Now let’s take a look into the “smoking gun” of the Big Bang: The Cosmic Background Radiation. Discovered by accident in 1964, it’s basically a faint glow of heat, everywhere we look in the night sky. It’s Cosmic, it lurks in the background, and like all mutant superheros, it’s powered by radiation. Cosmic. Background. Radiation.
THAT is how you name science stuff! It sounds like the title of a Marvel comic series where in the whole UNIVERSE is threatened! It even starts with the word COSMIC. That’s BIGGER than “Big,” even without a sound effect after it.
“Big Bang.” Pttthhhh!
Anyhoo, to see why the smoking gun isn’t the airtight case it gets peddled as, all you need is a little science history. The low background heat of the universe was being predicted and searched for LONG before any Bang was expected. Scientists assumed that, because stars are constantly sending heat into the universe, all of space will have some heat, but because the stars are so far apart, the temperature of space will be pretty low.
As early as 1896, Charles Edouard Guillaume predicted a temperature of 5.6K from heating by starlight (K is for “Kelvin”- a temperature scale where 0K is Absolute Zero- meaning NO heat AT ALL).
Arthur Eddington refined the calculations in 1926 and predicted a temperature of 3K. Erich Regener predicted 2.8K in 1933.
In 1941 Andrew McKellar determined the temperature of interstellar medium to be very cold, approximately 2.15 K (-271 °C/-455.8 F), which was verified in 1964 when the Cosmic Background Radiation was discovered.
What does all of this mean? It means there were a lot of people who already expected space to be uniformly around 3 degrees Kelvin based on the density of stars and galaxies. There was no need for an explosion and associated Bang, big or otherwise. When the Cosmic Background Radiation was found, more than twenty years after McKellar calculated it and more than 60 years after Guillaume had predicted it, it was used to support the Big Bang, but it doesn’t LEAD to the Big Bang. It certainly doesn’t HAVE to the way we are told it does. It was already predicted for a totally different reason. It’s no smoking gun. It’s more like finding footprints at the scene of the crime and saying, “That proves our suspect is guilty. He DOES have feet. I’ll bet they even leave prints…”
Yet the Cosmic Background Radiation (So COOL a name!) also has details which work AGAINST the Big Bang.
This is like finding out that the footprints at the scene of the crime are from shoes FAR too small for your suspect. It’s called the Horizon Problem. In short, the universe SHOULD NOT be uniform in the cosmic Background Radiation if the Big Bang were true. The only way for that to happen is if all of the stars in the universe were able to share their light and heat faster than the present speed of light allows. But the speed of light is a constant, isn’t it? Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light!
If you saw the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, then you heard Bill Nye try to mock Ken Ham (And ironically show his own ignorance of the Creation model) by saying Creation and the flood call for the laws of physics to be different in the past (Which they do not). And to him this was funny. No wonder his kid’s show got cancelled.
What Nye apparently forgot was the patch sewn over the Horizon Problem: Inflation. This is the imaginary event at the start of the universe where suddenly and for no reason, everything DID travel much faster than the speed of light.
BUT ONLY FOR A LITTLE WHILE! Obviously it couldn’t just do that all day. You’d never get any hydrogen that way. Or stars or galaxies. But then, once you start an inflation, how do you make it stop? Well, we don’t know that either…
The story (as you will come to learn if you dig further into it) is the Big Bang theory is a huge pile of patches sewn onto holes caused by previous patches. The actual observational data is crammed into any place is MIGHT fit, which more often than not just tears another hole in the Big Bang Theory.
So the two biggest pieces of observable data which are used to support the Big Bang seem to fail on several fronts. First, they do not LEAD to a Big Bang. That has to be assumed in one’s interpretation of the data in order to find where they fit. Second, the data easily fits into a young earth creation model. Nothing in actual observational science conflicts with the Biblical account of Creation, and nothing we observe demands a history of Billions of years. Them’s the facts, jack.
To see how the Big Bang model has needed Band Aide after Band Aide, read this great article about the history (And MANY blunders) of the Big Bang Theory.