usable energy evens out and becomes unusable energy, and
that all systems break down. The entire universe obeys
this law. We observe this when a pot of boiling water is
removed from the heat, it loses its energy and cools to room temperature, while
frozen water that is set out draws energy from its surroundings and warms up to
room temperature. When this happens,
energy looses its ability to affect the temperature of matter because it is
also at the same, even state. Once the
water becomes room temperature, the air temperature ceases to have an effect on
it, and it ceases to have an effect on the temperature of the air.
This law of entropy is so prominent that there
would eventually be a point, like this example, when the energy available in
everything has already been used to influence everything around, and the energy
level in the universe would become completely even. There would not be enough
heat, or energy, available to affect anything because it would all be the same.
This law also applies to all systems. Entropy measures: 1) deterioration of energy
in a working system 2) degree of disorder in a structured system 3) loss of
information in a programmed system. The
natural result of entropy is that order moves to disorder, complexity becomes
less complex, information is lost, and systems of every kind, living or
nonliving, deteriorate without exception. So
completely accepted is this law that evolutionists readily concede to it. They simply ignore it in their
scenarios.
Here is the conflict between this law and evolution:
it makes evolving of any kind impossible. If the explosive Big Bang theoretically led
to greater order, increased energy, increased complexity, upward from that
moment, chaos to increased structure and information—then this law cannot be
true. But the law is true. The fact is that evolution and the Law of Entropy
are mutually exclusive. It is impossible
for everything to start simply and disorderly, and became more complex and
ordered, while at the same time the universe, and all its systems are breaking
down and deteriorating. There is no scientific justification
for assuming that prior to our observations, the laws of physics worked in reverse.
In fact, there is a history in the stars, planets
and celestial debris that reveals the ongoing loss of energy from matter since
the beginning, confirming the destructive work of entropy throughout the
universe. Moreover, the weak electromagnetic
fundamental force governs decay in atoms, proving that the operation of entropy
is even built into the natural laws. The
disassembled particles that presumably resulted from the Big Bang demonstrate
that evolutionists assume entropy even from the beginning. There is nothing
presently that “bucks the system” to demonstrate a point when a switch was made
from progress forward to a progress backward.
Without any corroborative data, cosmologists address entropy simply with
amazement that the evolution of the universe did buck the system,
and use it as an example of how incredible the process was, because to them
cosmological evolution is an undisputable fact.
This is despite the undisputable fact of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.
Called by many scientists, Time’s Arrow, entropy gives
us sure evidence of the passage of time. An object that is created in
perfection, will show its age through the loss of perfection. A car sitting in the street will deteriorate
over the years, but will never become newer, or better. You cannot just let a
broken down car sit, hoping that it will repair itself because it simply can’t.
We know that time and deterioration are linked, and the passage of time does
not improve life, objects, systems, or information. It is not possible for the whole universe to
demonstrate this fact, but for there to somehow be a parallel operation of a
mysterious, unobserved system that runs contrary to it. This is a product of the imagination, not
scientific evidence. Only when intelligence
interferes, can entropy be opposed in the slightest temporary degree.
Humans can manufacture something new from raw
materials, but such attempts to defy this law are ephemeral, as the object
begins to decline from that moment on. In nature,
a seed can germinate into a plant and grow, but that is based on the manufacturing
instructions of the DNA, and it must struggle against the death of time every
minute. A design mechanism is required
to program matter, guiding it and conforming it in order to harness energy. Otherwise it would experience continual
destruction. Life is a living machine,
and it must have a design, or plan, in order to operate. Our bodies can grow and heal because of
clever biological programming, but we still age and die. Even this very temporary growth of life is at
the expense of life that has already passed, hence the term “cycle of life.”
When we
look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we also have to question the idea
again that matter, or atoms, must be eternal.
All evolutionary scientists
are forced to believe that, in some form, atomic particles and matter have
always existed. While there is still debate over the
materials that composed the Big Bang singularity (or ball of pre-exploded
atoms), as stated before, there had to be some materials in order
to initiate the chain reaction. Again,
we have already discussed how matter cannot produce more matter, but we will
examine this concept more.
We know that scientists would like to utilize
the most ethereal atoms or particles available in order to produce the Big Bang
in hopes the general public will overlook these materials as requiring an
origin. Regardless of their size,
though, these atoms or particles
could not exist for all eternity prior to the Big Bang without experiencing
reactions and interactions. It is not possible that
they were not interacting prior to the Big Bang, but then
suddenly produced enough energy to cross the energy threshold to activate the
Big Bang sequence.
Therefore, as long as reactions and time are occurring to
the atomic particles before whatever factors induced the Big
Bang, then the atomic particles must have eternally experienced
decay. If, then, the atomic particles
had been continually experiencing decay for all eternity prior to the Big Bang,
then eternity would have already depleted all their
workable energy. This fact is
inescapable.
Imagine this: before the atoms exploded in the
Big Bang, they would have been bumping into each other. Whenever they bump into each other, they are
interacting, and energy is being used.
So if it is possible for these atoms to bump into each other and cause
the Big Bang, then for all eternity before the Big Bang, they
were bumping into each other. If they
have been bumping into each other for all eternity, then they would have used
all their usable energy before the Big Bang. How do we know this? Because eternity has no beginning.
It is impossible for matter to hold energy that
long because we know that even the smallest particles exhibit the effects of
time. Time itself is measured by
the observation of change in matter, so all interactions in this system indicate the
passage of time. Scientists know that protons and neutrons decay, and most other smaller
particles that exist are the result of a release of energy, and decay in an atom. Even in atoms themselves, electrons traveling around
the nucleus demonstrate the passage of time, and time and energy are
intertwined. Time is demonstrated in the breakdown of matter
and use of energy.
Energy itself is almost exclusively transmitted
through interaction with atomic structure. A
catalyst may excite
electrons in an atom, and bump them up to a higher level, where they can remain
only briefly. The excited atom may collide with another
atom, where the energy may be
absorbed and retransmitted to a neighboring atom in a chain reaction. The
energy is also generally released in a photon.
The brevity that an electron can remain excited
in itself demonstrates an atomic obedience to the law of entropy, which restricts
increased states of energy, causing the electron to seek the lowest state
possible. In more energetic exchanges,
atoms will actually be broken down by the over-use of their energy. This is why the ashes of wood do not carry
the same potential for energy as the original log, further demonstrating the increase of
entropy. In this case, the energy and matter have not
been destroyed entirely because energy has been released into the atmosphere,
and the matter has been converted into smaller particles.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
However, energy and matter become less usable in such
processes, unless captured by another harnessing mechanism. A fire in a fire ring releases the energy to the
atmosphere so that it dissipates, and becomes ineffective. A fire under a boiler of water can convert the
energy into steam, and transmit the energy of the steam to a machine that can
carry out some function. It is not a
perfect transmission though, and usable energy is always lost, causing each
subsequent step to lessen the energy available to do work.
Even our miracle of nuclear power cannot be
efficiently harnessed for use, as we default to the more archaic transmission
of nuclear heat to water in order to run steam-powered generators. This inescapable loss of efficiency in all
systems is why entropy prevails. It is also why the great
energy requirements necessary for carrying out evolution after the massive
energy explosion of the Big Bang is contrary to the proposed product of increased
energy, and complexity in structure (such as atoms to matter), systems (such as
the stars, the solar system and life), and information (such as DNA). The massive explosion of the Big Bang would
have burned a great deal of the usable energy in all of the atoms.
Because atomic particles
must also
obey entropy, even before the Big Bang, time had to be passing, and therefore
entropy was in effect. As long as
matter, regardless of the form, is interacting, then it is changing, energy is
being used, and time is passing. And if time is passing in matter, then it
is not eternal, and had an origin.
Though he does not specify the elements he
believes could have originally created the singularity, the famous British
physicist Stephen Hawking, describes his assumptions about the first effects to
emerge after the Big Bang.
He suggests that immediately after the initial reaction of the Big Bang
the resulting materials were likely simple photons, neutrinos, and
electrons. Photons and neutrinos are
particles observed only during the release of energy through decay and
reactions in atoms.
