Big Bang and the Bible (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-08)

Some Christians believe that the Big Bang
is a scientific fact. Then they add the Big Bang into Genesis believing that
God used the Big Bang to create the universe. The Big Bang and the Bible, this week on
Creation Magazine LIVE! Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE! My name is Richard Fangrad, and I'm Thomas Bailey. This week on Creation Magazine LIVE our topic
is, the Big Bang and the Bible.

Many Christians have questions about how the
Big Bang might fit with the Bible since the Big Bang seems to be well supported
with scientific evidence. That's right, yes. Today we're going to consider that evidence
and also have a look at whether the Big Bang could fit with the Bible's description of creation. At the risk of turning away viewers; for the
sake of clarity, we're going to give you our conclusions now, and then spend the next
half-hour providing evidence for those conclusions.

And the conclusions are: firstly, the Big
Bang is a terrible scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and, secondly, the Big Bang
cannot be made to fit with Scripture. That's right. OK, now, some of you are probably thinking
that we have a lot of explaining to do. So, let's begin with the science, or rather, the lack of
good science associated with the Big Bang.

The commonly accepted Big Bang model supposedly
determines the history of the universe. Beginning about 13.8 Billion years ago or
so, and in this simplified diagram here it's broken up into 4 major stages of the evolution
of the universe. You can see it there. But in order for the Big Bang to determine
this neat history of the universe, it has to be propped up with unprovable fudge factors.

Those might sound like fighting words, but
that seems to be the state of cosmology today. And the reason that the Big Bang needs these
fudge factors is because of the unverifiable starting assumptions that are inherently wrong! However, some brave physicists have had the
nerve to challenge the ruling paradigm. One of these is Professor Richard Lieu, who
is the Department Chair of Astrophysics at the University of Alabama. He wrote, "Cosmology is not even astrophysics:
all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory ." Ouch! OK, so there are experts who recognise legitimate
problems with the Big Bang, and they're not just Biblical creationists who are pointing them out.

But, he goes on to say, "because the Universe
offers no control experiment, " (that's the reasoning behind what he's said). What he means is that the same observations
can be interpreted in several different ways, but because there are no other universes to
compare ours with, you can't determine absolutely which is the correct answer. Right. We don't know what a 'typical' universe should look
like since this one is the only one we have.

And because of that, cosmologists today are
inventing all sorts of stuff that has just the right properties to make their theories work, but it's stuff that has never been observed in the lab. They have become "comfortable with inventing
unknowns to explain the unknown", says Lieu. Cosmologists tell us that we live in a universe
filled with invisible, unobserved stuff. About 74 percent dark energy, 22 percent dark matter.

But what is this stuff that we cannot detect
yet should be all around us? Only 4% of the matter/energy content of the
Universe is supposed to be the ordinary atoms that we are familiar with. Four percent. But in June 2013, after the release of the
first results from the Planck satellite, the fractions of dark energy and dark matter were
changed to 68% dark energy and 27% dark matter, leaving 5% normal atomic matter. OK.

Big change. For 40 years, one form or another of dark
matter has been sought in the lab. One of the hypothetical elementary particles that make
up the imaginary 'dark matter' was named axion. It was named after a popular US brand of laundry
detergent, because they thought its discovery would clean up some problems with particle physics.

We're just getting started, and after a break we'll explain what 'dark energy' is all about. How do fish survive in Antarctic waters without freezing? The answer is that their blood plasma has
lots of 'antifreeze' protein that bind to ice and prevent the crystals from growing
and thus causing damage. Some evolutionists claim that this is an example
of 'evolution in action' because new DNA. Code has been created that codes for the antifreeze protein.

But does this really support molecules-to-man evolution? Antifreeze proteins are quite different from
the complex, specific proteins found elsewhere in the fish, or in our own bodies. They are simple proteins, which may have arisen
through the duplication of a digestive enzyme gene that lost its original function due to
mutations scrambling it. Even though they fortuitously prevent ice
crystals from growing, this is a very non-specific job that many different random proteins could perform. So, even though antifreeze proteins help fish
survive, they don't explain how complex, specific proteins could arise by mutations.

