Are the Big Bang and Evolution Theories Fact or Fiction?
Scientific knowledge has brought great benefits to all mankind, giving rise to modern developments and advancement. In the past these advancements have been based on careful experiment, testing and observation. However, when it comes to answering the question of man’s origin and the origin of the universe, these basic methods so critical to science are unable to be used. As a result, much of science today has become theoretical in nature and therefore impossible to prove. Unfortunately, many of these unproven theories which lack any real evidence are still promoted as fact, when they are not.
The truth is, no matter how much time and resource is put into investigating these questions, the evolutionary road from nothingness to our present world of amazing complexity, order, purpose and interdependence (all by chance we are told) lacks any real evidence; is unable to be tested or verified and contains too many gaps for any satisfactory explanations. Even though most of man’s achievements in the field of science have been accomplished as a result of observing and obeying the great laws which govern the earth and universe, many of these new theories also contradict the laws of science themselves. This includes the law of causality, thermodynamics, conservation of mass/energy and entropy.
For example, causality is a basic assumption of science, considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. And yet, the 'Big Bang' theory, which is in reality an ever changing model based on many assumptions and unknowns is now being promoted as fact. A 'theory' which asks us to believe all matter, energy and living things came out of nothing? However, this goes against the basic law of causality. The universe had a beginning and therefore needed a cause! Let's not pretend that mass energy has always existed and therefore needed no creator for we know through the law of Thermodynamics that the amount of energy available for useful work reduces and depletes over time.
Evolution by chance, which proposes an increase in order and complexity over time is impossible because it also contravenes the law of Causality as above; the law of Entropy which is defined in Websters dictionary as “the degradation of matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity” and the second law of Thermodynamics which states all things tend to decay and “run down” like a clock.
No, these theories are unproven because there is little or no hard evidence; they cannot be observed or proved and also break the basic laws of science. Has anyone ever observed something coming out of nothing and then evolving into something highly complex by chance? As a result, some have turned science into little more than a ‘faith’ itself? Proclaiming many unproven and unsupported theories to be truth and then insisting we accept them as fact. We are asked to put our faith in the science, since they are sure we will one day find all the evidence needed to prove them beyond doubt. Unfortunately, man has proved to be wrong and unreliable over and over again throughout history and undeserving of our faith.
On the other hand, our God is completely trustworthy and loving and a faith in Him can be based on fact as proved by the evidence all around us. The universe and everything in it has an intelligent design and purpose which could not have come out of nothingness. All life, from the oldest known fossils to living creatures today have complexity and are completely interdependent on each other for life. This tells us there must have been a creator for none of it could have evolved over time (complexity there in the beginning) or by coincidence (complexity and interdependence).
The bible can also be trusted. Written over several thousand years by dozens of different writers there are no contradictions. It is full of prophesies which can be proved to foretell countless events in our history long before they happened and if you study bible numerics, you will learn that there are mathematical laws running throughout the bible which all texts follow, which no writer could have followed knowingly or by coincidence.
Like many other scientists, the more I study the sciences, the more proof I uncovered of our Creator and the truth of His Word. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Rom 1:20)
It’s true most professors in the basic sciences favour evolution, in part, because this is what they were taught and those who openly reject evolution are either not hired or are fired. In the applied sciences and among scientists in industry, those accepting and rejecting evolution may be nearly balanced. This mix of views comes from two opposing forces. The dominance of evolution in everyone’s schooling and the tendency of those in the applied sciences (as opposed to the basic sciences) to be inherently practical. Consequently, in the applied sciences, evolution is not universally accepted.
Whatever the statistics, the number of scientists who accept this theory is decreasing, especially in North America as greater numbers begin to question the evidence (or lack thereof). As for the public, several recent surveys in multiple countries show as few as 15% now accept this theory as fact. This is surprising considering the huge advantage this theory has had over all other possibilities, being almost exclusively promoted by scientists, media and our educational institutions. Of course, scientific conclusions should be based on evidence, not a vote.
Accordingly, is the "theory of biological evolution...more than "just a theory"..."based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment”? If so, where has macroevolution ever been observed? Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
What is the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? Living things are incredibly complex, so how could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism have lived before getting the vital organ? Without a vital organ, the organism is dead, by definition. If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, as evolutionists claim, wouldn’t the leg become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve? Motors do not work until each radically different component is completely developed and in its precise place, so how could a bacterial motor evolve?
How could the first living cell begin? That is a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Speaking of reproduction, how could sexual reproduction evolve?
Can any scientist describe one natural process that creates information? What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books worth of coded information that is in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source?
Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA? How could immune systems evolve? If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do scientists really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if we wait long enough? Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from? What about water?
What about the Big Bang theory? It is true, educational establishments involved in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, theoretical physics and cosmology are dominated by those who have accepted ‘Big Bang’ as the theory to be pursued. The growing numbers of scientists who seriously question this theory are generally considered disruptive and ridiculed. As a result of that attitude, alternate cosmological possibilities are left un-investigated. Untold man-hours and vast sums of money are spent in pursuit of data in support of the prevailing theory. Such endeavours are not in keeping with the ideals of impartial scientific investigation.
However, has the Big Bang theory really been proved beyond doubt? Has the evidence really been observed and proven? Like evolution, it is built on assumptions and unknowns, while breaking several laws of science, including the law of causality, thermodynamics, conservation of mass/energy and entropy. Major problems are either ignored or 'evidence' simply invented like dark matter and dark energy which have never been seen or observed, because it simply must be there we are told. Let’s have a look at the main problems and logical inconsistencies of the Big Bang theory.
"The gravity of a black hole is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape it. How then did all the matter in the universe escape the singularity of the big bang, an infinitesimal point?"
No, the big bang theory or model is seriously flawed, being based on “three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.
The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect; that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself supposedly expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere. Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws.
Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If a big bang happened, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us, they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating from us.
Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts. Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas. Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang. A contradiction of the theory.
Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler Effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values. Much remains to be learned about redshifts.
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K-nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and super clusters, as far as the most powerful telescopes can see. Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB.
Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium. Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older” stars contradicts the big bang theory.
A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found.
For decades, big bang theorists said that the amount of mass in a rapidly expanding universe must be enough to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter could not come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass always fell far short of the needed amount. This “missing mass” is often called dark matter, because no one could see it or even detect it. Actually, “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. The media’s frequent reference to “dark matter” enshrined it in the public’s consciousness, much like the supposed “missing link” between apes and man.
The big bang has struck again by devising something new and imaginary to support the theory. Here’s why. The big bang theory predicts that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from the Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. The shocking result is now in—and the answer has been rechecked in many ways. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating! Therefore, to protect the theory, something must again be invented. Some energy source that counteracts gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. This energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy.
Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the universe together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) has been seen or measured. We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy.” Few realise that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.
Rather than cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty? Of course, but big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists.
If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. A big bang should not produce highly concentrated or rotating bodies. Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce tightly clustered galaxies. Also, a large volume of the universe should not be, but evidently is, moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.
If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge. (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.
If a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape the trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg” that existed before a big bang?
If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect. All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred" (creationscience.com)
Based on the lack of evidence, inconsistencies, contradictions and serious flaws, these theories remain unproven at best. It’s time we opened our eyes and minds and started to look at what is right in front of us. The evidence of our God is all around us (even in the stars), proved by a universe and world in which everything is extremely complex, intelligently designed, purposeful, ordered and interdependent. Only then, will we realise we are without excuse.
Our loving God has made everything perfectly and wonderfully for a purpose. A God who knows us better than we know ourselves and has our best interests in mind at all times. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you” (Jer 29:11- 14)