In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

Below is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown. Copyright © Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.

Click here to order the hardbound 8th edition (2008) and other materials.

[ The Scientific Case for Creation > Astronomical and Physical Sciences > The Universe, Solar System, Earth, and Life Were Recently Created. > Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate. > Big Bang?]

56. Big Bang?

Dark Thoughts

Missing Mass. Between 1969 and 1998, virtually all big bang theorists said that the rapidly expanding universe must have enough mass to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter would not have come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass was always 10–20% of the needed amount. They reasoned that since the big bang theory was correct, the missing mass had to exist.^v

Dark Matter. One would expect that the rotational velocities of stars around the center of a spiral galaxy would decrease the farther a star is from that center. However, since 1933, it has been known that those velocities are roughly constant beyond the galaxy’s central bulge. (This discovery gives great insight into how and when the universe began, but contradicts the way big-bang advocates think galaxies formed.) To explain these almost constant velocities, those advocates have told us since 1975 that (1) an invisible form of matter, called “dark matter,” must surround and permeate galaxies, and (2) five times more dark matter than normal matter should even be in the room where you are sitting. No direct measurements show that dark matter exists.^w

Dark Energy. Big bang theorists have struck again by devising something new and imaginary to prop up their theory. Prior to 1998, the big bang theory predicted that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. Then in 1998, a shocking discovery was made and confirmed. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!^a Therefore, to protect the big bang theory, something again had to be invented. Some energy source that overpowers gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. That energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy. Again, an important discovery that gives insight into how the universe actually began was effectively lost by a faulty explanation: dark energy.

“Dark matter” was concocted to make spiral galaxies spin correctly after a big bang. “Missing mass” was created to hold the universe together, and “dark energy” was created to push (actually accelerate) the universe apart. None of these have been seen or measured,^w even with the world’s best telescopes and most sophisticated experiments. However, we are told that 95% of the universe is invisible—either dark matter (25%) or dark energy (70%). As respected cosmologist, Jim Peebles, admitted, “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical.”^x Other authorities have said that “dark matter” and “dark energy” “serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.”^u Few realize that these mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory. It is much like the supposed “missing link” that should exist between apes and man if man evolved from some apelike animal. Direct evidence does not exist.

History records other shocking discoveries that caused astronomers to assume aspects of the universe that they could not see or measure—a common practice in cosmology. Planets appeared to sometimes move backwards. This led to the belief, from A.D. 150 to 1543, that planets must revolve about the earth on epicycles—wheels that carried planets and rode on the circumferences of other wheels. As more was learned about planetary motion, more epicycles were required to support that theory. Those cosmologists said, “After all, those wheels must be there, because that would explain the strange movements of planets.” Without direct observations or measurements, such beliefs are completely unscientific. History is repeating itself with “missing mass,” “dark matter,” “dark energy”—and an often uncritical public. Notice that these strange ideas make no predictions, a sure sign that they are scientifically weak.

Instead of cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with authoritative sounding statements about things for which no direct evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang theory is faulty? Yes, but big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, funding, 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.

Below are listed some evidences that are contrary to the big bang theory. “Chemical Evolution Theory” on page 402 describes four errors in the big bang theory that required major revisions since 1946. Each revision rejected what had been assumed without direct evidence and taught for years until calculations showed those assumptions were false. Pages 386–441 explain why the 68 heaviest chemical elements would not form after a big bang. Pages 447–461 lay out the clear evidence for the correct expansion, or “stretching out,” of the universe.

The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,^a was 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, if correctly understood, contradict the big bang theory.

Redshift. The redshift of starlight is a Doppler effect;^b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Because the more distant stars and galaxies have a greater redshift, the space between these bodies is increasing—a fact so consistently observed that it is called “Hubble’s Law,” after Edwin Hubble who discovered it in 1929.

Space itself has expanded—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter has increased with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.^c These galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating, but to the surprise of everyone, measurements showed the opposite; galaxies are accelerating. Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws. [See “Dark Thoughts” on page 34.]

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. [See "Connected Galaxies" and "Galaxy Clusters" on page 43.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.^d Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.^e 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.^f

Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. Because redshifts are caused by the motion of objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.^g It is as strange as seeing all cars on a highway traveling at an odd number of miles per hour, and nothing in between. Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

CMB. 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.^h

Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.ⁱ 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, 1–3 trillion visible galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. Simply stated, the big bang did not produce the CMB.^j [See pages 467–469.]

Helium. 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.^k Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)^l and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older” stars^m contradict the big bang theory.

A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and a trace of 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 have been found.ⁿ

Two Lithium Problems. The total amount of lithium seen in and outside our galaxy is only a third of what the big bang theory predicts.^o Also, “old stars contain one-quarter to one-half as much lithium-7 (made of three protons and four neutrons) as [the big bang] theory predicts and contain 1,000 times more lithium-6 (three protons and three neutrons) than expected [by the big bang theory].”^p

Antimatter. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge and spin.^q (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron, and the positively charged proton’s antiparticle is the negatively charged antiproton.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter exist, even in other galaxies.^r

Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies or quasars at such great distances, but they are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies” on page 453.] Nor should a big bang produce rotating bodies^s such as galaxies and galaxy clusters. Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.^t

Also, 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?^y

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 estimated based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.^z All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.^aa