You Have Two Choices

There are really only two games in town. Both Christian scientists and atheistic scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. I have spoken with post-modernists who offer up alternatives to these two possibilities, such as a past eternal universe, or mere relative understandings of truth. Without getting into the weeds too much, your main theorists and thinkers on both sides reject these ulterior notions based on sound evidence, such as heat death, entropy, and others.

Biblical creationists already have a Genesis account of a beginning, corroborated by Christ, and many writers of scripture, so this news does not pose issue in and of itself.

On the other hand, when scientists discovered that the universe had a beginning, they were not happy.

Physicist Arthur Eddington wrote: “philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me… I should like to find a genuine loophole.”

When Einstein discovered that space-time-matter had a beginning, he was quoted as saying the result “irritates me”, due to its theological ramifications. You could surmise that a multi-verse would somehow change the implications, but it does not. Mathematically (since a multi-verse is hypothetical and un-explorable), a theorem that explains a multi-verse, created by Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his scientific team, proves that even if one exists, there is a beginning to them all.

Vilenkin, a believer in a multi-verse rather than God says,  “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).”

So to the point: the two games in town are

a) The universe created itself, or

b) A creator outside of time, space, and matter created it. Therefore He is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

We have delved into space travel, the Big Bang, and other related topics on this site, but to now bring up an additional bit of information in the realm of philosophy, there is a self-evident principle of causality with which we must contend. In its simplest form, the law of causality simply states that everything has a cause. A house has a cause, yes, but that is an easy one. But I can go pick a leaf off a tree, and determine its cause, or a rock laid down by an ancient flood, and it will have a cause. Now, we may disagree on what the forensic evidence points to as an initial cause, but we will not disagree that said object does indeed have one.

This self-evident first principle of philosophy is there, along with others such as the law of non-contradiction, identity, and so on, to prevent the need for an infinite regression of explanations. In other words, if you have to explain everything, then you will never get to the end of explanations, and truth ceases to exist. This is why we must stop with certain obvious realities, or these first principles.

Of course a common retort is, who caused God then? But being outside of time, space and matter, being infinite, there is no logical reason to need a cause. Like our first principle, He is self-evident, or the un-caused first cause – Aristotle said, the unmoved mover. Hence why He refers to Himself as I AM. There is no “was”,  there is no “will be”. For us yes, but not for Him. Besides, you cannot have a higher god that is “more infinite” than infinite. This also is illogical.

Now, in regards to anything within the forensic sciences, something not repeatable, observable, or demonstrable, we are looking for causes at the most basic level. Science is basically the search for knowledge, or search for causes – causality.

Therefore, one must now ask him or herself, do I abandon the law of causality when it comes to origins? This isn’t about age of the universe, or dinosaurs, all which do have answers according to a biblical world view. But simply regarding the beginning of it all, do I base my life on the natural and material sciences only, dismissing all possibility of creation, and force myself to choose a beginning that happened in eons past against the laws of all I claim to hold dear?

The great skeptic and atheist Christopher Hitchens was debating Frank Turek, and equated the Big Bang to a suitcase about to pop open, “and everything that is ever going to be is inside that;  that was the best I could do.” He went on to say, “And I don’t think many people could do, if I say it myself, that much better.” For such a revered and intelligent man, to state that the historical narrative of the Genesis account, in all of its beauty, and mastery, revered for thousands of years, and preserved through the ages doesn’t compare with this suit case analogy is quite telling. But in the end, an avid atheist will always struggle with how to articulate a result with no definable cause, because to repeat the point, both sides agree there was a definitive beginning.

There are only two choices. Einstein knew this. I commend atheists for being consistent in their take on naturalism, but as we view all manner of explanation and mental gymnastics to explain godless possibilities, and then relegate those possible happenings to the far unobservable past, do we not firmly place it in the category of faith? Faith in that there must not be a God.

Both sides, as human beings will try to identify the three basic life questions:

Where did I come from?

Why am I here?

What happens when I die?

The last two questions are bound inexorably to the first. Einstein was right, it can be irritating, since there is a beginning. But if nothing can cause something, or more than that, everything, then we have undone what is self-evident, and have removed meaning from all we observe.

There are only two choices.


