To many modern Christians (apparently including even the Pope) evolution “must be accepted” because atheist scientists say it is true. This book is dedicated to addressing the scientific reasons that evolution cannot be true. I have explained how often scientists have had to make great leaps of faith in order to believe in evolution. In fact, some would say (myself included) evolution’s proponents have had to abandon the scientific method completely.
There is another equally important point, at least equal to the ethical, scientific, and religious costs of believing in evolution. What is the scriptural cost of believing in evolution? We have established that there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe in evolution, and equally importantly, there is no scientific reason NOT to believe the Bible. Still, we are told by atheistic scientists that we cannot believe the Bible creation account.
What does belief in evolution cost the Christian believer? The first, and clearest example is the need to toss out the entire first chapter of Genesis. We must change our view of scripture, from God’s Holy Word, to mythology and allegory. We must, in essence, assume that the Bible is not True ( with a capital T). We are then soon prone to toss out the Flood account, disbelieve the Ark, and soon after that we toss out all those bothersome “unscientific” miracles in the New Testament. But at least we still believe in the Beatitudes, and in love your neighbor, we say. At least we still believe in Jesus. Or do we?
An important fact often lost on those Christians who “choose” evolution, is that we must also call Jesus a liar. In Matthew 19:4 Jesus describes the creation, and how God Himself created man, and woman and marriage. In Matthew 25:34 Jesus describes a kingdom “prepared from the foundation of the world” for those who minister to the poor, and naked, and hungry. In Mark 13:19 he talks about the creation which God created. In Matthew 24:37 Jesus discusses the Ark. He talks about the event as if it were an established fact. He talks about Moses. He mentions the prophet Elijah and Jonah. He even mentions Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah. He clearly accepted the Old Testament literally, and treated the events recorded there as historical facts. Not only that, but nearly all Bible scholars accept that the Theophanies (times when God appeared in the OT) were actual appearances of the Pre-incarnate Christ. So when God told Moses on Mount Sinai that He created the world in six days, it was actually Jesus, the Pre-incarnate Christ, who spoke.
1 John Chapter 4 reads, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist.” For most secular atheists, evolution excludes the possibility of the Creator God and his Son Jesus Christ. So by definition, the theory of evolution seems to clearly fall under the definition of antichrist. Why are atheist professors so adamant that their young wards accept evolution? Could it be because they themselves have accepted the religion of the antichrist? Based on 1 John Chapter 4, one would have to believe this is possible.
Of course there are many other reasons to believe the Bible creation account, and many other direct consequences that occur as a result of disbelieving. If the creation account was not a literal six days, then what is the reason or justification for resting on the Sabbath day? If death did not enter the world as a result of sin, but was already there for hundreds of millions of years, then why do we need redemption (Romans 6:23), and a Savior? Why was there a worldwide flood if not for man’s wickedness and sin? Must we throw out that entire account as well?
In fact, as many have written, even our free will and ability to choose right vs wrong are based in the Creation account. “Carried to its logical conclusion, evolution—the undirected, random evolving of living things—eliminates the power of the human will. Darwin, himself, came to the conclusion that free will is an illusion. If evolution is true, then it means that all our choices are merely actions or behaviors determined by our genes or our surrounding environment and are conditioned by past choices—either successful or otherwise.” (1)
As we look back into the dark reaches of history, it seems easy for us to ridicule the beliefs of ancient Baal worshipers and their orgies and human sacrifices. It seems absurd when we read about the polytheistic pagans of Greece and Rome, who seemed to have a different quirky god for every day of the week. The Middle Ages with their superstitions seem so inane and unsophisticated. “How unscientific”, we say. And modern secular scientists want us to believe that Christianity is also bound for the trash heaps of history. But what if the exact opposite is true?
Someday soon, will a future generation look back at a naive and scientifically illiterate generation of Christians in the late 20th century, saying “How could anyone actually have accepted the blathering unscriptural and unscientific idiocy of supposed scientists like Hawking and Dawkins? The virtual black holes in their theories were so vast they swallowed up all vestiges of sentience and reason.”
God’s Word was and is clear. And the science is clear as well. I believe that day will come, and soon, when Belief in Jesus and the proper place of science will be restored, and belief in evolution will be called the greatest hoax ever known.
“Put no more confidence in mortals. What are they worth?” Isaiah 2:22 Good News Translation
Exodus 20:11 “In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested.”
Evolution will one day be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science. ANM
Chapter 21 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
BRANCH OR VINE? EVOLUTION AND SCRIPTURE.