That Hawking even believes that the first
particles resulting from the Big Bang were photons and neutrinos verifies the
passage of time before the Big Bang. If
photons existed as a result of the Big Bang, then atomic energy
was being released from whatever was within the singularity. If atomic energy was released at the Big
Bang, then atomic energy was always in existence, and as long as it had
existed, then reactions were always occurring. As long as reactions are occurring, even before
the Big Bang, then time is passing, and according to the law of Entropy, if
time passes, then energy is depleted and systems break down—they do not increase in
energy, potential and order. The ashes
will never form the log again, and the fire will not re-ignite—unless you run
the film backwards.
Time always runs forward, not backwards, and forward-running time
results in destruction and decay, not construction and increased
complexity. When Hawking and others
propose that after the Big Bang, photons and neutrinos somehow were the beginning
of time and the universe, they are implying that the universe was actually
created by these materials. Though they
believe no such thing, they point to these simple materials and suggest that
they are the building blocks of the universe, when they would actually be only
the first particles to re-emerge from the explosion, not the creation of
matter. If these particles were the
beginning of the universe, then time ran backwards after the Big Bang. It is calling what is an effect
instead a cause.
Imagine if someone blew up a building, and
someone else came along, looking at the rubble, and said “This is how we got
the first primitive materials for making a building.” We can easily recognize that the rubble is
destruction, and that something more ordered existed before the
destruction. That same someone might as
well go to a city and say, “I have seen the rubble of an explosion, and so I
can tell you that this city started with the primitive results of such an
explosion. Only it would have been
immense.”
Then the proposition from there would be
precisely how the rubble could begin to fashion a city, forward
from that point, and no one would consider where the rubble came from, and no
one would protest that the rubble doesn’t seem to fit together as well as the
city does, or that no one has seen a beautiful city actually made out of a
little pile of rubble. Yet they insist,
there was a time when such destruction caused things to get better, and that
the normal harmful effects of time actually improved the
materials. When scientists suggest such
incredible progress because of a Big Bang, they propose an irreconcilable
dichotomy in
that
rubble only becomes a city when entropy is reversed, and entropy can only
reverse when time runs backwards.
Explosions, which progress outward however,
clearly demonstrate the forward motion of time, preventing the
rubble of atoms from becoming a complex universe. The undisputable evidence is that time has run
forward continuously as long as matter has existed. Though Hawking and many other scientists have
toyed with theories of backwards running time, there is no evidence (or logic)
to support these ideas. In reality, their
suggestion that photons and neutrinos first emerged from the Big Bang
demonstrates that the destruction of atoms would have occurred, and that the
principles of decay through forward running time were already in effect,
bringing us back to the same issue of eternal matter. If time is passing, then, again, eternity would
have used up all the workable energy long before the Big Bang. It makes the theory ridiculously
ineffective.
Once again, since any interaction between
particles that could result in the Big Bang, must have always
been happening, it is impossible for the energy used in these interactions to
last for all eternity prior to the Big Bang.
Regardless of how long atoms seem to last, we have seen their
deterioration every day of our lives.
Even if they lasted hundreds of billions of years, this is still not as
long as eternity. Stephen Hawking
regards this inevitability when discussing another topic—the eventual extent of
the expanding universe. In his book A
Brief History of Time, on page 155, he concludes that the universe
. . . will not recollapse for a very long
time. By then all the stars will have
burned out and the protons and neutrons in them will probably have decayed into
light particles (photons) and radiation (neutrinos). The universe would be in
a strong state of almost complete disorder. (parenthesis added)
This means that all that would be left would be
the very photons and neutrinos that Hawking already proposed were the grand
beginnings of the universe from the Big Bang.
By this point, Hawking contends here, the universe would run out of
workable energy. If it can do it in the
future, it should have already done it through the eternal past.
The alternative is that the energy has not
been expended for all eternity, because the particles had a beginning, and if
they had a beginning, they were created.
If they were created, there is a source, or Creator. The law of entropy points explicitly to
Creation. The system of the Big Bang is so
intertwined with the mathematical minutia that people are too intimidated to
explore the logical implications of the notion of everything coming from
nothing. It comes down to either every last particle in
the universe is eternal (ironically, like a god would be), or every last particle in the universe had a
beginning. If they had a beginning, then something was here
first to create it because it is not possible for something to create itself
when it doesn’t exist. The
universe is the effect, is there not a cause?
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
Evolutionists are currently concentrating their
battlefront on the diversionary concept of anti-matter. This idea boldly asserts that we, and all of
the universe, are the product of a miraculous event. That miracle would not be Special Creation,
but that matter survived at all after the Big Bang. Most people do not realize that everything in
existence today (they say) inexplicably survived total annihilation at the
hands of the evil anti-matter particles that also sprang forth from the Big
Bang. These anti-particles, they go on
to explain, are the opposite of particles, and when the two converge, they
serve to wipe out particles, and physicists have no idea how any matter at all
somehow snuck past the anti-matter in order to form the universe.
The question is so baffling that physicists have
to conjure theories to explain this miraculous escape. The currently preferred concept is the theory
of CP violation. They believe that perhaps
occasionally a spontaneous mirror change in the charge (C) of a particle, in
conjunction with a mirror change in the property (P) of a particle allowed an
anti-particle to reverse to a particle, and thus not one, but now perhaps even
two particles of matter survived.
Theoretically, if there are enough of these spontaneous mirror changes,
the anti-matter that should have wiped out the matter after the Big Bang allow
enough matter slip by to create the universe.
Scientists are quite enamored with this concept of how matter came to
form the universe, and even call us the miraculous children of these survivors.
Physicists jiggle this theory in front of us,
saying “Look over here, look over here,” like we are toddlers being distracted
for a photograph. It seems that they are
thinking “If we make the idea complex enough, they won’t remember the real
issue.” In case you missed it, the
concept of anti-matter is superfluous in the scheme of the creation of the
universe. The idea, though very
scientific sounding, has nothing to do with how matter was created. It only brings in the random intrigue of how
matter survived an anti-matter annihilation.
This might be an interesting discussion if anti-matter actually existed,
and were more than some surrealistic mathematical concept. There is no anti-matter, and that utterly puzzles
them as well. Where did the anti-matter that our math tells us should exist, go
to?
So even though physicists think it is fun to say
that we are the product of the post Big Bang matter/anti-matter war, one
might notice that it is a concept of subtraction, not addition. The question that we are all looking for is
not how anything is left, but how did anything get here. The assumption in this matter/anti-matter
theory remains that matter first existed, and then it blew up. The distraction only complicates the origins
of the universe, and (bafflingly) imposes further conditions for which there is
no evidence. These conditions themselves
raise a minimum of two more theoretical contradictions (how did we escape total
annihilation, and why is there no anti-matter now?).
More incredibly it adds to the need for an
enormously greater amount of matter to exist initially in order to allow for
all that anti-matter annihilation.
Evolutionists are already at a loss for how to explain the existence of
even one atom without a God to create it, so needing to explain the
preexistence of even more matter than is contained in the universe today goes
in the opposite direction from a legitimate theory about naturalistic
origins. This means that somehow matter
and anti-matter co-existed throughout eternity without already going head to
head until the moment of the Big Bang.
Therefore, not only is matter eternal, but so is anti-matter—but not
anymore of course because it doesn’t exist now.
Despite the elaborate theory, it does nothing to solve the problem of
the creation of matter, or the necessity of eternal matter.
To illustrate the faulty reasoning of the
eternal nature of atomic particles in any form, imagine going to someone’s
house, and they take you to the back yard.
In the back yard, they show you a little rubber ball bouncing up and
down, very high. As you watch the ball,
each bounce is a little lower than the last, but it continues to bounce as your
friend explains, “I started that ball bouncing 15 minutes ago, and it’s still
going.” As you watch it gradually bounce
lower and lower, you evaluate the feasibility of your friend’s statement.
Now imagine, instead, that your friend says,
“Yeah, that ball has always been there, bouncing like that. That ball has just always existed, and it has
bounced there like that for all eternity.
No one made it, and no one started it bouncing. It just has always been.” As your friend tells you this, you are
watching each bounce gradually get lower and lower. You would evaluate the feasibility of this
statement based on you experiences and observations.
