The venerable Big Bang theory's worst enemy is objective scientific observation.

Date:   12/27/2006 9:36:02 PM ( 18 y ago)

The Big Bang theory (BB) is more than just the theory that the universe exploded from a single point of matter ("singularity"). It involves more than three dimensions and assumes that the universe has no center or edge. But we need to ask some questions before swallowing this theory, no matter how many people say it's scientific fact, or how long they've repeated it.

First of all, the famous astronomer Hubble didn't like what his telescopes were telling him: that the red shift phenomenon was uniform in every direction. It meant that we here on earth might be in the center of the universe. Why was this a problem? It had nothing to do with science and everything to do with the bias of naturalism and that the Bible's account of creation just could not be tolerated, even if the facts seemed to support it. An alternative theory had to be devised, Occam's Razor be hanged!*

The reason this posed a problem for Hubble is that if the red shift meant galaxies were moving away from us, and if the earth is not near the center of the universe, then we should expect to also see many galaxies with a blue shift, meaning they are coming towards earth. Yet no such blue-shifted galaxies are observed. So the Doppler effect had to be abandoned and a more complex model devised.

After a while it was decided, strictly on the basis of assertion and not any observational backing, that time and space must also be expanding along with matter. But this poses two immediate problems: no one has been able to account for the loss of the incredible amount of energy needed to drive this expansion, and any kind of measurement is rendered impossible since the measuring devices are also expanding. This makes the theory unfalsifiable.

Granted this is an oversimplification, but the fact remains that BB suffers from some serious flaws. And there is a growing list of scientists (the vast majority of which are atheists) who have rejected BB for having far too many unprovable and unobservable dependencies.

And, with any such theory of origins, we must ask: where did the "singularity" come from? It cannot be infinitely old or massive or self-energizing, or we would not still be observing expansion or increasing entropy. By its very nature, it had to have a beginning. How did it come into existence? And what caused it to explode? And how does any kind of explosion result in increased order and complexity? And after the unimaginable amounts of time it had to take for the farthest galaxies to get where they are, why are they still in coherent galaxies and not expanded into featureless clouds of matter?

Not even the renowned Steven Hawking has been able to account for these things. It's all conjecture and imagination, and he has said as much in his book, "A Brief History of Time". Yet he, Hubble, and many others have been committed above all else to their religion of naturalism. Scientific observation must take a back seat to idealistic assertions. The BB is hopelessly flawed, undone by science and observation, but the faithful will not leave the sacred ground they've built their reputations upon. At least we can admire their religious devotion and faithfulness.

*Occam's Razor refers to the principle of looking always for the simplest explanation for something.

Also, please visit
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
for a list of scientists rejecting BB and some alternative theories being developed.

 

Popularity:   message viewed 3346 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=977381

<< Return to the standard message view