We have previously discussed the scientifically discredited evolutionary “Tree of life”. It appeared for nearly a hundred years in texts as an illustration of how evolution progressed from one species to another. It suggested that humans evolved from apes, which evolved from other lower life forms and eventually from some single-celled organism such as a bacteria or slime mold. It suggests mankind is just one of the many thousands of branches on the random tree of evolution. Here are just a couple of the hundreds of variations.
We showed that this imaginary “tree of life” has been totally discredited by scientific (not just religious) means, such as archaeology, geology, paleontology, and genomics. Proponents of evolution have tried to “improve” and “re-engineer” the diagram hundreds of times, but to no avail. It is finally being discarded by those who study evolution, yet it still appears in many recently published secular texts. You see, even pro-evolutionary institutions like Berkeley admit that NS does NOT explain the origin of life, that evolution is NOT random, that evolution can (and supposedly did) occur RAPIDLY. (1) Yet all these ideas would have been considered anathema to Darwin. Most are the complete antithesis of evolution as it was taught for the last century.
As written by Dr. David Raup, Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. (2) (Bold type added) When he states it is “jerky” that means animals suddenly appear fully formed in the geological strata… that sounds far more compatible with creation than with evolution!
Some may not believe this, so to further explain I will quote evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt, who wrote: “The major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps…The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: ‘the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.’”(3) Yes, folks, evolutionists now believe in “jerky” evolution, or in other words, your mother might have been a dog or a cow.
We have not yet examined the alternative viewpoint, mentioned in scripture in which we (humanity) are viewed as branches of the one true vine. John Chapter 15 verse 5 reads ““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (4)
You may wonder, “what does the Vine have to do with evolution?” Simply this, how we view our origins has a great deal to do with how we view ourselves. If we view ourselves as branches of the vine connected to the divine, perfect, loving, all-knowing Son of God, this imparts value and self-worth that cannot be ascribed any other way. Certainly it is not found in viewing oneself as the mutated offspring of a monkey.
The “vine and branches” verse is traditionally viewed as referring to Christian Churches, ministers, and believers, who derive their life source and meaning from their connection to a living Christ. (Which I believe is true, and probably the primary interpretation.) However, the verse is also applicable to the study of the sciences. I have stated before that the truest definition of Scientific study, is as follows; “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God-given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.”
Certainly, that definition is at odds as with current secular atheistic presuppositions, but we have proven many times over that the goal of secular atheism and scientism is NOT maintaining truth and objectivity. It is focused rather on indoctrinating gullible youth into their atheistic, anti-God, Anti-Christ mindset. (5)
Science, that is to say, true and intellectually honest science, is not incompatible with faith, nor is it incompatible with the Bible. But the intellectually dishonest, secular atheistic, brainwashed view of science (more accurately called scientism) taught in our educational institutions now is an entirely different matter.
Many of the authors and originators of Scientific study (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus, and hundreds more) were Christians, and for hundreds of years we have seen our standard of living, and our standards of education moving forward at a steady pace. These men practiced their scientific inquiry in an attitude of humility, with the acknowledgment of a divine omnipotent Creator God. And they sought both scientific advancement, and improvement of the human condition.
But more recently scientific advancements have no longer been leading to increases in individual freedom or an improved standard of living for society as a whole. We have instead seen burgeoning technological advancements that have created an unbelievably wealthy class of billionaires while doing little to advance the condition of the billions trapped in poverty. And worse yet we have seen a dark curtain of spiritual and intellectual dishonesty descend on our campuses, our media, and our entertainment industry. I think it is fair to say that the current trends in science are not leading to the betterment of society and mankind nearly as much as they once did.
Perhaps, you say, that is a sociological or political question, not a scientific one. And certainly in some senses that is true. But each is connected and intertwined with the other. For example, the sociological phenomenon of secular atheism which is overtaking our campuses is highly dependent on the belief in and promotion of evolution. As belief in evolution has grown, so has atheism.
So perhaps, just perhaps, Real Science, practiced in the setting of belief in a loving Creator, offers more hope and solutions than the pseudo-science of the secular atheists. Perhaps by reconnecting with “The Vine” also called “the way, and the truth and the life”(6), even science, cosmology, and our understanding of life itself will be greatly enhanced.
As written by Sarah Irving-Stonebraker of Western Sydney University, a convert from atheism, “Christianity was also, to my surprise, radical – far more radical than the leftist ideologies with which I had previously been enamored. The love of God was unlike anything which I expected, or of which I could make sense.”(7)
Or as I have written, “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God-given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM
(3) Goldschmitdt, R. B. (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven CT: Yale Univ.Press. ISBN0-300-02823-7
(4) John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”
(5) John 4:1-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in theflesh… and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.”
