The "Big Bang"
I want you to stay with me now, because this is going to take a while to develop. The Akron Beacon Journal (4-24-92) carried a front-page article entitled, "Scientists Discover Relics of `Big Bang. Scientists believe they have observed relics of the primeval explosion that created the universe 15 billion years ago. They believe this is "the strongest support yet for the controversial theory." What is all of this evidence? They have found "massive wisps of gas more than 500 million light years long about 59 billion trillion miles" which are believed to be "the largest and oldest structures ever observed." These observations came from instruments aboard NASA's Cosmic Back-ground Explorer (COBE), launched in 1989.
The scientific community is ecstatic. Physicist Joel Primack of the University of California, Santa Cruz says, "It's one of the major discoveries of science." Physicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago said the discovery is "unbelievably important!" The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the holy grail of cosmology. . . If it is, indeed, correct, this certainly would have to be considered for a Nobel Prize." The researchers "are confident" in the accuracy of their measurements.
The "Big Bang" is designated as "one of the most difficult physics concepts for layman to accept." Now I want you to notice this statement carefully: "Its chief assumption is that 15 billion years ago all matter in the universe was compressed into an unimaginably dense sphere smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. The ball exploded at a temperature of trillions of degrees, launching all the matter on the expansionary course it continues to follow today. Within the first millionth of a second after the explosion, quarks and other exotic particles combined to form protons and neutrons, most of which were just as rapidly annihilated by collisions with antiprotons and antincutrons, releasing their energy in the form of light waves." Did you get all of that? They know all of this is true because they have found massive wisps of gas more than 500 million light years long.
Actually, what these scientists have found "are large regions of the sky in which the temperature is very slightly, as little as one-hundred-thousandth of a degree, from that of the areas around them." I'm already convinced, aren't you? Such evidence cannot be denied. It is extremely conclusive, except for a few unfounded assumptions.
1. Scientists have rejected the idea that God created the world. Furthermore, they have "assumed" that all living matter is traceable to a "Big Bang" in the distant past. Acting on this "assumption," they have sought any evidence that might suggest they are right. And, they are not too terribly careful what evidence (?) they accept.
2. They have not arrived at the conclusion that the "Big Bang" occurred 15 billion years ago. Until recently they were equally convinced that it occurred 4.51 billion years ago. These "wisps of gas" have now enabled them to correct their 10.49 billion year error. I begin to wonder if this "gas" to which they have been exposed is not laughing gas.
3. Let me give you a hint of how certain they are about their findings. The article says, "It now seems clear" that they have found this evidence. Scientists are operating on their "chief assumption" that there was a "Big Bang." They say that "If, indeed, this is correct" their assumptions are true. They "believe" that the "Big Bang" occurred with the explosion of particles of matter "smaller than the period at the end of this sentence." I know better than that. It could not have been the size of a ".", it had to have been at least the size of a marble. This was a "big" explosion. It set in motion billions of years of evolution. No, it had to be at least the size of a marble maybe even the size of a walnut. Or, possibly as large as a physicist's brain!
4. This assumed explosion occurred because the ball developed "a temperature of trillions of degrees." They have omitted some key elements here. For instance, what caused it to get so hot? Did it happen quickly, or did it take billions of years to get that hot? Are they sure it was "trillions" of degrees? How do they know it was not "billions of trillions of degrees"? Who measured how hot it was? Does it not seem more likely that this whole business is nothing more than a wild guess made by an infidel? I find it easier to believe this to be the guess of an infidel than to believe a tiny speck of matter got hot enough to explode in such a way to finally form this universe and everything and everybody in it.
5. We are told that "within the first millionth of a second" protons and neutrons collided with antiprotons and antineutrons. How do we know it was the first millionth of a second? It might have been a billionth of a second. It might not have been protons that collided with antiprotons. It might have been antiprotons that collided with neutrons. Or, there might not have been a collision at all! I know the whole business had to take at least an hour.
6. But there is still a greater assumption that needs to be considered. These scientists believe there was some "matter" that existed 15 billion years ago, which ultimately exploded. Where did that matter come from? You cannot get something from nothing! How did they account for the presence of these life forms before the "Big Bang"? How do they account for the heat source that created the explosion? What other explosion have they ever observed which has produced such a marvelous result as this universe? I think the scientific community has been given so much rope that it has finally hung itself.
The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). It also says, "Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Ps. 90:1-2). Note what David said in Psalms 19:1, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork." It seems to me that a good explanation for the expanse of the universe is found in Psalms 104:2: "Who coverst thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain."
I still find the explanation of the Bible about the origin of things to be more plausible than the assumptions of infidels, even infidel scientists. What about you?
Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 12-13