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

Talk:Big bang

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Science in its pure form is a good thing. It’s also powerful in its influence upon society. In the past the Catholic Church leaders insisted upon private interpretations that lined up with their understanding of the universe.

Most well know case in point, insistence upon the earth being the center of the universe.

Now humanist have turned the tables so to speak and insist upon evolutionism as the only interpretation in an arrogant exclusive was to any other idea and in particular creationism.

That evidence seems to indicate that all mater came from a single point in time is clear. To speculate beyond this as to what was the source of the matter and what laws of physics applied or were not in force at that time is just speculation without basis.

Just as it takes faith without foundation to state that God spoke the universe into being, it take faith of another sort to state another idea equally difficult to believe apart from faith in that idea.


Recent observations tend to support the theory that all matter was for a time in a dark state. That is there were no stars shining.

The bible creation account lines up with this theory as well. Yet all faith, the God kind of faith, faith in miraculous events will never be supported by physical evidence. God wants us to trust Him.

Another important point to keep in mind, God will always keep many things in a state of mystery. For example the trinity does not make mathematical sense. That’s why Isaac Newton had trouble with the trinity. While I believe every word in the bible, the word trinity does not appear. To state that word (trinity) is to “put God in a box” and that we can never do.

The physical universe, which is the basis for our how we tend to think, has no bearing in the spiritual universe.


The bible states that God is Spirit and they that wish to worship Him must worship Him in Spirit. 

God, who is Spirit, is the Creator. In the spiritual universe, there is no time; hence the word eternity applies there.


Time and space as we know it, are a creation. Laws apply here, and time is as much a part of the physical universe as matter and energy. E=MC2 is the basic simple law for our physical universe.

However when God wishes to create, which He may do at any time, (He’s alive after all).

The physical laws do not bind him, being Spirit.

While He may have created the world in 7 24-hour days as some believe, or the days are eons as others believe is as unknown as possible.

I tend to think God took time greater than anything anyone has yet speculated. However I am also aware that God could have created the entire universe in a singular moment of time.

stephen bennett, ragamullin@yahoo.com


Evidence against

I would be interested in changes to the article that better reflect the predictions of the Big Bang, especially in the evidence against section. I've listed some of the concerns below.

  • The quantized redshift concept is not universally embraced by the mainstream scientific community; it might be labeled controversial at best, with a fair amount of disfavor (See, for example, [1]). The article should reflect that view.
  • Age: the article currently reads, unless the universe has gravitational attraction exactly balanced against this expansion it will either collapse in a Big Crunch or expand too quickly for us to survive in it. In fact, we could survive in a closed (eventually will re-collapse) or open (will expand forever) universe. Current studies attempt to determine the type of universe we have, although evidence currently leans toward the forever-expanding model. A young universe is NOT the "only" explanation.
  • Electromagnetic forces unaccounted for: I'm unfamiliar with this argument. I'm under the impression that large astrophysical structures are essentially electrically neutral, or at least are not sufficiently charged for electromagnetic forces to have much of an effect on cosmic scales. Also, how does this claim demonstrate evidence against the Big Bang? Perhaps a citation could be provided for this claim? Otherwise it should be removed.
  • Too many heavy elements: According to mainstream science, heavy elements are produced in stars or in events such as supernova explosions, not as a result of the big bang. This argument is weak and not relevant, and should probably be removed from the article.
  • Not enough helium or lithium: This 1998 paper says that the "new measurements...have ended this BBN [Big Bang nucleosynthesis] crisis" (referring to the He abundance question). The relative abundances of the light elements are actually used as an important piece of support for the Big Bang.
  • The universe isn't homogeneous enough Does this statement refer solely to the quantized redshift (see above)? Can a citation be provided for the claim that the Big Bang "requires large scale homogeneity"?
  • Too much energy: I'm going to assume that this statement is essentially asking the question of where the energy in the universe came from. Actually, the scientific position is that the total energy of the universe is zero, with the positive contributions negated by gravitational potential energy (see, for example, here).
  • Too much angular momentum: if the universe had non-zero angular momentum, it would not be isotropic; we could identify a "preferred" direction. The observed universe is highly isotropic, which suggests its total angular momentum is, in fact, zero.

I hope someone can address these issues.--Bayes 05:14, 20 October 2007 (EDT)


I don't have the time right now to answer all of this because it's a nice saturday morning and I have engagements. I will just select three I find the easiest to answer.


In reply to "Not enough helium or lithium" you said.

" This 1998 paper says that the "new measurements...have ended this BBN Big Bang nucleosynthesis crisis" (referring to the He abundance question). The relative abundances of the light elements are actually used as an important piece of support for the Big Bang."

This is over simplifying the problem. There is a relationship between deuterium and helium/lithium, but there is only 10% as previously though. So there must be even MORE helium then that.


in reply to to "too much energy" you said

"I'm going to assume that this statement is essentially asking the question of where the energy in the universe came from. Actually, the scientific position is that the total energy of the universe is zero, with the positive contributions negated by gravitational potential energy"

CreationWiki has a response to this on another page.

The universe's energy can't come from nothing (Talk.Origins)

In reply to "The universe isn't homogeneous enough" you said

"Does this statement refer solely to the quantized redshift (see above)? Can a citation be provided for the claim that the Big Bang "requires large scale homogeneity"?"

Ok, the simple fact is that the universe is homogeneous and has no edge (Big bang) or the relative area of the earth is the center of the universe. Even Stephen Hawking admitted that.

