The Big Bang never happened
Simply put, our understanding of the premise of the Big Bang is that, in the beginning, all matter in the universe existed in an extremely compact, very dense region - some even say the bang started with absolutely nothing. Through some sort of increasingly unstable processes or forces, this matter (or nothing) began spinning at an ever increasing rate until the forces acting upon the region overcame other forces that held it "together", resulting in the violent expansion referred to as the Big Bang.
Please forgive this rather simplistic explanation, but we have to start somewhere. Now that we have a foundation, please tell me how this theory is, in any way, scientific or even logical. Why should we accept it rather than creation? Aside from the arbitrary evolutionist's restriction against the use of a supernatural cause, scientifically, Creationism and Evolution are on equal footing - they are both religions. The scientific evidence is all around us. It is merely the interpretation of the evidence that differs between them.
How do they know?
First, this violent beginning is pure conjecture. In comparison, when the atheists question those who believe in God, they ask where He came from. When we answer that He was just always there, the response is something like "That's not very scientific, and you can't prove it!" That's why we admit that it is religion and requires faith. But this Big Bang theory starts with as yet "non-existent" matter, energy and forces that have no cause acting on the as yet "non-existent" matter to create a universe. When we ask where the matter, energy, and forces came from, we get explanations that range from "We don't know." to "Well, that is a complicated process that you need a PhD to understand." We submit that this is not very scientific and you can't prove it. Oops, that means it is a religion.
Why must the Big Bang have happened so long ago? Perhaps to fit the model started hundreds of years ago by men who had only vague concepts of how the world actually works. I do not understand why intelligent, modern men go to such lengths to try to justify concepts that have been proven wrong hundreds of years ago. Even when they finally agree that some of their concepts are in error, they stretch their imagination to find another explanation that is as inane as the first - if not more so. And then they bury the details in time periods so large, or particles so obscure and ill-defined that any reasonable man will refuse to discuss the subject. This refusal to discuss subjects that are unverifiable is reckoned as a win by those who propose them.
As for the claim that science has demonstrated the veracity of the big bang, which definition of science is used to justify that statement? The definitions below shows that no valid definition of the word science can verify, or even suggest a reasonable explanation of, how the event actually happened.
1) systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc.
2) a branch of knowledge, especially one that systematizes facts, principles, and methods
3) skill or technique
The claim that radiometric dating proves the age of the universe is based on the premise that the elements used for measurement have reached a state of equilibrium in the environment or is at least consistent enough to use as a device for measuring time periods - which is not true. That is much like using a rubber ruler to measure anything - it will become as long or short as you want. And, what about the dates obtained by this methodology that don't fit into their preconceived date periods? They are discounted as faulty and are discarded or the tests are run again until the results fit their desired patterns.
Let's do some thinking
In a recent movie God's Not Dead, a quote from Steven Hawking was used to present the "scientific" side of the argument for Evolution and against the existence of God. Of course, the purpose of the movie was to present the God side, but looking at the statements actually made by Hawking in real life stretches his credibility beyond the breaking point. The site at The Guardian quotes Hawking as saying:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
Not knocking Hawking here, but...really?
If you can look at the first sentence without forming some sort of question in your mind about logic, reality, or the basic concepts of science, then I would have to assume that you did not do well in your science classes.
The statement begins with a law that was a result of creation, whether God- or "self"-created. This law is evident because of the interaction between objects involving mass and distance. And, since nothing existed at the time of the big bang, even if this force and its law somehow existed in accordance with some mysterious origin rules, nothing is affected by it because nothing existed. Hawking then concludes that the pre-existing law, which by his own definition did not yet affect anything because everything had been created after the big bang from nothing, is the reason for something that did not yet exist to "decide" to do something with nothing to bring its non-existent self into existence. I think I hurt my brain just saying that.
But, think of it this way - if the law of gravity pre-existed the big bang, and if all the matter (which, according to Stephen Hawking is really nothing) in the universe is concentrated in one object, there is by definition nothing else to "act" upon that matter in order to change its state. That means (bear with me here, just following the Hawking implied rules) that if gravity exists as a law, then it has already coalesced all non-existent matter into one place. That merely takes us back to the first question, where did the matter, energy, and forces originate that gravity acted upon? We say God, you say "tomahto"...
Now look at the second statement. The first two words in the statment, "spontaneous creation",especially taken in the context of the statement, contradict each other unless you redefine the term "creation". The Oxford Dictionary defines it like this:
Definition of creation in English:
1 The action or process of bringing something into existence:
'creation of a coalition government'
1.1 [count noun] A thing which has been made or ,invented, especially something showing artistic talent:
'she treats fictional creations as if they were real people'
2 The creating of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God:
'the big bang was the moment of the Creation, and therefore the work of God'
2.1 [mass noun] 'Everything created; the universe:
our alienation from the rest of Creation'
3 The action of investing someone with a title of nobility:
'Edward's generosity extended beyond the creation of earls'
I draw your attention to the Oxford definition number 2, the example of word use referring to the big bang as the work of God. Hawking probably did not use the Oxford dictionary when he formed his theory. And the same site defines "spontaneous" this way:
Definition of spontaneous in English:
1 Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.
'the audience broke into spontaneous applause'
'a spontaneous display of affection'
1.1 Having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner.
1.2 (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.
1.3 Biology (of movement or activity in an organism) instinctive or involuntary.
'the spontaneous mechanical activity of circular smooth muscle'
1.4 archaic (of a plant) growing naturally and without being tended or cultivated.
Based on what evidence?
The rest of Hawking's statement puts forth a conclusion based on a definition that does not exist. This is known by reasonable people as a tautology. "This statement is true because this statement says it is true." This goes along well with the first statement, which can be paraphrased as "Before I was, I knew I needed me, so I created myself." Actually, Dr. John Lennox, a math professor at the University of Oxford, called the Hawking statement a caltrop argument - a defensive argument that doesn't address a question but dismisses it.
It bothers me that the "smartest" professor in the UK, some say the smartest man in the world, makes such a popular statement with no basis in fact, and no one challenges it. It bothers me more that people accept this kind of statement without even basic reasoning. He may be a brilliant man, but it goes too far to expect intelligent people to accept nonsensical statements as proof of good science.
Disagree? Find an error? Contact us at email@example.com and give us your view.