Big Problems with the Big Bang

in 1 chronicles 12:32 we read about the sons of Issachar who had understanding of the times and I want to ask us do we have understanding of the times do we know what is happening in our Western world we see the collapse of the Christian fabric the collapse of the Christian worldview why is that because a foundation has been removed in the structure it was collapsing what foundation the foundation of the authority of the word of God it's about time God's people went out there unassailably uncompromising least in the Word of God and said this is what it's all about proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ show that we can defend our faith if we start standing on the Word of God that's what's gonna change this nation [Music] [Applause] welcome and thank you all for coming today I'm gonna be speaking today about big problems with the Big Bang this is a big bang as our standard cosmology we've had for more than a half-century and we're gonna investigate some biblical issues with it as well as some scientific issues now before I get started I probably ought to define what we mean by cosmology it is the study of the structure of the universe comes from two greek words cosmos meaning world the big picture of the world at least and logos literally meaning word but we've kind of generalized that to refer to the study of things now cosmology is not a modern concept people have been talking about it at least since the ancient Greeks and the Greeks had their own concept of cosmology by the 3rd century or 4th century BC the Greeks had come up with this model and I brought a model of this with me today to share with you the model they had was a the earth at the center you can see in the middle there little globe representing the earth and then around it there is a crystalline sphere and on that crystalline sphere you have little dots on there they represent the the stars and we also have the Sun here of the moon a little circle I can make move around like that and every day either the entire globe that's lost a sphere spun around the earth like this or it said still and the earth spun like that either one will get you the daily motion of the Sun and the moon and the stars across the sky like that and this model was considered a truth furl 15 centuries 20 centuries or so certainly from the ancient Greeks right up until well about 400 years ago and Europe a change took place at that time now the Greeks had a name for this thing by the way the photo I have there took at the lab where I used to teach at USC Lancaster where we use those quite a bit in our astronomy classes and the Greeks called this celestial sphere a stereo ma it meant something firm or something hard and again it was supposed to be crystalline made out of say glass or some other hard clear substance now there have been many attempts throughout the ages to Wed our understanding of Genesis the cosmology of the Bible with man's ideas about cosmology I see I'm have convinced that the cosmology of the Bible is not really clearly spelled out for us there are certain things that are told in fact some of the things we are told are cosmogony because marketing is similar to cosmology it's the history and origin of the universe and the Bible tells us quite a bit about that but it doesn't tell us a lot of specifics about cosmology and one of the things being kind of very early in the creation account is this hebrew word called rakia it's something that god made on day 2 it was translated various ways I'll get to that in just a moment but it was introduced on day 2 as a separator between waters above and waters below and it says in verse a to the day to account in Genesis 1 that God called this thing rakia that he made heaven now the Septuagint that's the lxx refers the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament mostly in Hebrew but a little bit in Aramaic into Greek which become the common language by the 3rd century BC and certainly many Jews at that point had picked up that language and many of them weren't even speaking or reading Hebrew anymore so they needed scriptures in her own language so a group of scholars got together in Alexandria Egypt it was a center of culture and learning and they translated the Old Testament into Greek and they chose the word stereo ma for this and you have to ask the question why did they translate it as stereo ma and I am convinced it's because they believed this model was correct this was the cosmology that they were familiar with and this is a cosmology that that they were teaching and this thing again is a stereo mod something hard and so consequently they I believe we're in we're putting their understanding of cosmology not just what they thought about Scripture but in scripture itself because this is what the translation read and what they were doing there was they were reading into the Bible their understanding of cosmology now a few centuries later 600 years or so later the languages had change now at least in the West the Greek had been replaced by Latin and so Jerome translates the Bible the entire old and new Testament now into Latin it's called the the the Vulgate and when he got to this word he translated for ma men tomb and if you look at the first four letters you can imagine the word firm and you understand why they call it the the this thing because again they were thinking this thing was hard so I think even even Jerome there is probably tipping his hand to the cosmology of his day because you see that Greek cosmology of this hard sphere was still very much believed in the West now they go forward a thousand years and at that point we get some early translations of of the Bible the Old Testament as well into English they get to this word and they translate it for mom men to men to firmament they just create a new English word by transliterating that latin word now the problem is this is not what the word rakia means turns out many modern translations get this pretty good it means expanse it means expanse it doesn't refer to anything hard at all it refers to something that has been expanded now this this translation the people went through for many many years over 2,000 years really introduces some problems because it caused people to think about the rakia all wrong in fact when I was starting out as a young creation scientist in high school 50 years ago I felt my calling was to be an astronomer for God's glory and I thought well I need to understand the cosmology of the