A. B. C. D.
A. B. C. D. - that’s the term I have come up with describing some people’s beliefs; it stands for the “Anything But Creation Doctrine.” Ok, so this is already starting to sound like some religious fanatic attempting to debunk the proven fact that is the Big Bang theory. Actually, my approach will be to examine the scientific evidence and draw a conclusion based on that instead of making assumptions and manipulating the scientific data to point to a pre-conceived notion.
In The Beginning ...
What are the possible explanations for the origins of the universe? I have encountered four possible explanations:
1. The universe had no beginning; it has always existed.
We know this is an impossibility. Take something as simple as lead. Most lead isotopes come from decayed uranium or thallium. If the universe (and the earth) always existed, there would be no uranium as it does not have a half-life of infinity; this explanation is completely impossible.
2. The universe was created by an intelligent being.
This explanation is often rejected on the basis of being “unscientific.” This will be explored in greater detail.
3. The universe is as a result of a big bang.
This is the commonly accepted “scientific” explanation.
4. A universe before ours existed and collapsed as part of the Big Crunch.
Most people have never heard this theory. It states that a universe before ours existed, collapsed, and that was source of matter and energy for the big bang. This universe will also collapse and another big bang will ensue and the inhabitants of that universe will have the same questions of their origins.
That theory is difficult to say with a straight face. The problem which immediately surfaces is that this simply pushes the explanation further back but never answers the question of origin. How many times did this Big Crunch/Bang combination occur? It had to have started at some point; when was it? This theory simply creates infinite regression and never offers a true explanation and thus can be safely ignored.
We are left with two possible explanations: the Big Bang and creation.
What is science?
In order for a process to be deemed scientific, it must conform to certain parameters. The scientific process requires that the idea being tested must be repeatable and observable using empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is define as follows:
- originating in or based on observation or experience
- relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
- capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
The most basic laws of science are the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy. These fundamental laws which are based on empirical evidence. Simply stated, neither mass (matter) nor energy can be created or destroyed. They can be converted, but never removed from existence or created from nothingness. Now for empirical evidence -
time laws began at big bang pure energyWhat does that have to do with the origin of the universe? Let’s examine the present “scientific” explanation: the universe originated from a big bang (the big bang theory). Something exploded and now we are here.
First, let’s examine what this theory states. According to this theory, something exploded. If we think of the laws of conservation, this mass that exploded could not have come from nowhere as that would violate those laws. Look around you; there are tons of matter and energy around you, not to mention the mass and energy contained everywhere else in the universe. So where did that ball of mass/energy come from? Some scientists say it came from a singularity, while there are other theories. However, that does not answer the question of origin; it merely pushes it back because invariably you will be faced with the question: “where did that come from?” Where did the singularity come from? Not only that, and explosion is a reaction. There needs to be a cause behind it; what caused the explosion?
Let’s go a bit deeper. In order for something to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence. It must be repeatable, either by natural occurrences or via experimentation. In order for the big bang theory to even qualify as being scientific, we either have to witness it happen again or we need to be able to make it happen again via experiments. First question: why did the big bang supposedly occur only once? Why is ther no big bang in my cup of coffee? If it happend once, why not again? The big bang does not even qualify as being scientific. The problem is that scientists want to explain our existence using nothing other than philosophic naturalism. No matter what natural explanation scientists come up with, they need to supply the empirical evidence upon which they arrived at their conclusion. The problem with the big bang is that it is not based on empirical evidence.
There is no question that the universe originated at one point, but based on the observable, proven laws of thermodynamics, it is absolutely impossible for this to have been a natural occurrence. Matter and energy do not pop out of thin air (or in this case, a vaccuum).