(Or: Big Bang Magic Part 3: 
Pulling Back the Veil on the five biggest questions about the universe)

Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, cosmology these days is not an objective science, devoted  strictly to the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. There is an agenda that rules cosmology. An agenda that has nothing to do with science as confessed by Richard Lewontin:

"Out willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes  to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."[1] (emphases in the original)

Lewontin speaks as an evolutionary biologist, but his emphasis on an "a priori adherence to material causes" holds for cosmology just as strongly as it does for evolution.

So knowing the modern scientific commitment to materialistic explanations - regardless of whether they make sense or not -  I read with interest an article on nbcnews.com titled The 5 Biggest Questions About the Universe (and How We're Trying To Answer Them) . I suspected the questions would not be searches for deeper scientific truth, but rather veils; attempts to cover that which is inexplicable by secular science. And why the necessity for veils? Secular materialists hate pointing out the flaws in their secular worldview, especially when the biblical worldview handles the issue without problems.

Like magicians protecting trade secrets, materialists don't want to reveal the flaws in their science. That would ruin the illusion that they are master of the material realm (which of course they aren't). Therefore the cosmology magicians prefer not to reveal to the "uninitiated" masses the underlying problems they are really struggling with, preferring instead to engage in these tricks of misdirection to maintain the illusion we live in a strictly material world.  This article will pull back the veil on some of the scientific sleight of hand, so you can see the real problems scientists are dealing with that they prefer you not know about - because the deeper problems often point to a truth they refuse to acknowledge: this universe was created by God, who exists outside of time and space, and who "formed it to be inhabited" (Is 45.18) for our benefit.

So as we look at the "5 Biggest questions about the universe" I will illuminate some of the questions and issues that are hiding behind the veil, to give you a better picture of the real problems in secular cosmology.

# 1 What is Dark Matter?

 The article explains:

"It's been nearly a century since astronomers studying distant galaxies first noticed something odd: The galaxies seemed to hold more matter than could be accounted for by the visible material — stars and gas clouds. This missing mass, dubbed dark matter, is now believed to make up more than a quarter of the total mass and energy in the visible universe."[2]

What they're not telling you:
The idea of missing "dark matter" is a conclusion, not an observation.  The observation is this: Early astronomers such as Fritz Zwiky in 1933 and Vera Rubin nearly 50 years later observed that the rotational curves of galaxies, as well as stars and stellar dust in outer regions, did not follow the laws of physics as do the planets in our solar system. Our experience (and thus our current laws of physics) tells us with regards to orbits, the greater the distance from the galaxy's center, the slower the object orbits. So when the objects they observed orbiting in distant galaxies were measured to be moving at the same speed regardless of distance, something had to change.  One might expect there would be a search for a corresponding change in the law of physics, but instead physicists have drawn the conclusion: there is "missing matter" as Zwiky called it.[3] Today it is called dark matter.

Behind the veil:
Dark matter is now a requirement of the Big Bang theory because without dark matter stars can't form. (For more on that, see here). Thus the real reason they need to observe dark matter is not only to keep their current theory of gravity (Einstein's Relativity) master of all domains (which it already isn't - it doesn't apply to the quantum domain); but more importantly they need to rescue their cherished Big Bang theory from yet another set of observations that contradict the theory.  Since scientists now believe:

"...that at the moment of the Big Bang - dark matter was created. And it played a critical role in helping ordinary matter clump together to form stars and planets."[4]

The Big Bang thus stands or falls on the discovery of dark matter. Or put another way, without dark matter - the Big Bang theory cannot be true. That is why dark matter is now the Big Bang's "Missing Link." It's also why they talk about "missing mass" instead of the real problems of  1. Objects orbiting too fast, and 2. The major problem of the Big Bang being unable to explain star formation - without this hypothetical, unobserved entity called "dark matter."

#2 What is Dark Energy?

The article explains:

"In the 1990s, data from the Hubble Space Telescope revealed that distant galaxies aren't just moving away from our home galaxy, the Milky Way, they're speeding away from us (and from each other) at an accelerating rate. That came as a big surprise — one that scientists have been struggling to explain ever since."[5]

What they're not telling you:
Once again, that is not a direct measurement, that is an interpretation of data. What scientists need to know is the distance of stars, and how fast they're moving. But they can't go out there with a tape measure and stop watch and measure distances and times and use that to calculate speeds. What do they have? All they have is the light from stars and their interpretations of it - in particular their interpretation of red-shift. Scientists use red-shift to determine distance and more importantly the speed at which a distant star is supposedly moving away from us. This leads them to the conclusion there must be dark-energy out there because according to their interpretation - the further the distance, the faster stars are receding from us. But as I point out here, based on work by Halton Arp, there's a serious problem equating red-shift with distance and speed.