Bible so I began reading very carefully for the first time I believe the first few chapters of Genesis and very quickly I get to the squared firmament I scratched my head and I had no idea what that meant I asked my father who was a pastor of a small church and he didn't quite know either and none of the resources we had could really tell it what it was I think things have gotten better we have more resources now than we had back then now this problem we've had you were still living with the consequences but we can trace it back 2300 years back to when people were translating the Old Testament into Greek and they chose a wrong word to translate it again they meant well they thought that they were helping out because they were they were incorporating what they understood to be the proper cosmology but of course we now have rejected that cosmology and that always introduces a problem when you take the latest ideas of man and interpret Scripture in terms of that which is exactly what happened here now how has it continuous going on we have here a depiction supposedly a medieval depiction of how the world worked you have a flat earth which by the way people only in the Middle East and Middle Ages did not believe the earth was flat that's a myth it was created in the 19th century you then see that dome sitting there and the stars in the Sun of the Moon are inside of that dome and then you've got this intrepid explorer to the lower left there who's popped his head out and he's looking behind the firmament and is domed firm inert over the earth and he's seeing the inner workings of of what's really going behind all of that and this is sometimes called many times usually called this and this depiction is called a Flammarion engraving and most people it's considered to be a depiction of what people in the Middle Ages believed in an ancient world believed as it turns out the Flammarion engraved engraving is very old it dates all the way back to 1888 yeah just 130 years ago this is not an even evil depiction after all again a lot of ideas were introduced about scripture and cosmology the Bible in the 19th century which are wrong now there was a second attempt to Wed Genesis to the cosmology around early early second century AD there was an astronomer named Claudius Ptolemy living in Alexandria Egypt again again as a centre of learning and culture at that time Greek thought and he came up with what we call the Ptolemaic model now it was geocentric in the sense that the earth was near the center and this is a geocentric model right here as I pointed out the Sun is at the center of this model and that's the way most ancient Greeks thought about the world in fact that persist to dwell until about the four hundred years ago now the thing is the Sun and Moon and the stars all seem to spend around the earth once a day and so do the planets they're 5 naked-eye planets Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter and Saturn they look like bright stars in fact Mars Jupiter and Saturn are in the morning sky right now putting been putting on a show for several months they look like bright stars but they move with respect to the background stars I've been watching them the first few months of this year because they've been moving from west to east in the sky but right now they're starting pretty soon they're starting this reversal of motion they're going backwards for a while what we call retrograde motion they'll do this for a few months on into the summer and autumn and then they'll revert back to their normal west2east motion that's very complicated motion and it defied explanation now what's going in the ancient world a dead what's going on is that the earth is moving they are moving we're all orbiting around the different their Sun at different rates on different orbits and from time to time we pass up the earth passes up Mars Jupiter and Saturn there and farther away from the Sun moving more slowly and we pass them up on an inside track and as that happens they seem to fall behind us and move backwards it's an illusion they're not really moving backwards they just seem to be moving backwards imagine imagine you're driving along on a highway and you are overtaking or passing another car even though it's moving forward as you pass that car it seems to move backwards by the way when Mercury and Venus pass us up we see the same sort of thing that backward motion taking place well Ptolemy was able to explain this by using what we called epicycles kind of complicated kind of gearing kind of motion what do you what he did is he had each planet move on a small circle called an epicycle like this and then he had the center of the epicycle move around the earth on a larger circle he called a defferent now by changing the sizes of these two circles the epicycle and then the defferent and altering the speed at which they turned this motion and that motion he could get a pretty good match to the to the data so he's able to fit his model episodic model to a Pacifica cyclic model to the the actual observations and here's a little illustration showing how that happens the earth is at the center there that green circle and then you've got the little red circle representing the epicycle let's say of Mars and you got a little red dot on that and notice that the the red dot is going along the red circle that's the epicycle again of that planet but then the epicycle is moving around the defferent that large kind of greenish looking circle with a white dot on it that white dot represents the center of that epicycle again it's kind of complicated isn't it now there's a blue line that runs from the Earth past the planet in this case Mars as I suggested and it points to stars on the far right you see five asterisks they're representing stars and as this thing moves along that little loop-d-loop on the far right there illustrates the apparent motion you would see it goes forward now it goes backwards then it goes forward again let's watch that again the planets moving forward with respect those stars now it appears to move backwards and then it goes forward again notice that always happens when that planet is passing on the near side of that epicycle closest to Earth and again Ptolemy was able to make that fit very well and this was a tremendous leap in ancient science and this made the dominant model for the next 15 centuries it was kind of folded into this other model of the globe of sitting around the Earth a celestial sphere with with stars impregnated