Chapter 20 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
Many millennials are lost. According to an article in the Huff Post entitled “Millennials: The Lost Generation”, “Today we have a whole group of young people that we call millennials – men and women ages 18-33, who have higher rates of depression, stress and suicide, than any generation before them.“(1) An internet search on “millennials the lost generation” reveals scores of hits. But one naturally wonders, why is this generation lost?
Perhaps they are lost because they have no strong sense of personal identity. Perhaps they are lost because millions of their parents were more interested in being drunk or high than being parents. Perhaps they are lost because they are misled by politicians whose only concern is power, not Truth.
Or perhaps, as I am prone to believe, they are lost because they have no foundations on which to base their lives. They are lost because they have no moral compass, no set of coherent eternal truths, no absolutes. They are lost because they have been taught in the halls of academia that there is no such thing as absolute truth.
Moreover, they are lost because academia has told them they cannot believe the Bible. And they fell for it, hook line and sinker. Why did they believe such a lie? Because atheistic scientists said it, and so it must be true.
But think about this! Atheistic scientists would say the Bible is false even if Jesus himself healed a withered hand or restored sight to a blind man in their presence! They are atheists! Everything they say, do, predict or interpret is seen though their atheistic world view! Therefore it is no surprise that atheists say the Bible is not true. But what does the Bible say about atheists? It says they are fools. Psalm 14:1 reads “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”(2) Who then should we believe? Will you believe the atheists or the Word of God?
Few have considered, as written by Matt Slick, that atheism is in itself ultimately self refuting. “A materialist atheist has no intellectual justification whatsoever to trust his own thinking because his physical brain cannot exceed the limits of physics and chemistry. Therefore, there’s no reason for him to conclude that his rationality is correct since his brain is acting “mechanically.” (3) In other words, every response by a materialistic atheist to any argument, including belief or disbelief in God, is by their own definitions a mere random, pre-programmed chemical reaction. It has no merit, no basis, no meaning!
Unfortunately, Millennials have been given a choice of believing science, or believing the Word of God. Such a forced choice is irrational, and unnecessary because science and God’s word are not contradictory. (See Chapter 13, Science vs Reason.) But Public Education has failed them, because they took away even the possibility of Biblical truth. Instead they filled their heads with diagrams of an outdated and scientifically discredited evolutionary tree of life, fraudulent Piltdown man, and imaginary monkey to man diagrams. Consequently, an entire generation has lost faith in the Bible due to the atheistic, secular agenda in our schools.
We trusted the government to teach our children. But as stated by Mary Nutting at Answers in Genesis, “Many families today are in deep trouble because they have not been “diligently teaching” their children. Instead, they have left it to the schools, media, museums, national parks, and others to do the job.”(4) And the government trusted the textbooks, and the textbooks trusted the atheists. But why did the texts use atheistic presuppositions to program our children against belief in God, or the Bible? Perhaps because some of the arguments for an ancient universe seem so logical, at least on the surface. Like Deep Time.
The strongest atheistic arguments against the Bible are those rooted in Deep Time (for example light travelling across the universe). The atheists have convinced most of the world that Genesis cannot be literally true because of the long ages they claim are shown by geology and astronomy. Deep Time is the foundational belief that undergirds atheistic arguments against Biblical truth by suggesting everything about the Bible timeline is impossible. According to the internet dictionary, deep time is: “the multimillion year time frame within which scientists believe the earth has existed, and which is supported by the observation of natural, mostly geological, phenomena.” It will exceed the scope of this post to instruct the reader fully as to why Deep Time is an unreliable concept, but suffice it to say that as with all other scientific conclusions reached by atheists, the science is subject to the ideology.
In other words, when an atheistic scientist makes a choice to absolutely rule out any possibility of God the Creator, this choice influences and pervades and contaminates all their other research and conclusions. No matter how clearly the scientific evidence might be in pointing to a Creator, the avowed atheist will not see it. The simple fact is that the existence of the universe, and the existence of life itself are miraculous. Atheists choose their explanations for the miracles, a “Big Bang” for which they have no proof, followed by life randomly creating and advancing itself out of nothing. Bible scholars and scientifically oriented Christians choose another explanation.
Deep Time was a concept well fitted to evolution. The theory of evolution required time spans of hundreds of millions of years to be at all believable. Of course open-minded scientists now know that evolution cannot occur no matter how many millions of years one postulates. Deep Time is no longer relevant. (Watch for future blogs on the scientific evidence against Deep Time, you may be surprised.) In the near future, as the house of cards called Evolution continues to collapse, we may see thousands more open minded scientists, biologists, and astronomers addressing the concept of deep time as well.
