The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Big bang theory is wrong (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
(Redirected from Big bang theory is wrong)
Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Big bang theory is wrong (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CE420:

The theory of a big bang has been shaken with unresolvable inconsistencies, such as an unexpectedly uneven distribution of matter in the universe and a need for dark matter. Several astronomers think it is no longer a valid theory.

Source: Gitt, Werner, 1998. What about the big bang? Creation 20(3): 42-44.

CreationWiki response:

It is interesting that Talk Origins does not address most of the problems actually raised by the source article. Furthermore there are evolutionary astronomers that oppose the Big Bang.

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

  • Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.
  • The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

First of all, both of these concepts existed before the Big-Bang Theory was proposed; as such they are starting assumptions, not supporting evidence.

The Big Bang also assumes an unbounded universe. When general relativity and an expanding universe are plugged into a bounded universe, then the result is Dr. Russell Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology.

  • The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

While this is true, it is not the only cosmology that cosmic microwave background (CMB) comes naturally out of, though others like the White Hole Cosmology were developed after the discovery of CMB.

  • The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.
  1. This was predicted by the Inflationary Universe theory, not the Big-Bang itself.
  2. This slight unevenness is also produced the White Hole Cosmology.

Reference: Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies

  • The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

Not from first principles, it doesn't. The fact is that to get the observed abundance of these elements requires the proper adjustment of variables specific to each element.

Reference: The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

  • The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

It is not really known how much of quasars' red shift is due to expansion. So little is known about them that it cannot be said for certain that any of their high red shifts are expansion related. If they are dense objects, their red shift would be caused by gravity rather than expansion.

Blue stars are seen to be poor in heavy elements. According to Russell Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology theory, water was expanding out of a white hole. The normal distribution of elements in a gravitational field would naturally result in outer galaxies being poor in heavy elements.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

But none of them are unique to the Big Bang.

2. Inconsistencies are not necessarily unresolvable. The clumpiness of the universe, for example, was resolved by finding unevenness in the CMB. Dark matter has been observed in the effects it has on star and galaxy motions; we simply do not know what it is yet.

Translation: the inconsistencies between the Big Bang and reality cannot falsify the Big Bang, the theory will simply be patched to resolve the inconsistencies, thus making the Big Bang unfalsifiable.

With regards to dark matter, the observed effects are not predictions, but they are the same inconsistencies that produced the theory in the first place. On the other hand, there are observations that suggest that dark matter does not exist.

Reference: No dark matter found in the Milky Way Galaxy

There are still unresolved observations. For example, we do not understand why the expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up.

It is interesting that this observation is the exact opposite of the Big Bang, which predicts that the expansion should be slowing, not speeding up.

However, the big bang has enough supporting evidence behind it that it is likely that new discoveries will add to it, not overthrow it.

The problem is that none of this supporting evidence is unique to the Big Bang, while many of the unresolved observations are.

For example, inflationary universe theory proposes that the size of the universe increased exponentially when the universe was a fraction of a second old. It was proposed to explain why the big bang did not create large numbers of magnetic monopoles. It also accounts for the observed flatness of space, and it predicted quantitatively the pattern of unevenness of the CMB. Inflationary theory is a significant addition to big bang theory, but it is an extension of big bang theory, not a replacement.

So, no matter how much the big bang conflicts with reality, it will just be patched. This makes it an unfalsifiable theory. It also shows that the unevenness of the CMB was not an original prediction of the Big Bang, but a prediction of one of its many patches.

The result is that the Big Bang has become a starting assumption rather than a testable theory.