> Home

> Origin of the Universe (Cosmology)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Origin of Life (Abiogenesis)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Common Descent (Darwinism)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> How Does Evolution
Supposedly Work?

> Genetics

> Mutations

> Genetic Recombination

> Gene Duplication

> Natural Selection

> Fossil Evidence

> Stasis

> “Junk” DNA – The Biggest Blunder of Evolutionary-Based Science

> Endogenous Retroviruses

	“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.” "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community,” from a worldwide dissenting list of physicists published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. http://cosmologystatement.org/

Origin of the Universe (Cosmology)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

Contrary to widespread belief, there are NO adequate naturalistic explanations for the appearance of the universe and its 100+ billion galaxies:

• “It’s perhaps natural that we don’t know much about how the Universe was created – after all, we were never there ourselves. But it’s surprising to realise that when it comes to the Universe today, we don’t necessarily have a much better knowledge of what is out there. In fact, astronomers and physicists have found that all we see in the Universe – planets, stars, galaxies – accounts for only a tiny 4% of it! In a way, it is not so much the visible things that define the Universe, but rather the void around them.”
  European Organization for Nuclear Research website, “Dark secrets of the Universe” page
  http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Science/Dark-en.html
• “It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.”
  NASA website, “Universe 101 Big Bang Theory: Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology.”
  http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html
• “What happened before the Big Bang? What happened right at the moment of the Big Bang? We don't know. To even address these questions we need to have a quantum theory of gravity. We have a quantum theory, and we have a gravity theory, but these two theories somehow need to be combined. We know that our current gravity theory does not apply to the conditions of the earliest moments of the Big Bang. This is exciting research now in progress!”
  NASA website, “WMAP Frequently Asked Questions”
  http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
  
• “The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”
  “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community,” from a worldwide dissenting list of physicists published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004.
  http://cosmologystatement.org/

For more information, go to:
“The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang”
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
“The Big Bang Theory Under Fire,” William C. Mitchell, Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/mitchell-big-bang-theory-under-fire.htm

Without any empirical evidence substantiating them, evolutionists devise fanciful supernatural explanations (unexplainable by natural laws) for the creation and the expansion of the universe.
But, only because they purposely leave out ANY mention of a necessary force attributed to each action, these scenarios are given the erroneous status as being legitimate scientific theories:

• “A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth.”
  http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/0506-cyclicuniverse.htm
  (This theory is ridiculous and does not deserve a response.)
• “The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.”
  http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
  (Refer to Stephen Hawking’s 3-paragraph narrative in which he describes this proposed step-by-step process:
  http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html
  Note that the ‘singularity’ appears out of nowhere, photons, quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, chemicals, etc. following suite, and stars and galaxies mysteriously arriving later. There is absolutely NO empirical science substantiating it or a mention of any cause, just that “our Universe was born.”)
  

Picture billions of galaxies within the universe – each galaxy possessing its own gravitational field. If the universe evolved from a fixed point (singularity), how is this possible? And, how would separate gravitational fields be sustainable without some force that continually causes attraction within repulsion?

In attempts to explain this enigma, some scientists claim that there must be a lot of ‘dark energy’ and ‘dark matter’ in the universe. If fact, Big Bang followers believe that 72% of the universe is made up of ‘dark energy,’ 23% ‘dark matter,’ and the remaining being stuff that has been scientifically proven to actually exist. Dark energy and matter are believed in because, without them, many laws of physics cannot be reconciled:

• “The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”
  “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community,” published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. (Additional signers are continually added.)
  http://cosmologystatement.org/
  
• “What is the nature of the "dark matter", this mysterious material that exerts a gravitational pull, but does not emit nor absorb light? Astronomers do not know.”
  NASA website, “Universe 101 Big Bang Theory: What is the Universe Made Of?”
  http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html
  