A child is easily able to recognize the
irrationality of this scenario. Such
things are called Tall Tales. It is not
possible for the ball not to have a beginning. It is not possible for it to bounce for all
eternity, when even while you are watching it, it is losing energy. It is not logical that you can observe the
loss of energy, while your friend declares as a fact that it has bounced for
all eternity. You are pretty sure your
friend is not that old, and your observations tell you that if it has bounced
for all eternity, it should not be running down now because eternity has no
beginning. If eternity has no beginning,
then eternity is not obedient to time, and therefore time would have no effect
on an eternal element.
Atomic particles could not exist throughout
eternity, while at the same time we are able to observe the universal loss of
energy in the matter made up of these particles, as stated in the Law of
Entropy. We are watching the universe getting
weaker—even if ever so slightly, and in subtle ways—so how can we accept that
up until now it has had eternal vitality?
The “arrow of time” is
precisely this observation—that everything obeys this law, and wears down. There is no scientific principle to allow
that time ever ran backward (causing things to progress to a higher state), and
then switched to forward (causing things to break down to a lower state). At what point could that have possibly
happened, and why? The logic is so
simple. The Big Bang is impossible. Evolution scientists ought to be ashamed of
preventing people from using the common sense of their own minds.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in every
possible scenario, is in inescapable opposition to the Big Bang and
evolution. There is no scientific
evidence that any of it is possible even within the wildest scientific
imagination, and there certainly is nothing to support the theory as an
undisputed fact. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
does confirm the Creation model, which states that the universe was initially
created perfect, and has been gradually winding down since then. That all things will deteriorate, all things
will die, that everything is getting old and worn down, including the very
stars in the universe. The Bible knew
this, thousands of years ago (Psalm 102:25-26).
Together, these scientific laws, the First and Second Law of
Thermodynamics (law of conservation and the law of increasing entropy), and the
Theory of Relativity (that mass and energy are interdependent) eliminate the scientific
viability for the evolution of the universe, and validate the Creation
model. The ultimate choice, based upon
the reliability of these laws, is between a universe made up of eternal matter
without an origin or creative force, or an eternal God who exists outside of
the system if time and matter, who directly, and thoughtfully created every
minute detail of the universe.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
There are a few other principles that contradict
the tenets of the Big Bang, but do not conflict with the Creation model. Because there are so many principles that
contradict the Big Bang, cosmologists reflexively apply only those that fit
into the Big Bang, without sufficient reasons why the others would not
apply.
Many scientists believe the Big Bang would have
been a fusion reaction. Fusion reactions
are rare, and only occur in circumstances that fuse atoms together with such
force that their interaction rises to the nuclear level. We see that the sun and the stars operate on
fusion, but we don’t see circumstances in the universe that naturally induce
fusion reactions. What principle could
have created the Big Bang explosion?
Regardless of whether space pre-existed the Big Bang, scientists need to
be able to explain how the singularity became so tightly condensed prior to the
reaction. How would these atoms have
been drawn together so forcefully without a powerful pre-existing, centralized
gravitational force?
Two similar principles prevent this necessary
condition. The first one poses problems
with drawing together these atoms. The principles of gases
express that gases and gas particles naturally expand to fill all the available
space. Gases, therefore, when free to
move, will repel rather than bond or condense. The only gases that don’t repel create weak
covalent bonds, like H2O in water, and do not produce high energy reactions in
order to create fusion, and certainly not the Big Bang.
Gases move too rapidly to become condensed under
natural circumstances. Even if these gases were frozen to restrict
their movement and decrease the activity that causes repulsion, this condition
would also hinder their potential for the energetic interaction necessary to
produce the Big Bang. There is no
principle within the “early state” of the universe that would cause gas atoms
to be drawn together in this singularity.
The Big Bang would have to be caused by an
unimaginably massive build up of energy, which would generate incredible heat, but heat also activates gas atoms to move further apart, not
closer together. In this case, whatever could
have drawn the atomic particles together into nearly an infinite point of
density, did it inexplicably against the natural repelling forces
created by the interaction and heating up of gas atoms.
Some scientists would like to say that gravity
drew them together, but gravity’s force is the product of mass, so the very gravity that might help join them
together could not exist until the atoms were already brought together to
create the gravity. Only the great mass
of the sun is able to retain the gases and plasmic product of its fusion
process. Imagine how great a mass would
necessarily be present to gather all the existing atoms and particles in the
universe into one point?
One may wonder what the naturalistic solution to
this dilemma might be, but there is no explanation offered by cosmologists for
the cause of the singularity. As a
result, scientists readily pass over the topic, and begin the Big Bang theory
with the explosion of this mystical singularity. Again, this explains very little about the
origins of the universe, if anything.
The unique moment of this Big Bang was supposedly
caused by the mysterious pre-existence of innumerable atoms and particles in
the singularity, in which the pressure built up so powerfully that it blew out
everything that ever would be, and spread it to an unfathomable breadth,
creating the furthest reaches of the entire universe. It is not logical to contend that everything
formed from this explosion, and ignore the implausibility of the source and cause
of the explosion. That unprecedented
moment requires a cause.
The universe may or may not be expanding. Whatever we read into the waves of radiation,
and however we interpret this concept of a red shift, all these factors still
suggest what we logically and intuitively already know. We know that there was a moment when it
began. There was a moment when the clock
of time began to run, but how was this monumental clock fashioned and wound
up? What specific event finally pushed
in that stem, releasing the hands to begin the countdown? Whether the universe began in an explosion,
or was spread out in a moment by the creative force of God, time most certainly
began suddenly. What foolishness asks us
to believe that this moment could arise, and not question the mechanisms that
could possibly lead to it? What put the
Bang in the Big Bang shabang, shabang?
There can be no effect without
a cause. This is absolute. Regardless of what happened after that
moment, that moment itself must have a cause.
Logic tells us that our options are limited by the laws of physics, yet
cosmologists tell us that prior to the specific moment of the Big Bang, the
laws of physics broke down. But they
recognize that the laws of physics broke down because there is no explanation
for the Big Bang within the laws of physics. Hawking writes on page 138 of his book:
In
order to predict how the universe should have started off, one needs laws that
hold at the beginning of time . . . All the known laws of science would break
down at such a point. One might suppose
that there were new laws that held at singularities . . . and we would have no
guide from observations as to what those laws might be.
Their own science betrays them. An explanation of the naturalistic cause for
the universe should not have to take the natural laws out of it. This is why even a handful of evolutionary
cosmologists and physicists, including Stephen Hawking, concede that God could
be the most reasonable explanation at least for the cause of the Big Bang. Most scientists simply avoid the issue,
despite the poor evidence for their theories.
There is no greater effect than the universe. To just believe, without any support, that
this complex universe simply somehow must have happened, is to treat the
evidence with complete dishonesty, and in effect relinquish to the only other
explanation, that God had done it.
If cosmologists are willing to concede a
breakdown in their own treasured laws of physics to explain the singularity,
then the name of that breakdown is God, the only factor that can exist outside
the laws. In fact, anything that occurs outside
the laws of science is by definition a miraculous event, proving that Creation is
the best explanation. This is
ironic. Initially most evolutionists
vehemently pursued science in order to rationalize a lack of faith in God, yet
they disregard indications that science cannot help them. Once God becomes the best explanation for the
Big Bang, there is no need to cling to the rest of the theory.
There are other scientific concepts that cause
problems for the Big Bang theory. For
example, according to Theory of Relativity predictions, space could not exist
before the Big Bang expansion, which means that matter and space would have
necessarily expanded together after the explosion. However, the principles of Thermodynamics
suggest that any particles of matter to re-emerge from the explosion would
never cool down since the overall mean temperature of the blast would
necessarily be hot. The entire universe
would consist of this pocket of space and matter created by the explosion, and
it would only expand as far as was necessary to contain it, like a hot bag of
microwave popcorn.
In this scenario, there is no pre-existing
colder space to affect the temperature of the debris. Thus there would be no cooling influence
imposed on the pocket, which would be necessary for matter to emerge. Cooling is the result of the loss of a higher
energy state, but this spent energy needs to be used on something. If the bag full of popcorn, with the
corresponding hot air inside, is placed in the freezer, both the popcorn and
the air will cool. But if that same hot
bag is placed in an oven of the same temperature, the heat in the bag will not
be lost.
