Big bang theory is wrong (Talk.Origins)

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.

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.

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.


 * 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.


 * Hartnett, J. G., 2001. Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies. In Journal of Creation 15(1): 8-12.

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

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.
 * McDonald, K., 2005. Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy? In UCSD.

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.

But none of them are unique to the Big Bang.

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.
 * Oard, M. and Sarfati, J., 1999. No dark matter found in the Milky Way Galaxy. In Journal of Creation 13(1): 3-4.

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.

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

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.