• “To even address these questions we need to have a quantum theory of gravity. We have a quantum theory, and we have a gravity theory, but these two theories somehow need to be combined.”
  NASA website, “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).”
  http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
• “Only 4% of the universe is made of known material …
  Now the team believes that the interactions between dark and ordinary matter could be more important and more complex than previously thought, and even speculate that dark matter might not exist and that the anomalous motions of stars in galaxies are due to a modification of gravity on extragalactic scales.”
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022154644.htm

Still unable to prove the existence of ‘dark’ energy or matter, evolutionists now theorize that ‘dark’ stars may exist also:
“These "dark stars," first theorized in 2007, could grow to be much larger than modern stars, and would be powered by dark matter particles that annihilate inside them, rather than by nuclear fusion.”
http://www.physorg.com/news176457990.html

The 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to two scientists "for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation.”
While this was a great achievement, it was cited as evidence that the Big Bang occurred:

“The COBE results provided increased support for the Big Bang scenario for the origin of the Universe, as this is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE.”
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/press.html

The prediction of a background radiation was based on research that began with a German scientist, Gustav Kirchhoff, who coined the term “black body radiation” in 1862. Over time, other scientists continued with his research and created a theoretical composite of the universe’s background radiation. The prediction was based on existing evidence and known physic principles, not what would be found if something came from nothing, i.e. the Big Bang.

Ironically, the temperature of the black body radiation opened up a can of worms due to the fact that it was found to be uniform throughout the furthest ends of the known universe, holding within a few hundred thousandths of a degree.
If radiation originated from a single point (singularity) and extended out, it should lose heat as it travels outward, thus making the outer background radiation cooler. This was a failed prediction:

• “But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.”
  “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community,” published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. (Additional signers are continually added.)
  http://cosmologystatement.org/
• “In addition to the previous comment that one would expect the observed gigantic galactic formations to cause irregularities in the isotropy of MBR reception, the observed spectrum of the MBR, corresponding to a near perfect black body temperature of 2.7 K, doesn't agree very well with temperatures predicted by various Big Bang theorists.”
  http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/mitchell-big-bang-theory-under-fire.htm

In order to reconcile this temperature uniformity, the Hubble Constant theory was devised and states that the continuous inflation of the universe supposedly causes the universe to stretch out so that the temperature might be more uniform. However, even with some known miniscule fluctuations in temperatures, the theory lacks empirical evidence (such as red shifts), and simply defies logic:

• “It should be pointed out that Hubble himself was not convinced that red
  shift was exclusively due to Doppler effect. Up to the time of his death he maintained that velocities inferred from red shift measurements should be referred to as apparent velocities.”
  http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/mitchell-big-bang-theory-under-fire.htm
  
• “The existence of a class of objects which have redshifts not largely due to the cosmic expansion was not predicted either in the hot big bang cosmology or in QSSC.”
  G. Burbidge, USCD, “Quasi-Steady State Cosmology,” August 2001, arXiv.org.
  http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108051
  
• “The third, the Hubble expansion, is entirely a figment of the imagination, as veteran astronomer Halton Arp has pointed out for decades. There are ample examples of high-redshift quasars that are physically connected to low-redshift galaxies, and there is evidence that red shift is quantized. But astronomy has failed to self-correct, and the only acknowledgement Arp received from the scientific establishment was to be largely (though not completely (47)) banned from publication in scientific journals or from speaking at conferences, and to be denied telescope time.”
  http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html

Describing a different scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the phenomenon of sonoluminescence parallels the Genesis account of creation that states God ‘spoke’ the universe into existence. It is a fact that sound waves emitted through water can create light:

• “How can sound be transformed into a brief flash of light? Recent experiments have provided new insights into this remarkable phenomenon, but its cause is not yet fully understood.”
  “Sonoluminescence: the star in a jar” by Seth Putterman, Physics World, May 1998. (See PDF)
  
• “First discovered in the 1930s as a byproduct of early work on sonar, the phenomenon is defined as the generation of light energy from sound waves.”
  "Sonoluminescence: A Galaxy of Nanostars Created in a Beaker” NASA, Glenn Research Center web page.
  http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2004/RI/RIS-Jwrbanek2.html
  
