Big Bang Or Big Con?
Big Bang or Big Con?
​
Les Sherlock, posted February 2021
​
The majority of scientists who promote the Big Bang pour scorn on anyone who thinks God might have had something to do with it; but what does their theory actually claim? Is it science?
​
INDEX
​​
Introduction
​
Is It Science?
​
So What Must Have Happened?
​
Objections
​
If God Made Man, Who Made God?
​
Science Has Proved the World is Billions of Years Old, so the Bible is Wrong
​
Radiometric Dating Proves the World is Old
​
Carbon Dating Proves the World is Old
​
Fossils Prove Evolution
​
Creationists Can't Predict Anything
​
Big Bang or Big Con?
​
Post Script: How did the Big Bang Start?
​
Introduction
​
According to the Big Bang theory, in a situation where there was no matter, no energy, no space and no time - absolutely nothing existed, not even a vacuum, there was nothing - in that situation, nothing happened to nothing for no reason and the result was an explosion in an area so small the human eye couldn't have seen it, even through the most powerful microscope. The energy in that explosion was so enormous it contained the power to create the entire matter of the universe - billions of stars and planets. The energy wave expanded massively faster than the speed of light because there was nothing to stop it travelling so quickly, but then, even though there was nothing to stop it travelling so quickly, it (or the matter that was formed from it) slowed down to slower than the speed of light.
​
The energy started changing into tiny particles of matter that were flying apart at an incredible speed, but even though for every microsecond that passed they were further apart and so the miniscule amount of gravity attraction they had was reducing between them, some of them stopped flying apart and started coming together until they had formed enough mass that it began to collapse in on itself. Under the massive pressure at the centre of these masses, different elements were created until the whole thing exploded and the whole process began all over again.
​
Finally the earth was formed by this process, and then, even though every scientific observation ever made has shown that inanimate matter cannot change into a living cell, a living cell appeared. Then, even though every scientific observation ever made shows that random changes can never make complex and orderly systems become more complex and more orderly, that first cell became more complex through random mutation, until after this miracle took place billions of times over, every different life form we can now see had appeared.
​
INDEX
​
Is it Science?
​
How does this stack up with what we know about the universe in which we live? To start with it is impossible to have an effect without a cause. So since there was nothing to produce a cause for the effect of the Big Bang, it never happened! Stephen Hawking, in his last book, Brief Answers to the Brief Questions, claimed that since scientists say tiny particles like protons can pop up somewhere in the universe and then disappear again, this shows the tiny particle that caused the Big Bang could have equally popped up out of nothing.
​
However, there are serious flaws in his argument. To start with he explains in his book that particles can disappear from one place and instantly appear in another; but this is an observation in a universe that has a massive amount of physical matter in it. It is ludicrous to claim that because particles of pre-existing matter can suddenly pop up out of nowhere, this proves that in a situation where matter does not exist a particle can pop up. If matter did not exist before the Big Bang, then there were no particles to pop up anywhere and nothing to create one.
​
Furthermore, the particles he describes that pop up in our universe are, according to him, infinitely tiny. But then he says the start of the Big Bang was an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense black hole. Did he believe the particles that pop up in our universe are infinitely dense? Of course not. So there is no comparison between them and the start of the Big Bang. It is like saying that a snowflake the size of a pea falling to earth is evidence that a snowflake the size of a galaxy could fall to earth. Or that a man running a mile in four-minutes is evidence that a man could run one billion miles in four minutes. But then, the entire Big Bang theory is based on far-fetched speculation that only survives because its creators believe that God does not exist - in other words, it is based on their faith and not on scientific observation.
​
I said we know you can't have an effect without a cause. It is also true that the greater the effect, the greater the cause must be. You can move a tiny feather with just a gentle breath; but to move a four-ton truck takes vastly more energy. So the greatest effect of them all - the creation of the universe - must have had a massive cause far greater than anything we can imagine.
