Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Big Bang is a big bust. As usual, the Darwinist mythology is fact-free...

Ashby Camp and Tim Wallace (webmaster) are among the men responsible for the existence of True Origins, the website that actually has factual information about the science behind Darwinist myth versus evidence.   There is no more widespread myth than Darwinism, it is far more popular than Greek mythology or Norse mythology or any other mythology.  It is almost entirely lacking in evidence but is entirely a matter of supposition and stories about the evidence.   Darwinism is frankly anti-science or pseudo-science, which is why many scientists refer to Darwinism as scientism.   I have spent many years posting evidence in favor of Creationism and often use ID sources as well.   True Origins is a great source for those of you who wish to study the subject.

One reason that Darwinism is a myth is that it flies in the face of laws that have been long-established and proven over and over again.   Thermodynamics and Biogenesis, for instance, have been established by many years of experiments and yet Darwinism would, if true, break both of these laws.  

Classic Darwinism has to account for existence, life and information.   If God is invoked to create the Universe then it has lost, because God's Word, the Bible explains the formation of the Universe and life and information and there is no need for any Darwinist explanations at all.   In fact, this is true, Darwinism adds nothing to science at all other than confusion and misdirection of funding and research in a futile effort to find what does not exist.   Just as man eventually accepted that there was no Philosopher's Stone,  one day man will accept that there was no Big Bang nor was there any way for life to come from non-life or information to come from natural sources and scientists will begin to accept the idea of God as did most of the great scientists of the time before Darwin.  

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:


I cannot urge you strongly enough to read that entire PDF.  Plaudits to Ashley Camp for providing an overview of the major problems that plague the BB scenario.   Real science should never accept an hypothesis that cannot account for the beginning of the process, the means by which it could have happened, and especially for the fact that about 96% of the Universe that BB mythology describes cannot be detected.  No explanation for the initial singularity, a tiny stretch of time in which any scientific laws we now know to be in existence are completely thrown away, and in fact a plausible cause for the galaxies we observe now and our Solar System.   

No BB myth can explain even one planet or moon in our Solar System.   Planetesimals which are proposed as means by which planets can form would in fact collide and destroy each other rather than clump together.  A big cloud of gas as a cause sounds good to the ignorant, but when you analyze the process you discover it cannot work.  The gas giants absolutely could not exist nor could they be giving out more heat that they receive from the Sun had they evolved.   Oh, you didn't know there was an evolution story for the Universe and the Solar System?   Don't feel too bad about it if you did not know because said story is full of more holes than a sieve.  Not one planet or moon in the entire system fits into the BB/evolution story at all.

In fact no scientist can give a plausible means by which a star could possibly form other than from the remains of old stars.   No one can actually explain the Universe and have a story that fits the evidence other than Creationists.   We can show that the Bible asserts that God created the Universe and he stretched it out.   That actually fits the evidence.  The Big Bang is far more miraculous and implausible than a Creator God.

For now, let's take a look at one fundamental problem and, trust me, there are literally hundreds of major problems with the Big Bang Myth...

Steve Miller
© 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 Big Bang model requires the existence of Population III stars.  What are Population III stars?  According to the physics of the Big Bang, the only elements the Big Bang could have produced are hydrogen, helium, and possibly a trace of lithium, but no other metals.  Anything atomically heavier than hydrogen and helium is considered a metal including, for example, oxygen.  (Note: In this context astronomers use the term metal differently, not the way the term is used in chemistry).  Therefore, the first stars of the universe could have been made only from hydrogen and helium, and these stars are known as Population III stars.

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. 

It reminds me of what Darwinists say about evolution.   It happens too slowly for us to observe now, even having studied hundreds of generations of fruit flies and thousands of generations of bacteria.   Yet it happens too fast to leave a record in the fossil layers in terms of transitional forms.   Darwinists will claim to have identified a handful of very doubtful transitionals but in fact in a Darwinist world there would be a continuum of evolving organisms rather than what we see.   What we see in the rock records is layers laid down like sediments from a flood and organisms found largely by the level they would have lived on before the Flood.   The sedimentary rocks associated with the rising flood waters include lots of tracks of animals all going in one direction and in some places they leave tracks consistent with being in water and more tracks at all.  

In a flood, you would find sedimentary layers that sometimes disappear and reappear depending upon the tides and flows and storms and volcanic activity and other forces such as rapid tectonic plate subduction.  There would be some layers that would, in a world-wide flood, span continents and others that would be associated with special circumstances, such as a bloom of seaborne organisms:

White Cliffs of Dover

 August 21, 2008 Tas Walker

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

White Cliffs of Dover

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.


White 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 View

The 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 View

With 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.

White Cliffs of Dover

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 It

The 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.


A Creationist has a better explanation for existence and life and information.   We can provide better answers for the big picture and also for specifics.   I am tremendously thankful for the internet, because I believe that over the next few years the ordinary person who studies the evidence will begin to wonder what people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking are SMOKING?