The Big Bang & Creation:

One Event or Two?

by Nic Samojluk

In the "Rating the Creation and the Big Bang" article published by Spectrum, George P. Saxon, a retired geophysicist, made some interesting comments about the theory of the Big Bang; which, according to most scientists, marked the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang concept is deduced from the notion that galaxies are moving away from each other, and that those farthest away seem to be moving most rapidly. If this is the case, then there must have been a point in time, allegedly 15 billion years ago, when the entire mass of the physical universe was concentrated into a single point the size of a dot. Then it exploded, giving origin to everything.

If the universe had a beginning, then perhaps the Genesis record is supported by the recent scientific discoveries; nevertheless, we have the problem of timing. The sacred record suggest an extremely short chronology, while the Big Bang requires billions of years. How can we account for the discrepancy between God's Holy Book, and the book of Nature? Aren't we suppossed to find an greement between God's physical laws and God's inspired written Word? In order to solve this dilemma that has perplexed christian theologians and scientists who would like to harmonize the Holy Writ with the discoveries of science, the author takes the following steps.

With his expert knowledge of physics, Saxon makes the following observations from the Creation story: The author of Genesis tells us that In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ...darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. "If there was a deep, then the law of gravity existed, otherwise the water would not have been contained" If water existed, then electromagnetism, the mechanism that holds the water molecules together, existed as well. The fact that matter existed indicates that the nuclear forces were already in existence at the time of creation, and that the creation of our planet earth might have been an event separate from the Big Bang.

Saxon makes several scientific observations about the flood story as well, including the suggestion that the flood might have been caused by the melting of the ice. He then asks the following question: "What is your interpretation of the flood story given in Genesis? Was the story as recorded a heavenly fax given to Moses? Or was the story an interpretation by an observer that was passed down by oral tradition for a thousand years before Moses recorded it?" I believe that Saxon should have asked the same question about the Creation story as well.

If Moses wrote Genesis, as tradition asserts, then why would he have failed to make reference to the source of all this information? If you read his numerous accounts of his dealings with the Israelites of old, you will discover that he faithfully explains that the laws he gave them came directly from instructions he received from the mouth of God when he was up on the mountain top for forty days and nights. He documents hundreds of instances where God communicated with him.

Nevertheless, in the case of the creation account there is not a single reference explaining how he learned what happened at the beginning. The conclusion I draw is that, since he was not a direct observer of what happened at the beginning, and he failed to associate this knowledge with a visionary experience or direct communication from above, then it must follow that he must have recorded in Genesis what he received from oral tradition going back to Adam and Eve.

I would like to conclude with a couple of observations regardingt the Big Bang theory. There are other experts who do not believe in an expanding universe. They argue that, if the red shift indicates that the universe is expanding, then we must be moving away from our sun; but we aren't. Besides, as we observe the most distant galaxies, we should detect them to be in closer proximity to each other, since what we are observing is what happened millions of years ago, because it took that much time for the light from those galaxies to reach us. The fact is that those distant galaxies seem to be spread out at similar distances from each other as those galaxies that are much closer to us.

Finally, I have to admit that I have a hard time believing that all the matter in the entire universe was concentrated in a single point the size of a dot. The day scientists manage to reduce a huge rock to the size of a dot in their laboratory, I may begin to believe that this theory is grounded on solid ground. In the meantime, I must admit that the Big Bang is another example of science fiction, a myth created to compete with the notion that In the beginnig, God created the heavens and the earth. Did he create our earth at the same time he created life on earth? Probably not. We need to harmonize God's Holy Book with his other book: Nature.

To access the "Rating the Creation and the Big Bang" story, click on the link listed below:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/church/features/040804saxon1.html

Big Bang or Myth?

by Nic Samojluk

I believe that the Big Bang theory is not based on science, but rather philosophy. A valid scientific theory must be testable. If the universe originated from a single point the size of a dot which exploded and expanded into the present universe, and which is continuing to expand, then scientists should be able to test the reverse. If all the matter in the entire universe was once concentrated in a single point the size of a dot, and it expanded into all the galaxies, stars, and planets, then we should be able to reverse in a laboratory what toop place in nature.

