This is a link to Christian websites
Facts are always analyzed in terms of the prejudices of the investigator.' Sir Fred Hoyle, Highlights in Astronomy, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1975.
Theories concerning the mechanistic origin of the universe come and go. Today's "science" is tomorrow's superstition. A few years ago scientists were touting the steady-state theory as the most reasonable explanation of the origin of the universe. It asserted that new matter is constantly being created to replace that which is lost by the expanding universe. "Today most astronomers regard the steady-state theory as dead" (Weaver 1974, 625).
The current inclination concerning the beginning of our universe is known as the big bang theory, but even the "bang" notion is receiving competition from a newer view called the plasma theory (DeYoung 1992, i-iv).
Now, 12-year Jacob Barnett, currently studying for his Ph.D, has amazed professors by challenging the plausibility of the "Big Bang Theory." Barnett's new theories involve some problems with the Big Bang and Relativity.
Perhaps, because Jacob is still a child, he has not formed prejudices against the facts and is able to see what many students of the Bible have known for years--the Big Bang theory goes against common sense.
The Big Bang Theory states that in the mother of all explosions, the Big Bang blasted out the hydrogen needed to form stars. In time, the hydrogen started to condense into gas clouds which, when they got dense enough, ignited, forming the first stars. When these early, massive stars died, they blew up in supernovae, thus creating all of the heavier elements that populate our universe.
Jacob recognized a problem--where did all the carbon in the universe come from? After all, a supernova explosion can only blast carbon so far into interstellar space. Jacob's idea--some other, unknown mechanism created all of the carbon in the universe.
Those with faith in the Bible know that "mechanism" was God.
Flaws in the Big Bang Scenario
There are a number of logical problems with the big bang scheme of origins:
The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a "holocaust," to use Jastrow's term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state" (1983, 40).
If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).
For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is "clumpy," i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.
Over the past few years, the news media have made much of the report that new measurements of background radiation reveal some variation. The press has hailed this as proof of the big bang.
The facts are:
The temperature differential supposedly detected was only about thirty millionths of one degree, and there are other possible explanations for this circumstance apart from the hypothetical bang.
Some of the scientists involved in the project question whether the instruments employed for measuring the radiation are sensitive enough to warrant the conclusions that are being drawn.
Others, who claim that additional testing has confirmed their assertion of temperature "ripples," confess now that it is "harder than ever" to explain "how these ripples grew into the starry structures that fill the universe" (Flam 1993, 31).1234
Even the respected science journal Nature suggested it is a "cause of some alarm" that the media have characterized this flimsy evidence as "proof" of the big bang (1992, 731).
The Bible versus the Big Bang
The fact is, there are significant contradictions between the big bang theory and the Bible record.
(1) As noted earlier, the Bible plainly teaches that the entire universe, including the earth with its various "kinds" of biological organisms, came into being during the six, literal days of the creation week (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). The big bang theory postulates eons of time.
The big bang myth allows that the sun was formed long before the earth. Various theories have been formulated to explain how the universe came to be organized after the initial explosion. Take your choice: the planetesimal theory, the nebular theory, the dust cloud theory. They all have one thing in common—they assert that the earth is a new-comer compared to the sun.
However, the Bible teaches that the earth was created first, and the sun came later—on the fourth day of the first week (Genesis 1:1, 14-16). The same point can be made regarding the stars. The Bible puts them after the earth; the evolutionary model teaches otherwise.
The big bang theory supposes that the universe started with a chaotic explosion which then proceeded toward order. The Bible teaches the exact opposite. God created the universe as a beautiful and orderly masterpiece, but it has been degenerating toward disorder in the intervening millennia (Psalm 102:25ff; Hebrews 1:10-12).
Big bang cosmology postulates a universe that is nearly twenty billion years old, with the human race evolving only three or four million years ago. According to this view, a vast period of time separates the origin of the universe from that of mankind.
But the Scriptures affirm:
The human family came into existence the same week as the universe (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). Man has thus existed from the beginning of the creation (Isaiah 40:21; Mark 10:6; Luke 11:50; Romans 1:20).
Human antiquity extends to only a few thousand years before Christ, as evinced by the genealogical records of the Lord's ancestry all the way back to Adam, the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45). There are some two
millennia spanning the present back to Jesus Christ; another two thousand years push history back to the time of Abraham. There are only twenty generations between Abraham and Adam (Luke 3:23-38). Even if one concedes that some minor gaps exist in the Old Testament narrative (cf. Genesis 11:12; Luke 3:35-36), surely no responsible Bible student will contend that twenty billion years can be squeezed into those twenty generations. The universe thus cannot be billions of years old.
It would seem that if scientists really wish to be objective they would study the Bible as a source for scientific discoveries. Every time scientists have questioned the scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible, they have been proven wrong and the Bible's accuracy proven.
For those who doubt this statement, but are open to learning, check out the following: Scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, God and Science, Science and the Bible
Sources:
