The theory of the Big Bang teaches that at one time there was nothing and then suddenly there was a quantum fluctuation that led to an explosion which expanded outward and resulted in the universe as we now know it. The concept was first developed by the Belgian astronomer, Georges Lemaitre, in 1927. Later it was popularized by Sir Arthur Eddington and George Garnow. Lemaitre called it the "Primeval Atom," but Garnow, as well as Sir Fred Hoyle, who popularized the opposing "Steady State Theory", began calling it the "Big Bang." As a result of the discovery of background radiation in the universe in 1964, the majority of astronomers have become committed to the Big Bang theory. This completely violates the first Law of Thermodynamics of cause and effect. It also violates the second law of Thermodynamics which teaches that ordered things move toward less ordered. This theory is also in contradiction to the teachings of Genesis Chapter One which teaches us that the earth was first created and then the Sun, Moon and Stars.

Initially the Big Bang is said to have produced hydrogen and helium which through later explosions changed into heavier elements. However, atomic gaps make this scenario a scientific impossibility. In the sequence of atomic weight, numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. This means that there is no stable atom of mass 5 or 8. How then can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? They cannot. The process is not able to go beyond helium 4.

Dr. Auto Berg has served as astro-physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Center. He works with the theories of planet formation. He states that they cannot explain how planets could form with the higher elements based on the Big Bang theory. As a result of this and numerous other problems he has come to reject the Big Bang theory saying that it is based on poor science. This is discussed further down under the heading "The Solar System Confirms a Creator" concerning the formation of planets and what they are made of.

Based on the theory of the Big Bang there should be uniform clusters of galaxies throughout the universe in any direction. what have cosmologists found? Not uniformity, but super clusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. In other words, not a uniform universe but a non uniform clumpy universe.

R. Brent Tully of the University of Hawaii in 1986 began to discover that there were ribbons of super clusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across. These are too big for the Big Bang theory to have produced.

In November of 1989 Margaret Geller and John Huchra of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced the discovery of what they called a "Great Wall". This is a huge sheet of galaxies 200-million light years across and 700 million light years long.^391/897-903 Many more have been discovered since then. These large clusters stretch across ¼ the known universe.

This huge shell and void pattern could not possibly be produced through a Big Bang cosmology. In an explosion all things move out radially. Therefore they cannot assume any radial or circular motion according to the conservation law of angular momentum,^91/521-523 let alone produce super clusters of galaxies. Some Big Bang scientists have tried to explain that these large clusters of galaxies are the result of the gravitational pull of cold dark matter they claim 90% of the universe is made of. These clusters of galaxies, however, are so large that this hypothesis cannot account for them. What we see is only ten percent of what would need to be there to substantiate the Big Bang theory. Twenty years of research has not been able to show any evidence of the dark matter needed to support this theory.

Another problem is that if the universe is too clumpy it then collapses into black holes. As a result you don’t get stars, planets or people. If in a Big Bang the Universe was spreading out smoothly as it should be, this also would not produce stars, planets or people.

Most Big Bang cosmologists say the universe is 20 billion years old. However, due to the Hubble telescope they are finding stars that appear to be older than the universe. The universe is full of contradictions to the cosmologists holy grail.^392/22

In 1998 Science Magazine announced that the Universe is expanding faster than previously believed and announced it as the break through of 1998.³⁹⁸ Unfortunately, this does not support the Big Bang theory.

At the beginning of the 20th century the universe was viewed according to Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein taught that the universe was eternal and infinite but that this fact would not save it, that it would still eventually collapse upon itself. Therefore Einstein came up with the theory that the universe was static, not contracting or expanding. To express this in formula he used the expression l, lambda, which is called "The Cosmological Constant." However it was discovered by Ebin Hubble in the 1920s using a 100 inch telescope that the universe was expanding. As result of this discovery, scientist abandoned the cosmological constant. However in the early fifties people resurrected the idea of the cosmological constant and that the universe had a beginning. Later it was discovered that the universe was much older than the earth and so they decided again they did not need l. For the last forty years scientists have seen l as having no real value, a value of zero, and formulas have been built upon this assumption.