My hope is that very soon, as a result of these advances in scientific understanding, Millennials will not remain lost. They will have hope. They will find the gospel. They will seek and find the Bible, and they will find the vast amounts of scientific and archeological evidence that supports the Bible. They won’t find it, of course, in the halls of atheistic, anti-God, anti-Christ academia. But you can find it, even now, in places like Answers in Genesis, Evolutioncreation.net, and Creation.com.
Chapter 19 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
NOKO is often in the news, and rarely in a good way. Teachers in North Korea risk imprisonment or death if they stray from the government approved curricula. According to the site Foreign Policy News, the mandatory state school education includes large amounts of hate speech, revised history, and idolization of leadership.(1) And yet tens of thousands of teachers just “go along” and don’t make waves. Teachers are faced with a choice of teaching what is in a textbook or teaching the truth. Some have to decide whether to teach what is a PC, government-sanctioned lie, or risk discrimination, disgrace, or worse for telling the truth!
We who live in the free and unfettered West are appalled that such state-sanctioned oppression of teachers and education could occur. We are aghast and we look down our noses at such propaganda disguised as curricula.
But is this unique to North Korea? Or does it occur with great frequency in other countries? And are teachers in the United States also involved in propagandizing, rather than freely teaching?
Teaching is a high calling, and in order to achieve that high calling a teacher must instill truth at every opportunity, not lies. Teaching involves equipping students to search out truth, and recognize falsehood. But today, even in American high schools, colleges and universities this is often not the case. We instead see a focus on messengers, and messaging. Truth, the student is told, is always relative, not absolute. There is no God, no Jesus, no Biblical source of right or wrong, no absolute truth. Just truth defined by atheism and political correctness!
Many educators focus on instilling “liberal values” and “fighting creationist propaganda” rather than evaluating the issues themselves, or seeking out truth in the midst of lies. They have even created “safe spaces” where students and groups can avoid any open debate that threatens their preconceptions or their liberal mindset. Teachers and students with a more conservative mindset often feel cowed into submission, unwilling to face the persecution certain to come if they stray from the secular atheistic agenda.
David Gooblar, a lecturer at the University of Iowa, explains why this is illogical, “To put this in perspective, you got a dubious letter and just spent 20 minutes fact-checking the mailman. And then you actually opened the letter and found it was a signed letter from your Mom. ‘Ah,’ you say, ‘but the mailman is a Republican!’ ”(2) Is it really the messenger which deserves the focus of our attention? Should we not rather focus on the message itself, and read what our mother has written carefully and attentively?
This is the state of so-called higher education today. In fact, I would suggest that the highest calling that some of our educators strive to attain is not truth-telling or truth-seeking, but inculcating a liberal philosophy into the minds of impressionable students, indoctrinating those youth into an atheistic, liberal, anti-God, pro-evolutionary mindset.
Now admittedly, teachers find themselves in a difficult position. If the textbook authors say there is no God, evolution is a fact, and the Big Bang has been “proven beyond question”, who are they to question such things? Readers will know from prior posts that the Big Bang and evolution have certainly NOT been proven, and are NOT even scientific, but are rather propped up by numerous unscientific allowances and alterations (think Dark matter, Dark energy and the Inflationary period). But we have already discussed this in previous chapters. Now let’s just start with this question. Does the author of a textbook, or the school board, or the government of the U.S. have a right to tell teachers they cannot believe in or speak about their belief in God? Do they have a right to indoctrinate all the children in public schools into the religion of secular atheism?
Columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of the rise in atheism is the “secular indoctrination of a generation,” and that “From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages.”(3)
If that statement is true, it is both powerful, and tragic. Are we indoctrinating students the same way teacher in the Middle Ages did? Has the pendulum swung so far away from fundamental Christian beliefs that our educational system is a tool of secular atheism? Many believe it has. But what can an open-minded parent or student do? If one wishes to fully educate a child, and not just indoctrinate them, what are your choices? Many, it appears, are choosing not to expose their children to atheist propaganda. According to the site Conservapedia,
The use of public school indoctrination is growing less effective for purposes of atheist indoctrination due to budgetary problems facing many governments in the Western World (per pupil it cost more to educate students via public schools than private schools), the inferiority of many public school systems and the growing popularity of vouchers for education (which can be used for private religious school education) and the growing practice of homeschooling by parents.
In addition, many public universities college are failing to educate students properly and many college students are jobless as a result. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called “higher order” thinking skills. Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt. (3)
As tragic as that is, still God works in mysterious ways. I can imagine the day when school teachers, school boards and parents come together and agree that indoctrination is NOT education! I can hope that someday soon students in public schools will no longer be force-fed secular atheist propaganda. I hope that we are now at a time, a very special time, when tens of thousands of teachers will once again be inspired to teach, not just push atheism and secularism. And then perhaps students will again be encouraged to think freely and evaluate faith, and science, with an open mind.
