‘Light from the big bang’ casts no shadows

If the big bang were true, the light from the fireball should cast shadows in the foreground of all galaxy clusters.

Published in Creation magazine 37(1):50-51, 2015.

Update (1/3/2018) I first have made this argument in 2006 based on the work of Prof. Lieu and others. If the big bang were true, the light from the fireball should cast a shadow in the foreground of all galaxy clusters as illustrated below. However new research (Xiao, W., Chen, C., Zhang, B., Wu, Y., and Dai, M., Sunyaev–Zel’dovich effect or not? Detecting the main foreground effect of most galaxy clusters, MNRASL 432, L41–L45, 2013) has thrown this conclusion into doubt. Prof. Lieu at the time wrote “Either it [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.” As it turns out that “something else” is contamination of the expected shadowing by radio emissions from the galaxy clusters themselves.

Without anything to contradict this new result, and the analysis seems strong, one must entertain the possibility that the anomaly first found by Lieu et al in 2006 has been adequately explained. The problem of course is that astrophysics is not exactly operational science. At best this no-shadow argument is now equivocal and hence I suggest that it may no longer be used as an argument against the big bang hypothesis.


One of the alleged ‘proofs’ of the big bang model of origins is said to be the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The radiation was discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson for which they won the Nobel prize in physics. Soon after their discovery, 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, which started as heat, was emitted from the fireball, the universe has allegedly expanded by a factor of 1,100. Thus, that ‘afterglow’ radiation has ‘cooled down’ to much longer wavelengths (‘stretched’ from the infrared to the microwave portion of the spectrum).These are detected by microwave telescopes today.

Figure 1: Temperature fluctuations of the all-sky projection of the CMB radiation, after a constant background equal to 2.725 K was subtracted. Darker spots represent cooler regions and brighter spots represent warmer regions. The central red region is radiation from the Galaxy, which needs to be removed before the supposed background radiation can be seen without foreground contamination.

Figure 1: Temperature fluctuations of the all-sky projection of the CMB radiation, after a constant background equal to 2.725 K was subtracted. Darker spots represent cooler regions and brighter spots represent warmer regions. The central red region is radiation from the Galaxy, which needs to be removed before the supposed background radiation can be seen without foreground contamination.

According to theory, the big bang fireball should be the most distant light source of all. Thus all galaxy clusters would be in the foreground of this source. Therefore all CMB radiation must pass the intervening galaxy clusters between the source and the observer, here on earth. This radiation passes through the inter-galactic medium, between the galaxies in the clusters, and is scattered by electrons, through inverse Compton scattering,now known as the Sunyaev–Zel’dovich effect (SZE).3  When this happens, the path of the CMB radiation is interrupted and distorted. Continue reading

Soft tissue from Triceratops horn

Mark Armitage is the guy who lost his job over publishing in  2012 scientific findings of soft tissue in a triceratops horn found at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana.

According to press release the find is extremely significant…

 “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

According to Armitage, just two weeks after publishing his soft-tissue findings in the peer-reviewed journal “Acta Histochemica,” he was told that there weren’t funds to continue his position.

Related Reading

The revolt against Darwinism

Do you remember the revolt of the scientists against the big bang theory for the origin of the universe? In 2004 a group of 33 leading scientists took out a paid advertisement in New Scientist.  They titled it ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community,’ basically stating that the big bang theory was fundamentally flawed.

An article copying that appeared on http://www.rense.com titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004). See screenshot on left.Rense

The list of names of scientists who agreed with the Statement—that is, disagreed with the theory of a big bang origin of the universe—is available here and many more added their names to that list.

These scientists only agreed on one thing. They were all united in their conviction that the big bang was a bust.

A renewed revolt against Darwinism

Continue reading

Lift up the Word with gentleness and respect

Someone writes a book, or develops a theory (or even just presents some speculation), and then a believer in a church uses that information and says something like,

 “The YEC position is true and here’s the proof! You are crazy if you can’t believe it because we have this evidence.”

Sadly, sometimes I hear this sort of thing.  Folks it just should not happen. And a person who hears it might react, complaining with,

“A (creation ministry) speaker filled their heads with stuff, which isn’t true about the YEC interpretation of the Bible.”

Well that’s how the recipient may have understood the attack on his belief system, which was obviously not a biblical creationist one. Maybe he believes in theistic evolution or big bang or both. (I am not supporting those inconsistent interpretations, but I am talking about our approach.) This sort of thing has led to a division in the fellowship. Some even claim that the whole subject of biblical creation is divisive. That is not what I am talking about, but rather how some well-meaning people use speculations and theories like clubs trying to win an argument, when they should be categorized only as man’s attempts at a solution to a biblical creationist problem. Continue reading