Total Opposite

The creation model, and therefore the model supported by biblical scripture, is opposite the deep-time model. People don’t often realize this. They assume that young earth creationists are fuzzy on some facts, but we all kind of agree on the basics. We just won’t let “real science” disturb our unqualified beliefs enough to move the time dial.

I am here to tell you that the disparity between the two models is huge, and stark, and contrasted. So as not to cover the same ground, feel free to read my article “Let’s be clear… It’s a Young Earth” at this link.

Is it a surprise that the world’s view would look so much different than the Biblical model for creation? To even be exactly opposite of what man has ordained as truth in our education system, and our universities? It does not surprise me, and in fact, it is the expected norm. The next paragraph contains some bible verses to consider, by no means complete, but a sampling of passages that illustrate this enmity.

The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.  If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Of course this diametric opposition pertains to many considerations, but today we focus in on that first moment of creation. I have gone over the laughable theory of the Big Bang, and protest to the highest degree that it is still taught when all of creation screams of design. But here are the opposites for you in plain view, and the reasons why these models will never be compatible, and are clearly believed based on a person’s starting point, a point Christians are willing to concede, but one evolutionists refuse to see.


  • Life comes from life
  • Animals were created as distinct kinds
  • Changes within a kind of animal is due to design allowing changes, microevolution. Always due to a loss or rearranging of existing genetic material
  • Fossils were formed quickly due to a catastrophic flood all over the whole earth
  • Death Came after sin, and after the first Man
  • Light came before the sun
  • Creation took six days
  • Birds came before dinosaurs.
  • Water came before land
  • Mankind was highly intelligent from the beginning



  • Life spontaneously came from non-life (violates law of causality)
  • All animals descended from common ancestor from 3.5 billion years ago
  • Animals change in to completely different animals, modifications are virtually unlimited, and additional information is always being added (never observed)
  • Fossils were laid down over time, slowly over millions of years
  • Death came before sin, before man, along with disease, thorns, etc.
  • The sun came before light
  • Creation took billions of years
  • Dinosaurs came before birds (now proven false)
  • Land came before water
  • Man was just a slowly evolving animal who developed intelligence


As you can see, the viewpoint is tremendously different. There isn’t a lot of room for Christians to compromise without undermining the word. Now, for all of you science nerds out there, don’t panic. The word, and the creation model is perfectly compatible with science, and I dare say more so then the evolutionary model. What we observe, and can prove fits beautifully with the history the bible provides, and is demonstrable through almost every branch of science. That is why the number of believers in intelligent design is growing throughout academia. And it is why evolution, the big bang, and molecules-to-man theories are on their heels.

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 5

We have examined the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages. This is the final article. The other parts are linked below:

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

At this point, we have pulled the Big Bang train right up to the formation of stars, or stellar evolution; so for the final article, we will assume that despite science assuring it didn’t happen, we have somehow arrived at a first generation star, comprised of helium, hydrogen, and suspiciously absent of heavier elements. If you will recall, it took us 5 billion years to arrive here, so we must very quickly produce all other elements on the periodic chart, along with planets, moons, etc.

Scientists call the first generation stars ‘Protostars’. Since the creation of matter from nothing had to start with the simplest elements of helium and hydrogen, the theory goes that after the stars that can’t form were formed, somehow the 90 heavier elements or post-helium elements had to evolve via chemical evolution. The theory states that all these protostars repeatedly exploded; billions and billions of stars exploding for billions of years, and this volatility produces our heavier elements, second and third generation stars, and eventually the universe as we observe it today.

1. Scientists call problem one the “helium mass 4 gap”. There are nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8, and they make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to change itself into any heavier element. “Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5.”  The theory of chemical evolution, and therefore arriving at our current catalog of heavenly bodies is impossible using this process. This science fails to justify stellar evolution on any level. As usual when it comes to evolution, chemists think biology has the answer, biologists thing geology has the answer, and geologists think paleontology has the answer, and around we go. But in regards to this science, the mass gap cannot be overstated, and is a huge problem. This problem is proven by both hydrogen bombs, which cannot change to heavier elements, but stop at mass 5; and also by the sun, which if not for the gap at mass 5, would be shooting uranium at us.