on it well let's see what happened after that it became the most successful theory in history of science in terms of longevity it is for 1500 years it was thoroughly believed in the West and people didn't think it could be possibly wrong now its strength was that it could be continually modified you see from time to time there were slight discrepancies this thing is not really giving us reality it's an approximation it's a model it's good enough but over the centuries slight discrepancies occurred between the actual motions of the planets and the predicted motions from the Ptolemaic model so what was the fix will you added a few more epicycles you have the big epicycle like this but you added a couple of more small ones on that and this time went by there were more needs for fixes some more epicycles were thrown at it now the original model had about a dozen epicycles a couple for each of the planets and then one or two for the Sun of the moon that's it but then as time went by more and more were added until about 500 years ago 400 years ago systems required as many as a hundred or more epicycles you have epicycles upon epicycles upon epicycles you see it worked you can always make it fit any new challenge any new problem you can always make it fit by adding additional epicycles that was its strength but it had a weakness you want it was the weakness was that it could be continually modified you see as you added more and more epicycles the Ptolemaic model became more and more complicated and it led to a dilemma here it meant that the model could not be disproved you see any kind of theory or model we have in science must at least hypothetically have the possibility of being disproved you can conduct an experiment or conduct an observation and then have predictions based upon your model or on your theory and if your theory if your predictions contradict your observations or experiments then you've just disproved them theory but if your theory or model cannot be disproved because you're allowed to continually change it then it cannot be disproved and there's a principle many people pursue in science it says any model that cannot be disproved is really not a model at all we're not talking about science anymore furthermore that probably came very complex there's this thing called Occam's razor that says if confronted with two different hypotheses one with very few assumptions and one with many assumptions very complicated the simpler one with the fewest assumptions probably is the correct one and by a four hundred years ago there are a number of people who were calling this into question one of them is a man named Galileo Galilei you may have heard about him a lot of what you've heard about him learned about him probably isn't true I could do a whole talk just on the Galileo affair but we don't have time to talk about that today suffice to say what happened was he stood up for the heliocentric model the idea that the earth is one of several planets orbiting around the Sun in which those large epicycles are no longer needed it's a much simpler approach and from that we've got Kepler and Newton and other people coming in to play and we now have a fantastic model of had it for centuries that explains all these motions very precisely with no adjustments necessary it's a much better model than what we had before unfortunately this is this has been portrayed as a conflict between science and religion and we're still living with this the results of that ever since keep in mind the problems with the Ptolemaic model I'll come back to that a little later so now we come by the way both these events the first and the second have led to very bad consequences disastrous consequences I do believe so now we have this third attempt I think going on today to read our cosmology or in this case cosmogony into Scripture and why should it be any different than what it was back then whatever you may it reads man man's ideas into Scripture it leads to problems well the Big Bang model became the comet of the dominant cosmogony or cosmology let people say today after 1965 what happened in 1965 I'll share that in just a minute and as a result in the wake of this many Christians began to say well we see that the universe had a beginning you see up to this point Greek thought and Western thought had had hypothesized that the universe had no beginning has always existed they said aha for the first time in history we now know we have scientific proof that the universe had a beginning so it must have a beginner it must have a creator so let me introduce you to that creator once i've proved to you scientifically there had to be a beginning so many christians today think they see within scripture the big bang again we're repeating the same mistake that's been made before and they view this as being a very evangelistic tool after if you can convince people there must be a god because science says so then it's very easier than to turn to the New Testament introduce you to that creator but I have two questions is this Big Bang cosmology even true and is it biblical if the answer to either one of those questions is no then we have a very bad approach going on here approach the scripture and approach to evangelism I would submit that both of these answers are no so this is doubly a bad idea now I have a photograph here of a man anybody recognize who that is anybody ah somebody said it over here you're right it's Edwin Hubble very famous man he was more the most famous astronomers in the first half of the 20th century and he had several great contributions to modern astronomy one was that he proved that other galaxies exist we live in the Milky Way galaxy it's a collection of a few hundred billion stars orbiting around a common center of mass and the time of Hubble 100 years ago people mostly most astronomers thought the the Milky Way was the only thing that existed that was the universe but then in 1924 he demonstrated that there were many other galaxies or if you will these at the time they said other universes out there the nearest galaxies of any size comparable comparable to our own is the Andromeda galaxy and it's a couple of million light years away pretty far compared to the size of the Milky Way a little more than a hundred thousand light years away and many other galaxies are much much farther away but then in 1929 he's credited with proving that the universe is expanding well how did he do this well he used what was then the largest telescope on the world 