The Big Bang Theory

One of the more popular primetime television  programs hails by the same name as a common  component within the theory of evolution. While  the aforementioned television program bases itself on  a group of physicists and other scientists, it continues  to prey upon the general mindset within society that  humanity embraces a truly ridiculous notion as to the  origin of life. In answering the questions involving the  earliest notions of life, many respond with what we refer  to as the “Big Bang Theory.” Such is truly a joke, because  science cannot deal with origins—science deals with that  which is observable and repeatable for experimentation,  and matters of origins fall outside of such. Not only will  we address this aspect of evolution, but in this issue, we  want to examine some other problems with the theory  of evolution.

The Big Bang theory bases itself on the assumption  (the problem begins right here when we try to gain facts  from an assumption) that hydrogen and helium atoms,  formed from some sort of original “cosmic egg” that  is smaller than a single proton, gave rise to 99% of all  matter in the universe.

The first big problem with the Big  Bang theory is the dependence it has on chance. This is  a prime factor in the entire process, including the origin  of the universe. We need to be asking (in loud voices,  mind you) scientists and other citizens who have been  duped by evolution, “How did the first DNA come into  existence?” Of course, DNA is the building block of life.  There are four different types of subunits in the DNA  molecule, which compose very lengthy units within the  molecule. Twenty different amino acids comprise the  protein molecules, which end up forming a long and  intricate chain of protein molecules, each one possessing  hundreds of amino acids. The complexity of such is really  unparalleled—any slight change anywhere in this chain  may often be detrimental, but scientists want us to believe  that the first living organism came from an explosion,  and continued to mutate over billions of years to produce  what we now have! Considering the role of chance in  this equation, what are the odds? Suppose we have one  million monkeys all typing on typewriters at the rate of  ten keys per second, twenty-four hours a day, hitting  the keys entirely at random. We want them to produce  the phrase “THE BIG BANG THEORY!” Would they  succeed once every 41 billion years? The odds for the  Big Bang Theory actually occurring would be even more  staggering than this!

A second problem with the Big Bang theory lies  in its dependence upon spontaneous generation—life  spontaneously forming. Yet, there is no scientific  evidence to support the theory of spontaneous generation.  Noted atheist and evolutionist Wallace Matson stated,  “…Pasteur showed conclusively that there is no such  thing as spontaneous generation—all living things  are generated from seed” ( The Existence of God , p.  128). The evolutionist readily admits the scientific  law of biogenesis—life only comes from life. Dr.  McNair Wilson, former editor of the Oxford Medical  Publications, said, “Modern medicine and surgery are  founded on the truth enunciated by Pasteur, that life  proceeds only from life and only from life of the same  kind and type.” Ah, if only they knew that Moses said  this long, long before Pasteur “discovered” this (cf. Gen.  1:24). Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleagues were among the  first to propose that the universe is expanding—matter  is continuing to generate spontaneously. Yet, scientific  data has clearly debunked his ideas, including the First  Law of Thermodynamics—neither matter nor energy  can be created or destroyed in nature.

A third complementary problem lies in what  the Hebrew writer wrote, “ For every house is built by  someone, but He who built all things is God ” (Heb. 3:4). Every cause has an effect. The effect is the universe— what is the cause? The Big Bang theory tries to provide  an answer in the universe being eternal, but it cannot  scientifically or accurately answer this important  question, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics  disproves such. In other words, what was there before the  bang? Therefore, it is a lie by which many are deceived  and many others are continuing to propagate!

Back in 1992, the British journal  Nature provided  the following comment: “The simple conclusion, that the  data so far authenticated are consistent with the doctrine  of the Big Bang, has been amplified in newspapers  and broadcasts into proof that ‘we now know’ how the  universe began…is cause for some alarm” (p. 731).  Therefore, as we see from this aspect of evolution, as  well as all aspects, the theory of evolution is nothing  more than an unproven hypothesis, and it will never be  anything more than this!

This entry was posted in Sam Willcut and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.