2. Even at 15 billion years, there is not enough theoretical time for this process to produce heavier elements.

3. Science would have to explain how random explosions resulted in the intricate orbits and beauty of circling patterns we find in space. Order from disorder. Again a violation of the 2nd law. Explosions do not create order. Since there are no or very few first generation stars, it stipulates that almost every star exploded at least once, meaning the order we see must have come from explosions somehow.

4. There are not enough super novas to produce the heavier elements. Statistically the rareness of supernovas (which is needed to supposedly produce the heavier elements) are way too few to create all the heavier elements needed. The lack of supernovas in the night sky has long been a problem for evolutionists. (see problem 5).

5. Supernova recordings in history: 185AD, 1006AD, 1054AD (Crab Nebula), 1604AD, 1918 AD in Aquila, 1987AD in the veil nebula. If you add them all up including these major events, you can get up to about 16 supernovas in the last 2000 years. With only a few hundred total in the night sky, not only can’t we make the elements, but we can’t account for a 15 billion year time frame. If they occurred at a great enough rate to develop the universe with their explosions, would there not be millions visible? Statistically this amount is essentially zero. About 1 per 650 years on average. Simply not enough to create a universe. They are a rarity and there are plenty of quotes from evolutionist to attest to this.

6. Why did explosions mysteriously stop? We should be able to see continued activity that was originally creating the universe. Evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago explosions stopped. A theory proven wrong, but held onto.

7. Super novas DO NOT THROW OFF ENOUGH MATTER TO MAKE ADDITIONAL STARS. A supernova may throw off as much as 10% of its mass, but this is not sufficient to create a new star. In addition, what matter did get thrown off would be dispersed in every direction.We can conclude easily that with not enough mass to form a second generation star, and not enough explosions occurring not enough times, to create all matter and elements in the universe with this method is lunacy, and not worth teaching.

8. If you turn a spectroscope towards a supernova explosion, the conclusion is that it throws off…. get ready for it…. HYDROGEN AND HELIUM. The a fore mentioned Crab Nebula only shows H and He, no heavier elements. Once again, observable demonstrable repeatable science defeats the theory.

I would encourage anyone who reads to please share some or all of these, and/or to ask questions, and allow us to explore the truth together. Taken as a whole, my hope is that it is apparent one cannot just blindly believe that the Big Bang Theory and ensuing results are facts. Each stage falls desperately short of being possible, and with even minimal logic, one can expose it as false. This is a godless theory, attempting to explain the wonders of the universe with natural processes. Typically the failure of each stage is glossed over, or not reported, and what you have is cleverly animated persuasion along side an agreed upon curriculum. But it is my mission, as a writer and believer, to help arm Christians with the courage to stand on the word of God, rather than the word of man. So I hope this was helpful in refuting faith in a godless creation, and pray that when faced with persecution for not believing evolution, you can take comfort in the fact that you are indeed beautifuly and wonderfully made, whoever you are. I leave you with this encouragement:

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

Nehemiah 9:6
You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 40:26
Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing.


Faith in the Big Bang; Part 4

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

We continue to delve into the issue of matter organizing itself by natural processes in the vacuum of space. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same. In layperson’s terms, this means disorder will increase in a closed system. This bit is important so I will underline it. All of evolution is dependent upon the violation of this law. We see proof of entropy increasing all around us. Energy is added to house shingles or the hood of a car via direct sunlight, or weather, and what happens? Disorder. The breaking down of matter. Decay. This is as natural as can be, and without intelligence acting upon a system, complexity or additional information is never observed to occur. Yet, this is exactly what we are taught, and expected to believe happened over and over and over for 13 billion years in order to to bring about our existence.

If the Big Bang happened, imagining the explosion, and inertia, and vectors in frictionless space. What would the result be? If we pretend that it wasn’t a theory, and asked scientists to assume an explosion happened in a vacuum, how would they illustrate it?

There would be an outer rim of fast moving matter. With no matter ahead of it to collide with, the initial explosion would never slow.
Now, to produce a star, gas would have to: stop flowing outward,
then begin moving in circles, then rotating gas would have to contract or move close together – one would have to explain how linear motion required for the expanse that exists somehow changed into angular momentum.

A quantity of gas in frictionless space moving forward is way too stable for any of this to happen.