If everything in the explosion is the same
temperature, just like the tepid room, all the energy will settle down to that
temperature. What would cool down a hot
universe where all the space and matter expanded and heated up together? However, since evolutionists stand by the
necessary prediction that the particles would cool down at all, then they are
conceding that entropy (time and destruction) would have already been in
operation, which would preempt any natural increase in complexity. No matter how the laws of physics are
applied, the universe cannot result from the Big Bang.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
Another anomaly begins with a simple issue. Physics is unable to explain the earth’s
capturing of the moon in its orbit. This
mystery, though, is the same problem applied thousands of times throughout the
formation of the universe. The entire universe is based
on a system of circular motion. All the
satellites, planets, and galaxies move in circuits and all interstellar matter
was supposedly formed by circular motion binding the atoms together. Even atoms themselves get their
characteristics from orbiting electrons. Not
only is matter linked by these reliable, circular motions, but matter is also
linked by other reliable forces that affect everything in the universe.
Three of these four fundamental forces known to
exist are the weak force of gravity, the stronger electromagnetic force, and
nuclear force, the strongest. One
governs large bodies, like planets, and the other two govern atomic structure
and interaction. The last, which we will
not discuss, is the weak nuclear force, which deals with atomic decay, and
hence entropy is recognized as a fundamental force in the universe. Gravity, electromagnetic and nuclear forces
have relatively predictable effects on matter, and we need to consider their
impact on Big Bang scenarios. There are also three
significant physical laws that govern the behavior of matter: angular momentum
and the first and second laws of motion, which deal with concepts of inertia. When we take into account these three forces
and these three laws of motion, we see a conflict with Big Bang scenarios
not only for rotational bodies such as satellites, planets and solar systems in
galaxies, but for the forces that supposedly united the very atoms together
that form matter.
There are numerous theories about how our solar
system formed. Speculation is the rule
concerning how particles reunited after the Big Bang to form matter. According to Hawking, the particles that
emerged from the Big Bang after photons, electrons and neutrinos, were protons
and neutrons. When he states this,
then he concedes that protons and neutrons were already in existence in the
singularity. It sounds like these
particles were formed as a result of the Big Bang, but this is not possible
because atoms would be necessary to cause the Big Bang initially. These particles, again, could only be a remnant from the
original atomic structure prior to the Big Bang.
We know that the entire atomic structure would
have been necessary to produce the Big Bang since the unique arrangement of the
delicate particles that comprise atoms could not exist outside the atom and
still produce the necessary energy reaction for the Big Bang. Protons are believed to be made up of three
specific quarks, and have a positive charge, and neutrons are made up of three
other specific quarks, and have a neutral charge. These are the requirements to form the most
powerful force in existence of nuclear attraction. Neutrons are unstable, and begin to decay outside of atomic structure in
about 15 minutes, which makes the survival of innumerable neutrons after such a
blast, utterly mind-boggling. Because
Hawking has implied that the Big Bang created these particles, it is not
necessary for him to explain the complexity or origin of their structures.
Hawking’s ability to skip over issues concerning
the difficult formation of neutrons and protons from even lighter material,
aids him by overstepping the need to explain this mysterious and powerful
attraction of nuclear force. Obviously
nuclear forces exist if neutrons and protons exist. And since they hold the universe together,
they should require a bit of explanation.
The question, again, is that if neutrons and protons already existed,
then what was the Big Bang for? Since
Hawking’s assertion about neutrons and
protons reveals that most certainly atomic structure existed, then once again,
the Big Bang does not really attempt to explain anything more than a beginning
to the universal clock, and perhaps the configuration of the universe, because
clearly all matter would have already existed if atomic structure existed.
According to Hawking, during the next stage
after the protons and neutrons appeared, they supposedly began to collect and
bond, forming heavy hydrogen atoms, or deuterium (an uncommon atom today). In addition to deuterium, small amounts of
lithium and beryllium are also assumed to have formed, as well as the more
abundant elements of helium and simple hydrogen. Deuterium is likely named because of its
usefulness over simple hydrogen in creating reactions and interactions, as well
as providing better material for the creation of other elements.
In reality this hydrogen isotope is much rarer than simple
hydrogen, and less likely to
form. The majority of the universe appears to be
composed of hydrogen (since most of what we see is stars), so it is prudent for
scientists to determine that it, in any isotope, is most likely to form
first. The mystery is how, after the
particles scattered and separated in all directions throughout the entire
visible universe, the majority of the particles actually happened to form
hydrogen in such abundance, as if they were guided by a universal law. What compelled them to form anything, let
alone form it everywhere?
Hawking believes that at this point nothing more
happened but continued expansion of the gases for millions of years. This continued expansion conflicts with his
proposal that cooling and collecting had just occurred in order to form these
atomic bonds and gases, all the while the particulate spray was still zipping
through space. Though protons and neutrons are powerfully attractive,
this is an extremely short range attraction.
These particles, flying through space even as much as inches apart will
not feel the force strong enough to pull them out of the inertia of their
forward projections, in order to unite them.
If we threw two balls
parallel to each other, they would not leave their individual paths and
suddenly be drawn together, unless their paths were initially set to collide.
Having considered the difficulties with a
central gravitational point, it is scientifically unjustified to assume that
the particles did manage to slow and collect while still
expanding. According to
There would have to be both an incredibly
powerful central gravitational point to explain the slowing of the particles
enough to bring them together, while at the same time expansion continued at
such a “critical rate” (as Hawking puts it) to form the furthest stars in the
universe. Hawking can apply only this
inexplicable gravity as the means of creating this phenomenon. Strangely, though, in his book A Brief
History of Time, he is discussing the topic of a Grand Unified Theory (the
Sorcerer’s Stone that scientists dream about for uniting the four fundamental
forces), when he addresses the topic of gravity. Here he contradicts his own predictions about
the power that gravity could have on these expanding particles. On page 81 he writes,
Grand unified theories do not include the force
of gravity. This does not matter too
much, because gravity is such a weak force that its effects can usually be
neglected when we are dealing with elementary particles or atoms.
The need
to construct events in favor of the Big Bang causes even Hawking to apply his
knowledge of the forces improperly, and rely on gravity as the means of slowing
expanding particles. If we want to know
realistically what the effects of such a Big Bang would have been like, rather
than speculating on the behavior of atomic particles after the explosion, it
might help to visualize the behavior of matter in a more familiar illustration,
while applying the same laws of physics.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
For example, let’s imagine a comparable
situation that might help predict the behavior of particles in such an
explosion. Picture a tightly compressed
ball of sand particles in the middle of space, and blow it up. We will disregard the issue of whether or not
space pre-existed the Big Bang to simplify the factors. This scenario assumes, logically, that the
epicenter of the explosion cannot provide sufficient gravity to affect the
particles on the outer reaches of space in order to slow them down or change
their momentum. Therefore, imagine that
when the sand particles are exploded, there is no gravity at all to affect the
sand, and space goes on forever.
Once the explosion sets the grains of sand into
motion, that little point of ignition would quickly grow to a sphere of
expanding grains. As time passes, and
the sphere expands, each grain is traveling at the same speed it began, and the
space in between the grains is also expanding exponentially. Since these particles would be radiating ever
further apart as they projected outward, the opportunity for their paths to cross
decreases the further away they get from the center. Therefore, the further the expansion spreads,
the further apart the grains of sand would be from each other. They would not slow down, and they would not
be able to group together. Atomic particles must obey these same laws of motion, only to a
more precise scale.
Scientists have a special field of study called
quantum physics because the factors that influence the behavior of atomic
particles are so numerous that they are difficult to predict. These factors, however, are generally in the
form of interaction with other particles.
Under the scenario of the Big Bang, there would be no unaccounted
factors to hinder this kind of straight line movement of particles away from
the point of ignition. There would be no
other atoms in space to collide with, and no other pre-existing forces to act
on the expanding atoms.
Like a bloom of fireworks that are unhindered by
gravity, the particles ought to radiate outward, and never meet again. Even a shotgun blast
scatters the shot further apart the further it goes, although they are aimed in
the same direction. Instead of recognizing
these contradictions, scientists impose movements and behaviors on the
particles without any principles of motion or quantum physics for support. There is no justification for these
deviations, and yet there would be no other way to account for all the matter
in the universe if particles do not run into each other and combine after the
Big Bang.
Moving on to the next phase, Hawking asserts
that as the expanding material continued to gradually slow, denser regions that
have already collected would start collapsing.
He believes that the gravity of the outer matter might start pockets of
dense material rotating. This is also
inexplicable within the laws of physics.
