Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
The Big Bang is a naturalistic story about the origin and development of the universe (e.g. a cosmology), beginning with a “singularity” when all mass, energy, and space was contained in a small point. It is riddled with problems and, most importantly, contradicts the biblical teaching of creation.
The “big bang” is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This story of origins is entirely fiction.
Some professing Christians accept the claim that God used naturalistic processes, including the big bang, to create the universe. They might agree with atheistic astronomers that the stars and planets formed over billions of years—with only one exception, that God’s hand directed these processes. Unfortunately, such views deny what the Creator Himself has said.
Astronomers looking at galaxies far, far away have found five that don’t quite fit big-bang ideas. However, big bang advocates, rather than admitting an explanatory flaw in their model, simply claim that there’s “a lot new to learn”—effectively putting their faith in the big bang model, despite its inadequacies.
Scientists who accept young-earth creation have proposed and explored several cosmological models that are compatible with known laws of physics and astronomical data while upholding a recent creation.
“Our universe may end the same way it was created: with a big, sudden bang.” This is the opening line of a recent article on Business Insider.
It’s ironic that the very thing that supposedly is the proof of the big bang model may turn out to be its undoing.
Will studies revealing a quasar with a much-too-massive black hole and a galaxy with young space dust lead to the downfall of the big bang model?
A study suggests the universe had neither a beginning nor a big bang, but if the universe is eternal, then there is no need of God.
Are the chemical signatures in a faint galaxy the fossil remnants of our universe’s birth?
Planck map increases age estimate of the universe but confirms a plank of the big bang model just doesn’t fit.
Sky Survey discovers a faraway quasar cluster that is too big to exist within the big bang model’s assumptions.
Is the big bang a scientific “fact” rejected only by young-earth creationists? A new physics paper shows otherwise.
“[W]e exist, and [secular] physicists (among others) would dearly like to know why.” Of course, all they have to do is open to Genesis!
Physicists in the U.S. have claimed we may be able to detect time before time: what existed before the fabled big bang.
How did this universe come into existence? Did God use “natural” methods to create the universe, or did He create everything supernaturally?
News flash: nothing has been found in the universe, reports a University of Minnesota team of astronomers—or, at least, that they have found an “enormous void” in space with nothing in it.
As the press extensively reported last spring, evidence for inflation in the universe has been found, supposedly providing a firmer foundation for the big bang theory
The big bang model still does not answer the fundamental questions of where the original matter came from or what caused it to begin expanding.
A few scientists, most prominently Cambridge’s Neil Turok and Princeton’s Paul Steinhardt, have proposed a “revolutionary model of how the universe began,” which is angering traditional advocates of big bang model.
It appears that the claim that we have found evidence of inflation is overstated. At best, the evidence is very indirect and to the point of being premature.
The news media has been abuzz recently about supposed evidence that the universe expanded rapidly, growing to billions of light years across—all within the first trillionth of a second after its birth
Astronomers have recently claimed to detect a “ripple” pattern in the clustering of galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
This discovery is a huge problem for evolutionary timescales. These galaxies exist when, according to big bang cosmology, they shouldn’t have had time to form.
The light-travel–time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel–time problem.
Many people have been asking about the latest reports from NASA, so we present here a preliminary response to be followed with a more detailed report.
You don’t have to be a Bible-believing Christian any more to recognize that the “big bang” theory is an illogical and poor scientific explanation for the origin of our universe.
According to the ‘big bang’ theory for the origin of the universe, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have formed. Antimatter is the same as matter except that each has the opposite charge.