|Home Page||General Articles||Genesis Science Mission|
|Scripture||Categories||Genesis Science Mission Online Store|
|Anomalies||Creation Science Talk Blog|
The main evolutionary theory on the origin of the Universe is called the Big Bang. According to this theory, the entire universe started right here were the arrow is pointing. This can be said because according to the Big Bang all of the mater and space in the Universe started in a sub atomic point smaller that an electron. The sub-atomic point essentially exploded and evolved into stars, galaxies, planets and eventually us. Now the Big Bang was not an explosion in the conventional sense of the term, because it did not blow into an existing space but expanded space along with it. Like an explosion it was highly energetic and chaotic.
The Big Bang Theory has two basic assumptions.
The Cosmological Principal is some times referred to as the Copernican Principal, This inappropriately associates it with Copernicus, but he really had nothing to do with it. Copernicus discovered that, the Sun not the Earth is the center of the Solar System. His work did not imply anything about our position on a cosmic scale. The so called Cosmological Principal is the assumption that there is nothing special about the Earth's location in the universe. Basically the idea is that the overall structure of the universe would look the same from any point in the universe as it does from Earth. Now there is no scientific evidence for this, since we have never seen the universe from a distance from Earth that would allow it to be tested. The fact is that this is a purely philosophical assumption. Such an assumption is necessary to an evolutionary cosmology since the odds of being at a special location by chance would be astronomically small. The Earth being in a special place would suggest special creation.
While there is no scientific evidence for the so called Cosmological Principal, there is scientific evidence against it. The direct observation of galactic red shift is so uniform around us that it naturally suggests that we are vary near the center of the universe. This is not only a special location but the most special location possible.
To save the so called Cosmological Principal it became necessary to postulate an unbounded expanding universe with mater evenly distributed on a large scale, so that there is no center. The best illustration of this is with the expansion of a balloon as seen from its surface. Based on this model any place in the universe would seem to be in the center of the expansion. Like the Cosmological Principal, there is no scientific evidence for the assumption of an unbounded universe, so it too is a purely philosophical assumption.
In the unbounded universe of the Big Bang there is no edge and as such no center. In a bounded universe there is an edge and there is a definite center. As it turns out, there is evidence for such a center and that the Earth is near it.
Quantized Galactic Red Shifts shows a pattern of concentric shells of galaxies around the Milky Way.
There is also evidence that suggests that the entire universe is rotating.
So astronomical observations not only show that the universe has a center but that we are near it.
Recently hyperclusters of galaxies have been discovered that are more than 3 billion light years across. The problem is according to the Big Bang Cosmology the Universe started out with matter vary smoothly spread through out space, with just small variations. It is thought that gravity amplified the small variations producing the galaxies and galaxy clusters seen to day. Now because of the expansion of space it also predicts that such structures should not be more a few hundred million light years across, but these hyperclusters are far larger than this limit.
The most important point is the fact that the Big Bang is based on two purely philosophical assumptions, the Cosmological Principal and an unbounded universe. If these assumptions are wrong so is every conclusion about the universe based on the Big Bang. Further ore there is evidence that indicates that these assumptions are indeed wrong.
Was there a Big Bang?
What about the 'big bang'?
Hubble, hubble, 'big bang' in trouble?
New evidence for a rotating cosmos
More on the ‘Rotating Cosmos’!
Creation of a Cosmology: Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang
The Big Bang Theory