Then the claim is that inanimate matter suddenly became a living organism. But the cell of the simplest living thing is highly complex, with DNA to code for the processes that enable it to live, and 'machines' to take the coding from DNA and turn it into whatever is required. As the atheist-scientist Fred Hoyle once said, expecting life to appear from inanimate matter by events undirected by intelligence is like expecting a tornado to create an aeroplane out of a junk yard. He also said:
​
"Now imagine 10^50 blind persons [that’s 100,000 billion billion billion billion billion people—standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling [random variation] of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
​
TOP
So What Must Have Happened?
​
Instead of speculating based on what we want to be true, let us look at what scientific observation tells us must be true.
​
Since it is impossible for anything to exist in our physical dimension without a beginning and there must always be a cause for anything to begin, then it is obvious that the cause of the entire physical dimension must have come from a different dimension. If the first cause came from our physical dimension then you immediately have the problem - where did the first cause come from? So the only possible, logical conclusion is that the first cause of our dimension where everything has a cause, must have originated from a dimension where this is not the case.
​
Since we have seen that the greater the effect, the greater the cause must be, this means the cause of the universe must be mind-bogglingly immense. Something of far greater power than our minds could possibly imagine.
​
The latest research has shown that the structure of living cells, from which all living things are made, is immensely complex. It is controlled by a 'computer language' in DNA that is massively more complex than anything ever designed by humans and makes our most powerful computers look like a ZX81 (one of the simplest, early computers) in comparison. Furthermore, every living cell has an incredibly complex system of 'machinery' to follow the instructions in the DNA in order for the cell to live. Even the atom, a minute particle from which every physical thing is made throughout the universe, is complex, and since it consists of electrons that are in constant orbit around the nucleus, it is an example of perpetual motion. We know it is impossible for us to create a perpetual motion machine, but microscopically tiny perpetual motion 'machines' are the building blocks of every physical thing that exists! So the first cause must not only have immense power, but immense intellect, to be able to construct such a system.
​
Human beings are the highest order of living things on earth. There are living things that are much larger, much stronger, much faster, live much longer (e.g. trees) but there is nothing else with the intellect of a human being. This intellect has enabled humans to treat medical conditions by investigating how the body works right down to its molecular structure; build engines to perform tasks they could not do themselves, including machines that can take them up to the moon and down to the deepest depths of the oceans; build robots to undertake more and more tasks previously thought only possible for a human to do; and create atomic weapons capable of destroying massive areas. Where did this intellect come from? Since the 'intellect' of computers comes from the designers, then it is obvious the intellect of humans equally comes from the 'cause' of the universe, the living cells and the atom.
​
This being the case, it must surely be obvious that for the 'first cause' to do all of this, there must be a reason behind it. After all, even for an immensely powerful, intellectual, 'first cause' it would be a massive investment of energy to bring it all about. And if the highest order of living things that was created has the ability to reason, then it must surely be logical to expect the 'first cause' to make available to the reasoning beings what is the reason for their existence.
​
So we must look around us to see where the explanation for it all can be found. We would expect it to be in a format that was widely available to humans, that was consistent with observable scientific laws, and that, where it gave guidance regarding any expectations of that 'first cause', the results it predicted did indeed take place.
​
There is such an explanation, in a book that has been more widely distributed around the world than any other, that is completely consistent with scientific observation, and that millions of people over many centuries have found does indeed bring about the change in their lives and experience that it claims. It is, of course, the Bible. No other book that claims to teach about origins has such longevity, such wide distribution and such harmony with the observable laws of science.
​
It tells us that the first cause is God. It tells us that He is from a different dimension to ours, where it was perfectly possible for Him always to have existed and never to have had a beginning. It tells us that He created the physical dimension and everything in it by His power and wisdom. It tells us that His purpose in creating human beings was for them to be able to interact with Him, and that He made the way for this to become reality. - including making His word available to humans for them to understand all they need to know to fulfil their purpose in life.
​
​
Objections
​
If God made man, who made God?
​
I first heard that silly argument when I was a teenager, six decades ago, and it has continued to surface, in one form or another, ever since. It is a silly argument because the people who use it claim that everything began with the Big Bang, and exactly the same question can be posed of that: if the Big Bang made everything, what made the Big Bang? In fact, those who use it are actually confirming the point with which I began - in the physical realm, everything has to have a beginning and the beginning must have a cause. You cannot have anything without a beginning and you can't have the beginning of anything without a cause. So "If God made man, who made God" is a question that destroys any possibility of a Big Bang occurring because the argument against the one is an argument against the other.
