—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
Abstract: In creationist cosmologies do we expect to find a systematic trend of decreased metallicity in stars as a function of redshift? Some may claim such a systematic decrease is a ‘lay down misere’1 in favour of the standard big bang model. Here I show that that is not the case, and when the assumptions are changed so does the outcome. Therefore such a claim does not automatically rule out creationist cosmologies with no such redshift dependence. First published in Journal of Creation 29(1) :3-5, April 2015. (This article is TECHNICAL.)
In astronomy, metallicity applies to all elements other than hydrogen and helium. The term ‘metal’ in astronomy describes all elements heavier than helium.2,3 A systematic trend of weighted mean metallicity as a function of look-back time in the Universe is sometimes shown in support of the standard big bang model.4 Though stated some find that this trend is not always so well supported by the observational data.5
Does this rule out certain creationist cosmologies? Take for example, Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) model,6 which essentially describes all galaxies with the same youthful age of about 6000 years but includes the notion of a mature creation. According to Lisle no ages of any structures in the universe should be greater than 6000 years, therefore based on evolutionary assumptions, if some object appears older due to so-called maturity, i.e. a fully formed galaxy, then that is in-built maturity that was from the creation.7 Continue reading
For the second time, I was on Bob Enyart Live radio program to discuss problems with the big bang!
Listen to Big Bang Hit List Part 1
Abstract: I speculate on a new cosmological redshift mechanism due to ‘tired light’ in a created static-yet-unstable 6000-year-old finite-size universe. This utilises Lisle’s ASC model, but I show a one-to-one correspondence with the Hartnett-Carmeli model that was so successful when tested against type Ia supernova measurements. This gives a theoretical underpinning to the ASC model with a Hubble law redshift-distance dependence, but not from expansion, yet where, today, we see all sources in the universe only 6000 years after they were created. Article first published by Answers Research Journal 8 (2015):77–83. PDF available here.
In standard cosmology it is normal practice to assume no Creator and that the material world is all that there is. Therefore it follows that only the laws of physics, time and chance are to be considered when formulating a description of the creation and history of the universe we see. This means that within the visible horizon there has been sufficient time for the gravitational and electromagnetic influences2 of the matter elsewhere to be felt locally. Assuming an expanding universe, the only limitation comes from the notion that the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light (c)3 and therefore this has introduced to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation what is known as the horizon problem.4 Continue reading
Figure 1: The coloured background indicates the peaks and troughs in the occurrence of quasars at the redshift of the Huge-LQG. The LQG is shown as a long chain of peaks indicated by black circles. The red crosses indicate the positions of quasars in a smaller LQG, the Clowes & Campusano LQG at the same redshift, around z = 1.28. Credit: R. G. Clowes / UCLan
In late 2012 a discovery was made1 of what was afterwards called the Huge Large Quasar Group (Huge-LQG). A collection of 73 quasars all with redshifts around a mean value of z = 1.27 was discovered in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS DR7QSO) that covers 15 degrees across the sky.
A new discovery was made in 2013 of a massively large quasar group as indicated by the black circles in figure 1. Its longest extension is about 4 billion light-years based on standard concordance cosmology. This was then claimed as the largest single structure in the universe. Its location on the sky is about 8.8 degrees north of the Clowes & Campusano large quasar group (LQG) at the same redshift, with a mean of z = 1.28. The latter is indicated by the red crosses in figure 1. Continue reading
On Friday June 6th, I presented a lecture at the University of Adelaide entitled “8 Reasons Why Evolution is Foolish” to an audience of about 55, filling about half of the seating in a small lecture theatre. I spoke on the topic for about 60 minutes presenting my 8 reasons via 8 questions which, so far, have not been answered by evolutionists. Following the lecture we had about 40 minutes of Q&A. The video of the lecture is here.
An organised group of atheists turned out to “strike a blow for science against creationism and the supernatural” by taking me on. That is what they claimed on their website.1 See left excerpt.
There were about 10 members of some atheist club, who peppered themselves through the audience. After the event one guy identified himself as president of some atheist club, so it is clear they came with an action plan. I had been forewarned that something like this might happen as one contact told me that there had been a lot of activity on a university-connected FB page about this event. But their arguments and the questions they put to me in the Q&A were a total failure.