Has the Big Bang Gone Bust?

Most of us are familiar with the Big Bang theory. It says the entire universe is the result of a gigantic explosion that took place about 16 billion years ago. This explosion eventually resulted in stars, galaxies, our Earth, and even our genetic codes. The problem is, we are all familiar with explosions and no one has ever known an explosion to create anything more than chaos. Creation-scientists have been saying for years that an explosion could not have created the universe we see today.

The news is that evolution-scientists are beginning to agree. Most of them still think that an explosion could create the Earth we know today, but they are finding that the organized way in which stars and galaxies are scattered throughout space is exactly opposite of what their theory leads them to expect. One scientist has suggested that maybe they are not taking everything into account. He added that they are looking for ideas - to use his words, even “crazy” ideas, “because, we're getting a little desperate.”

Of course there is a solution to their problem. And the solution isn't so “crazy,” either. You don't get words in a book without an author. You don't build a house without a plan. And you cannot get a universe like ours that is literally crammed with information and information storage systems without a Creator.


I asked this question in R&S because to me it is relevant, All answers welcome and thanks beforehand.

30 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer


    and It happened. period.

    This is called SUPERNATURAL Omnipotence.

    - Something ONLY GOD possesses. Science is still trying to figure out the mystery of it all.

  • 1 decade ago

    (sigh) It would help if you didn't get your science information from creationist sources. That's like trusting an Islamic fundamentalist to give you the true meaning of Bible passages.

    First of all, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was an extremely rapid expansion of space-time. Nothing went boom, nothing was destroyed, no oxygen was required. No cosmologists are discovering for the first time that there is a certain amount of order in the universe. The Big Bang does not predict that there will be chaos in the universe.

    Of course scientists sometimes say that they're not taking everything into account. That's science. Don't read "God" into that statement. It's not there. And don't take a statement from a scientist paid by a creationist organization to promote its agenda as a statement reflecting the beliefs of science in general.

    You can't state that since books have an author, the universe must have a creator. It doesn't follow. The properties of books are not the properties of the universe.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Your question is nonsensical, and shows you do not actually know anything about the "Big Bang theory" (as it was called by the inimitable Fred Hoyle, who was it's greatest opponent).

    I'll spell it out for you, and perhaps you'll understand.

    1) Nobody actually knows what caused the "explosion" (it was NOT an explosion, it was an EXPANSION, which is not the same thing) or even whether it was caused at all. Quantum events, which the beginning of time by definition was, do not necessarily require a cause. Under M-theory, there might be several causes.

    2) As the newborn universe expanded, energy was released from the collapse of a 'false vacuum'. This is a very cryptic sentence, is it not? But you would understand it if you had done any research into the issue.

    3) The energy released eventually coalesced into matter, per E = MC²,

    There was actually not that much matter, and most of it was hydrogen, some helium, very small amounts of lithium and beryllium, all gaseous, all incredibly hot, all expanding.

    4) Gas clouds have a tendency to create swirls when they move.This has been observed. Immense swirls formed galaxies and stars (possibly at the same time). It is possible black holes, created at the original expansion, acted as the gravitonic centers around which galaxies formed.

    5) the first generation of stars did not have planets, because there were no heavy elements yet. Nuclear fusion in stars created heavier elements, but still not the heaviest we have today. But as the first really heavy stars burned up and went supernova, in their final moments the immense force of their 'death' forced the creation of small amounts of the heavier elements, some of which were radioactive.

    6) The amounts of heavier elements were, as said, small compared to stars, but large enough to allow the formation of solid planets as the remains of the huge stars were once again coalesced by gravity into much smaller, much longer-lived stars.

    7) On at least one of these planets the circumstances were such that it allowed the generation of life. But that is another matter entirely.

    Does all this sound fanciful? It's not. It's the outcome of very long and intense research by many dedicated men and women who are both smarter and more knowledgeable than us.

    There is no big controversy over this. But creationists like to pretend there is... they emulate their personal god by creating these tiny universes in which everything is the way they want it to be.

    Which is fine! But let's not pretend it has anything to do with science.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    1 - Evolutionary biologists do not study the Big Bang.