To find out more from Creation Ministries
International visit our website CREATION.Com. If you've just tuned in, this week we're
talking about the Big Bang and the Bible. If the Big Bang really did produce the universe
we know and love, proponents of that theory say that only about 5 percent of all the universe
is composed of atoms, the actual stuff that we can see and measure while about 27 percent is dark
matter and about 68 percent is dark energy. What is dark energy? Let's do that.

Dark energy is some sort of anti-gravity that
is supposed to be driving the universe apart at an even faster pace than in the past. No, we're not making this up. It was reported that, "It is an irony of
nature that the most abundant form of energy in the universe is also the most mysterious. Since the breakthrough discovery that the
cosmic expansion is accelerating, a consistent picture has emerged indicating that two-thirds
of the cosmos is made of 'dark energy'some sort of gravitationally repulsive material." OK Well, they're right about the irony, right? Even though this energy is allegedly so abundant,
it can't be observed locally in the laboratory.

In 2011, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the
discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe. It's the idea that the universe appears
to be expanding at an increasing rate, so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy
is receding from the observer is continuously increasing with time, the speed is increasing with time. And in order for that to happen there must
be some kind of anti-gravitational force constantly pushing everything apart, which means dark
energy must be real stuff. The problem is, it has no correlation to anything we know in the
laboratory today, which hardly makes sense.

That's right, yeah. Dr John Hartnett, a retired physicist who
has published more than 100 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and works with our Australian
office, he said, "I recall Nobel Laureate Steven Chu speaking to a large gathering of high
school children on the occasion of the Australian Institute of Physics National Congress at the Australian
National University in Canberra in 2005. He said that we now understand nearly all
there is to know about the Universe, except for a few small details; like what is dark
energy and dark matter which [allegedly] make up 96 percent of the stuff in the Universe." Amazing. 96 Percent of the stuff the universe is made
of, the stuff that's needed to get the Big Bang model to work properly, hasn't been
observed and isn't even well defined, but it has to be there because, well, the Big Bang is true.

It won't work without it, yeah. Actually Dr Hartnett, who is a Bible-believing
scientist has developed an explanation for the large-scale structure of the universe,
based on Relativity, that doesn't include the need for dark matter and dark energy. Seems like a pretty good model, if you can do that. He describes his model in his book,
"Starlight, Time and the New Physics".

For anyone who's into astrophysics, or if
this is just a topic that interests you, we would highly recommend this book. Yes, it's a good book! One of the alleged 'proofs' of the Big Bang model is said
to be the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB. This is a very faint radiation that has a
frequency that peaks around 160GHz, which is within the microwave range of frequencies.
Hence the designation microwave. The radiation was discovered in 1964, and
soon after, it was claimed that this radiation is the 'afterglow' of the original 'explosion'
or fireball of the Big Bang.

Since the time at which the radiation was
emitted from the fireball, the universe has allegedly expanded and that 'afterglow' radiation has
'cooled down' to much longer wavelengths. The wavelengths were 'stretched' from the infrared to
the microwave portion of the spectrum. And this is what's detected by microwave
telescopes today. According to the theory, the big bang fireball
should be the most distant light source of all.

Right? So, all galaxy clusters would be in the
foreground of this source. So then all the CMB radiation must pass the
galaxies clusters between the source and the observer, our telescopes here on earth. So, if the Big Bang was true, the light from
the fireball should cast shadows in the foreground of all the galaxies. Here's the problem: in the "Astrophysical
Journal" back in 2006, 31 galaxy clusters were studied and no shadows were detected.

It's amazing. The results were reported in ScienceDaily.Com
under the headline "Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test". A team of scientists, led by Dr Richard Lieu,
concluded that "Either it [talking about the microwave background] isn't coming from
behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or  there is something else going on," Well, there is something else going on. The results of that study are still unrefuted.