100-inch a hooker telescope on Mount Wilson above Los Angeles and he photographed and took the spectra of many different galaxies here's one galaxy the Andromeda galaxy I've mentioned it before it's about a couple of million light years away then we have the sombrero galaxy in 104 it's even farther away you probably 30 to 50 million light years I'm gonna guess and then we have no more distant galaxies I'm not sure how far away this galaxy is have to look up which one it is and how far away it is but he started looking at the spectrum and every time you looked at the spectrum most galaxies they have a redshift that means that their spectral lines or spectral features are shifted towards longer wavelengths towards the red end of the spectrum it suggests that these galaxies are getting farther and farther away from us now he also measured the distances and he found out that there was a relationship between distances of galaxies and the redshifts and I'll have here a reproduction out of his original 1929 paper this is a 91 year old publication now and if you look very carefully on that you'll see that velocity and km/s or redshift is vertically plotted in horizontally you have the distance now his measurements of distance were kind of crude back then we've done much better than and extended it out a huge range but you'll notice those little points and dots go generally from lower left to upper right we would say mathematically there's a linear relationship between redshift and distance now already people have suggested the possibility the universe might be expanding it might be contracting and so what Hubble did is he said look I've got data that can show that it's expanding it's getting larger meaning galaxies are getting farther and farther apart now this is an interpretation of the data the data simply relate redshift and distance it's an interpretation to say that that redshift implies that these things are actually getting farther away from us by the way an interpretation I have no trouble with no problem with but it is an interpretation now this next person's a little difficult to to identify for a little many people they're gonna be thrown because of his clerical collar because as you may guess he was a Roman Catholic priest anybody know who this is well it's not common not uncommon for nobody in the audience to know and I'll just give it away - his name was George Lemaitre oh he was indeed a Belgian priest but he was also a theoretical physicist he had a PhD in theoretical physics many people are surprised to learn that some priests they're actually some astronomers who are priests there are many Catholic universities and many of them are employed as faculty members at those places the Vatican even has an observatory believe it or not by the way their telescope is not called Lucifer we've got an article on a website we've heard that that rumor please check it out on our website they have no telescope by that name please stop spreading that rumor if you're doing that well he came with this idea of call he called the primeval atom or cosmic egg he said just about the time Hubble Purdue produced his paper Lemaitre said I think that since the universe is expanding if you go back at the time the galaxies when all the matter in the universe would have been closer and closer and closer together so there would have been a time in the past when all the matter was inside of this little tiny hot dense form and it began expanding outward from there if you are the least bit familiar with the Big Bang model you will understand that's very similar kind of a naive way of looking at it but it's considered the precursor the actual Big Bang model in its modern form was published a couple of decades later around 1948 and the belief is the Big Bang is this that the universe began at a very hot very dense state and the universe popped into existence both matter and energy but also space and time popped into existence expanding and it's been expanding and as any expanding gas will do it will cool and it's cooled tremendously from you know very high temperatures millions of Kelvin perhaps down to only three Kelvin over about 13.8 billion years as a current estimate now this idea met a lot of early rejection for the first few decades not many people liked it because number one it had a beginning to the universe and that is was an athlete to people because they believed the universe was eternal number two then if the universe had a beginning that suggested a creator possibility to some people and many people didn't want to go there now this all changed when I was coming down the pike in the mid-60s in 1965 there was a publication of what's called the CMB for short it stands for cosmic microwave background and it comes from the Big Bang model that the universe was once very hot and very dense but it's expanded since then when you had a very hot dense plasma of gas there would have been producing a very hot spectrum but that spectrum is since expanded and cooled by a thousandfold so now it's going to be very cool around three Kelvin temperature and this would be over the microwave part of the spectrum coming from every direction in space now the steady-state model or other eternal universe models could not predict that because couldn't explain that because their universe was never filled with radiation like that well in 1965 two astronomers - working for Bell Labs as it turns out or we're studying the background radiation they just found discovered this background radiation in the course of their study and it's been called the CMB ever since a dozen years later they shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery because this is the one evidence that supposedly proved the Big Bang happened and here I have a spectrum across this the brightness is vertical and the frequency is horizontally and it's a logarithmic scale on both axes which makes it a little difficult for some people to interpret but you'll notice that a shorter way of frequencies lower frequencies on the far left it's kind of low it rises to a peak and then it drops off very rapidly to far right at higher frequencies and this is what we call a black body curve exactly the kind of curve you would expect from a very hot plasma now cooled of course and those little various points on there from different experiments have been connected with a little dotted line that represents a 2.7 to 6 Kelvin blackbody and the fit is very very good this one observation back in 1965 was again