A summary of why the big bang is not scientifically possible


The Dilemma-

         In 1859, a book was introduced that revolutionized the scientific and mainstream world. It said that man was the product of chance, time, and natural law- nothing more, and nothing less. Immediately there was great opposition, and great support. The stage was set for the Creation/Evolution debate that still rages today. The Evolutionists have gained the upper hand in this battle, as they now control schools and the general media. Why? It appears that men would have no higher authority than themselves should Darwinís theory of evolution be correct. Simply put, Darwinís theory is easier to believe and has more immediate gratification. Men would rather believe that they are the gods of their own lives, than admit a responsibility to a higher, unseen being. So what? Well, this is a deadly philosophy to hold (see my evolution and psychology page). First of all and most importantly, it contradicts the Bible which is absolute Truth. It would destroy the entire foundation on which Christianity stands- Godís love and personal care for us, despite our sin. Second of all, it is obviously false when compared to logical reason and scientific findings and laws. Basically, itís wrong and its detrimental to society. So what can be done? Make your voice heard. It may not be in a public forum, but in the quiet one on one conversations. The Truth must be told- the Truth must be defended.

First things first-

         The attack- Evolutionists will use a variety of attacks on Creationists. First things first- get the definitions straight. Evolutionists never fail to play word games with evolution. Evolution can be defined many ways. The scientific definition of evolution is genetic change over time. This is logically defined as microevolution. No new species or kinds of animals are created. A second term that is used is macroevolution. This is another word trap waiting to happen. Macro of course means great or large, and these are vague terms that can be played with. I suggest you use Darwinism in place of evolutionism. This is because there are no word games to be played with here. Darwin believed in an evolution strong enough to change molecules into man. That is the problem. If God specially created us, how were we created by chance refined by natural selection? Beware of logical fallacies and general misconceptions. Some of the most common logical errors are as follows- Science vs. Religion, all scientists are Darwinists, Darwinism is scientific, all evidence supports Darwinism, no evidence supports Creationism. I suggest you simply deny them and stick to the following main points. In Creation vs. Evolution rule number one is focus. Focus on what is known to be true and do not let the Darwinists distract you into minor and useless issues.

 

Three Strikes and youíre out-

         One solid strike against a scientific theory should be enough for it to be thrown out of the scientific world. However, in the case of the Big Bang and Darwinism, there are numerous logical impossibilities that plague both. I have chosen to present three simple and blatant impossibilities here.  There are many more, but simply sticking to these points will win any argument as long as the focus is maintained.  Don't let them throw you off track!  Derailing your arguments is their most potent defense.

 

Strike One-

Letís start at the beginning-

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1

Big Bang- in the beginning was, wasÖ? A flaming ball of mass? No wait, what came before that? And where did all this energy come from? Where did the mass come from? Where did time come from? Where did the scientific laws come from? Where did this dimension come from?

Simply put, every natural effect has a natural cause. Science is the study of natural causes and effects. For instance, Newton and the apple. What made the apple fall? Ahhh, gravitational forces. In the natural world, it is completely impossible for something to cause itself. Any scientists who argues this would be laughed out of science. A conversation might go something like this-

Scientist 1: So, how did you get here?

Scientist 2: Well, thatís obvious, I created myself.

Scientist 1: Itís a well known fact that everything has a beginning and an end, stop being ridiculous, now how did you get here?

Scientist 2: Iím dead serious, I created myself!

Scientist 1: Everyone is born andÖ

Scientist 2: Listen, scientifically all I know is that Iím here and I donít remember being born. I must have just always been hereÖ

Scientist 1: HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

See the folly in basing a theory on science when the foundation of science cries out that the theory itself is impossible?

 

Strike Two-

Gravity-

         Letís say that matter, energy, time, and scientific law simply created themselves out of nothing. Now, all the mass and energy in the initial flaming mass would have had to have been sufficient for the entire cosmos, according to the conservation laws of matter and energy. You know how much mass would be in the initial ball? Weíre talking about all the galaxies in the cosmos combined in one great big ball. This amount of mass would be millions of times the mass of the sun. An object going the speed of light squared could not escape the gravity of the mass. The big mass would in fact become a black hole and would sit dormant in space forever. The Darwinist would have you believe that the explosion happened before natural law came into existence and then a few years afterward it set in. How scientific is this? Any more scientific than God? Certainly not. Any more logical than God? It is based upon a logical impossibility, since nothing can create itself. God is actually the only rational conclusion.

 

Strike Three-

Entropy-

         Letís say that the previous two strikes were ignored. Iíd like for you to conduct an experiment. Take a sheet of paper and shred it. Then toss the shreds in all directions up in the air and run around kicking and stomping on them. After a few seconds of this, check and see if the paper has generated an organized pattern on the floor. Specially look for information, such as distinct words on the floor or perhaps meaningful pictures, such as one representing the Mona Lisa. What have you done? Youíve created chaos out of order. Having taken a simple, organized sheet of paper, and adding energy, suddenly there is disorder and a nasty mess that needs to be cleaned up (sorry about that, I would help you with it butÖ). The same would be true of the Big Bang. Planets and suns are organized in such a way to perfectly suit each other, especially here on earth, where the earth is complemented perfectly by the moon to bring tides, the sun to bring the right amount of heat, and a special tilt and rotation of the earth to make life on earth possible. This is a very ordered system. The key to Entropy- nature tends to create chaos out of order, and not order out of chaos.


To Darwinism: Mission Impossible 2

Back