Scientists tell us that following the initial explosion we had a gas that eventually cooled down and coalesced into chunks of matter. Then we should be able to take a large quantity of gas and compress it to the size of a dot. Do you believe that this can be done? What happens when you compress gas? You get a liquid. Can you take that liquit and reduce it to the size of a dot? Why don't the intelligent scientists who defend the theory of the Big Bang try this experiment? Because they know it can't be done! Liquid refuses to be compressed.

Do you think that the time will come when scientists will be able to take the moon, for example, and reduce it to the size of a dot? If that is too much asking, how about taking a huge boulder and reducing it to the size of a dot? If you ask a scientist, he will say: You can't test a singularity! I know you can't! This is precisely why I reject singularities. They are not testable, and if they are not testable, they are based on science fiction. They represent a philosophical construct.

And since we are talking about singularities, I would like to ask you: What is the diffrence between a singularity and a miracle? Actually they mean essentially the same: An event for which we do not have a scientific explanation. The only difference is that in the case of a miracle, we atribute the cause to a supernatural intelligent force, while a singularity is suppossed to be a natural event. This is the reason I elect to believe in a miracle as the cause of origins instead of a singularity.

Before the Big Bang: What?

by Nic Samojluk

Scientists who think they can solve the origins enigma by theorizing about an allegedly Bing Bang, can say almost nothing about what happened before said Big Bang. Which is another way os saying that it is an impenetrable mystery. All they can say is that before that incredible event, all natural laws didn't exist. And of course, according to them, nothing existed except a minuscule dot of energy waiting to explode into the universe we now know. Except for that tiny dot, nothing existed, not even Almighty Creator God.

I would invite these evolutionist scientists to consider the following: Imagine for a moment that there is a God like the one described in the Bible, an Almighty Creator: What can we deduce from this? If the Big Bang was the way the Lord created the universe and let it evolve, then we have no other alternative but to conclude that this Creator performed only a single act of creation and then rested, not on the seventh day, but for all eternity. Can you accept the notion that the most powerful Creator of all that ever existed, would conform himself with implementing a single act of creation and then decide to rest for ever and ever?

And there is more. Since the God described in the Bible ever existed in the distant past and had no beginning, then we must conclude that prior to the Big Bang event, this Almighty Creator did nothing in the eternity past but to plan for this single event in his life. You may agree with me that this scenario does not make much sense. If Edison were alive today, I can't imagine him going into eternal retirement after inventing the incandescent light bulb! Do you?

One Big Bang or Many Smaller Bangs?

by Nic Samojluk

I want to share with you some arguments by scientists who do not believe in the big Bang theory. I am not an expert in physics, which limits my understanding of everything presented in the website pages I will be including later on, but I jotted down a few reasons for rejecting the Big Bang theory I discovered from my reading:

1. The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect.

2. The red shift on the sun is obviously not Doppler since the sun is not moving away from us.

3. If the Compton effect causes the red shift, the universe is not expanding, but rather is "static".

4. The galaxies in this photo don't seem to be crowded closer together as one would expect if they were really so close to the big bang.

5. There are some very large chains of galaxies spread throughout the universe. It is believed these large structures, like the "great wall", would require many hundreds of billions of years to form.

6. Galactic redshift surveys show a regularity in the spacing of galaxies a quarter of the way to the time of the supposed big bang. This is totally different from a big bang expectation which would have them closer together as they get closer to the time of the big bang.

7. How do galaxies collide if they are flying away from each other?

8. Mature galaxies are found near the time of a supposed big bang that have not had enough time to develop.

There are many more reasons for rejecting the Big Bang model. Please, check the references I will be posting on this page. Here is the first.:

http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html#Author

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101structures.html

Free Mailing List Club!

 

If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.