Ever since Edwin Hubble shocked the world by his conclusion that all stars are moving away from us, scientists have since further concluded the universe is not only expanding - but accelerating in the expansion. The Big Bang theory comes as a logical conclusion of the expansion of the universe. If the expansion were recorded in a movie, and you watched the movie in reverse - the reasoning goes - what you wind up with is a universe that contracts down to a point infinitely small. "Infinitely small," the physicists will tell you, is synonymous with nothing. Running the movie forward, you have the Big Bang, popping into existence out of nothing - and from a time when there was no time (since time was created at the bit bang).  Thus the entire story of the Big Bang hangs on the theory that the universe is expanding - and ever more quickly - as scientists now say.

Upon further examination of the concepts of "dark matter" and "dark energy," if you believe prevailing wisdom, you're required to accept that the universe is composed of:
23% Dark Matter
73% Dark Energy
4%   Ordinary matter

And so you're forced to conclude that:

• We can only see 4% of the entire Universe, and thus we are in the "ludicrous situation of 96% of the universe made up of stuff we know nothing about"[6] as cosmologist John Hartnett puts it.

Furthermore, since the Big Bang Theory is only true if the cosmological principal is true, (the cosmological principle states “viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.”[7])  you're also forced to conclude:

• Dark energy should therefore be active in our part of the universe too. Especially since,  "Dark Energy is now known to be the dominant force in the universe."[8]  Yet the expansion that supposedly is driving stars and galaxies apart by this dominant force is not affecting our solar system, or the molecules of your body. That's because:
  
  "More space is being created in between the Galaxies. So you have
  individual Galaxies remaining a constant size in a universe where all of
  space is getting bigger and bigger."[9]
  
  How convenient.  Here we have a force that can distinguish space between galaxies and space inside galaxies and knows to only increase the space between galaxies. Lucky for us, otherwise the dark energy that is supposedly killing the universe would be killing us too.
   
• Dark energy is supposedly the "energy of the vacuum," and it's "pushing the galaxy apart creating a runaway universe." And "so it looks as if this is the end of everything."[10]

Behind the Veil:

This story of "dark energy" is needed to maintain the illusion that:

• Red-Shift means what Hubble interpreted it to mean
  (greater red-shift=greater speed and distance)
• Which allows the basic premise of the Big Bang to be true
• But, given the above, the world ends, not in fire (as the Bible states - 2 Pe 3.7) but as a cold barren place - with all molecules of matter driven far from each other.

And it all hangs on Hubble's Law and his interpretation of red-shift. If, as Halton Arp argues, Hubble is wrong, and red-shift does not always equate to speed and distance, then the Big Bang will collapse into a heap of discarded red-shift / distance calculations.  And the cosmologists are back at square one: wondering why is there something rather than nothing? (Since they are unwilling to acknowledge that "in the beginning, God created...")

#3 What Came Before the Big Bang?

The Article explains:

"There's this textbook answer that we're supposed to give," says Glenn Starkman, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University. "We say that the question is meaningless, just as it's meaningless to ask what's south of the South Pole.

The idea is this: If time itself began with the Big Bang, then it makes no sense ask what came before. There simply was no "before." And yet Starkman knows that hardly anyone finds that answer satisfying."[11]

What they're not telling you:

Big Bang believers are faced with a logical and physical impossibility: The big bang - the singularity that explodes into existence out of nothing - happens in a place that doesn't exist, and at a time that doesn't exist. That is because according to the theory, neither space nor time exists when the Big Bang explodes into existence. Theoretical physicist Michio Kako affirms:

"The Big Bang is the origin of space and the origin of time itself."[12]

If space and time begin with the big bang, then space and time don't exist before the big bang. So technically, their answer is correct - asking what happened before is meaningless. What is also correct however, is since there is no space and time before the big bang, (and no laws of physics either for that matter[13]) it is impossible for the big bang to happen at all. Consider this task: you have to drive a semi tractor-trailer from New York to Los Angeles in 1 second and park it in a sardine can. Can you do it? Of course not. You have neither the time for the journey, nor the space to park it in. It is simply impossible. The Big Bang has the same impossible problems. There is no space for the big bang to occur - because space does not exist before the big bang. Nor is there time for it to occur - because there is no time before the big bang.

Behind the Veil

Thus the beginning of the universe inexorably points to an entity that exists:

• Outside of space
• Outside of time
• With the will to take action (like initiate a creation)
• And the power to bring it about (in other words create space, time and  matter and arrange it into our universe)

That sounds like the God of the Bible. Which is  why cosmologists don't like the question.  The logical answer points to what theologians call creation ex nihilo - creation from nothing as described in the the first verse in the Bible: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1.1) Thus behind the veil,  the answer cosmologists don't want you to know is: there was never a big bang, but if there were, before it, there was God.

