As a teenager I co-authored a book comparing the competing cosmologies in 1968. They were the Big Bang Theory (BBT) and the Steady State Theory (SST). Even though the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation provided a big boost to big bang theories at that time, I preferred the SST because it had no origin in time. You see, I was an atheist then and I reasoned that if the Universe had no beginning then it didn’t need a Creator and thus I had no God that I needed to obey.
The fact that the BBT has an origin in time—a unique past boundary—has been particularly vexing for the atheist believers in that cosmogony. Using various approaches the BB theorists have been trying to eliminate the beginning, by replacing the Creator with an eternal quantum potential, which existed for eternity past, and then 13.8 billion years ago exploded into the big bang universe, … or, so they say. For now though, they are stuck with the universal origin in a singularity, which in itself has led them to worshipping the Universe itself.
The explanation given in the Bible I now find so much more satisfying. Any cosmogony, which attempts to correctly describe real history, must be consistent with and follow not only the biblical time scale but also follow the sequence of events in the Genesis account. I present a very brief summary of a few biblical creationist models. These models acknowledge the eternal Creator God as the source of everything in the Universe.
An illustrated talk presented at the Creation Ministries International 2016 Creation SuperCamp at The Tops Conference Centre, NSW, 9:45 pm Wednesday January 6, 2016.
Video of Powerpoint presentation
— how do they fit into a biblical creationist model?
Figure 1a: The quasar 3C 273, which resides in a giant elliptical galaxy in the constellation of Virgo. Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA
Quasars are very high redshift astronomical objects with broad emission line (BEL) spectra. The latter is very different to that in the usual humdrum galaxies. This means the objects redshifts and BEL spectra can be used to identify them. And because of their high redshifts they are assumed to be very distant, very luminous active galaxies with super-massive black holes at their hearts, powering them to emit prodigious amounts of radiation over all wave-bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Figure 1b: Spectra of quasar 3C 273 compared to the star Vega. Spectral lines are shifted towards the red end of the spectrum, from which its distance is determined using the standard LCDM cosmology.
Most of the high redshift objects in the universe are quasars. The redshifts of galaxies and quasars when interpreted within big bang cosmology—the greater the redshift the greater the distance—means that the most distant objects are seen at a time when the Universe was youngest.1
Following big bang thinking, quasars are then considered to be just galaxies in some early stage of development—back closer in time to the big bang—than the usual spiral and elliptical galaxies we might see with much lower redshifts. The quasar 3C 273, shown in Fig. 1a, the first to be identified (discovered in the early 1960s by astronomer Allan Sandage), has been shown to reside in a giant elliptical galaxy in the constellation of Virgo. According to standard cosmology its redshift puts it at a distance of 2.5 billion light-years from Earth. Continue reading
—The bankruptcy of big-bang thinking and its ‘dark’ fudge factors
Six important questions are asked in regards to the alleged big bang origin of the Universe? These questions highlight the bankruptcy of big bang thinking, about the origin of the universe that needs numerous fudge factors.
Embracing the ‘darkness’ has led man to develop unprovable fudge factors to plug the holes in his failed theory. I deal with each of these:
- Where did the Universe come from?
- How did nothing explode?
- How did stars and galaxies form?
- Why does CMB ‘light’ cast no shadows?
- Why the ‘Axis of Evil’?
- What about expansion of space?
…. 14 more problems are listed but not discussed in any detail.
Six major fudge factors are highlighted as a result but there are many more. The big bang needs these unverifiable fudge factors; so why hasn’t it been discarded? The answer is simple. The alternative, for the atheist–a Creator God–is unbearable, and for the compromised theist or deist, who accepts a big bang origin for the universe, the Creator as described by a straightforward reading of the Bible, is unbearable.
An illustrated talk presented at the Creation Ministries International 2016 Creation SuperCamp at The Tops Conference Centre, NSW, 7:30 pm Monday January 4, 2016.
Video of powerpoint presentation
I presented this message at a small church in Adelaide in 2013. It has just now been posted on the web, and the message is still relevant as ever. In fact, for believers this message daily becomes more relevant as the foundations of the Christian faith are being ‘white-anted’ (eroded) from beneath through the pagan teachings of the big bang origin of the Universe and evolution. That non-biblical worldview has slowly (over the past 150 years) been accepted into the church as true science. The message is ‘the authority of man’s science above the authority of God’s Words.‘ Believers beware of this poison! It is destroying faith and causing many to doubt. But a true understanding of God’s Words and how science fits into the Bible helps us understand the world around us and even answers questions like, if God is a good, merciful and compassionate God, then why is there death and suffering in the world? Continue reading
—A new analysis suggests that it didn’t (naturalistically, at least).
Evolutionary astronomers allege that the solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago and scientists have for a very long time been trying to model that formation process using powerful computer simulations. New research has shown that the inner rocky planets and the asteroid belt in our solar system cannot simultaneously form naturalistically.
An online news article from the journal Nature discusses this new research, stating:1
Standard planet-formation models have been unable to reconstruct the distributions of the Solar System’s small, rocky planets and asteroids in the same simulation. (emphasis added)
Figure 1: Schematic of the inner planets and asteroid belt in the solar system. Actual solar system (a) and simulated inner solar systems (b & c). From Ref. 1.