In 1998 new measurements were added to the view of the universe. Scientists started using the light of super novas to measure the distance of galaxies. The end result is that many galaxies have been discovered to be much further away than expected. This indicated that the universe is accelerating outward, that the universe is not steady but expanding in ever increasing speeds with time which has brought back the l term for the third time now driven by direct observations. As a result l no longer has a zero value, but a positive value indicating the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Ordinarily, based on the laws of gravity, the expanding universe should be slowing down and eventually collapsing upon itself. When l however is not equal to zero this gets turned around and you end up with a repulsion term. This means eventually the universe will expand to a point were gravity no longer has any effect on its expansion which means it will not collapse back on itself. The big question is what is the cause behind this? This unfortunately is a challenge to the Big Bang Theory, but a support to Creation.

Background Radiation is very weak microwave radiation flowing throughout space in all directions. Although called the "dying breath of the Big Bang," it is not an evidence for several reasons: First, it is omnidirectional. Background radiation flows toward us from all directions; yet if it was from the Big Bang it would come from only one direction. Second, it is too weak. The radiation should be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than it is. Third, It lacks the proper spectrum. It should have total light absorption capacity and it does not. Fourth, Its spectrum should be far hotter (5 degrees K) than it actually is: 2.73 degrees K. If the explosion had occurred 15 billion years ago, the background radiation should now be emitting a far higher temperature heat. Fifth, It is too smooth. Research proves that this radiation is definitely too smooth to agree with the Big Bang theory. It is not clustered enough, and even if it was, it could not produce stars. Gas in outer space (and on earth) always pushes outward, never inward. Sixth, a failure from the beginning: predictions made as to the nature of the required radiation, its temperature and its single directional source, were not fulfilled even when background radiation was first discovered in 1964. Seventh, What is the source of the radiation? Everything in the universe is lumpy, except the gas in outer space. The two abundant sources of radiation in space are background radiation which is microwave radiation and infrared radiation. It appears that the source of both types of radiation is nothing more than the out flowage of radiation from the stars and galaxies on all sides of us.

The speed theory of red shift is said to be the other primary evidence that a Big Bang occurred. However, scientific facts clearly disprove this theory also. According to how far away they are, light from the stars is pushed toward the red end of the color spectrum. The amount of skewing is proportional to the distance to the star which sent the light ray to us. What is the cause of this shift toward the red? Evolutionists rely on a disproved theory of the red shift in an effort to show there was a Big Bang. Accepting the speed theory makes it appear that the universe is expanding. The evolutionists need an expanding universe, because their theory teaches that everything flowed outward from the Big Bang.

There are better explanations in science for the red shift based on solid, known scientific facts: first, gravitational red shift. Light rays from the stars must travel vast distances to reach us. It has been proven that the pull of gravity, from the stars the light rays pass, could indeed cause a loss in light-wave energy, thus moving that light toward the red on the spectrum. Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would affect starlight, and this was shown to be true in the 1960s. Albert Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would be able to affect the transmission of light.

Second, order Doppler shift. It is known that a light source moving at right angles to an observer will be red shifted. Compare this fact with the known fact that all stars are definitely in galaxies that are circling. In addition, many scientists suspect that, just as all planets and stars are kept in position by orbiting, so, for purposes of stability, the entire universe is probably circling a common center!

Third, Energy loss shift. Light waves could themselves lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This is called "tired light."

Bridged galaxies also disprove the speed red shift theory. Halton C. Arp, of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories, has found connected galaxies which have different red shifts. Quasars disprove the speed red shift theory. Quasars with one red shift have been found alongside galaxies with a different red shift. Arp has found over 260 galaxies with differential red shifts. He believes that energy loss is the primary reason for red shifts. For presenting this evidence that contradicted the Big Bang theory, Arp was fired.

Other evidences against the speed theory are the following: Slight blueness of distant galaxies. According to evolutionary theory, the bluest stars are the youngest, and, therefore, the most distant stars should be the bluest but they are just like the nearest ones.

Galactic shape factor. When elliptical galaxies are in the same cluster with spiral galaxies (and therefore the same distance from us), the spirals will have a higher red shift. The second order Doppler shift would explain this, but not the speed theory.

Photons slow down. Arp and his associates have shown that photons actually do slow down as they travel toward us. Evolutionists refuse to accept this fact, because it would destroy their "expanding universe" theory as the cause of red shift.