    2 - The formation of the Earth occurred about 10 billion years after the Big Bang. They didn't all form in one "explosion" (which a thoroughly inaccurate account of the Big Bang).

    3 - Life didn't form until at least a billion years after the Earth formed.

    4 - Physical evidence studied by physicists and astronomers continues to garner more and more support for the Big Bang, not less.

    5 - If you cannot get a complex system without a Creator, what created that Creator - surely by your own rules "God" is complex enough that He could not have formed on His own - where did God come from? Adding a Creator into the model doesn't explain anything, it only adds another step which must be explained.

    In conclusion, your premise fails in every step.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I think the word EXPLOSION is inaccurate. What really happened is called the Great Expansion. Have you ever actually read any books on cosmology that weren't written by creationist.

    The Big Bang is the cosmolgical model of the universe that is supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. The essential idea is that the universe has EXPANDED from a primordial hot dense intial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to EXPAND today. Some terms you might want to look up " the Hubble Expansion" and "inflation theory". I'm quite sure you've never heard of those before. If you wish to continue to try and disprove the Big Bang then by all means knock yourself out. I doubt that you will do it here on this forum.Your proof would require real research , meaning advanced mathematics and thousands of hours of observation. Caution: you may wind up like this guy. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_car...

  • Doug B
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    The Big Bang wasn't and explosion, but rather the extremely rapid destabilization and expansion of an exceedingly hot and compact singularity. The cause of the instability is still a matter of much discussion and research.

    The evidence for the Big Bang is compelling. Galactic red shift, Cosmic Microwave Background, all things that were predicted by the hypothesis and later confirmed.

    I notice you attribute things to generic, unnamed scientists. The page you cite has very few quotes from cosmologists. Might I suggest you take time to actually learn about the subject?

    OK, if something cannot come from nothing, where did the Creator come from?

  • *Yawns* Given that the idea that the Big Bang, since it was an explosion, could only create chaos, just shows a very basic lack of understanding.

    And no, the general science population is NOT turning away from Big Bang theory, that's a flat-out lie. And giving a creationist site as reference just shows that you've got no backing for it whatsoever, otherwise you'd give us a post from a science-based website.

    Joel V: Since planetary formation in our solar system happened several billion years after the Big Bang, you have just spoken utter nonsense. Thanks for playing, feel free to go away now. And the junkyard analogy? Please, try something that isn't quite so pathetic next time.

  • 1 decade ago

    The Big Bang and evolution have nothing to do with each other. One is astronomy/physics and the other is biology.

    Assuming that this so-called creator exists - who created the creator?


    Even if the Big Bang is found to be an incorrect model at some stage in the future that would not automatically prove creation. I have yet to see an argument for creation made on its own merits - creationists always try to claim that creation is true because of some fabricated shortcoming of established scientific theories...

  • 1 decade ago

    Expansion is a more precise term rather than "explosion". I have yet to see a creditable source, or any other than your unsubstantiated claim, that cosmologists are getting desperate or that there is any doubt about the "big bang".


    Given the track record of creationist completely (to the point of dishonesty) misquoting real scientists, you'll have to forgive me if I doubt the authenticity of your "quote".


    Your link to why creationism is science is laughable as the first thing that it opens with is a list of deceased scientists that lived quite awhile ago and had no impact or input into creationism. Creationism is not science in any definition of science, nor is factually correct or intellectually honest.

  • 1 decade ago

    "The news is that evolution-scientists are beginning to agree."


    "One scientist has suggested that maybe they are not taking everything into account." - Exactly. ONE scientist.

    "You cannot get a universe like ours that is literally crammed with information and information storage systems without a Creator." - If you're arguement is that something can only exist if it is created, then who the hell created the Creator.

    Science is getting closer and closer to answering the question of the universe. Creationism has nothing scientifically useful to say. You're question states too many untruths.

  • 1 decade ago

    you shouldn't just listen to one side of an argument. Did you think someone arguing for creationism wouldd honestly say that anyone but a creator started the universe? theres plenty of evidence for the big bang. and for all the things that have come from it. This is something to think about though.... what if a creator used the big bang to create his or her universe? If a creator is almighty and all powerful they could create an explosion to create our world. I wouldn't discredit the big bang just yet

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.