First, the particles would have to be affected by gravity to slow down,
then they would completely change their direction and begin wondrously
swirling—while still expanding away from the explosion.
Despite the fact that all their momentum would be
to go in a straight line, evolutionists believe these particles, in thousands of pockets
throughout the entire universe, could break out of inertia into rotational
motions with no more than the gravity of other loosely grouped particles to
draw them together. These particles
would even have to loop back on themselves toward the original point of explosion,
and then pull away from this supposedly immensely powerful gravity as they made
their circular motions in addition to continued expansion. So now they are rotating and
flying outward like the Giant Octopus ride at the fair.
This scenario is so difficult because these
particles would have been hurled into space from a massive explosion, then the
gravity of the epicenter of the explosion itself would slow the particles down,
but then the gravity of the nearby particles overrides all of that and causes
the particles to swirl and fight the momentum of all the other previous
energies. It is not possible, however,
for the gravity of the nearby particles to be stronger than the inertia that
propelled them in a straight line to begin with, causing the rotating
motions.
Could we suppose that those grains of sand would
break into swirling and rotating motions while expanding this way? Moreover, gravity is dependent on mass
for the effect of its force, and cannot justify all
the changes in motion dictated by this scenario. Both the laws of angular momentum
and the laws of motion
prevent the collection of particles into swirling pockets as the result of an
explosion from a single point.
No matter how it is phrased, particles moving
together, projected in a straight line, cannot be the cause of their own
change in direction. The law of angular momentum
states that the amount of energy required to break a body out of rotation is
the same amount of energy that was required to act on that body to send it into
rotation (the inverse being true as well). The
gravity of minute atomic particles is not stronger than inertia from an
explosion. If the gravity of particles
were that powerful, it would have taken effect earlier when they were closer
together, not when they were the furthest apart, and insufficient to override
the inertia of a straight line projection.
If the gravity of these
particles were that powerful, they could never have been separated in the
explosion to begin with.
It is supposed that once these particles began
to swirl faster, they became clouds of swirling atoms, which began to condense
and increase the center of gravity. This
self-induced gravity would have to override the prevailing repulsion between gas atoms, drawing them even
closer together, as well as the inertia of the explosion, and the pull of the
tremendous gravity that slowed them down. Therefore, of all these considerably
well-established factors, scientists contend that it would be the influence of
the particles’ miniscule gravity that prevailed.
The fact is, though, that even gravity as powerful as
the earth’s is not sufficient to keep gases close to each other, and exerts
just enough pull to keep them in the earth’s atmosphere. Nothing as massive as the earth could have
formed yet. After all the flying and
free will that these atoms apparently had, spontaneously drawing closer is
contrary to their nature, and not permitted by the laws of physics. Despite the problems with this proposition,
all scenarios about the formation of the galaxies depend on the universal
pervasiveness of this impossible and unnatural phenomenon.
Most theories say that each of the stars was
formed when these swirling hydrogen molecules became tightly condensed due to
this attraction of their own gravity. As
the intensity increased, fusion might have spontaneously ignited. The Big Bang would have been a very wasteful expenditure of
energy simply because the heat that would have been helpful in starting stars
would have been used on nothing when they cooled in order for matter to
re-emerge. These atoms would have needed
to essentially re-invent fire in order to jump start heat again in the universe
in the form of stars. So atoms would have started hot, grown cold, and then
they mysteriously drew together in patches throughout the universe so
compellingly that fusion ignited in thousands of separate little fires.
Again, the extreme gravity and heat required to
form a star defies this loose confederation of swirling atoms coming together
forcefully enough to trigger the reaction.
The natural repulsion of the
electromagnetic force keeps gas atoms apart if they are
not under pressure, thus negating any possible increases in energy. The more common bonds of oxidation and weak
covalent bonds, which can naturally occur between gasses under stable
circumstances, cannot generate the powerful nuclear energy of stars.
Fusion reactions require incredible heat and
gravity for the nuclei to smash into each other, and fuse against their
powerfully repelling forces. Despite the fact that heat drives gases further
apart, these atoms are supposed
to have heated and condensed to such extremes as to spontaneously form these innumerable
suns through fusion. Paradoxically, the atoms have to be drawn together by
gravity before there is enough mass to create the gravity, and they have to be
hot (highly energetic) before they can become really hot (create fusion). This fluke would miraculously have to occur
independently thousands of times, without any prescribed plan to do so,
throughout the furthest stretches of universe.
Evolution cosmologists believe that if they can
explain how the sun works now, that they can explain how the sun originally
formed. But knowing how it works now
does not explain how it came into being.
We can study a light bulb, and understand that the delicate, glass
enclosed filament, sealed in a vacuum, and powered by electricity is how it
burns, but this does not explain its origins.
It was made in a factory, and did not make itself. We know that there are no number of natural
circumstances that could ever align to create a working light bulb without
ingenuity. This would be an absurd
proposition. Yet light bulbs are simple
compared to a sun. We can make a light
bulb.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
At this point, explanations vary as to how our
solar system formed. Some scientists
believe that our solar system began when the gases flying through space started
to swirl like a disk, and then condense so that the center became the sun, and
the remaining debris made the planets and their satellites. However, you can’t really get any of the
heavier elements needed for the planets and such just from the gases, so it is
really necessary to throw in some kind of baking process.
Therefore, some believe that this swirling gas
only produced the sun, while the planets and other bodies formed from heavier
matter created and discarded from the sun under mysterious, element-generating
pressure-cooking scenarios. Another
theory proposes that once the sun formed, it became a solar nebula, which
collapsed, resulting in the discarded debris, but now you have to start the sun
over again at the center just after the center was this big disaster, and now
you blew up all the good stuff that made the gravity.
Each theory has its own problems, and that is
why evolutionists have toyed with so many.
The major difficulty with all of them is the whimsical use of gravity,
and complex timing of when the gasses are initially drawn together, when the
gases bake into the heavy elements, when they are cast off, and when they come
into orbit again and at such a far reaching distance from the sun. And of course when and how many times there
is a sun for them to orbit.
Every scenario, must begin with the gasses (and
then later, the debris) that are expanding out from the Big Bang, and somehow
cause them to begin swirling and condensing contrary to the expansion. Then at whatever point they are baked into
heavier elements and discarded from the sun, they must break the gravity of the
sun, and yet stay in its orbit no matter how far away the debris travels. Then, in order for each planet to form, each
pile of debris must start swirling individually, which miraculously causes
debris to get closer to, and then further from the sun as it swirls. Then on top of that, there would be swirling
debris around most of the planets in order to create all those moons.
What a strange concept it is to circumvent the
laws of physics in order to create any of these scenarios. Imagine gravity working so capriciously. Imagine things flying off of the sun, and
then orbiting it. We certainly have
never seen anything fly off a planet. We
put a lot of money into projecting bits of metal into space, and it is not easy
with that gravity thing. I am not sure
what principle would allow the gravity of the proto-sun to be so strong as to
induce fusion, and still let matter fly off of it, and still get captured into
orbit no matter how far it was thrust away.
Gravity either holds onto
something, or it lets it go.
Once the sun and the debris are established,
regardless of the scenario, these swirling clouds would have to unite against
the general flow of the greater rotation around the sun. These motions defy the laws of angular momentum as well as the
first and second laws of motion, and every observation of gravity. We have another one of those carnival “octopus” rides
developing. There’s the larger circular
motion of the whole ride, while each arm of the octopus has four little
carriages swirling on the end. Those
rides are so exciting because of angular momentum, and the inertia that presses
your body against the edge of the carriage.
It wants to fly out.
Let’s
not forget that the universe is expanding at a “critical rate.” So we must now take the octopus ride, and put
it on a track hurling in a straight line then start the ride swirling, and the
little arms whirling as they are swirling, and then put several extended arms
off of each arm with more things swirling and whirling around each of
them.
Some indescribable and unknowable force would be required to
bring the clouds of matter into such a complex array of motions. This is what evolutionists tell us happened on
accident. And not just to the moons, and
the planets, and our sun and our solar system, and to all the stars across the
universe, but to each atom, and molecule, and nebula cloud. Apparently, all
these particles had been heading in a straight line away from the explosion
when, absurdly all over the universe, everything changed momentum and started
moving in a ballet of circles, because of nothing more than the gravitational
influence of their little traveling companions.