they big proof within a couple of years almost everybody a JumpShip and embrace the Big Bang and it's been the only game in town for the past half centuries now there have been some problems over the years with the Cosmic Microwave Background we've studied extensively the first satellite to do so a great length was the Kobe experiment the cosmic background Explorer launched in 1989 it had a two year mission to explore map out the entire microwave spectrum all in every direction around us and they were looking for small temperature fluctuations remember the temperatures less than three Kelvin but they were expecting that there would be fluctuations in temperature from one point to another nearby to one part in 10,000 and then amazing you're gonna measure something to 310 thousandths of a Kelvin that is incredible but we have the technology to do that sort of thing today and better now than we had back just thirty years ago now they had predicted in the 1970s what kind of fluctuations you would expect those fluctuations are necessary to produce structure in the universe you see the Big Bang it's really smooth to start with but you need slight variations in density to act as gravitational seeds if some areas are a little more dense than others they will attract more matter to them than to other regions hence accentuating those differences in density making places rarer and making other places more dense this would lead to structures such as galaxies stars planets and people without this taking place simply put we wouldn't be here to observe the universe but you can have too much of a good thing the idea was if you had too many gravitational seeds too clumpy then everything gets sucked up into supermassive black holes and you don't get galaxies stars planets people we're not here to look at the universe so it's a very careful balance they did their best guess based on their model what it ought to look like so this thing was designed Kobe was designed specifically to look for the predicted fluctuations and when they did the experiment they discovered they looked perfectly smooth only after background radiation did only after they did powerful statistical techniques on it that they find slight variations but they were an order of magnitude a factor of 10 last instead of being one part in 10,000 they were Parlin part in a hundred thousand yet since then many people have told me I've read this been told this that the predictions beautifully matched the observations I said what excuse me that's not what happened well they fixed it how did they fix it well what they did is they once they knew what the fluctuations were they went then went back down and they played with the model and altered the model to make it fit the data and keep in mind that the model had predicted the fluctuations they expected they then looked for the fluctuations at first they couldn't find them they did find them a factor of 10 lower than that and then some people have the nerve to tell me with a straight face that the predictions matched the models will no they they didn't it was predicted after the fact all right be like if I give you a quiz at the end of my presentation today okay I said if don't get excited we won't have really have a test but suppose I wanted to test you on how well you paid attention today I can see some of you are very fearful you didn't know there's gonna be a test today right again we're just playing hypothetical but let me tell you that the I will tell the answer to the one question and they put on the test you already the answer is 42 yeah some of you get that one don't you all right 42 is the answer the question now if when I asked the question at the end of the class today and into the presentation on class presentation today how many of you will get that answer correct I'm always concerned when I ask this and not every hand is up a few of you are out raising your hands what's the matter you dumb as a sack of rocks then do not believe me did you every not say 42 of course you're gonna tap past the test aren't you unless you're not paying attention at all but would that really be a good test of how well you grasp the material today and the answer is no because I just gave you the answer you're doing the same thing here we're giving the answer to the model and the model is then after the fact predicting what the result ought to be and that's no way to do science that's not the way science works now here's a map of the Cosmic Microwave Background sampled over the entire sky that we replace it with better Maps and I'll show you a better map a little later sometimes people are a little puzzled by this and I should explain this imagine you have a sphere like the outside of a sphere like the Earth's globe like this have you ever seen a globe done this way well the equator would run across the middle there wouldn't it and the North and South Pole would be at the top and the bottom there's gonna be some distortions because you're trying to project the globe onto a flat plane but that oval that ellipse are seeing there does a decent job you've probably seen maps done that way haven't you well imagine instead of looking down under the earth we look up into the sky and it's gonna be this big celestial sphere what we see in this image here then is an image of the entire sky spherical that it may be prone there and so there's kind of an equator running across the middle that equator by the way is the galaxy's equator and the Galactic North and South Pole to top and bottom so that's what you're seeing there and this little blue and yellow and red and green those are different temperature variations that are present in the Cosmic Microwave Background the hotter regions are red then yellow then green is in-between and the blue are little cooler air is the darker blue the coolest regions of all the red regions are the warmer regions by the way I will draw your attention to a feature right here if you look over to the right there's a region right here that looks kind of long and it's like a ridge of higher than average temperature right there a ridge of higher than average temperature that's called the axis of evil' I'll talk more about that a little later on and then if you look off to the lower right there's an area right here very dark blue that's called the the cold spot on the on this and I will talk again more about that later now there are some problems for the for the Big Bang model and I seem to be hung up hold on a second there we go