Chapter 18 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
Last chapter we discussed a few of the many scientific problems with the Big Bang. Yet in spite of all these problems, many in the secular scientific community insist it is the only possible explanation for the universe as we know it. If you are one of those who believe in the big bang, I suppose I will call you a Banger. (For many scientific reasons, I absolutely do not believe the big bang cosmology.) After reading the following, I hope you will agree. I apologize in advance for two relatively lengthy quotations of over 100 words each, but I believe you will see their importance as we evaluated the scientific relevance of the so-called Big Bang.
Since I do not believe in the Big Bang, some would call me a Bible Thumper. Some have even called me an idiot or a moron. As an ER physician, I can say categorically that none of those accusations are true. Still, you might choose any number of other insults or expletives which are leveled at anyone (scientist, physician, educator, or student) who dares question the currently prevailing big bang cosmology. I have been insulted many times in a similar vein by brainwashed, self-absorbed, college freshmen with no training whatsoever in the sciences, yet they believe in the Big Bang with a religious fervor. So, at any rate, I will call you, and said college freshmen, Bangers. Why?
Because Bangers, with their unquestioning groupthink are a danger to the scientific community. They are an embarrassment to science as a whole. They stand in the way of real scientific progress by their unassailable devotion to their atheistic and evolutionary mindset. And I am certainly not the only one who believes this. As explained by Tom Watkins, retired Military Scientist, the big bang is not only a mere theory, it is a very poor theory indeed. In fact, there are astronomical problems with the Big Bang…
Unfortunately, we also found some verifiable evidence that cannot be explained by the BB theory. For instance, there is an imbalance of matter and anti-matter and there is much less lithium than there should be. Some other inconsistencies are so complex that they usually go by names such as the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the monopole problem. (look them up) There are others.
And then there is the simple matter of the timing of the BB. If we see the universe is expanding and theorize that it must have been smaller in the past, wouldn’t it be necessary to know how large it is now in order to project how long it took it to expand to its present size? Even at speed C. We can not see past 13.7 BLY out but for a variety of reasons, the observable diameter of the universe is actually about 93 billion light years and the diameter of the whole universe beyond that can be seen may be as large as 3 x 10 (to the 23 power) times larger than 93 BLYs. That is a large number but the difference (between that large number and 13.7) is explained, not by the BB but by the expansion of space itself by some, as yet, unknown process.
One other interesting fallacy is related to the cosmological constant. The error between observation and calculated (conjectured) vacuum energy of space is a factor of 1 x 10 to the 120th power. That is the largest error between theory and observation of anything in any science. This is called the Vacuum Catastrophe. It is hard to relate to the size of this error, it is so big. (1)
For those who cannot comprehend 10 to the 120th power, it is estimated that the number of atoms in the entire universe is approximately 10 to the 80th power. So that means that 10 to the 120th power is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than the number of atoms in the entire known universe. That it the ERROR in the so-called “cosmological constant” that Bangers rely on.
So for those of you who are truly of a scientific mindset (not group thinking Bangers), I hope you will recognize that those who tell you that the Big Bang is settled science are the real science deniers. They deny the matter/antimatter problem, the horizon problem, the monopole problem, the flatness problem, the cosmological constant discrepancy, the Vacuum catastrophe, and more. You see, for a Banger, there is no possible way to scientifically disprove the Big Bang. It is an Article of Faith.
Even the Bangers admit this. A 2017 article by Fraser Cain on Cosmic Inflation, reads, “The Big Bang was one of the greatest theories in the history of science. Although it did have a few problems, cosmic inflation was developed to address them. Although there have been a few false starts, astronomers are now performing a sensitive enough search that they might find evidence of this amazing inflationary period. And then it’ll be Nobel Prizes all around.” (2) Note the words “might find evidence.” The inflationary period is so critical that the entire theory collapses without it, and yet we have NO evidence to substantiate it!
So in spite of what Bangers tell you, their theory is not proven or settled in any way. There are myriad problems and confounding variables, some of which are more vast than the universe itself. But the true absurdity of their group think is explained in the following excerpt, from a 2018 post on Quora.com, by Bud Rapanault, in which we see that the big bang theory fails in almost every scientific sense, both BEFORE the so-called inflationary period, and AFTER!
“According to the big bang model, the “universe” sprang into being 13.8 billion years ago from a physically inexplicable initial condition wherein the entire universe was compressed into a volume quite a bit smaller than a gnat’s ass.