​
One possible rescuing theory is that you can go right back to infinity with the Big Bang being caused by a cause that was caused by a cause that was caused by a cause... and so on forever. However, this is nothing more than the "turtles all the way down" argument. That is based on the old mythology that the world was supported by a huge animal that stood on the back of a turtle. The turtle stood on another turtle, which stood on another turtle "all the way down." It is logical nonsense.
​
Science is about the laws of physics, which are ways of describing how everything in the physical realm works. The clue is in the name: the law of PHYSICS! Physics describes how everything that is physical functions. And every observation ever made proves that there must be a cause for every effect. There can only be one possible answer - the cause of the universe is from a dimension where the laws of physics do not apply. The Bible tells us that God's primary realm of existence is the spirit realm, not the physical one; and that He is a spirit.
​
John 4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
​
Since time is an integral aspect of physical things, God is outside of time.
​
Isaiah 57:15 For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: "I dwell in the high and holy place..."
​
Therefore God has no beginning and no end. This means "...who made God?..." is irrelevant because He has always existed in the spirit realm. So, when taken to its logical conclusion, this question, designed to cast scorn on Christians, actually proves God's existence and disproves the Big Bang. The questioner pulls the rug from under his own feet by claiming that everything in the physical realm must have a cause and then trying to argue for the Big Bang without a cause! He is actually arguing that since we all exist something must have made it happen, and that something must be outside of the physical realm.
Do you want to know how everything began?
​
Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
​
One reason for objecting to the idea of God is because of the belief that it is impossible for a God to build and control the universe and everything in it. This is based on a wholly inaccurate notion of who God is. If you think of Him as some kind of 'superman' figure, or a old man with a long beard sitting on a throne somewhere, then you could not be more wrong. It is true that He has shown Himself on a throne to certain people, but this is for them to see a form they can understand, and must by no means be considered to be all that He is.
​
Psalm 139:7-8 Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
​
The current theory is that the universe is 92 billion light years across. No matter where you go in that vast area, God is there. He sees every bit of every sun, planet, comet and everything else throughout the entire universe.
​
Matthew 10:30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
​
In that community at that time when Jesus spoke those words, a single hair was the smallest, least significant part of the body known to them. I have no doubt that if Jesus was speaking today He would say, "...every atom in your body is numbered." From everything I read in the Bible I am convinced God sees every atom in the universe. You think that is impossible for God? Then you have no idea about His nature, His power or anything about Him. Instead of thinking about 'superman' it might be closer to the truth to think about 'the force' in the Star Wars films. He is everywhere, His power is absolute, His knowledge infinite and since He is not a physical being and is outside of time He sees the past, present and future with equal clarity.
INDEX
​
Science has proved the world is billions of years old so the Bible is wrong
​
While it is true science works by beginning with a theory and then observation will either confirm, deny or modify that theory, the notion of an 'old earth', essential for evolution to be promoted, is maintained not by direct observation but by people who want to believe in it interpreting observations to make them fit the theory. Let us look at a few.
​
INDEX
​
Radiometric dating proves the world is old
​
There are three assumptions made - [1] that we know the starting conditions, [2] that the rate of change has always remained constant, [3] that nothing could ever have happened to alter the objects being measured. None of these assumptions are valid.
​
-
We do not know the starting conditions. When God created trees and vegetation, they were bearing fruit from the very first week of their existence. When He created man and woman they were adults, not new-born babies. When Jesus turned water into wine it happened instantly, not over the normal period of months or years. The idea that God deliberately created things to make them look old is nonsense, of course. He made them the way they needed to be to be functional. Nevertheless, we do not know what effect the act of creation had on the mantle of the earth and everything on and in it because it must be very obvious there is likely to be a significant difference in things that were created by a power outside of the physical realm to when they appear by 'natural' processes: i.e. by the processes we can observe today (see also 'carbon dating', below.)