Gas in space which was circling would fly apart. Evolutionist Hawit’s research disproves the possibility of gas clumping. Density of matter in space is too low, and there is nothing to make them stick together. Harwit’s research was devastating to steller evolution. He was not a creationist. He wrote a book called Astrophysical Concepts. In it he surmises the mathematical likelihood of hydrogen atoms sticking together. Eventually forced to use most favorable conditions, and figuring for the maximun possible sticking ability, he determined that a clump that is one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter would take approximately 3 billion years to form. When converted to a more normative environment, mathematically it would now take 20 billion years. This is for a tiny spec of matter. This means that in our natural universe, a star cannot simply form. It is scientifically impossible.

Another evolutionist, Novotny researched gas in a vacuum and proved gas in a vacuum expands, and does not contract. Given any amount of time, gas cannot contract and turn itself into a star, or a planet. This opinion agrees with observable science. If you agree, you are agreeing with science, and not with evolution, just to make a point. This means stellar evolution is not science.

We must consider another if-then question. It is quite simple. If stars cannot form naturally, then why are there trillions of them? Does God not become more obvious, and not less, once we examine real science? If so, then why are they teaching our kids that 13 billion year old stellar evolution is a fact? The answer… what would they replace it with? God? Certainly not.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 3

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Click here for part 1.

Click here for part 2.

Part three must now begin with the assumptions that an initial singularity explosion has taken place, and created outward racing particles. And as illustrated in part 2 of our series, we must assume that these outward racing particles have somehow violated the laws of physics, and have begun to change direction and swirl into gas clouds, so that they may develop into stars. These clouds must grow in density in the vacuum of space,  but simultaneously must be hurling through space to account for the vast expansion needed to explain seemingly infinite galaxies. We have learned that both of these prior situations are impossible based on reason and logic, regardless of the time variable, and furthermore require faith in something akin to the opposite of natural law. But in order to follow the process of the Big Bang theory, and consider what comes next, we will assume these steps somehow have taken place.

1. At this stage, there are a couple things to note:

a. Gas in outerspace is so rare, that it is more of a vacuum than any laboratory vacuum on earth.
b. There is no gas on the periodic table that clumps together! So, neither helium nor hydrogen would clump together. Gas always expands, pushes apart. Always.
c. This means the gas from the big bang would have been even less likely to clump together in outer-space. It is the universe’s great vacuum, and as such, provides the worst possible environment for gas clouds to gain any sort of density at all.

I can say with certainty, that the idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form a star is science fiction. It is like fog forming itself into tight patterns, except exceedingly more problematic. As an experiment, place a drop of food coloring in water. stir it up (or wait a minute, as it will disperse on its own),  to simulate the entropy of an outward explosion. Now wait, and stare at that glass of water, and time how long it takes for the food coloring dye to clump back together into a tight ball or drop again.

When that happens, try and imagine the same experiment in a vacuum… with air. You will then have some idea of how probable star formation is.

An existing star does have gravity, and can pull in other gases. However, forming one is the difficulty, not the fact that it exists. Natural processes cannot do this. Gas cannot build up enough mutual gravity to bring it together in any amount, much less those vast amounts needed for star formation. For perspective, keep in mind scientists think first generation stars were 800 to 1000 times larger than our sun.

2. Careful analysis reveals there is not enough matter within a gas cloud to produce a star. Again, me must respect how utterly massive stars are. Mass is key here, and clouds verses stars are like apples and oranges.

3. A more complex notion is that there isn’t enough time proposed. Evolutionists often scrutinize the creationist timeline as an impossibility, which never bothered us seeing as how our model includes the creator of the heavens and the earth, the only logical explanation for what we see. But they don’t often publicly admit that their model contains its own time crunch, which calls into question everything about how to date the stars.  We have stars that based on a 400% red shift and a calculated distance from earth, should be approximately 15 billion years old. The theory calls for stars to form after the first 5 billion years. This means that the singularity and first explosion must have happened 5 billion before this, or our methods for dating stars is far off the mark. This is problematic in a 15 billion year timetable. This issue,  in conjunction with the need for random chance to cause order, is why the age of the universe continues to grow, as if the magic element of time will eventually solve the puzzle. The math is wrong, or the technique for dating is wrong.