• “There are several documented and currently taught laboratory experiments that accurately portray the events in Genesis in sequential order … in which sending a sonic signal into bubbles in a fluid causes the bubbles to collapse and they release photons, or create light.” http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=40054

But since sonoluminescence is too related to creationism, research money connecting it with the origin of the universe is non-existent.
(Refer to the Genesis Account of Creation on our website:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/genesis_account_of_creation.html)

Did you know that the universe is flat … wait, it’s spherical … no, it’s saddle shaped! Or, is it just a hologram? See the confusion:

• “With the 5 year WMAP data, we detect no convincing deviations from the minimal 6-parameter LCDM model: a flat universe dominated by a cosmological constant, with adiabatic and nearly scale-invariant Gaussian fluctuations."
  “Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Data Processing, Sky Maps, and Basic Results,” Submitted on 5 Mar 2008 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2008.
  http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0732" http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0732
  
• “6. Doesn't the Big Bang theory require space to be flat?
  No. To explain the stretching of the universe, the analogy of the surface of a balloon is often employed. Spots on the surface of the balloon grow apart as the balloon stretches while being blown up. Sometimes people infer from this analogy that the shape of space is spherical. However, the interior of the balloon has no meaning in this analogy and, therefore, the surface shape (spherical in this case) is only one possibility for the universe …
  The shape of the universe (flat, saddle, or spherical) is not specified by the Big Bang theory so all shapes are permitted. The shape of the universe will be determined by measurements that depend on the way light traverses space, as in the laser example. So far, measurements indicate that space is very nearly flat. This is, of course, the easiest shape for us to mentally picture.”
  NASA website, “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)”
  http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html" http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
  
• “Instead of postulating additional dimensions, they believe that our universe could in fact be described by less than four dimensions.
  “A hologram, as you find it on bank notes or credit cards, appears to show a three-dimensional picture, even though in fact it is just two-dimensional,” Grumiller explains. In such a case, reality has fewer dimensions than we would thinkit appears to have. This “holographic principle” plays an important role in the physics of space time. Instead of creating a theory of gravity in all the time and space dimensions, one can formulate a new quantum theory with one fewer spatial dimension. That way, a 3D theory of gravitation turns into a 2D quantum theory, in which gravity does not appear any more. Still, this quantum theory correctly predicts phenomena like black holes or gravitational waves …
  Renowned participants, like scientists from Harvard, Princeton, the MIT and many other universities, reveal that the Viennese gravitation physicists are held in high regard internationally.”
  Vienna University of Technology, February 9, 2009, “How Many Dimensions In The Holographic Universe?” ScienceDaily website
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203081609.htm

See the widespread dissent from the ‘Big Bang Theory’ by physicists around the world:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/evolution_menace.html

REVIEW HOW EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE HOLDS UP WHEN USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF TESTING A HYPOTHESIS:

1. Make observations.
   
2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
   “By 'testable,' we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle.”
   http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
   
3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
   
4. Search for confirmations of the predictions; if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).
   (From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html)

Results:
Using the standards established by the Scientific Method listed above, each evolutionary explanation for the universe forming has:
1. NO observations of occurrence;
2. NO defining hypotheses that allow for testing;
3. NO exclusive predictions that allow for deductions;
4. No confirmations because there are NO exclusive predictions.

REVIEW WHAT IS CONSIDERED AS “NATURALISTIC” BY EVOLUTIONARY STANDARDS:

“In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others.”
“Science, Evolution, and Creationism” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, third edition, page 10.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=10

Using the standards above:

• Are any of the evolutionary explanations for the origin of the universe a “naturally occurring phenomena” within know scientific information, laws, and principles?
  
• Can any be “reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others”?

Results:
Since the answer is NO, all existing evolutionary explanations for the origin of the universe MUST be given the correct status of being supernatural, i.e. something attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

	"What is the big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing…. Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either—despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing—no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which…' Whoa: stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks is all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of the quantum hats" —David Darling British astronomer and science write in On Creating Something from Nothing. New Scientist 151 (September 14, 1996) 49.