This remarkable and quite inexplicable initial condition then transitioned, for an inexplicable reason, to a somewhat explicable condition. At that point, the model mathematically invokes an unobservable, ad hoc, inflation field to transition this “universe” to an even more explicable expanding state.
None of the foregoing has any empirical evidence to support it. It all took place, according to the theory, in a deep mythological past that is impervious to direct observation; the claimed events lie beyond the realm of science. Therefore, the model, to that point, is an unscientific mathematical absurdity. It says nothing scientifically meaningful about the nature of the cosmos.
It is then claimed that the post-absurdity, post-inflation “universe” can be modeled using standard physics to create an observable “universe” that might be said to resemble the cosmos we observe.
Except that, the big bang model’s version of our observed cosmos contains two significant features, dark matter and dark energy. Together they are said to comprise 95% of the matter-energy content of the “universe”. These features are predictions of the model; their existence is required to make the model agree with observations. However, no empirical evidence for either can be found. They do not exist in the cosmos we observe and measure. They exist only in the mathematical (big bang) model that requires them.
Therefore, it can be said that from its absurd mythological beginning to its empirically baseless description of a “current universe”, the big bang model bears no significant structural resemblance to the physical reality we actually observe and measure. The big bang model is nothing but a vapid mathematicism. That it is widely taught as unchallengeable scientific orthodoxy to impressionable students like Mr Fraser is a scandal.“(3)
Sorry Bangers. The improbable, imaginary Big Bang is not settled science at all.
Chapter 17 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
Where did the universe come from?
Secular Academics believe it created itself from nothing. Well, technically it was a from an infinitesimally small tiny bubble of nothing.
Where did the bubble come from?
In quantum physicis, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation, or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg‘s uncertainty principle. (Wikipedia)
Or as written in the Physics ArXiv blog, “At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.”(1)
Stated in common English, supposedly this quantum vacuum state (nothing) can (temporarily) do something, and (permanently) create everything (our universe) out of nothing…. all because of an “uncertainty principle”. So no matter how you phrase it, or what you call it, it would mean that where there was absolute, complete nothingness… something appeared for no reason, with no cause, and no predecessor.
Now if this reads like nonsense, it is because it IS nonsense. The uncertainty principle, in its simplest form, simply states that you cannot accurately measure both the position (location) and the velocity (speed) of a particle because the process of measuring will by definition require altering one or the other (position or velocity).
Encyclopedia Britannica explains, “Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed. The complete rule stipulates that the product of the uncertainties in position and velocity is equal to or greater than a tiny physical quantity, or constant (h/(4π), where h is Planck’s constant, or about 6.6 × 10−34 joule-second). Only for the exceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles does the product of the uncertainties become significant.” (2)
But even if you DID believe the secular atheists’ myths about the Big Bang based on these secular mind games that are far more philosophic than scientific… even if you accepted that the universe somehow created itself, then there are all the same questions about where the universe came from, but only moved to another level. Questions like:
If all the Big Bang scientists believe in an expanding universe, what is the universe expanding into? (Did Space exist a priori?)
What happened just before the Big Bang? (Cosmologists differ… they have no idea)
Did the Big Bang have a location? Where was it? Is earth at the center? (Because if it is that has enormous space-time implications.)
If nothing can instantaneously create everything, can we all be instantaneously replaced by another Bang?
If they still don’t know if atoms and light are particles or waves, how can secular science claim to know how, when, where or why the Universe began?
If you believe the Universe can create itself (something you cannot even begin to understand), what keeps you from believing in an Almighty Supreme Being (a being we are also completely incapable of comprehending) who has the power to create all things?
Secular cosmology clearly and emphatically does not have all the answers. Don’t let them bully you into believing nonsense. Problems with the “Big Bang” are overwhelming. Yet we are told by supposed “scientists” that it is an established fact. What utter nonsense. Here are just a few of the unresolved scientific problems with the Big Bang.
Problem #1. The vacuum catastrophe. Those who would like to create something out of nothing have always existed. The perpetual motion machine has always been a dream. If you read a little bit about the big bang, you will soon find that it is nothing more than another version of the perpetual motion machine. Creating everything out of nothing. Someone wrote a formula (Quantum Field Theory) that says there would be vast amounts of energy available if there was actually a state of nothingness. Someone else recalculated the formula and it turns out the value of vacuum energy was actually 10¹²⁰ times less than the prediction made by Quantum Field Theory! Which, it turns out, is less than nothing. This can also be referred to as a cosmological constant problem, which is explained on the Red Shift Academy website as follows: (3)
So, a large vacuum energy presents a huge problem for
General Relativity because the absolute amount of vacuum
energy has a real physical meaning. In fact, the
Cosmological constant and the vacuum energy differ by
about an astonishing 120 orders of magnitude! This
is the infamous "Cosmological constant problem" which
remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of physics
in the modern era.
