PAGE 4.

Big Bang Baloney- EVIDENCE DISPROVING THE BIG BANG THEORY


Did the Universe begin with a super explosion of a small mass 10 billion years ago?
Briefly, the following problems are observed in our solar system that defy the Big Bang
explanation:
1. Uranus and Venus rotate in the opposite direction to the other planets.
2. Some planets have eccentric or tilted orbits.
3. Some planet’s satellite moons move in retrograde (backwards) motion.
4. Our moon has a lower density than earth. If it was thrown out from earth, it’s density
would be more.
5. The sun’s angular momentum is 1/200th of the planets.
This small angular momentum makes it unlikely that the planets could be thrown out of the
sun.
Source: “Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation”. D.R. Peterson, p.45.
Big Bang theory says that a large quantity of nothing condensed by gravity into a single tiny
spot and then exploded outward into hydrogen and helium to eventually form stars,
galaxies, planets and moons.
Question: What is wrong with this theory? A lot!
1. Nothingness cannot pack together.
2. There would be no ignition to explode a speck of nothingness.
3. The theoretical explosion would fall back on itself giving a theoretical black
hole. R L St. Peter, 1974

4. There is not enough anti-matter in the universe. A Big Bang would produce
equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but only small amounts of antimatter
exists. (Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p.343).
5. The anti-matter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular
matter.
6. There is no way to unite all the outward rushing particles from the central
explosion, because they would keep getting farther apart over time travelled.
(See Novotny’s research).
7. The particles would maintain the same speed and direction forever, with no
way for them to begin circling each other as gas clouds. Linear motion would
not change to angular momentum.
8. Neither hydrogen or helium in outer space would clump together, because
gases on earth push apart, but never clump together. Gas clouds in space
expand, and don’t contract to form anything.
9. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to
produce stars.
10. If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of evenly mixed stars
and galaxies, there would only be an outer rim of fast moving matter.
11. There is not enough matter in the universe to explain the origin of matter and
stars. The universe is 100 times less dense than the Big Bang theory
requires. Where is this “missing mass”? This too little matter could not form
stars.
12. The Big Bang would only produce hydrogen and helium, not the other 90
elements.
13. The nuclear gaps at atomic mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen and
helium to produce any heavier elements, because neither a proton or neutron
can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. If it were not for this important
“helium mass 4 gap”, the sun would radiate uranium towards earth. There is
no stable atom of atomic mass 5 or 8. So a hydrogen fusion reaction (bomb)
combines hydrogen to form deuterium, which doubles to form Helium 4 and
stops there. Hence a hydrogen explosion (even in a star), does not cross
mass 5 gap (E.g. H=1.008; Deuterium=2.016; He=4.006; Lithium=6.939;
Berylium=9.012; Boron=10.811, etc.).
14. There are no first-generation stars (containing only hydrogen and helium) in
the sky, which supposedly exploded to give second-generation stars, as the
Big Bang theory requires.
15. Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits of suns, binary stars,
galaxies, star clusters, planets and moons.
16. There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the heavier elements.
We can see stars up to 15 billion light years away, but why are we not seeing
many stellar explosions far out in space? Because the Big Bang theory is
wrong. The stars are doing fine.
17. The most distant stars, which evolutionists date to the time of the Big Bang,
are not exploding, and yet contain heavier elements.
18. According to the Big Bang theory, older stars should have more heavy
elements because they are continually making them. But all stars, from ‘young’
to ‘old’, have similar amounts of heavy elements
19. Why do some stars spin backward to other stars? The Big Bang theory can’t
explain this.
20. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars?
Why do binary stars circle one another? How could super fast straight line
motion from a Big Bang change to rotating and orbiting motion with angular
momentum?
21. Why is the universe so “lumpy” with galaxies grouped into galaxy clusters,
which are grouped into larger super clusters?
22. Evolutionists claim that background radiation in space is the best evidence that the Big
Bang occurred as the last remnant of a Big Bang explosion. This is wrong because:
a) It comes from all directions except one direction being the Big Bang source.
b) The radiation is too weak to fit the theory. (Fred Hoyle).
c) It lacks the required 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.
d) The spectrum should be a much hotter 100oK black body spectrum than its 2.73K
spectrum.
e) It is too smooth.
Instead, this background radiation is what we’d expect from the billions of stars in the
universe.
23. According to Big Bang theory, the further we look out into space, the further back into
time we see. This means that the furthest stars and galaxies should be the youngest.
Yet research shows that furthest away stars are just like those nearby.
24. If Big Bang theory were true, all stars would be moving in the same direction, but stars,
clusters and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another.
25. Every star is redshifted to some extent. The further a star or galaxy is from us, the
more its light is shifted. Big Bang theory concludes that this proves that the universe is
expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang. They base this on the hypothesis
that the “speed theory” of redshift is the only cause of the redshift. (If light is travelling
towards us, the wavelength is compressed or blueshifted. If it is moving away from us,
the wavelength is stretched out or redshifted.).
Other explanations for this redshift are:
a) Gravitational redshift. In 1915, Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light and
thus cause a redshift. This was later proven correct. As light travels towards us from
distant stars, it passes other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum
to be shifted towards the red.
b) Second-order Doppler shift: A light source moving at right angles to an observer will
always be redshifted. This would be explained by the universe moving slowly in a vast
circle around a centre.
c) Energy loss redshift: Light waves may lose energy as they travel across long
distances.
Big Bang theory maintains that the speed redshift is the only cause of the redshift, so
they can say that the universe is expanding outwards as a result of the Big Bang.
Speed redshift is not the only cause of redshift because:
a) Nearly all stars and galaxies are redshifted. If Big Bang theory really occurred, the
universe would be rushing out from where the explosion occurred, not away from earth.
If there was a Big Bang we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts.
b) The closest stars and galaxies are the least redshifted. The further away a star is, the
more would gravitational and energy loss redshifts slow it.
c) Quasars strongly disprove the speed theory of redshift. Some quasars have redshifts
of 300% which equals speeds over 90% of the speed of light. Some quasars have
redshifts of 400%.
Three quasars, according to the speed theory are moving faster than the speed of light.
One quasar appears to be moving 8 times faster than light, which is impossible.