What it means is that the source of the CMB
must be local and not from the Big Bang. That's right, yes. More woes for a Big Bang history of the universe. And yet another problem for those who hang
their Christian apologetics on beliefs of 'modern science', so called.

These are major problems, and we'll look
at even more Big Bang problems when we come back in just a minute. Creation Ministries International edifies
the body of Christ by providing more than 30 years of Bible-supporting scientific research
delivered through speaking engagements, books, magazines, and a variety of media, much of
which is archived on our website, creation.Com. Did you know that if you read 3 articles on
creation.Com each day it would take over 7 years to read them all! Such a wealth of information didn't arise
by chance however; we do this through the faithful prayers and gifts of our supporters
which also fund ongoing research. Support the building up of the Church
by partnering with CMI.

Donate today at creation.Com/donate On this week's episode we are talking about
the Big Bang and the Bible. We covered 2 major problems already. We talked about the fact that in the Big Bang
model, dark matter and dark energy make up about 96 percent of the universe, but both
of these seem to only exist in the minds of people who already believe the Big Bang. Then we summarized the discovery that the
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation really isn't in the background at all.

Yes, that one by itself is a major blow to the Big Bang. And people still hail its original discovery
as proof of the Big Bang. But it's not. Another key piece of the Big Bang model concerns
redshifted energy coming from distant objects, galaxies and so on.

I'll give you the conclusion first, and
then we'll need to explain why it's so devastating to the Big Bang. A quasar with an enormous redshift has been
found embedded in a nearby galaxy with a much lower redshift. For those of you who know a bit about astrophysics,
you already know what the problem is. For the rest of you, let's start by explaining
what redshift is.

If objects are moving very fast, we can measure
this by a change of colour in the light we observe. This effect is better known with sound: if
a fast-moving car passes you, you notice a sharp drop in pitch as it passes you and speeds away. When the car is moving towards you, you hear
a higher pitch (higher frequency) than when the car is standing still. But when it's moving away, you hear a still lower pitch.

This is called the Doppler effect after the
Austrian physicist Christian Doppler. Yes, and with light, we can see the change
of frequency as a colour change. If an object is moving towards you, you can
measure a higher frequency or blueshift, and if it is receding, then we see a lower frequency or redshift. Here's how this is related to the Big Bang.

Edwin Hubble discovered that in general for
galaxies, the greater the redshift, the greater the distance from us, now called the Hubble Law. Because he determined their distances by an
independent means, he was able to confirm that the law worked for the bright spiral galaxies. The idea has now been extrapolated to all
objects in the universe, and it is an essential part of Big Bang models. In this diagram you can see the reference at the top and
the black lines, called absorption lines, representing specific frequencies emitted
by whatever the distant object is burning.

For the most distant object, the quasar there
at the bottom, the absorption lines are the most shifted in the direction of the red part
of the spectrum. Right, so the Big Bang model says that things
that are the furthest away from us are moving away from us more quickly than things closer to us, so
the more distant the object, the higher the redshift. There are certain objects called 'quasars'
(or Quasi-Stellar Objects) that have enormous redshifts. So by the standard redshift interpretation, they're supposed to be at the very
edge of the visible universe.

To appear so bright at such enormous distances,
they're speculated to be super-luminous black holes with a million or a hundred million
times more mass than our sun, surrounded by a disk of material. Some of the material falls into the black hole, causing
the emission of huge amounts of energy. A team of astronomers and astrophysicists
published the discovery of a new quasar in the Astrophysical Journal. This quasar is embedded in galaxy NGC 7319
very close to its centre.

You can see a picture of it here. The black arrow is pointing to the quasar. According to the Hubble law, the galaxy NGC
7319, with a redshift of 0.022, Is about 360 million light-years from Earth. But since the quasar has a hundred times the
galaxy's redshift, it must be receding about a 100 times faster and be 30 times farther away.

If this was true, these objects could not
be physically connected to each other. And that's exactly what Big Bang theorists
first said, that the objects merely look to be close, because the quasar happens to be
in the same line of sight as the galaxy, although it's billions of light years behind. However, the newly discovered quasar is interacting
with the gaseous material in its host galaxy. There's a strong outflow of gas detected
suggesting that the quasar is actually being ejected from the galaxy and it's carrying
along some of the material near it.