Problem #2. 95% dark matter… dark energy… WIMPS? Astronomers now calculate that the universe consists of 4.9 percent ordinary matter, 26.8 percent dark matter, and 68.3 percent dark energy. (1) The rest is made up of WIMPS (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles). What are WIMPS? Can they be seen, felt, tasted, heard, or measured in any way… no. How do we know they exist? We don’t. Why do the astronomers suggest WIMPS and dark matter and energy are there? Because the same formulas on which they base the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe say they MUST be there. Or else the formulas are wrong! (Now there’s an idea!) As Scott Dodelson (a cosmologist and the head of the Department of Physics at Carnegie Mellon University) states on the site Space.com, ” we’re not sure our current way of thinking is correct because it essentially requires us to make stuff up, namely dark matter and dark energy. It could be that we really are just a month away from a scientific revolution that will upend our whole understanding about cosmology and does not require these things.” (4)
Problem #3. Dispersion forces. In the first stages of the universe, there was no reason for cohesion (the forces of dispersion were much stronger). This means scientists can’t explain galaxy formation. Just like Problem #1 (Big bang should not have happened), Problem #3 means the Galaxies had no reason to form. Picture any explosion of any size in any situation, and you will see what this means. If something is blown apart into tiny fragments by some great energy, the fragments travel at great speeds getting further apart from each other and from the center, until at some point they are overcome by some other force or energy. In the case of the Big Bang, there were no other forces in existence. There was no other energy in existence. Thus the explosion could never have formed galaxies, or planets, or any other structures.
Problem #4. Thermodynamics One. The Big Bang clearly violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Every counter-argument to this is ineffectual, or requires “special circumstances”, or assumes some other plane of existence was also present. Proponents of the Big Bang will argue that this problem can be escaped by utilizing the argument that this was a closed system. However, assuming a closed system assumes something pre-existent to the Bang itself. So again no Philosophical or Scientific cause of 1st origins has been explained.
Problem #5. Thermodynamics Two. The Big Bang also contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), which states that everything we see or measure in the universe is gradually “running down” or progressing from a higher state of energy to a lower state of energy. The entire universe and all of creation must be considered as a single “closed system” that is just chock full of energy in the form of stars and heat and motion and light, just to name a few. The energy had to come from somewhere. In the same way it could not create itself (See Problem #4), it also could not wind itself up to higher levels (Problem #5). As Professor John Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering with a Ph.D. in aeronautics puts it, “One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.”(5)
Problem #6. Expansion. The Big Bang requires an early expansion rate that was at speeds greater than the speed of light. The very same scientists who claim that they can know the age of the Earth and the universe based on Uniformitarian principles, using currently measured rates for the speed of light and the decay of isotopes have a HUGE problem here. They admit that immediately after the BB, the expansion rate of the universe had to be much greater than the speed of light. This means they are happy to suspend the scientific laws of the universe when it fits their purposes and preferred theories. Just not when it involves Creation. See previous chapter on Uniformitarianism.
Problem #7. Matter/Antimatter. If there really was a Big Bang, then equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been expected. Yet we find no such evidence. Many theories and solutions have been proposed, but none answer the question. All require some “other” force or condition. In other words, astronomers and scientists have no explanation for why the universe we live in contains only electrons and no positrons. Only quarks and no anti-quarks. Only protons and no anti-protons.
Problem #8. Constantly changing Constants. With all the supposedly scientific precision of the calculations on which the age of the universe rest, no one even knows the value of the Hubble constant! Hubble’s initial calculations for the value for the expansion rate (Hubble Constant) was approximately 500 km/s/Mpc or about 160 km/sec per million-light-years. This would have meant the Universe was only 2 billions years old. Others have calculated the constant to be as low as 2 km/s/Mpc. The “current” accepted value is generally assumed to be 70.0 km/sec/Mpc. In fact some now call it the Hubble Parameter rather than the Hubble constant. This was all supposedly put to rest in about 2008 with the latest accepted value. We shall see… In the meantime, as you can tell from Problems 1 through 7, it is merely vapid and rapidly changing mathematical formulas, not a serious explanation for the origin or the universe.
Chapter 16 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
It sounds like it might be the title of a new Stephen King book. “The Uniformitarians”. Pretty scary stuff, right?
Or maybe it might be a new religion. “Don’t listen to those Uniformitarians, they are a cult!” (This is too close to the truth for comfort.)
