I wrote this back in November 2011, but it is still relevant to show the extremes used by secular scientists to prove their religion of evolution. Yes, evolution is nothing more than a Godless religion whose sole purpose is to provide something to believe it that allows man to be his own god.
Researchers are using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to recreate the Big Bang. Operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in a 27 km (16.78 miles) tunnel in the Jura Mountains on the French-Swiss border, the project known as ALICE will smash lead ions together in an attempt to investigate what they believe the infant universe looked like.
A spokesman for the project explained that by smashing the lead ions together that they will produce the same condition that existed just fractions of a second after a dense tiny ball of energy exploded some 13.7 billion years ago. They believe that at that fraction of a second after the Big Bang that there was a special state of matter dubbed the quark-gluon plasma, giving them clues to how it evolved into the state of matter that exists today. (Personally, I’ve always wondered where the dense tiny ball of energy came from to start with? If this ball of energy created the Big Bang, what created the first ball of energy?)
“And this is the state of matter you have if you’re able to effectively melt the nuclear matter that makes up atoms today, releasing the things that are inside, which are quarks and gluons.”
One of the scientists on the team, Dr. David Evans from the University of Birmingham described the ALICE experiment when he said:
“Although the tiny fireballs will only exist for a fleeting moment (less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) the temperatures will reach over ten trillion degrees, a million times hotter than the centre of the Sun. At the temperatures generated, even protons and neutrons, which make up the nuclei of the atoms, will melt, resulting in a hot, dense soup of quarks and gluons.”
In reading the report of the ALICE experiment, two thoughts came to mind.
First was the Open Letter first published in New Scientist in May 2004 that was signed by some prominent scientists that questioned the validity of the Big Bang. In the letter, they mention the fact that inflation (nothing to do with our economy), dark matter and dark energy have never been observed. The letter states:
“In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors.”
The letter goes on to say that there have been no quantitative predictions made by the Big Bang theory that have been validated by observation. Additionally, they state that it is not the only possibility for the origin of the universe. Other theories are supposed to offer more acceptable alternatives to the Big Bang. However, the proponents of the Big Bang argue that none of the other theories explain every cosmological observation.
When the letter was first published, 33 scientists had signed it. When I pulled it out for reference for this article, I found that today, there are a total of 218 scientists and engineers, 187 independent researchers, 105 other signers and the list is still growing. Many of the signers of this letter are from well known and respected institutions.
With the number of secular scientists questioning the validity of the Big Bang, one has to wonder why so much effort and expense is being divested into the ALICE experiment with the Large Hadron Collider? Obviously, CERN is spending millions of dollars on a project in hopes of catching a fleeting glimpse of something that never happened in the first place.
My second question is why are so many millions of dollars being spent on the Big Bang.
Also contained in the Open Letter, is the statement that the vast majority of financial and experimental resources in cosmology goes toward the Big Bang. It also claims that the funding is controlled by a small group of Big Bang supporters that serve as the peer reviewers that make the decisions as to who the funding goes to, thus keeping their troubled theory in the forefront despite growing opposition.
My favorite statement in the Open Letter is:
“Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.”
It is gratifying to this author to hear members of the evolutionary community recognize bias within their own ranks. If this bias exists amongst them, how much more so does it exist against the biblical young universe that a growing number of scientists are accepting? It is this same bias that keeps them from closely examining some of the creationist’s cosmological models that are based on their understanding of Scripture and science.
From a biblical perspective, we know that none of the prevailing secular theories on the origin of the universe are valid or verifiable. They are all based upon the assumption that something existed prior to the Big Bang or quantum flux or whatever, but they deny that it could be God. Then they assume the billions of years. All of their theories on cosmology have the order of appearance different than the biblical model. They also have the stars appearing before the planets, where as the Bible starts with the earth and then stars.
To learn more about these creation models, I highly recommend the following materials, especially for those that homeschool and need additional teaching tools:
Distant Starlight: A Forum by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys & Dr. John Hartnett
Taking Back Astronomy by Dr. Jason Lisle
Starlight, Time, & the New Physics by Dr. John Hartnett
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.