So the quasar really is in that galaxy. Big Bang theorists strongly reject the interpretation
that this quasar is connected to the galaxy, even although it is based on observation,
because it utterly demolishes a key assumption of how matter was first formed in the Big Bang. So there's another massive problem for the Big Bang. More when we come back.

We are commonly told that similarities between
living things prove that they are related by evolution. But did you know that many similarities found
in nature defy evolution? Take, for example, the marsupial mouse and
the placental mouse. These creatures are remarkably similar but,
according to evolutionists, they did not inherit this startling similarity from a common ancestor. Instead, we are told, 'evolution' achieved
the same design in both creatures independently.

They call this 'convergence' because evolution
has supposedly converged on, or arrived at, a similar looking outcome. But convergence is really just a word used to try to
explain away similarities that don't support evolution. Indeed, convergences are so common in nature
that they cause major problem for evolutionists -- but they fit nicely with the proposal that the living
world is the handiwork of a single, divine designer. The similarities tell us that there is one
mind behind it all.

He even designed things in a way that thwarts
evolutionary story telling. To find out more from Creation Ministries
International visit our website CREATION.Com. Our subject this week is the Big Bang and the Bible. The Big Bang has some serious problems, and
there's more than just a few scientists who know about them.

A bombshell 'Open Letter to the Scientific
Community' by 33 leading scientists was published on the internet and in New Scientist. The open letter includes statements such as,
"The Big Bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that
we have never observed  inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction
between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the Big Bang theory." Another statement says, "But the Big Bang theory can't
survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field,
the Big Bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that
is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more
than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the
same amount of microwave radiation." We haven't even mentioned that one yet.

It's a problem that resulted from the observation
that the temperature of the background radiation is essentially the same everywhere, in all
directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000). But according to Big Bang theorists, in the
early universe, the temperature of the background radiation would've been different at different
places in space because of the random nature of the initial conditions. Yes, so these different regions could come
to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium
by exchanging radiation over time.

In other words, the radiation would carry
energy from the warmer regions to the cooler ones until they had the same temperatures
that scientists now observe. The problem is this: even assuming the Big
Bang timescale of billions of years, there hasn't been enough time for energy to travel, at the speed of light,
between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions have such
even temperatures? Yes, and that's yet another serious discrepancy between
scientific observations and the Big Bang model. The open letter also said, "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." That's a great point! In science, when the observations don't
fit your theory you can't just keep inventing "hypothetical objects" to prop up the theory. That's right. You really need to ask the question that we've
mentioned many times before. "Which history fits best?" The Big Bang, as a historical framework that's
supposed to explain the origin of the universe doesn't fit the observations from science.

Another statement in the open letter says,
"What is more, the Big Bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently
been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters
consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing
array of adjustable parameters" And that is a devastating statement because
one of the tests of a robust scientific theory is that you can use it to make predictions
which are then verified, or falsified, by observations. And Bible-believing scientists have done exactly that! Right. For example, Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys
proposed that God first created the earth and other heavenly bodies out of water.

Plain old, ordinary liquid water, because
that's what the Hebrew word rendered 'water' at the end of Genesis 1 verse 2 actually means. Yeah. You also see the word water featured prominently
in 2 Peter 3:5 where Peter describes creation. Now, according to Dr Humphreys' model, God
transformed much of the water into other substances.

Based on plausible assumptions about the initial
magnetism, and a biblical age for Creation, Humphreys also calculated the magnetic fields
of other planets (and the sun). His model predicts the field strengths we
observe, and explains features that are a puzzle to evolutionists. They include the moon's strong magnetic
field in the past and the strong field of Mercury, although both rotate very slowly. So the predictions made from a Biblically
based model were verified scientifically.

In 1984, Dr Humphreys predicted that the field
strengths of Uranus and Neptune were about 100,000 times the evolutionary predictions
from their 'dynamo' theory. The two rival models were tested when the Voyager 2
spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune were just
as Humphreys had predicted. Yes, start with the right assumptions, get
the right conclusions.