This is a fantasy not reflected in the laws of
physics. What might help this scenario
is if scientists could next elicit the help of mysterious whirlwinds in uniting
the wayward matter. Oh, perhaps this is
where the Plasma Universe theory could jump in.
In reality, our observations of the universe reveal the types of laws
that maintain the status quo, but not how such a configuration came to be. The universe would have to break its own laws
in order to invent itself. This is
powerful evidence for the only other knowable option—that God had designed such
intricacies the way a watchmaker fashions the precise mechanisms of
timekeeping.
The miracle of the simple hydrogen atom is
unsurpassed outside of evolutionist models.
From this primitive vapor, evolutionists believe that every element from
gas to heavy metals was eventually produced, and all the planets and satellites
were born. This is why most scenarios
offered today rely on some form of sun-baked process to produce the spectrum of
elements. In some fashion, all matter
needs to have gone through this process, no matter how far removed. Some debris is from the sun, some debris was
discarded from another sun, then collided with other debris, or broke up or
united. Regardless of the combination,
every hypothesis encounters the same problems with the laws of motion.
Let’s consider, for example, how the moon could
have come into orbit around the earth.
If our moon had formed, as some propose, from a cloud of loose debris
orbiting the earth, what force united the debris as it orbited loosely? It doesn’t look like Saturn’s debris is
uniting. It is just orbiting, all
stretched out around the planet. Take
the time to try and envision how planets or moons formed from clouds of newly
created debris, somehow drawing together and congealing within these self
imposed circuits against the flow of their greater orbits around the sun or
planet. How would they be drawn together
while still orbiting, and then why would they start in their own little rotation
while still in orbit?
Scientists are divided on how the principle that
brought the moon into the earth’s orbit operated. The alternative is that the earth actually
captured the moon after it had already formed (probably from swirling debris
somewhere else) and drew it into its faithful orbit. If this is so, we must consider that whatever
direction the moon was traveling in at the time, some force had to send it
sailing around the earth so powerfully that it has never stopped. Gravity may keep the moon in orbit, but it is considered a weak
force, incapable of breaking the inertia of this large, passing body, and
capturing it into its orbit.
As stated earlier, some pervading, unobserved principle
would have had to operate in the past to account for all the planets around the
sun, and all the satellites around the planets, and the solar system, which
circulates around our galaxy. All these
objects would have to be individually formed and each diverted into orbit from
whatever courses they were on, into their unique, miniature dances all over the
solar system. Cosmological explanations
for this phenomenon in bodies within our solar system do not progress much
beyond an accidental precision of motion, or the chaos of collision.
Some theories speculate that the earth acquired
the moon through a massive collision. In
this scenario, a hunk of the earth was knocked off, or a hunk was flying
through space when it got knocked by another hunk into its now dedicated
orbit. These theories are absurd when
applied to all the bodies now so precisely in motion throughout the solar
system, and ignore the problems of angular momentum and inertia. There are so many satellites, all rotating in
different fashions, and so many unique planets tenuously tethered to one star,
that it defies the tested laws of physics, our own observations, and even a
uniform theoretical explanation.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
Though many of the nine (or eight) planets have
similarities in motion, (all orbit the sun in the same direction) they do not all share the
same motions within their orbits. Venus tilts at 178 degrees
on its axis, and has a retrograde rotation, which is in the opposite direction
of its motion around the sun. Mercury
has an extremely fast orbit, of 88 days, but takes 59 earth days to rotate,
making one Mercury day last 176 earth days.
Uranus tilts at 98 degrees on its axis, causing
it to rotate on its side. Astonishingly,
all of its 17 satellites orbit the planet around its axis perpendicular to
their collective orbit around the sun—two of which are nearly the size of Pluto
and hundreds of thousands of miles closer to the sun, raising questions about
the sun’s lack of gravitational affect on these satellites when they first
began to orbit so uniquely. One of
These anomalies discredit any theory that could
explain all of these factors. It is a
complete mystery how flying particles expanding from the Big Bang epicenter
could have habituated to the unique clockwork of our solar system through
purely naturalistic means within the laws of physics. The solar system is full of rotating bodies
around rotating bodies. There are more than 60 known
satellites. All of them would have formed from debris
flying through space in some form, and all of them required forces greater than
gravity to take them out of the inertia that they were in, and bring them into
their dedicated orbits.
The question of linear and angular momentum is
crucial, because any moving body evidently would have had the momentum to go
straight. Gravity is not powerful
enough to
catch these bodies on the fly and redirect the momentum to go in a straight
line into a circular orbit, while
still keeping the
perfect distance to keep them from colliding with the
planet. Scientists claim vehemently to
know the facts of the evolution of the universe, but they still all manage to
agree very little on the past because they cannot reconcile the theory with the
information we have of the present. The
tenuous relationships among the bodies of our solar system demonstrate the
delicate and precise balance of the forces in the universe.
It may be clear how the moons and planets and
stars behave at this time within their present states, but it is
incomprehensible how all the known forces worked together to bring it all about
so perfectly as a result of the Big Bang.
Remarkably, it is the steadfast reliability of these providentially
swirling bodies that keeps the universe together. If the Big Bang really happened, then it was
certainly fortuitous that bodies began orbiting other bodies (including the
very electrons around nuclei to make atoms), otherwise everything would have
flown away long ago, and there would be no universe or solar system, or earth,
or moon, or you and I to ask questions about how they started swirling like
that.
This theory requires us to suspend reality and
accept that happenstance resulted in the stars, with the planets and satellites
all performing such reliable motions.
From chaos, the unscripted complexity of all the elements of matter
independently formed from the simplest atoms inn the same manner throughout the
furthest reaches of the universe. What
possible unifying force could affect the entire universe to cause all this
chaos to fall into such reliable features and fundamental forces? Evolutionists offer no evidence that the work
of coincidence and chaos is the most likely cause of these common
features of heat and motion of such remarkable complexity throughout the
observable universe.
There is in fact nothing to prove that any of
this did happen, or even could happen in any detail through any naturalistic
means, as these theories contradict all known scientific laws and
principles. There are dozens of
different theories in this “fact” of the evolution of the universe, and all of
them give very convincing arguments, selecting just the right concepts of
science to support them, but they do not even hold up in light of true science. These theories do not offer proof of their
validity, and they manage to conflict with each other, as well. The cosmological theories about the formation
of the universe are vastly divergent, with little bits of agreed upon philosophies
to link them together contrary to the evidence of the laws of nature.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
In truth, even the bits of theory presented here
on behalf of Stephen Hawking have been distilled for consumption, because in
trying to convince the reader of the truth of naturalistic causes for the universe,
he has managed to take numerous side roads.
As stated earlier, in his book A Brief History of Time, he
concedes that whatever brought about the Big Bang might very well have been
God. Some people find this as a way of
endearing those of faith to the theory, but Hawking’s unrelenting confidence in
his naturalistic assumptions about the evolution of the universe and all life
is only backed by baseless insistence and morsels of science, vaguely
formulized by authoritative storytelling.
In short, Hawking savors the minutia of his
scientific knowledge, on which he leapfrogs over the details of questionable
issues. In his book, he makes it clear
that if the Big Bang theory is going to work, there are many issues that need
to be answered because they are inconsistent with the laws of science. Despite this, his confidence is in a purely
naturalistic explanation is not shaken.
Instead, he conveniently invokes God on whom he foists these problems,
rather than rejecting the foundations of a naturalistic theory. On pages 126-127, he writes concerning the
conflict between the Big Bang and the laws of physics:
These
laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since
left the universe to evolve according to them and does not intervene in
it. But how did he choose the initial
state or configuration of the universe? . . .
One possible answer is to say that God chose the initial configuration
of the universe for reasons we cannot hope to understand. . . but if he had
started it off in such an incomprehensible way, why did he choose to let it
evolve according to laws that we could understand? . . . there ought to be one
principle that picks out one initial state, and hence one model to represent
our universe. . . It is difficult to see how such chaotic initial conditions
could have given rise to a universe that is so smooth and regular on a large
scale as ours today.
