The Layman’s Guide to
The Amazing but Totally True . . . Scientific
Facts of Creation
By Wendy S. Scott
“The Lord by wisdom has founded the earth: by understanding has He established the heavens.”
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 Do not quote the author as a scientific authority.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.
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 Do not quote the author as a scientific authority.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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. . .
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.