Yet many anti-creationists call creation 'unscientific'
because it supposedly makes no predictions! More when we come back. Many Christians today have a diminished view
of the Bible because they can't answer questions like, "Is there really a God?",
"What about evolution?" "Are there facts to back up the Bible or is
it all just faith?" Creation Ministries expert speakers visit
churches all over the world to help pastors equip their congregations to understand that
the whole Bible, even Genesis, is accurate. We help to 'demolish arguments' that the
world uses to try to convince people that the Bible isn't true. For more information on getting a CMI speaker
to visit your church, contact your nearest CMI office through our website.

Welcome back. Today we've been summarizing a few scientific
evidences against the Big Bang model. And we just briefly mentioned some scientific successes based on Biblically derived models for the universe. Yeah.

It's amazing to see how many Christian leaders
have not just tolerated the 'Big Bang' idea but they've embraced it wholeheartedly, they've made it a part of creation, a part of theology. To hear their pronouncements, it's like
believers should welcome it as a major plank in our defense of the faith. Sort of, 'At last, we can use science to
prove that there's a creator for the universe.' But, there's a heavy price to pay for surrendering
to the temptation of secular acceptability, at least in physics and astronomy. As a ministry, we have warned for a long time
that adopting the Big Bang into Christian thought is like bringing the wooden horse within the
walls of Troy.

For a number of reasons: 1) The Big Bang forces acceptance of a sequence
of events totally incompatible with the Bible. For example, the earth after the sun instead
of earth before sun That's right. That's backwards. 2) The Big Bang's billions of years of astronomical
evolution are not only based on naturalistic assumptions, they are contrary to the words
of Jesus Himself, who said that people were there right from the beginning, not towards the end of an
incredibly long 'creation' (so called) process.

That's right. 3) The slow evolution of the stars, then the
solar system and the planets (including earth) in Big Bang thinking means that 'Big Bang Christians'
are also going to have to accept 'geological evolution', millions of years for the earth's
fossil-bearing rocks to be laid down. So they end up denying the global Flood, and
accepting death and bloodshed and disease (as seen in the fossils) before Adam. This removes the Fall and the Curse on creation
from any effect on the real world, and it also removes the biblical answer that Christians
have always had to the problem of suffering and evil.

God made a perfect world, ruined by sin. Yeah, and that's huge! And lastly, marrying one's theology to today's
science, so called science, means that one is likely to be widowed tomorrow. If you hang your theological hat on the Big
Bang because the majority believes it, you'll be embarrassed when it fails. Instead, let's trust in the One Who made it all.

His words are truth and life, and we'll
never be let down. That's why, as a ministry, we call ourselves presuppositional. We start with the idea that the Bible is the
Word of God and it's infallible. So we put our faith in that.

Then we look to the science to see how best
to understand the Bible rather than try to interpret the Bible using secular science
of the day. Right, yes. And don't get the impression that we think
science is bad. Science is great! In fact, as far as we know, of all the Christian
ministries around the world, we employ the most PhD scientists.

And Thomas and I, and the other hosts of this
show, we have the privilege of delivering some of that to you fine folk sitting at home,
or wherever you might be listening. Science is not bad. Often times creationists are painted as "Oh,
we're anti science", and that kind of thing. No!  That's not the point.

We deny the false history of evolution,
and today's topic, the Big Bang. That's wrong. Not the science, not the physics, not the
astrophysics and all the wonderful work that scientists do around the world, even if they're
not Christians. The science is great.

And the science, as we've kind of hinted
at in the last half hour, wonderfully supports what the Bible says. That's right. And you can find out more about that by getting
hold of our magazine, called Creation magazine. You can get the paper version of it, or you
can go online and download a free digital version.

Go to creation.Com/free-mag
and you can take a look for yourself. It's some of the material that we use in
putting together this show and some of the research that our scientists have been doing
that comes from a Biblically based perspective..