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn49

I will reply further later.

It is, indeed, a beautiful Saturday (at least where I am!). I know your reply isn't complete yet, but I have some comments on what you've written so far.
  • Re: lithium/helium: I presumed that the article's claim was based on the "nucleosynthesis crisis" that, I believe, was something of a topic in cosmology in the 1990s. Perhaps I should not have made that assumption, as your reply seems to indicate something else.
  • Re:Energy, thanks for pointing me to that other article. However, that article has very serious physical and mathematical errors (first of all, force times distance is work, not energy), but I'll address those in more detail on the talk page for that article. Meanwhile, any physics textbook should convince you that gravitational potential energy is negative.
  • Re:Homogeneity, perhaps there's a misunderstanding about the what "homogeneity" means? The universe could have a center and still be homogeneous. I don't see how the argument is unique to the big bang; homogeneity and isotropy also fit into the invalidated steady-state model of the universe. Maybe I'm mistaken too; I obviously don't understand the essence of the argument here. The reference you provided goes to a page that makes the same statement but doesn't go into much detail about it. Perhaps other, clearer references would be better?
Thanks for responding! I look forward to your complete reply.--Bayes 17:49, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
I can answer these issues:
  • Quantized redshifts are actively ignored by the community. They do not want to think about the implications. Some papers have been written in an attempt to hand-wave away the argument, but none have dealt substantively with the issue.
  • The Age problem is well-known in the cosmological community, but they rarely talk about it in public for fear of letting on to how tenuous their theory is. The basic problem is that in order to get a very old universe that is expanding with enough matter inside of it, you have to have a very precarious balance between gravitational attraction and expansion. They have no way of explaining where this precise balance came from: and more than that they have no way of explaining why the expansion is accelerating at this time. A young universe solves this problem immediately like no other explanation can.
  • In terms of your comments about energy, work is simply a transfer of mechanical energy. They have the same units, you see, but I'll follow you to the appropriate talkpage.
  • The electromagnetic forces are unaccounted for in the current models. This is well documented by Eric Lerner in his book "The Big Bang Never Happened". Cosmologists working today ignore the effects of electromagnetic forces on the universe! They also claim that the universe is "neutral", but in fact it isn't. The universe is ionized.
  • The fact is that there hasn't EVER been an observation of a star that didn't contain heavy elements, even though the Big Bang theory claims that there should be stars (so-called Population 3) that shouldn't have heavy elements. This problem is also known within the community (it's called a problem of "high metallicity") but isn't addressed.
  • homogeneity isn't just about quantization of redshifts: it's also about the lumpiness associated with filaments and voids.
  • The Galaxy Zoo project has discovered that most galaxies are rotating in one preferred direction. That's excess angular momentum for you right there.
Plindstead 18:58, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

The Hubris of Man

I moved the following discussion by user:Plindstead to Human, under the heading "worldviews".

In order to create an atheistic, naturalistic model of the universe that denies the existence of God, scientists must necessarily rely on an assumption that Man, independent of his Creator, is capable of creating coherent theories about Creation. To this end, atheistic scientists assume that the Laws of Science God has revealed to Man on Earth are universally applicable even to parts of Creation that no human has ever visited or been able to perform controlled experiments in. Human beings have never left the gravitational pull of Earth and no human contraption has ever left the Solar System. Yet, proposals and ideas relating to locations that are billions of times further away are made assuming they have the same characteristics as our own rare and finely tuned Earth. In making this assumption, the atheistic scientist presupposes that the conditions of all of Creation are the same as he sees. Unable to allow for the miraculous or the omnipotency of a God that is fully capable of creating different conditions in different parts of His Creation, the assumption is held fast and drives the fundamental philosophy underlying atheistic cosmology. This allows for the scientist to elevate Creation above the Creator and remove the plain fact of God from consideration, much as was predicted in Psalms 10:4 and Romans 1:19-20.

--Ashcraft - (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence For

Of course Big Bang Theory is an essentially incomplete/flawed theory. But you still need to provide the whole evidence for it! Know your enemy! it's good to know all the arguments against it as well as FOR it. Maybe someone with slightly more astronomical knowledge can implement the following:

2) Evidence

   * a) Large-scale homogeneity
   * b) Hubble diagram (sort of implemented...)
   * c) Abundances of light elements
   * d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (implemented)
   * e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
   * f) Large-scale structure of the universe
   * g) Age of stars
   * h) Evolution of galaxies
   * i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
   * j) Tolman tests
   * k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
   * l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
   * m) Dark Matter
   * n) Dark Energy
   * z) Consistency (these last three of course with relevant arguments... they are not entirely accepted within the scientific community) 

--JFrancis 18:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but neither dark matter nor dark energy can be cited as evidence in favor of the Big Bang. Those two concepts are mathematical fudges, nothing more. If you read the articles, you'll see.--TemlakosTalk 18:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

in fact i added "with relevant arguments" and the fact they are not entirely accepted. I am aware of the fact that they are more constructs than anything else. The main issue is the rest of the evidence, not those particular ones, which is lacking in the article which should explain the theory. I am not trying to correct anyone, I'm trying to get people to add valuable information about the Big Bang Theory.--JFrancis 19:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

spelling of "inflaton"

The term "inflaton" is one that is used by theoretical physicists to refer to an energetic particle that permeated the entire universe and had properties necessary for their hypothetical "inflation". It is not found in most dictionaries, but it is spelled correctly.

Plindstead 13:14, 18 July 2011 (PDT)