This is not the only evolutionist time crunch problem. 1st generation stars are supposed to be big, burn bright, and die fast, creating new stars and new elements when going supernova. This theory is the supposed catalyst for chemical evolution, where we try to convince the world that the rest of the elements on the periodic table were formed from these supernova explosions from only hydrogen and helium. But we see supposed 1st generation stars still today. Evolutionists tout it as proof they were right about their existence, however, we must ask if they should be there at all?

But they are made new all the time, right? Good question, and I will answer by reminding or teaching the reader that we have never witnessed a star form. They do try to teach how it happens, again because they must push a theory. Consider these quotes: “The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.”—*Martin Harwit, “Books Reviews,” Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.

“There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.

“Basically there does not appear to be enough matter in any of the hydrogen clouds in the Milky Way that would allow them to contract [into stars] and be stable. Apparently our attempt to explain the first stages in star evolution has failed.”—*Garrit Verschuur, Starscapes (1973), p. 102.

4. Observation of gas clouds in space show them expanding. Gas clouds in space expand. They do not contract. With not enough matter, and expansion as a factor, this is not a recipe for success. Hence the devastating and truthful quotes above about the science of cosmology.

We will discuss more on stars later, but any one of these points would discredit the idea of stellar evolution. I will summarize the problem this way: The core of a star, in this case the first star, must generate a temperature to 10 million Kelvin degrees, to create nuclear fusion, at which point it can become stable. So,  from nothing a group of sub atomic particles must explode out, then coalesce, despite a tenancy to repel, and somehow clump to gain such heat and density as to generate nuclear fusion, so it can supernova, and create more stars as well as all elements in the periodic table. Tell me again how this is science and not faith?

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 2

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Click here for Part 1.

In Part 1 we examined why the initial explosion cannot randomly create itself, and ignite itself in a vacuum. If you stare at nothing in a vacuum, whether it is for 5 minutes, or 13 billion years, no amount of wishful thinking will make it turn into a universe. However, for arguments sake, we must assume that this first impossible moment occurred in order to examine how the next stage of the Big Bang Theory fails. So let us pretend, as modern science does, that an explosion of nothing from a single dense singularity in the vacuum of space has exploded outward sending newly and spontaneously created hydrogen and helium atoms into the void. Based on observable laws of science, what do we know would happen?

First we must make clear what the theory depends on, in order to progress towards the formation of stars. The theory necessitates that these outward flying sub atomic particles must migrate towards one another and begin to form gas clouds in separate spots all over the universe. As I write that out, my hope is that it sounds as ridiculous to you while reading it as it does to me. Perhaps this is why when they teach children of the theory, they present mostly the end result, and do not teach the required process to achieve it. I believe most second graders would scratch their head at the idea of air coming together, rather than dispersing in a vacuum. The problems with this stage are summarized as follows, assuming the matter created contained enough material to begin a universe, and the explosion allowed the particles to break free from the gravity of a singularity:

1. There is no way to unite particles after an explosion; they would continually and forever get farther apart as they left the central explosion

2. Since there would be no matter, space would be frictionless, therefore there would be no way to ever slow any of the particles (3rd law of thermodynamics).

3. Particles would maintain the same speed and vector… forever. There is no way to change direction of even one particle, to make it begin circling another.

4.Laws of physics and angular momentum dictate that not one particle would change direction and the formation of a cluster of atoms, and then a gaseous cloud would be necessary to begin stellar evolution, or the evolution of stars.

5. Science must ask about the origination of atomic structures. From vectored sub-atomic particles into complex atoms (even hydrogen is complex at the sub atomic level). Considering the mass of a first generation star, we must unite the first sub-atomic particles, but also generate new ones. This isn’t even chemical evolution yet, which will be addressed later. This is simply the generation of enough hydrogen and helium in one place to gain a mass required for a star, but in trillions of places at once.

So what we have, all told, is the violation of the first three laws of thermodynamics right off the bat, along with contradictions to known physics principles, such as the law of conservation of angular momentum. And from these particles, the theory hopes for gradually outward racing particles to begin circling one another. These must form atoms, and change directions further still, towards one another, to create gas clouds which then produce the first star or stars.