okay there's some problems for the the Big Bang model once called a horizon problem and that's the fact that the Cosmic Microwave Background has the same temperature in every direction if I look off in this direction I'm supposedly seeing radiation coming over a distance of 13.8 billion light years it's been traveling for 13.8 billion years I'll call that point a and the light is just the radiation the microwave microwave radiation from that just now reaching my location here on the earth 20 I'll call it point A to point a now if I look in this diametrically opposite direction I'll call that point B I'm also seeing photons of light coming in the microwave part of the spectrum that have been traveling for 13.8 billion years they have just reached my location here at Point a II question if the light from point A is just now getting to my location has it ever gotten to point B or as light from point B ever gotten to point A and the obvious answer is no it couldn't have so why do these have the same temperature they're very precisely one part 100,000 typically the same temperature but yet why are they like that they've never been in contact with each other we say thermal contact so they could exchange heat and come to the same temperature this is a principal what we could from thermodynamics in order to bring things in the same temperature they must come in thermal contact so it's a big mystery why these two points have the same temperature and by the way we can generalize this to any direction in space you want to go diametrically opposite they all have the same direction it's called a horizon problem because the light from of there can't see to the other side and this is a huge problem so disparate parts of the universe have the same temperature even though they've never been in thermal contact then we have what's called the flatness problem and it can be approached several ways referring to the geometry the universe is one way the way I prefer to do it is to look at a ratio of a number called Omega this is one of the five parameters basic parameters of modern cosmology and it's like an define it as a great ratio between gravitational and potential potential energy and kinetic energy those are two forms of energy we deal with in physics all the time now the thing is if this universe begins with a value of Omega less than 1 it can be anywhere between 0 and infinity basically it has to be a positive number the way it's defined then if it's any if it's anything less than 1 it will with expansion the University of a billions of years the value of Omega will go towards zero okay now if it's greater than 1 it will increase to ever larger values 1 to break even number so after billions of years of expansion the value of Omega should be nowhere near one it should be either very very close to zero like you know to like a hundred decimal points or something or it should be this huge number well we've tested it measured repeatedly over the past century and the value of Omega appears to be very close to one in fact it may be identically close to one how could that possibly be that makes no sense that the universe randomly generates in such a way that its value of Omega is so close to one after all these billions of years well this was cost quite a bit of consternation through the 70s and into the 80s and so they came up with a solution back then in the 1980s called cosmic inflation now what happens here they say when the universe is very small very young and we're talking like 10 to the minus 34 seconds after the universe popped into existence you even wonder how long 10 to minus 34 seconds is well it's a decimal point followed by about 33 zeros and a one yeah that's a pretty short time interval that long after the Big Bang happened the universe is still very very tiny but expanding rapidly it suddenly went through a hyper expansion far far far faster than the speed of light the universe starts just suddenly boom expands very rapidly and then about 10 to the minus 32 seconds almost after it started the universe goes back stops hyper inflating inflation ends and goes back to normal expansion so this expansion is far far faster than light which is allowed by the way in general relativity now what this does is it forces the value of Omega no matter what it was to start with to be almost identically equal to 1 like 1 to 150 or 300 decimal places or something of which it's only recently and gradually backed away a tiny little bit the other thing that it does is it allows the universe to come in thermal contact with itself before that inflation then it's ripped out of thermal contact and which is only gradually the universe is starting to re-establish that thermal contact the Sun in one fell swoop kind of explains both of these problems great idea seems to be work doesn't it in fact every cosmologists today seems to be convinced that is exactly what happened in the very early universe however I note that there is no evidence for this not the way science is supposed to work you come up with a proposal for something a hypothesis in this case and then you then make predictions and try to test those predictions now if it cannot be tested if you cannot come with a test for it you know yes or no potential disproving it again then it really isn't science at all it might be science fiction it might be philosophy might be religion but it's not science so this is a non scientific concept it's ad hoc in the sense we just we just did this we just made it up at this point I often tell people that ad hoc is Latin for we're just making this up as we go along and it's again as I said it's not falsifiable which is the way that science is supposed to work but there are even more problems for this for instance there's a lack of magnetic monopoles now what's a magnetic monopole well you know that a magnet has a north and a South Pole on it and with classical physics you can't have just one pole by itself if you cut that magnet in half you'll magically get a north and a South it forms on either end and you're still having now two magnets with North and South you can't isolate and have a single magnetic north or a single magnetic South if you have such thing to be called monopoles well it turns out on the Big Bang cosmology cosmogony there should be a few magnetic monopoles in the universe we're not making this up so much it's just what the theory says and there have been a number of experiments going on for decades looking for them they've never found one oh cosmic