Hawking not only admits that the Big Bang conflicts
with the laws of science, but blames God that He induced the Big Bang, which he
believes led to evolution, in a manner contrary to these laws that He
created. Additionally, Hawking reveals
his frustration that the Big Bang did not result in some universal law for the
behavior of matter (or Grand Unified Theory), rather than the four distinct
fundamental forces, and this doesn’t make sense to him. Perhaps it doesn’t make sense because perhaps
the entire Big Bang theory is wrong.
Perhaps there is no Grand Unified Theory because God wanted to separate
the types of forces for different purposes.
This is like asking why there is earth, wind, fire, and water.
Perhaps the beginning of the
universe is not like the existence of the universe because it was
not self-generated, and the laws were created by God when the universe was
formed. If one is willing to appeal to
God to set it in motion, why would it be necessary to suppose that any of the
rest of it must evolve by itself? There
are so many problems with the idea that the universe created itself, yet it is
inconceivable to such scientists, despite the evidence of all known laws of the
universe, that a naturalistic cause for the universe is not possible. God is only convenient for Hawking when there
is no other explanation.
Hawking seems to have no further use for God
then as a solution for Big Bang issues, and it is a sign of what desperate
straits naturalistic theories are in that he factors in God at all. He would certainly prefer to find a way
around Him, and refuses to give the god he invoked any credit for the obvious
creativity of design. The whole visible
universe operates in the same orderly manner, which is a problem for those who
hold faith in such chaotic beginnings. On page 128 of his book, Hawking equates
the lack of chaos in the observable part of our universe (which is governed by
observable laws), as a chance occurrence like
.
. . the well known horde of monkeys hammering away on typewriters. . . very
occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.
It would be interesting to see such a miraculous
accident because though the comment is made in jest, it is nonetheless
untrue. These monkeys are neither
well-known, nor do they exist, and what he proposes is statistically
impossible. Although charmingly
humorous, his use of such an absurd comparison reveals the enticing quality of
his un-scientific arguments. As if he
has some supernatural knowledge, Hawking is able to gage exactly the extent of
the role that God played, and precisely no more. According to Stephen Hawking not only is
everything that he says true, but he admits that it is true despite the odds
against the scientific likelihood of it, and that this is what is so remarkably
convincing to him.
In order to present Hawking’s complete theory of
the origin of the universe effectively, one would have to omit a great deal of
rambling and philosophizing. To read his
book, A Brief History of Time, is to hear him present scenario after
scenario, and then dispute them. It is a
lot like overhearing him argue with himself, and the substance one goes away
with is as satisfying as a plate of rice cakes.
There are no certain scientific answers in Hawking’s theories for the
origin of the universe.
To be honest, he has argued that there might not
have even been a point of singularity when the universe began. He still holds to the theories as presented
here (unless he has changed his mind again), but the problems with every theory
are so inexplicable within the observed laws of science, he has to go outside
of known science into bizarre theories that frankly would land a regular person
in the hospital. This aspect of a
singularity is troublesome because scientists understand the problems that a
beginning of time engenders. Thus
Hawking believes it is possible that time itself is an illusion created by our
context, but that perhaps in reality time and space is continuous, like the
surface of a sphere, with no beginning and no end.
It is too tedious to entertain here, but since
all origin theories essentially must pass muster with this man, one should have
a taste of his idea. The problems he
must deal with are that, aside from all the other laws of physics that the Big
Bang is allowed to break, the essential laws of science cannot offer us any
understanding of the cause, contents, forces and effect of the
singularity. As mentioned earlier, even
if we accept what the Big Bang did, how can we gloss over what
would have come before? If,
however, the singularity happened in a universe where there was no beginning,
then anything could go.
Though the singularity is still required for a
naturalistic origin because Einstein’s theory predicts it, all the other laws
of science would be flexible if we didn’t have to worry about when and where
that moment happened (though I am not sure why they believe this is so, but it
makes them happy). Hawking thus
describes the usefulness of having this time/space continuum that has no
boundary, like the fore mentioned sphere.
In his book, page 141, he explains a theory in
which we can view time the same way that we view directions on a compass. Instead of North, South, East and West, time
would be forward and backward, and to any point between. He proposes that we just don’t experience
this from our perspective. He says that
this theory:
.
. .has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to
space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the
boundary. There would be no
singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of
space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the
boundary conditions for space-time. One
could say ‘The boundary conditions of the universe is that it has no
boundary.’ The universe would be
completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.
While we are sucked so high into these oxygen
depraved altitudes of science fiction philosophy that it actually sounds
scientific, he is gracious to add a disclaimer:
I’d
like to emphasize that this idea that time and space should be finite ‘without
boundary’ is just a proposal: it cannot be deduced from some other scientific
principle
The hopes of a naturalistic explanation for the
universe rest on the admission of this one statement, because science has no
better offer than this. It should
frighten us all that one of the most respected physicists to ever live, has to go
outside science to make the Big Bang work, and he is not even sure it does.
Hawking readily admits that the second law of
thermodynamics prohibits the Big Bang.
He recognizes that there is no scientific explanation for the existence
of the singularity. He admits that there
is no reason why the universe is so big, and (according to the theory) why it
is still expanding, yet it hadn’t expanded too much to eliminate the formation
and unification of matter. He knows that
there is no sound explanation for heat (stars) to exist so uniformly throughout
the universe, or how anomalies like orbiting planets and moons could really
materialize from such an explosion. This
is why he has presented such a bizarre theory that throws the laws of science
out the window.
It ought to be quite enlightening that Stephen
Hawking, the brilliant physicist, has put all this time (no pun intended) and
effort into studying a science that he would use to come full circle and
propose a very old, and wholly unscientific idea. That the universe just “is.” We really don’t need to bother with the Big
Bang and singularities, and all those fancy theories if we are just going to
say that the universe simply exists.
That is very unscientific. The
entire basis of the rest of evolution is founded not simply on the feasibility
of Big Bang scenarios, but the claim that it is a scientifically established fact. If this is persuasive science, then nothing
will ever make any sense. We don’t have
to be geniuses to observe the simple everyday things in life that tell us that
these theories are not possible. Time
passes, the universe is marvelous, and something cannot come from nothing.
The Bible says in Romans 1:18-22,
that men hold the truth that they have, deceitfully:
Because
the things that might be known about God are revealed to them, for God has
shown it to them. For the invisible
things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, and understood
by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they
are without excuse: because when they knew about God, they glorified Him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their foolish imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools. . .
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
The New Kink :
There is a new mathematical theory
that should be thrown out there in case the reader has heard of it and wonders
if it will solve the problems of the origins of the universe. Naturally it does not. There is a new buzz around town about
“strings.” Though it is the most flawed
theory so far, it will likely be the one that evolutionists eventually rely
on. This theory proposes that the
smallest assumed particles in existence are not the quarks that make up the
parts of an atom, but that they are either loose ended, or close looped,
vibrating strings that cement these quarks.
It is a funny little idea that theorists
conveniently admit they will never be able to prove, or disprove, because
“strings” would be too small and impossible to substantiate (they are still not
even positive about quarks).
Creationists have no problem with the existence of even smaller
particles—God is an infinite God. He can
create infinitely large (like the universe) and infinitely small. The difficulty is in the reasoning for the
existence of these particles, and the magical properties that they are
allotted.
The argument is that if atoms are made
up of these vibrating strings, then nothing is as it seems. This theory mathematically provides for not
just the three dimensions that we experience, but possibly 9 or 10 or
more. They argue that if the “strings”
within quarks can transmit vibrations in a random and unpredictable manner,
then the atoms that make up matter are also subject to the effects of these
undetected vibrations. To scientists,
this means that what we observe is not necessarily what is real, and that we
only think there are predictable laws for matter, but we are
mistaken. We think we know about time
and space and matter, but “strings” make it mathematically possible for time
not to really be forward moving. Space
and matter would not be what we experience, but there could be countless
parallel universes and dozens of time dimensions that we are not aware of.
One offshoot of this theory also supposes that
if the strings are close looped, when they sweep through the space of their
quarks, they are creating a rip in the time/space continuum, allowing the free
movement of time and matter through these parallel universes and dimensions. Ironically, this is a literal loophole
through the laws of physics. One may find it difficult to envision how a hole
created by a miniscule particle within atoms, could allow the entire
atom to slip through to another dimension, let alone the entire object of
matter that the atoms comprise. That’s
worse than trying to get a sponge through its own pore. But never mind that logic, they have it all
worked out somehow.
