There is a password-protected summary by Ashley Camp of some of the major problems for the Big Bang model that illustrates why it should earn the title of "myth" rather than science that is viewable as a PDF:
SUMMARY OF THE BIG BANG CREATION STORY
© 2007 Creation Research Society. All Rights Reserved.
This article first appeared in the September/October 2007 issue of
Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society
The stars we observe throughout the universe today all contain metals, such as Population I stars, which are metal-rich, and Population II stars that are metal-poor. Population I stars contain approximately 2-3% metals, they are found in the spiral arms or in the disks of galaxies. Population II stars, containing only 0.1% metal content in their light spectra, are observed around a galaxy halo, in globular clusters, and in the central bulge of a galaxy.
These designations became apparent from the stars' locations in the galaxy, space motion, and metal makeup. Stars produce the heavier elements by using successive stages of nuclear synthesis within their cores. According to the evolutionary theory of chemical enrichment, or how stars produce the heavier elements, those elements are spewed back into space through eruptions such as supernova explosions. In this way, later generations of stars that form are contaminated with heavier elements. Thus, according to evolutionary theory, the later that a star forms, the more metals that it ought to contain.
This means that if the Big Bang model were true, somewhere in the universe we should see stars without the spectral lines produced by metals. Moreover, because Population III stars are predecessors of all the observed Population I and II stars, vast numbers of them should have been identified long ago. But no such stars have ever been discovered; even the light from the most distant galaxies have metal lines in their spectra. Population III stars are essential for the Big Bang model, yet they have not been observed. Therefore, the Big Bang is not a plausible scientific model if something the theory requires is nonexistent.
Mainstream scientists who promote the Big Bang model try to refute the situation with the missing Population III stars with a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. If evolutionary astronomers were to find a single Population III star, they would claim that proves the model, even though they need massive numbers of Population III stars to account for all that we see. Moreover, the fact that no one has found a Population III star is explained by their arguing that Population III stars must have been exceptionally massive and therefore burned up quickly. With this "must have been" explanation, the Big Bang model is confirmed in the minds of evolutionists. So how can they lose? The evidence will be made to fit evolutionist theory whatever the evidence may be.
While evolutionary astronomers will admit that the Population III stars are missing, they engage in special pleading to deal with the fact that Population III stars have never been found. How convenient: all the Population III stars are so massive that they burn up and disappear before even one can be detected. In other words, how can anyone say Population III stars are super massive if no one has seen one to know? Big Bang proponents need to be reminded that science is based on testable evidence, not hypothetical conjecture! If no evidence exits for Population III stars, postulating any reason for their non-existence is unscientific.
Their reasoning is contradictory to what we see in the universe, because over 90% of observable stars are LOW MASS! Do astronomers have a "testable mechanism" for why the universe would exhibit this sudden change? In other words, we have another just-so story: the alleged cosmic explosion makes all the first stars "super massive" to the extent that they burn up quickly (therefore no one can find any of them), and then the universe gives rise to small, dwarf type stars, such as our sun, which comprise the vast majority of all stars. In addition, when we gaze across the universe, looking back in time close to when the Big Bang supposedly occurred, the light which we see exhibits metal spectra! Here, we should at least find some light that would be free of metal spectra; but alas, metals were apparently present at the beginning of time. And when all else fails, we are now being told that Population II stars are polluted Population III stars, but what testable, provable mechanism can be found to show how this would happen?
Unfortunately, the proponents of the Big Bang accept by faith the essential requirements of their theory in spite of the observations, which clearly do not fit the model.
If you want a truly great read I suggest David's Berlinski's paper "Was there a Big Bang?" You will need to be familiar with multisyllabic words. Think Dennis Miller without the jokes and a scientific slant. Ten pages of pure geek entertainment! Not to mention a wealth of actual information. Let's see if our normal commenters are capable of absorbing THAT!
Oh, and no one has demonstrated that DNA does not include information. Anyone who suggests that does not have the SLIGHTEST clue about the nature of DNA...or information. I have a few "fans" who apparently fit that bill. Go ahead and read up on information and DNA from the search engine on this blog. DNA is actually a coding mechanism that is far more sophisticated than anything mankind has designed.
Impressive and dramatic, the White Cliffs of Dover keep watch as a citadel over the southern entrance into the Strait of Dover, which separates England from France. These towering escarpments, stretching 10 miles (16 km) along the coast, not only guard England from its enemies but, more importantly, give tribute to the global Flood as described in Genesis 6–9.
The Chalk Beds
Chalk formations are found in many places in Europe, including England, France and Northern Ireland, and even extend into the Middle East as far as Kazakhstan. Extensive chalk beds are also found throughout North America, including the states of Tennessee, Nebraska, Mississippi, and Kansas.
Many secular geologists claim that these chalk beds speak of an old earth since they believe chalk formed slowly and progressively over millions of years. However, when we interpret the evidence from a biblical perspective, we see that there is an explanation for the formation of these chalk beds that aligns with the biblical timescale of thousands of years. The main cause of these beds is the catastrophic, worldwide Flood.
FormationWhite chalk is composed almost entirely of calcium carbonate. This calcium carbonate, a very pure type of limestone, consists of billions of microorganisms including foraminifera and calcareous algae, coccoliths and rhabdoliths. Today, these microorganisms live in the upper 300–600 feet (91–183 m) of the open seas. When these microorganisms die, their calcium-rich shells accumulate on the bottom of the ocean floor, often almost 15,000–16,000 feet (4.6–4.9 km) below the surface. These shells cover about one-quarter of the surface of the earth today. It is estimated that these remains take up to 10 days or longer to reach the ocean floor and reportedly accumulate at a rate of .5–3 inches (1.25–7.5 cm) per thousand years.
Evolutionary ViewThe measured rate of chalk accumulation seems to demonstrate that these chalk beds could not have formed quickly. Evolutionists claim that these chalk beds were formed around 70 to 100 million years ago, during the “Cretaceous period,” when the southern portion of England was submerged by a shallow tropical sea. Chalk slowly accumulated and the land was eventually uplifted by movements of the earth’s crust to where the cliffs tower over the Strait of Dover up to 350 feet (105 m) high.
The Biblical ViewWith such a slow rate of accumulation, how did such monumental chalk beds form on an earth, which is, according to the Bible, a little over 6000 years old? For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources.
With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.
The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.
Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean.
Consider ItThe White Cliffs of Dover confirm the biblical account of a global Flood just about 4,000 years ago. The evidence is apparent when viewed through a biblical perspective.