But in reality it is another facade adapted by the secular scientific community. Geologists and cosmologists tell us they can apply the rules of the universe as we now see them, and predict the past (supposedly some 14 billion years) based on current laws of physics and current rates of physical processes. They will tell you that based on the Doctrine of Uniformity, the earth “must” be 5 billion years old, and the universe “must” be 14 billion years old. Uniformitarianism states that the changes in the past can be measured and understood because they involve “continuous and uniform processes”. That all sounds great, perhaps even scientific, but can they really be measured and predicted? And do they really involve continuous and uniform processes? Has this been proven? Do we have any proof or evidence supporting uniformitarianism, or do secular scientists just use this as a talking point, and then change the rules whenever it suits them?
As defined in the dictionary (originating in Geology but used in cosmology as well):
u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism nounthe theory that changes in the earth’s crust during geological history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes.
According to Wikipedia, it is “an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method… Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity, refers to the invariance in the principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of causality, or causation, throughout time, but it has also been used to describe invariance of physical laws through time and space. Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method, uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of virtually all fields of science.”(1) It is important to note that the Doctrine of Uniformity and the principle of Uniformitarianism are unprovable. (Especially when so many secular scientist claim they KNOW the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.)
But there is another consideration that is perhaps even more important in practice and in principle. Not only is the Doctrine of Uniformity unprovable, but the principle of uniformitarianism also has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied. As stated by Roger Patterson, “The ideas presented in the textbooks are based on uniformitarian assumptions and have many problems that are not discussed, despite the presence of phrases like “we know” and “scientists have shown”. (2) For example:
Secular scientists apply the rules of modern physics to the formation of the universe under the Nebular Hypothesis. But according to the rules of physics, the particles that might or might not form after such an explosion would not stick together (coalesce) or undergo accretion, and thus could not form planets, or stars, or galaxies.
Further, they would of necessity have had to travel at speeds far greater than the speed of light, an obvious and absurd exception to the principles of physics and a glaring exception to the application of uniformitarian principles.
Or for another example, in the study of biology, there is a well known and accepted “Law of Abiogenesis”. It is, simply stated, “life cannot come from non-life”, or in other words non-living matter cannot spontaneously come to life. Everyone knows this is true. Everyone accepts this, except if you believe in Evolution. In order to believe in evolution, you must first accept that life magically created itself out of a bunch of random chemicals, and then reproduced itself. Each step is impossible, but yet this is what our institutes of “higher learning” expect students to accept.
Let me give one more example. The Moon rocks collected from the Moon were dated at 4.5 billion years of age using secular “uniformitarian” assumptions. But using the lunar recession models (based on current rates, or even “adjusted” rates) the Moon would have been quite literally touching the earth just a billion years or so in the past. So the scientists make exceptions, or disallow the evidence, or ignore the findings, but they cannot uniformly apply them.
Geology offers many other examples, in which current processes could not have created the earth as we find it. Fossil layers, rates of mountain erosion, seafloor sediment deposition, and polystrate fossils could not have occurred as described by the Old Age Earth textbooks. The rate of uplift of the Himalayas is far too great to be accounted for by Uniformitarian assumptions. In many cases, the Biblical Flood offers a much more sensible model than uniformitarianism. As an example, did you know that one single mine in Canada’s tar sands can move thirty billion tons of sediment a year? That is double the amount moved by all the rivers in the world combined. If that is true, then imagine the amounts which might be moved or shifted during Ice ages, meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, or a Global Flood! It is so astronomical that it boggles the mind… and completely discounts any possibility of geographic “uniformitarian” assumptions. Nevertheless, even though Old Age estimates violate their own premises of “uniform and continuous processes”, the geology texts insist on Old Age estimates for the Earth.
And in yet another strong refutation, Uniformitarian assumptions on evolution should show that somewhere in the world, species are evolving as we speak. In order for the billions upon billions of evolutionary changes necessary to have occurred in just a few hundred millions of years, we should see evolution regularly as species advance along the evolutionary scale. Yet in the entire recorded history of the world, thousands of years, we have no record of a single example of evolution.
So whenever a biology or geology prof tells you something is billions of years old, you can be sure there is more than sufficient evidence to dispute that statement. Do your research, and the Uniformitarian assumptions of Old Earth and Old Universe will fall apart. Uniformitarian assumptions are unproven, unscientific, and insufficient for determining history, and they are certainly inadequate by any definition for evaluating or proving anything about origins. Uniformitarianism gets an F in History.
(2) Patterson, R., Evolution Exposed, Answers in Genesis, 2008, P. 68.
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. — Romans 1:20 NLT