inflation that solves it - it makes the density of magnetic monopoles very small so we we wouldn't expect to find any locally well again there's no evidence for this and this is a big one I didn't talk about this for many years because I thought the problem it's was solved in fact many many cosmologists and physicists thought it was but lo and behold it wasn't there's an asymmetry between matter and antimatter oh you've heard of antimatter right yeah and science fiction stories turns out it's not science fiction antimatter was predicted nearly a hundred years ago and was soon found it comes right out of the theory of particle physics quantum mechanics and it's real and when to say a proton meets up with its antiproton poof they annihilate in this blinding release of energy and they're both gone now we don't see this taking place in the universe today it appears that the universe is dominated by matter that is there may be a little bit of antimatter but it doesn't last long because there's so much matter in the universe so antimatter doesn't really exist but the Big Bang model demands that there be a complete symmetry between the two there should be as much antimatter is there is matter this clearly it's not what the universe looks like and at this point the one solution they had for this was was actually disproved a few years ago and this is one of those things they don't talk about much but that's a huge problem for the Big Bang why is there an asymmetry there it should not exist yet the universe is very asymmetrical with regards to matter and antimatter I mentioned the axis of evil' before this this is a cool Ridge and there's Cosmic Microwave Background extends for about 60 degrees that's like 1/6 of the way around the sky and get this it seems to be aligned with the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun we call that the ecliptic now if this is truly cosmic microwave background has nothing to do with the earth why is it lined up with our orbit around the Sun that makes no sense it could be coincidence but there again there's still no explanation for that axis of evil' within the Big Bang model and the cold spot again there is no explanation for that either these features should not be there they're huge a symmetries in the microwave background and yet it would violate the very principles in which the Big Bang model are founded is founded so again here's another map of the Cosmic Microwave Background and off to the right I'm going to risk turning on this thing and locking the computer up for a moment here but off to the to the lower right there there's this long ridge of brighter than average temperatures those yellow and kind of tan spots those that's the that is the axis of evil' and down here is that big cold spot down at the bar and both of those are severe problems for the Big Bang model over the years I've seen changes in the Big Bang model since I've been in graduate school the expansion rate change I was about 30 years ago the expansion rate also changed the age of the universe when they when they increased the expansion rate the they decreased the age back for many many years they said the universe for about 1960 to about early 1990s they said the Big Bang was 16 to 18 billion years ago now they say it's 13.8 billion years years ago plus or minus 1% if you look very carefully at that you understand that those two do not overlap at all so they both cannot be right they both could be wrong but they both cannot be right now dark matter has been introduced and I have a talk presentation I give on dark matter I happen to think that Dark Matter exists I think there's a very good case to be made for this purely from observational science nothing to do with cosmology or Big Bang now dark matter is the understanding that 90% of so of the mass of the universe the matter in the universe is totally invisible well you know for many years we had this Big Bang model that didn't include dark matter and then in the nineteen by the 1980s astronomers became to realize hey you know we're missing out most of the matter of the universe about it's like an iceberg most of its below the surface we can't see it only a tiny 10% of it's there took the cosmologies about another decade to incorporate the dark matter into their models now consider this the dominant force in the universe in cosmology is the is gravity but if you've left out 90% of the matter of the universe the mass the universe then you've left out 90% of the gravity your model couldn't possibly be correct could it that's usually why they had to add that eventually the cosmological constant was introduced by Albert Einstein almost over a century ago this is an idea that is the force of space has for itself it kind of repels itself and he was kind of forced in a way to embrace that but you know it was rejected pretty quickly he said it was later on it was one of the biggest blunders ever made well interesting enough two decades ago in the late nineteen 90s Dark Matter came back assuming a cosmological constant came back except now they don't call it that they call it dark energy it's a time varying thing rather than a constant thing so a lot of changes have been made over the past thirty years I've seen the expansion rate does change the ages changed no inflation was considered there was no Dark Matter considered no dark energy I just alluded to here no string theory that's something I haven't talked about that wasn't included much thirty years ago you had thirty years ago or so they had complete confidence in the theory they knew it was correct there was no no getting around at the universe was sixteen to eighteen billion years old except now they say it's quite a bit younger than that and they've changed the model all along now what will the unit what will the Big Bang model look like in another thirty years well I don't know but I'm confident of two things it will be very different than today's model and they will have complete confidence in that model as well notice what's gone on as problems develop as difficulties arise they just simply change the model to fit the new problems and solve those problems away isn't that beginning to look a lot like epicycles remember what caused the demise the Ptolemaic model was all these epicycles they kept adding that was the weakness and the strength of the models you could change it indefinitely I think the Big Bang has gotten into that ground as well and when it does that it's no longer science and become Dogma man's