The Big Bang is the stereotyped "beginning of it all", and is generally accepted as suitable explanation for the origin of the universe. In a sentence, it is "the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe", and says that "the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly." It has large amounts of data to back it up, such as the Inflating Universe, the red-shift, and more. However, creationists have dug up sizable amounts of evidence to refute this popular theory. Who is right?
Evolutionists have put forward both observational and hypothetical explanations for this popular theory. The observational evidence is the well-known fact that space itself is expanding, as though after some massive explosion in the center of it. However, even Wikipedia says that "little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history". To have created the Universe, it needs to have reached the Planck Temperature, which can only be reached if the Law of General Relativity breaks down entirely. Creationists also point to other possible impossibilities which must be surmounted to have caused the Big Bang, such as the problem of baryon asymmetry (for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry).
When the Universe was formed, there was supposed to have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter that was formed. However, as things stand today, there is actually a very small amount of antimatter in the Universe now. This can be explained by either saying that the antimatter is merely in a separate part of the Universe, away from the matter, or by saying that it (for some reason) repels regular matter, thereby halting any interactions. Now, these small problems above are hardly enough to topple such a large, well-backed theory, and probably won't. Nonetheless, the fact remains that we cannot tell anything about what happened in the past; we can merely tell what might have happened judging by the things we can see now.
I hope to present more arguments in a later post.
 |
| The Expanding Universe Theory |
Evolutionists have put forward both observational and hypothetical explanations for this popular theory. The observational evidence is the well-known fact that space itself is expanding, as though after some massive explosion in the center of it. However, even Wikipedia says that "little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history". To have created the Universe, it needs to have reached the Planck Temperature, which can only be reached if the Law of General Relativity breaks down entirely. Creationists also point to other possible impossibilities which must be surmounted to have caused the Big Bang, such as the problem of baryon asymmetry (for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry).
When the Universe was formed, there was supposed to have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter that was formed. However, as things stand today, there is actually a very small amount of antimatter in the Universe now. This can be explained by either saying that the antimatter is merely in a separate part of the Universe, away from the matter, or by saying that it (for some reason) repels regular matter, thereby halting any interactions. Now, these small problems above are hardly enough to topple such a large, well-backed theory, and probably won't. Nonetheless, the fact remains that we cannot tell anything about what happened in the past; we can merely tell what might have happened judging by the things we can see now.
I hope to present more arguments in a later post.
No comments:
Post a Comment