26. Most binary stars circling one another are of different composition. Big Bang theory can’t
explain this.
27. Stars within globular clusters ought to be all crashing into one another if any nonthinking
force brought them together, but they are not.
28. Stars never get closer than 3.5 light years apart. Would randomness produce this? No.
29. Stellar evolution is non-observable. Stars are not evolving in space. Plants and
animals are not evolving on earth.
30. The sun would have to spin extremely fast to hurl off planets and moons, yet it rotates
very slowly.
31. Big Bang theory cannot explain where stars, planets and moons originated, nor how
they arrived at their present precise, intricate orbits. How could every moon be located
at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet, from a Big
Bang explosion?
32. Uranus and Venus rotate backward compared to all the other planets. The other 7 rotate
forward.
33. One third of the 60 moons rotate opposite to the rotational direction of their planets.
Why?
34. Our planets and moons are so strikingly different that they could not have originated
from the same Big Bang source. “If you look at all the planets and the 60 or so satellites
(moons), it’s very hard to find two that are the same.” (Ross Taylor of ANU Canberra, in
“The Solar Systems New Diversity”, Richard Kerr, Science 265, 2 Sep 1994, p.1360).
35. The chemical makeup of Earth’s moon and Earth are distinctly different, implying that
the moon formed under different conditions.
36. Nearly all of Saturn’s 17 moons are extremely different. It has 3 sets of moons sharing
the same orbit. Some moons travel clockwise, others travel anti-clockwise. The surface
of Iapetus is 5 times darker on one side than the other. Hyperion is potato shaped.
Enceladus has an extremely smooth surface, whereas other moons are much rougher.
Why? Titan’s atmosphere is thicker than earth’s.
How could all these moons originate by chance?

Elemental Forces of the Universe.