Dogma well how does that compare to Scripture well scripture does not change our understanding may change but scripture does not change how about the origin of the universe some some people see God in us many Christians see in this the handprint of God the fingerprint of God other people say no just a quantum fluctuation and this is the idea that you can have small violations of conservation of energy and mass over a very short length of time it's pretty sketchy science actually I'm not the only person who criticized this interpretation and it rests upon the idea that the universe has zero energy well I look around in the universe and I see a lot of nonzero energy I see a lot of positive energy in the universe and so on or this to work at all they have to argue that the there's a lot of negative energy out there that somehow balances the books this is an assumption there's not been prove that this is act to the case they just must have this otherwise they have a problem with their model because at the very least they need a God to intervene to make this happen if this can happen at all there are two very famous quotes I love here referring to this this very random accidental origin the universities if this makes the big bang the ultimate accident oh but ultimate evolutionary explanation for things but the one quote is this the universe is the ultimate free lunch the universe came from nothing you know you're here you know nothing's free even a free lunch somebody's paying for it that's costing something well this is the ultimate free lunch so you can you you're getting your lunch totally free in this particular case I love this and even better the universe is just one of those things that happens from time to time I love that that's the ultimate appeal to randomness in the world but see the world doesn't even exist suddenly it does that's the kind of random event we're talking about well is the big bang biblical well remember it's an event that happened 13.8 billion years ago but that's not the way scripture records it says in Exodus 20:11 that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days six normal days this is in the context of the giving the Ten Commandments this one being keeping the Sabbath if these are not six normal days then how can God have expected the the Jews there Hebrews there at Sinai to observe six normal literal days also the Big Bang many many stars preceded the earth you know the the earth is supposedly four and a half billion years old but the first stars appeared within a half billion years after the Big Bang nine billion years or so before there ever was an earth the earth is a johnny-come-lately but scripture tells us in the day for account that God made the earth first and then the stars a few days later furthermore the like any evolutionary process the Big Bang unfolded over a long time in many respects is still going on today but the beginning of chapter 2 of Genesis tells us that the creation is finished and on the seventh day God rested where do you place the time in all of this billions of years as opposed to only thousands of years well we have the day H through the allegory theory all sorts of other things to try to explain this I think I've seen every one of them I am intellectually open to to the possibility of somehow getting billions of years and within the scriptural account again I think I've seen them all but if you think you have one I've never seen please come up afterwards we'll talk about it I've probably seen it though okay the the direction of the BIGBANG research is very atheistic if this thing is so clearly taught in Scripture some people would want to claim then why were there not Christians and the forefront of this leading the charge on the Big Bang cosmology there were not any in fact the day I don't know of a single Christian among that heavy hitters in cosmology circles today I don't even know of any theists many of them are atheist it seems to me to be the ultimate ace the atheistic theory and Christians are kind of coming into the into this whole process pretty late rather than pretty early on all of this the time issue I've already alluded to where do you put the time the order of creation of alluded to the order of creation is all wrong as it is with any evolutionary model different from what the biblical text of Genesis 1 tells us and you know what the beginning of the universe is I believe was sudden and rapid very quick just as the end is going to be first Peter 3:10 speaks of a new heaven and a new earth as well as Isaiah and Revelation and I believe everybody would agree that those are rapid things so why was not the beginning if they're like bookends upon all of this and ultimately when the Big Bang is abandoned what will become of our apologetic our Big Bang apologetic would drag scripture down with it because I saying when I'm not saying if because you see every scientific Theory has its shelf life the Ptolemaic model lasted for 15 centuries great model but ultimately was cast aside I am convinced the Big Bang model one day will be cast aside as well when that happens if you have erected your foundation of biblical interpretation upon it that it discredits scripture as it does that it's a changing model the man's ideas are always changing but Bible is not it's contrary to Scripture we should base upon everything we believe upon Scripture not the other way around and again when it's discarded what B happens to our apologetic if you want to know more I have written on some things on this we have a book universe by design a little dated it came out over 15 years ago but still very much up to speed and it's more technical and than mo some of the other writings we have I've also written a couple other books more recently one that created cosmos which is a discussion of biblical creation everything about what the Bible says about astronomy particularly in all of this the companion book to that I wrote a year afterwards it's expensive heaven is a book about the creation science of of the of the of the creation science of astronomy we find in Scripture well I thank you very much for coming today I appreciate you being here hope forward to seeing you once again you

Channel: Answers in Genesis

Views: 25,027

Rating: 4.7272725 out of 5

Keywords: Biblical authority, Creation Museum, Answers in Genesis, truth, Dr. Andrew Snelling, geology, global flood, rock strata, age of Earth

Id: dennzBPVuu0

Length: 54min 21sec (3261 seconds)

Published: Thu May 21 2020