This is how the universe is assumed to have come into being according to the big bang theory. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.
Joel Kontinen
15 years ago, science writer David Darling, who has a PhD in astronomy, wrote an article that was critical of the big bang. Although he is not a creationist, he was not afraid to tackle scientific orthodoxy.
Darling said that cosmologists do not have a clue as to how everything came into being:
“'In the beginning', they will say, 'there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which...' Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean?”
”Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.”
Darling was surprised that New Scientist published his article, which, he admitted, was controversial.
The origin of the universe can be explained in only two ways. Either God created everything or there are many universes. Other alternatives (such as an eternal universe or an oscillating universe) fail to explain its origin.
The idea of multiple universes or multiverses is pure speculation. There are so many problems in the big bang scenario that in comparison, Genesis 1:1 looks like a much more convincing alternative.
Sources:
Darling, David. 1996. On creating something from nothing? New Scientist 151 (2047:14), 49.
Darling, David. 2002. David Darling's Newsletter #2 .
Posts