The most telling aspect of this mathematical
theory is why it was devised. Physicists
seem to like order—a lot. Therefore,
they would like to solve the dilemma of how to unify the four laws of
matter—gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the
weak nuclear force. It drives them nuts
that these forces seem to exist in perfect harmony, but independently. This implies a Creator had set up these laws,
and they do not like that. These
physicists are tricky to figure out though, because while they do not like the
disorder of having four independent fundamental laws, they also do not like the
ORDER and perfection of everything in the universe and how it is blatantly and
infinitesimally geared toward supporting life on earth (the anthropic
principle). That drives them nuts too,
because, again, this surely points to a Creator. Having a theory that UNIFIES the four
fundamental laws, AND throws chaos into the universe would really take care of
these irritations for them.
But most of all, what it really comes back to is
that the Big Bang theory breaks all the laws of science. Primarily, there is no principle that allows
the “singularity” to form or to have a beginning without a rational
explanation. Since nothing more
legitimate has been proposed that can replace the Big Bang theory,
evolutionists must apply a patch that allows chaos to reign, despite the lack
of evidence to support it. Therefore
they have devised this new magi, strings, although no one has ever seen them,
and there is absolutely no proof that they exist.
Physicists are still working on the concept, and
therefore it changes daily. The latest
assertion of strings, and how it could help evolutionists out of the bind of
reality, came in a Special Edition of Scientific American: A
Matter of Time. The article on
strings was entitled “The Myth of the Beginning of Time,” written by Gabriele
Vaneziano. This newest version adds
loose ended strings to the close looped strings in order to carry out the
necessary miracles, and remarkably, they are one dimensional—an unfathomable
feat.
According to the theory, these strings rule the
universe through their quirky, unpredictable properties, and apparently help
physicists out of the dilemma of explaining the beginning of time. They say there was none. There you go; now that that is out of the
way, naturalism can roll happily along. Once
again, we have another, and much more complex explanation of how perhaps time
never began. Getting rid of time seems
to be the key so that we don’t have to deal with explaining what actually came
before time began that ultimately produced the effect of the universe. This new strings theory asserts that by not
having a beginning of time at the Big Bang, it is possible to pronounce the
effect created by the Big Bang as just one expression of a recurring cycle in the
universe.
Here is how it works, as described in
illustrated stages beginning on page 77:
The universe has existed forever. In the distant past it was nearly empty. Forces such as gravitational were inherently
weak. The forces gradually strengthened,
so matter began to clump. In some regions,
it grew so dense that a black hole formed. Space inside the hole expanded at an
accelerating rate. Matter inside was cut
off from matter outside. Inside the
hole, matter fell toward the middle and increased in density until reaching the
limit imposed by the string theory. When
matter reached the maximum allowed density, quantum effects caused it to
rebound in a big bang. Outside, other
holes began to form—each, in effect, a distant universe.
So what this means is that our universe inflates
and contracts cyclically, but leaves the same evidence as if it inflated only
once. This way, physicists do not have
to betray all their investment in the perceived “Red Shift” that so convinced
them of the Big Bang to begin with. This
power of strings is evidently quite impressive to physicists, and they bow down
to worship it for seeming to solve all of their scientific distresses, as seen
on page 79:
All
of the magic properties of strings point to one direction: strings abhor infinity. They cannot collapse to an infinitesimal
point, so they avoid the paradoxes that collapse entails. . . But instead of
going all the way to infinity, (at the traditional big bang singularity) it
eventually hits a maximum and shrinks once more. . . In the standard theory,
acceleration occurs after the big bang because of an ad hoc inflation
field. In the pre-big bang scenario, it
occurs before the bang as a natural outcome of the novel symmetries of the
String Theory. According to the
scenario, the pre-bang universe was almost a perfect mirror of the post-bang
one.
Now that this physics section has discussed in
depth all the conflicts of a naturalistic cause for the universe, there are
certain details that should stand out at this juncture about the complex theory
of strings.
The universe is eternal
Space is eternal, and
infinite, but can be compartmentalized
There was no source for
matter
Matter is eternal
More matter somehow
resulted from this unnecessarily complicated scenario
The laws and fundamental forces
that dictate the universe now, didn’t work so good in the past
But they got better &
stronger
Though weak, these forces
gathered all available matter and compressed it into a black hole
Never mind that things
don’t escape from black holes
An unobserved,
unmeasureable, unknowable force called strings caused this matter to be
uncomfortable, and blow up again
This force is magical and
elusive, and can do anything that a physicist can come up with
None of the problems have
been solved, and now it took even longer to happen, and it happens even more
than we thought.
One wonders how impractical
this concept makes the post-Big Bang anti-matter war concept, and which one of
them will have to give way
Strings serves only to confuse the public the
way police use flash bang grenades to subdue uncooperative suspects.
Moreover, the extended ramifications of this
theory on our experience of reality are unfounded, and just plain silly. It doesn’t make theoretical, or practical
sense, flies in the face of every experience or observation every single person
on the planet has ever had, and it tells us that what we see is not
what we get. These “scientists,” oddly,
feel much better about accepting this mysterious theory, than believing in a
God that has spelled it all out for them.
It sounds a little impractical, unscientific, and not to mention
dogmatic.
The incredible power that evolutionists now seem
so ready to relinquish to these undetectable strings is an omniscient
quality. By all evidence, physicists are
prepared to crown strings their new god of science. What is so ironic about this development is
that these scientists use strings to explain why what we see and experience is not
true, so that the Big Bang can work contrary to our understanding. Yet these scientists reject a God which they
believe cannot be proven to exist, but does explain how what we see and
experience is the way it is.
Their god is a mysterious power comprised of the
smallest things imaginable, that mindlessly connects and controls the
universe. But God has all power, and is
the mightiest thing in the universe, that created and upholds all things with
purpose, and you can know Him. Since no
one is able to prove whether strings really exist, trusting in them is entirely
based on faith. The problem is that this
faith is in something that does not substantiate our experience—it negates it.
The true basis of this new kink is not in solid
observable science, but in the need to create a rift in the perfect harmony of
these laws. This, in the end, is the
only way to explain what we observe “without appealing to the hand of God” as
it is so often phrased, and devise a “naturalistic” origin for the
universe. We must simply find a way to break
the laws of science. Even if it is goofy. If you think you don’t understand how the
“string” theory would allow everything that you experience and know to be true,
not to be true, but merely an illusion, then you are one of the sane
ones. Buddhists have tried this, only
without the science.
Scientists must take the reality out of what we
observe in order to take God out of the universe, and they believe that
“strings” is their escape hatch. Yet
again, our “reality” must have some sway because we all still get up in the
morning, go to work, earn money in order to eat and have shelter, we avoid
things that hurt us and try not to die, and the only man that ever fell through
this hole in time and space, and managed to reverse the reality of death,
didn’t point to “strings”, but to the Lord God Creator of heaven and earth.
There are numerous laws of physics and quantum
physics at our disposal to help us view and understand the incredible workings
of the universe. How is it that all of these
laws need to be broken at some point to allow for the Big Bang? The facts of these principles are so sure,
that no three scientists can agree on exactly how the Big Bang
could have happened in spite of them.
What compels evolutionists to ignore the truth of their own knowledge,
in order to construct such an impossible, anti-science scheme, in the name of
science?
The laws and principles mentioned here are a
small portion of the abundant scientifically undisputable evidence against a
naturalistic origins for the universe.
Again, they are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the Theory
of Relativity, the principles of gases, quantum physics, the four fundamental
forces, Newton’s laws of motion, and the Law of Angular Momentum in addition to
the logical implications of other numerous, well tested principles. We know that matter comes from matter, that
energy and matter are not eternal, and that every effect has a cause.
Unlike the naturalistic origin theories, these
laws and principles are falsifiable. We
have nothing more scientifically secure than such laws, and not one portion of
these laws corroborates any naturalistic origin theory. They do confirm the Creation model, which
holds that the earth, planets, satellites, sun and stars and all matter were
placed specifically throughout the universe from outside the system of the
universe by an eternal God. This God
enacted the laws that reliably govern the universe, who is not ruled by
the laws of time and matter, but the Creator of time and matter. Only the Creation model is consistent with
and accounts for all we observe to be true.
INTRO back to top BIOLOGY FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO