Concerning how the Big Bang itself came to shape the features of the universe as we see them today, even researchers within the mainstream realm have begun to admit that the proposed phenomenon is flawed to such a degree as to be essentially useless from a scientific standpoint.
As one commentator, Eric Lerner, the president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, noted in his introduction for an article in New Scientist magazine:
“BIG BANG theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities—things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.” 1
Simply put, the Big Bang model that has for so long been the very basis for a naturalistic origin, is critically and irredeemably flawed given the theoretical nature of so many of the foundational elements necessary for it to be true. How, given secular sciences’ seeming predilection for hard truth and empirical evidence, could such a tale be accepted and hailed as undeniable for so long? The answer is apparent for those who can admit it. Even now, though trouble has appeared amongst the ranks, the model is still taught as the most likely explanation for the origin of this universe, bringing yet another generation up with this flawed theory rendered as indelible truth.
No matter how vividly it is described, and in spite of how vigorously the model is defended, we have no idea as to what caused the Big Bang nor do we posses any solid evidence of where the matter it affected originated. Naturalistically, how did emptiness, catalyzed by some unknown force, come to be all that we see? What stimulated the incredible force of the Big Bang? Alternatively, did the singularity always exist? Had it remained in a state of anxious potential for endless eternities before the Big Bang forced it to become a seething hot universal womb? Ultimately, like the evolution paradigm, this theory and its assumptions are more fitting of fervent religious beliefs than an empirical scientific model for the questions it raises far outweigh whatever answers it may hope to provide.
Moving away from the initial creative forces of the universe, one pertinent question that tends to elude many despite its absolute necessity is how can we actually know the distances at play in the universe? Those distances, if you’ll recall, are absolutely critical to dating the black expanse. How do we actually know how far away these heavenly bodies are? No one has ever ventured across that infinite field of inky darkness measuring the gap mile-by-mile, and honestly, none ever shall. So how can we confidently conclude that those burning spheres of plasma are in actuality billions of light years away? The fact of the matter is that, if they are truly billions of light years from us, then that holds major implications for the notion of a young creation.
According to those in the field, such distances can, in fact, be confidently determined through a number of different avenues. The first of these utilizes a phenomenon known as parallax. Basically an astronomical version of binocular vision, the practice relies on making observations of a distant stellar body twice a year, recording those observations six months apart and comparing the results.
Done correctly, each observation of the same star can be used to determine a precision angle for that body in regard to the Earth, which can then be used to determine an actual distance.
The color of a star – which is believed to be directly related to its temperature – can also be used to determine distance due to Stefan’s law, which translates the temperature of a star into its luminosity (the amount of energy emitted from the surface of a star). That luminosity then in turn can be correlated with the star’s magnitude (its brightness). Once the magnitude is established, researchers can apply the inverse square law, and in doing so determine a confident range, in parsecs (approximately 3.26 light years), for which the starlight we observe here has had to travel.
The expansion of the universe also, it is claimed, provides insight into the distances of astronomical bodies. For instance, looking outside of our own galaxy to others, we can observe that they may in fact be receding away from us here. Hubble’s Law has established that the faster a galaxy is receding from us, the further away it actually is. By measuring over time the speed at which that recession is occurring, done through analyzing the spectrum of light emitted by observable galaxies, we can theoretically estimate how old a particular galaxy is in relation to us. Thus, distant galaxies traveling away from us are believed to be more towards the red end of the color spectrum, or redshifted, while closer objects, or rather those traveling towards us, are said to be blueshifted.
Fine as all that is, it must be said that none of these methods can be confidently established as foolproof; each holds its own flaws. For instance, given (a) the extremely small angles necessary for measuring great distances, and (b) the marked difficulty in achieving that accuracy on a regular basis, a stellar parallax is only accurate up to 200 light years, with anything beyond that range being subject to serious doubt. Furthermore, in regard to the examination of a star’s magnitude to determine distance, researchers must estimate the size of the star in order to produce results, yet as with so much of these types of things, their largely subjective estimations are critical to the end product of their investigations. If they are wrong in their assumptions, then so too shall be the distances determined, and such false results are not unprecedented within the community. At the heart of the matter though is light itself, and in it we may find that the biggest assumption of all has been right in front of our eyes since the argument began…
– This was an excerpt from “Remnants of Eden: Evolution, Deep-Time, & the Antediluvian World.” Get your copy here today. God bless! –
1. Lerner, Eric J.,”Bucking the Big Bang,” New Scientist, May 22, 2004, pg 20
FOUNDRY4 is a proud member of the International Association for Creation