37. Gravity Force is perfectly balanced.
a) If gravity were stronger, smaller stars could not form.
b) If gravity were weaker, bigger stars could not form, no heavy elements could exist,
only dwarf stars would exist, which would radiate light too feebly to support life.
38. Proton/Neutron mass ratio
The neutron mass can only exceed the proton mass by twice the electron’s mass (About 1
part per 1000).
a) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were less, atoms would fly apart.
b) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were greater, atoms would crush together, quickly
decaying into a neutron, positron and neutrino, thus destroying hydrogen, the main
element in the universe.
The Master Designer planned that the proton’s mass would be slightly smaller than a
neutron’s mass, otherwise the universe would collapse. If protons decayed, the universe
would collapse.
39. Photon mass to Baryon mass ratio.
If this ratio were higher, stars and galaxies could not hold together by gravitational
attraction.
40. Nuclear force holds an atom together.
a) If it were smaller, there would only be hydrogen and no heavier elements.
b) If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen but only heavier elements. With no
hydrogen there would be no stable stars, and no life.
c) If it were 1% weaker or stronger, carbon could not exist, nor could life exist.
d) If it were 2% stronger, protons could not exist.
41. Electromagnetic Force in an atom binds negative charged electrons to a positively charged
nucleus
a) If it were smaller or larger, no chemical bonds could form.
b) If the electron charge were 3 times larger, no element could exist other than
hydrogen.
c) If the electron charge were one-third as large, all neutral atoms would be destroyed
by the lowest heat-such as is found in outer space.
Conclusion: It would be impossible for evolution to produce the correct balance of these
forces. They were planned. These 4 basic forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and
strong nuclear forces) differ so greatly in strength, that the strongest is 1040 times stronger
than the weakest of them. Yet Big Bang theory mathematics requires that all basic forces
had to be the same strength before and just after the Big Bang Explosion occurred.
Evolutionists cannot claim that these precise, delicate balances of forces occurred by
“natural selection”, or “mutations”, for we are here dealing with the basic properties of
matter. There is no room for gradual “evolving”. The proton-neutron mass ratio has always
been the same. It will not change. It began just right. There was no second chance. This
applies to all the other forces and balances in elemental matter and the laws of physics
governing them.
If you open a typical science book on astronomy, you will find theories about the origin of
the universe and stars stated with great certainty to the public.
By 1970, so much scientific data had repudiated the basic aspects of various cosmologies,
that in April 1972, the top minds in stellar physics, chemistry and astronomy gathered at the
Nice Symposium to resolve: a) How did the first cloud break apart and change into stars?
b) How did the gas clouds whirl to form stellar objects to solve the angular momentum
problem?
c) How did the gas push itself into solids?
d) How did the planets, with their present properties and solar distances form?
If you attend such a closed-door conference, you will find worried men, desperate theories,
scientific facts condemning these theories, a lack of alternative explanations, an
atmosphere of hopeless despair in the face of unproven ideas, and no solutions or scientific
experiments to alleviate the situation.
Key: The problem is that evolutionists do not want the public to know that scientists cannot
figure out how galaxies, stars and planets originated.

 SCIENTISTS SPEAK AGAINST EVOLUTION


1) “In spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to
the details of the means of evolution”. R. Goldschmidt, “Evolution viewed by one
Geneticist”, “American Scientist, Vol. 409, Jan 1952, p.84
2) “Evolution is baseless and quite incredible”. (Ambrose Flemming, President of British
Association for Advancement of Science).
3) “Today our duty is to destroy the myths of evolution. Some refuse to acknowledge the
inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs”. (Pierre-Paul Grasse).
4) “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and
the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.” (T.N. Tahmisian, Physiologist for
the Atomic Energy Commission, quoted in Fresno Bee, 20 Aug. 1959).

5) “The naked truth and human nature travel in opposite directions. We have no reliable
evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla”. (John Bonner, American
Scientist, June 1961, p.240).
6) “Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate
biologists who have never accepted the validity of Darwinian claims.” (M. Denton, “A Theory
in Crisis”, 1986, p.327).
7) “When men cling to an outworn theory with no supporting evidence, the problem is within
the mind.”
(Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, (1971), p.77).
8) “The German zoologist, Berhard Rensch (1959) provided a long list of leading authorities
who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution (changes across species) cannot
be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes (changes within species), or any other
currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks,
creationists or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists.”
(Michael Denton: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 86).
9) “Science positively demands creation”. Lord Kelvin.
10) “The theory of evolution is a scientific mistake.”
(Louis Agassiz, Harvard Univ. Professor, ‘Evolution or Creation’ (1986) p.139 by H. Enoch).
11) “Evolution not only conveys no knowledge but it seems to convey anti-knowledge.”
(Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History, 5 Nov. 1981).
12) “That a theory (of evolution) so vague, so insufficiently verifiable ….has become a
dogma can only be explained on sociological (not scientific) grounds.” (G.R. Taylor, Great
Evolution Mystery, 1983, p.232-3).
We need to stop letting this sacred cow (of evolution) walk through our halls of science.
Key: Scientists are disadvantaged by holding to evolution, because they try to make
everything fit the theory of evolution, and ignore the mass of evidence which does
not fit evolution.
Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence.
13) “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown ups. It is useless.” (Bounoure, La Monde et La
Vie (Oct. 1983), Director of Research at the National Centre of Scientific Research in
France).
14) Darwin in his later days became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary
speculation and wrote: “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have
existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature
in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”
(H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 139).

CONCLUSION: Reject evolution as an unproven, unscientific, dangerous lie. Questions to
ask an evolutionist:
Q1: How does evolution occur? Answer: By beneficial mutations giving rise to a new
species.
Q2: Give some examples of beneficial mutations that have given a new species? I can’t,
there are none.
Q3: Then why do you believe a theory when there are no examples of it happening?
Q4: If evolution has not been proven since 1859, why do you believe and trust it?
Q5: Did man sit around and do nothing for one million years, leaving no records, artifacts or
buildings, then suddenly, around 2,500 BC build the pyramids?

Note: Evolution by random processes cannot occur due to the lack of “information” which is
needed to direct unintelligent systems! A computer cannot run without software. God put
intelligence into life.