4. What's Inside a Black Hole?

Is this a trick question? Scientists believe black holes are made from collapsed, dead stars:

"The theory is that black holes are born when nature's most massive stars burn off all their fuel and violently collapse."[14]

"The cores of these massive stars implode in less than a second ... They continue imploding all the way down to a point."[15]

But that's not really what they're after. As the article explains:

"We have no idea what goes on inside a black hole — unless we're willing to jump into one," says Starkman.[16]

So what they're really after are the dynamics inside a black hole particularly since the two theories involved are incompatible as the article notes:

"Physicists have come up with various ideas to explain this puzzle. All are controversial. The real problem is that, at the 'event horizon' — the outer boundary of a black hole — both general relativity and quantum mechanics come into play. And so far at least, these two theories are irreconcilable."[17]

Actually that's putting it mildly. When physicists try to combine the science of the large (general relativity) and the science of the small (quantum mechanics) according to Kaku, they get:

"...something which makes no sense whatsoever. An infinity. Total
nonsense. In fact you get an infinite sequence of infinites.
Infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein's original theory. This is a nightmare beyond comprehension."[18]

What they're not telling you

As noted above, the big bang starts from a point of infinitely dense matter called a singularity.  Physicists also believe there's a singularity at the center of every black hole:

"The singularity - the impossible object found at the heart of every  black hole, is the same impossible object found at the very beginning of  time."[19]

Current physics breaks down when it comes to the singularity, and since there is a singularity in every black hole, black holes represent everything physicists don't know about the beginning of the universe. Professor Andrew Strominger of Harvard university put it well:

"...Black hole is the symbol of what it is that we don't understand about the universe."[20]

The origin of the universe - represented by the singularity at the heart of black holes - will continue to be a mystery as long as cosmologists continue to make science a search for materialistic causes, instead of a search for the truth - even if that truth leads to God.

Behind the Veil

What's the one thing that secular cosmologists don't want you to conclude? That would be that God had anything to do with the creation of the universe. Thus behind the distracting veil of secular singularities, is what really happened at the beginning of the universe - and how scientists who believe the word of God are working out cosmologies and scientific theories that are consistent with both science and the word of God. Scientists like Russell Humphries, John Hartnett and Jason Lisle among others. Each has contributed to a biblical understanding of cosmology. But you'll likely not hear their theories discussed by secular cosmologists, or reported on by main stream media who report on cosmology like this nbcnews.com article does. No, secular reporters of cosmology news don't want a "divine foot in the door"  either, so you will not see theories or breakthroughs made by Christians or bible believing scientists and cosmologists. 

So lurking in the darkness behind the veil is a truth I've stated before and I'll say it again: big bang cosmologists are not after the truth, they are after theories that will support their materialist philosophy which is anchored by the big bang theory.  And they don't care how "patently absurd" their theories become as long as they keep God out of the picture.

#5. Are We Alone?

The article explains:

"Our galaxy contains several hundred billion stars, many of which are likely to have planets orbiting them. As if that weren't mind-boggling enough, astronomers believe there at least a trillion galaxies in the visible universe. Given the likely profusion of planets, it seems unlikely that we're alone in the universe. And so scientists around the world have embarked on what they call SETI, or the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."[21]

What they're not telling you

Evolution believing scientists are afflicted with what I call the Waning, Great Scientific hope. That's the undying but impossible hope that they will one day find life on other earth-like planets. It's impossible because regardless of all their evolutionary theories, life does not arise spontaneously from lifeless objects. Molecules to man evolution, simply put, is impossible. If you doubt that, consider the following:

Suppose I give you a dozen dice and instruct you to throw them against a wall. What's the chance they will land stacked neatly in two stacks of 6, corner to corner like miniature twin towers, each die with the numbers aligned as in the picture: 1 on the bottom, 6 on top, 2 to the south, 5 to the north, 4 to west, 3 to east? (Except on the dice where they switch the positions of 3 and 4. Did you know they did that? I didn't until now.) The chance of the dice randomly falling in that precise alignment (stacked, numbers ordered, and with dice of the same color not touching each other) - having been thrown against a wall is effectively zero. You could spend, millions, billions, even trillions of years throwing dice against a wall and they will never, ever randomly fall in the above precise arrangement. You know it, and I know it. The above arrangement can only come about by an intelligence acting on the dice, and purposely arranging them in that order.

