Among the Churched Americans who attended public school, it has become popular to try and wed Genesis 1 with Big Bang Cosmology. I used to do exactly this, as I was raised in a Baptist Church and public high school. It made perfect sense that the two models were saying the same things in different ways (before I read Genesis 1 anyway).
While a surface understanding of Big Bang Cosmology and Genesis make it appear as though they can be two accounts of the same event (And again, I used to think so myself) it is not true, even once you get past the ages involved. Just as a few reasons why:
- Genesis tells the creation of earth before light, earth before sun, and earth before stars. Big bang has the earth as the last in the cosmic creations.
- Genesis has earth covered in water to begin with, and land being formed after whereas Big Bang/evolution says earth was a molten ball of hot rock with NO water when it formed. Water came millions of year after the surface cooled.
- Genesis has life first on the land and then in the oceans, where as evolution has life evolving first in the oceans and then moving onto the land.
- Genesis has dinosaurs (land creatures) being made AFTER birds, whereas evolution says birds evolved FROM dinosaurs.
This list could go on. I once found a list of 28 differences between the two models. More important than the differences is the fact that
Big Bang Cosmology FAILS on its own merits.
Once again, let me be redundant and drive this point home. I am NOT saying that ONCE YOU ACCEPT GENESIS AS LITERAL, the Big Bang fails because it does not match Genesis 1. I am saying that, were you an agnostic with NO KNOWLEDGE of Genesis 1 and you were to look into the Big Bang Model, you would see that it FAILS because it does not match the observations. And those Agnostic scientists who doubt the Big Bang Dogma are out there. I have read their books and seen their names on petitions asking that other models be considered. Spike Psarris was one of them (though he says he was an atheist, not an agnostic- see below).
As a model, Big Bang FAILS to explain what we see, it fails to predict what exists, and it offers NO EXPLANATION for the existence of stars, galaxies and planets.
A little closer to home, it offers NO explanation for the order of planets in our solar system, the earth/moon system, the differences between the terrestrial planets, the existence of the gas giants, the rings of Saturn, the surface of mars, the sideways orientation of Uranus, comets, and a few dozen other observed phenomena which ARE NOT compatible with a deep time model of the solar system.
Let me focus on one problem with the model which is shocking and noticeably missing from textbook descriptions of the Big Bang model.
Where do STARS come from?
Secular, deep time, Big Bang Cosmology CANNOT EXPLAIN THE EXISTENCE OF STARS. Even at 13.7 billion years, there are so many stars that they MUST form billions every second, but not only have we never see this, we cannot explain a single ONE. The best you will ever see is an article claiming that scientists noticed a dim star getting brighter, and they concluded that it was a star evolving.
Of course you have been told that some gas cloud falls together under its own gravity and bursts into light, but physics FORBIDS this. A gas cloud could NEVER collapse into a star or gas giant planet like the four in our solar system, because the physics gas laws say it cannot happen. Gas pulled together by gravity would heat up, causing pressure outward, causing it to expand again. Even if you could get a gas cloud close enough together that gravity would cause a pull toward a single central point (and there is no scenario where in this would happen in space either) the best that could physically happen according to any known law of science is that the gas cloud would reach a state of density where in it would dissipate slowly but never fall together into a star or planet.
According to PHYSICS- it is IMPOSSIBLE.
The formation of planets like earth and Mars have similar problems- they are not possible according to the known laws of physics. The Big Bang model cannot account for anything we see.
Why reject the Genesis account of the creation of the stars and planets on account of the Big Bang when the Big Bang cannot account for any of them anyway? Again, I suggest you study the science and see the observations behind the marketing.
I’d suggest starting your Big Bang education either with Spike Psarris on the videos here:
Or reading here:
Keep and open mind kids, this stuff can feel a little weird at first, but if you actually see what the observable evidence is, and hear enough testimonies from even the true Believers of the Big bang, you will see what I saw after a long and surprising study- that the Big Bang is a Big FLOP. If you’re like me (and two out of three monkeys) I think you’ll be surprised by what you learn.
And have you heard that recent research points to the Universe possibly being up to (down to?) a couple billion years younger, as young as 11.85 billion years old? (They are settling on around 12.4 billion, currently.) In either event, they now have less time to work with in the current model!
The age of the universe has changed wildly since the Big bang was invented. When I was a kid it was 17-18 Billion years old, and a few years back they settled FOR SURE this time on 13.2 Billion, and now it’s changing again.
Hardly worth memorizing. It’s like celebrity marriages. Why try and remember it when it’s going to change next week?
thanks for your comments, Daniel!