This dependence upon the absurd is, in my opinion, an embarrassment to science. To consider such events in real time and space is laughable. I would remind the reader that all of this conjecture has come about to support evolution, because we “cannot let a divine foot in the door.” (Richard Lewontin). Reason compels us to ask ‘if-then’ questions, and if man evolved, then the earth must have evolved before it, and if that, then the solar system, and so on, until you become so dependent upon making the theory work that science drifts into philosophy and religion, and we are forced into an indoctrination that every component of the natural world arrived via the same process. If only one step is proven a failure, reason must dictate that all following processes leading to the arrival of man are likewise doomed. So what we witness is the scrambling to prop up or maneuver around a failing faith by its loyal followers.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.


Faith in the Big Bang; Part 1

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

First a definition:

1) The rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

2) a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density – (Merriam-Webster)

3) An effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe…Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as “singularity” around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a “singularity” and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don’t know for sure… – (

Please notice in definition 3 the use of phrases like, “effort to explain”, and “we don’t know for sure”. There are many of these when you consider the science. More I found were, “a theory deducing the cataclysmic birth of the universe”, and “leading explanation of how the universe began”. After states it as their leading theory, they begin with statements like this: “In the first second after the universe began, the surrounding temperature was about 10 billion degrees.”

10,000,000,000 degrees. Stated as fact. And when they teach children natural sciences in school, these numbers, these “facts” are taught, remembered, written down, and tested on. 10 billion degrees. 13.8 billion years ago. Make no mistake, since it is the “best explanation” science has, it is taught as truth. If not taught, the prevailing question asked by science professors is, “Well, what are you going to replace it with?”

The Big Bang Theory is mostly based on math, red shift, waves found in space, and lots of assumption.  If you can find a text book that gets specific, you will find that “nothing” packed tightly together  and then exploded outward containing hydrogen and helium into frictionless space.  If space was full of anything else, it wouldn’t be the beginning, so logic dictates this moment of nothing at all to something. The spontaneous generation of matter. It is interesting to note, the person who made it popular was George Gamow, who was a science fiction writer in 1948.  It is unfortunate that science fiction has taken such a strong role in what we force our children to learn. He campaigned using cartoons, which he stated really helped sell the theory.

So you take these huge numbers, 13.8 billion years, 10 billion degrees… and nothingness explodes out.  Over the next several articles we will look at the assumptions that must take place for this to end up as a universe.  Today is step one:

The actual big bang explosion:
1.  You are asking people to believe that a tiny bit of “nothing” blew up and created all matter.  This is based on theoretical extremes and calculations.  Nothing more.  and it sounds like the fairy tale that it is.
2.  Nothingness cannot pack together. It has no way to push itself in close, and no barometer for density, as it contains no parts. Looking out into a void, how would one imagine a single point of nothingness gaining density. Just this alone rails against physical laws.
3.  A vacuum has no density. It is stated that the singularity was dense before it exploded, but a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
4. There is no ignition.  No fire if no match.  As we all know from studying actual science, a fire needs three things to exist: Fuel (there is none), flammable gas (there is none), and heat (which would be caused by the friction of nothing, so in essence, none could exist). Couldn’t be chemical, because there were no chemicals.  They surmise the event would have been nuclear, but if you have no atoms, you cannot have a nuclear blast.
5. No way to expand nothing.
6.  Nothingness cannot produce heat.  Intense heat supposedly caused nothingness to turn to protons, neutrons, and electrons… but a vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself.  It would be purely magic if an empty void changed itself to matter. Again, we have no energy source for this to occur.
7. Technically speaking, the calculations of what needed to happen are too exacting.  In layman’s terms, it means the math is too perfect. The narrow mathematical limits of a singularity’s expansion are such that its too narrow to have happened.  R H Dickey wrote gravitation and the universe,and in it he states that if the expansion was .1 percent faster it would have gone too fast, and if .1 percent slower it would have re-collapsed.
8.  Roger L St Peter in 1974 developed math stating that if a big bang happened, it would collapse forming a theoretical black hole, and could not have happened.  In essence you would have one theoretical action swallowing another one.
9.  The theory states that anti matter would have to be created in equal amounts.  what is well known to physicists is that there is not enough anti matter in the universe, and that antimatter immediately destroys matter, therefor would have destroyed any matter created, again theoretically.

So before getting out of the gate in our secular dependence upon explaining everything sans-God,  there are certainly some issues with the ridiculous moment that nothing exploded out to start forming the universe with a few sub atomic particles.  When examined closely, and with reason, it does not, and should never hold water.  But as Gamow said, cartoons may help.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.