The same is true of the myriad of systems required for life.  Let the dice represent amino acids - the building blocks of proteins. They must be precisely arranged to create a working protein - the workhorse of the cell. A protein of just 150 amino acids is considered to be short. Consider each die, each  amino acid, a character. If it is impossible to arrange 12, six sided (or six character) dice by random chance into a desired sequence like the above, how much more impossible is it to randomly arrange the twenty different amino acid characters into a specific 150 character long sequence? (Having twenty amino acids is like using a 20 sided die instead of a six sided one.)  To make matters worse, even if  somehow you get that first protein, you wind up with one short protein. It is estimated the human body has 100,000 proteins of varying lengths - many longer than the short 150 character protein considered above.  And you're still a long way from life. Because you still don't have a living creature.

Yet evolutionists want you to believe that the complex structures needed to create life[22]  started by random chance, which was later aided by natural selection. The problem is, like the stacked dice above: regardless of how long evolutionary processes have, they will never come up with anything remotely close to the structures necessary to support life.  Compounding that problem is evolution has no way of granting life.  Scientists like to believe that if they could just produce the complex structures, they would likewise be able to create life. That's another fallacy.

Behind the Veil

Scientists want you to believe that they will someday, like Dr. Frankenstein, give life to a lifeless collection of objects needed to support life.   But Frankenstein is a work of fiction, and scientists have never been able to achieve that feat.  Only one person was able to achieve that feat: Jesus of Nazareth. But just as unbelievers refuse to believe "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," likewise they refuse to believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead; and rose bodily from the dead himself, justifying his claim that he is "the resurrection and the life." (John 11.25)

Scientists want you to think that evolution is possible, and thus life on other planets is possible. But molecules to man evolution is impossible, and thus life on other planets via evolution is impossible.  There is, however, truth outside of the bounds of science for you to consider, which scientists are trying to keep hidden behind a veil. That truth is that there is a source of not only life, but eternal life. The source of both is Jesus:

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1 John 5.11-12

God leaves the choice of what to believe to you:

• Either the empty hopes of fallible, secular scientists who are trying to keep the hopelessness of their science veiled,
• Or the promise of eternal life from a loving God who never lies, who has already proved he is the life who has given life to all men. (Jn 1.4,9)

The choice is yours.
My advice: follow the admonition of Moses:
Choose life. (Deut 30.19)
 

Duane Caldwell | posted 11 January 2017
Follow @duanecaldwell

Previous Big Bang Magic Articles:

Exposing the Big Magic Behind the Big Bang
More Big Bang Magic Tricks: Shadows and Waves
 

1.  Richard Lewontin, professor of biology, Harvard University, "Billions and billions of demons",  The New York Review of Books, 44(1):31, 9 January 1997;
see also Amazing Admission    http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote

Back

2.  Dan Falk "The 5 Biggest Questions About the Universe (and How We're Trying To Answer Them)", nbcnew.com, Jan 2, 2017, http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/5-biggest-questions-about-universe-how-we-re-trying-answer-n702051
Back

3.The Universe episode "Dark Matter / Dark Energy" History channel documentary, 2009
Back

4.  Narrator, The Universe episode "Dark Matter / Dark Energy" History channel documentary, 2009
Back

5. Falk "The 5 Biggest Questions"
Back

6. Cosmologist John Hartnett, Evolution's Achilles' Heel, CMI Ministries, documentary, 2014
Back

7. William Keel, astronomer  referenced from Cosmological Principle, Wikipedia, accessed 5/26/2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
Back

8. Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku ref from The Universe episode "Dark Matter / Dark Energy"
Back

9. Cosmologist Sean Carroll ref from The Universe episode "Dark Matter / Dark Energy"
Back

10. All three statements - Michio Kaku ref from The Universe episode "Dark Matter / Dark Energy"
Back

11. Falk "The 5 Biggest Questions"
Back

12. Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist, City College of New York, How The Universe Works episode "Big Bang" Discovery channel documentary,  2010
Back

13. Kaku also affirms that the laws of physics also originate with the Big Bang -  How The Universe Works episode "Big Bang", Discovery channel documentary,  2010
Back

14. Narrator, Seeing Black Holes, BBC/Science Channel Documentary, 2010
Back

15. Douglas Leonard, Black hole investigator, San Diego State University, ref from Seeing Black Holes
Back

16. Falk "The 5 Biggest Questions"
Back

17. Falk "The 5 Biggest Questions"
Back

18. Michio Kaku, ref from Seeing Black Holes,  BBC/Science Channel Documentary, 2010
Back

19. Narrator, Seeing Black Holes
Back

20. Andrew Strominger, Theoretical physicist, Harvard University, Seeing Black Holes
Back

21.Falk "The 5 Biggest Questions"
Back

22.   For a sample of the difficulties, see
Mt. Improbable and other impossible evolutionary dreams or
Is Creation Relevant? Part 2: Undisputed Evidence
Back