-
The rate of change has not always been constant. It is established fact that the magnetic field around the earth is decreasing in strength, and every measurement ever made shows this to be the case. Evolutionists would claim it fluctuates, decreasing and increasing at different times; but this idea is based not on observation, but on the requirement of evolution to have an old earth: there has never been an observation showing the field increasing in strength. This means, because the field deflects some of the rays from the sun, they would have been weaker when reaching the earth's atmosphere in the past, which radically affects carbon dating, for example (we'll look at that in a moment).
-
There have been radical changes to the earth, in particular the world-wide flood, which would have massively effected the constituent parts of rock formations. Of course, evolutionists are bound to deny that the whole world has ever been flooded, but the evidence is all around us. There are tens of thousands of square miles of unbroken sedimentary rock that had to be laid down by water in a single event - otherwise it would not be unbroken. It is now believed by creationist scientists that this flood was probably caused by some catastrophic event smashing the ocean floor; perhaps similar to the Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 bombardment of Jupiter in July 1992. The result on earth at that time was that large sections of the upper mantle of the earth broke off and sank through the molten rock beneath. Recent geological measurements have shown that there is still unmolten rock underneath the hot magma, which could only have been there for a few thousand years, otherwise it would have melted - further evidence for a 'young' earth. The surface of the earth was broken into the tectonic plates we now see by this process, and when a huge part sank down through subduction, those plates would have separated at a massive speed. The after-effect of this flood, caused by this means, would have been warm seas from the hot magma spilling up into them and cold land masses through the sun's rays being significantly less because of huge air pollution from super volcanoes. This resulted in massive amounts of snow that caused the ice age (lasting hundreds, not millions, of years) and created the polar ice caps. We see fossils buried from that time in sedimentary rocks all over the world, even on the highest mountains (see later on fossils). There is massive evidence for a world-wide flood.
​​
INDEX
​
Carbon dating proves the world is old
​
This is arguably the most well-known of radiometric dating methods, but there is not an evolutionist on the planet who believes that carbon dating is an accurate means of proving age. This century, dinosaur bones have been carbon dated as being no more than tens of thousands of years old at the very most. Evolutionists claim the samples were contaminated and so the measurements are not accurate. But these tests were undertaken in the world's best laboratories specialising in carbon dating, using their best efforts to ensure there was no contamination. So if they were unable to conduct those tests without contamination, then they are unable to undertake any tests without contamination and therefore all carbon dating tests produce false readings. If carbon dating is an accurate means of finding age, then those dinosaur relics prove dinosaurs did not become extinct millions of years ago. If dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago, then carbon dating is not an accurate means of dating and evolutionists cannot use it to claim the long ages they do - they can't have it both ways!
​
In fact carbon dating works by measuring the amount of CO_14 (carbon) found in dead things and comparing it with what is found in the atmosphere and in living things. CO_14 is created by the sun's rays striking the upper atmosphere, which is absorbed by vegetation and then into the bodies of the things that eat it. So it remains constant during life, but as soon as someone (or something) dies, then the CO_14 in them starts to decay. Its rate of decay means after around 50,000 years there will be no measurable CO_14 left. But in the past the sun's rays were weaker because of the magnetic field, and particularly during and a few years after the flood with the atmosphere being filled with dust and debris from super-volcanoes, so the amount of CO_14 would have been less in the atmosphere then than it is now. This will give an appearance of greater age if the calculation is made based on what is in the atmosphere today. By the way, the reducing magnetic field around the earth is further proof of its 'young' age, since if it was millions or billions of years old, the field would have had to be impossibly high to start with for it to be at the level we observe today.
​
But it is not merely carbon dating that proves the age of those dinosaur bones. Soft tissue has also been found in them, and at the observable rate of decay soft tissue has been proved to be able to survive no longer than tens of thousands of years at most.
We now have cow bone results that confirm collagen could not last for millions of years — unless stored in liquid nitrogen all that time (i.e. –196ׄ°C/-3200F)!
(Quoted from here)
​
Red blood cells have been found in them, and, likewise, red blood cells have been proved to last only tens of thousands of years at most, after which nothing would be left. And finally, intact DNA has been found in the bones, and this too can only remain for tens of thousands of years at most.
​
So it is not merely one kind of dating test, but four different ones, all of which show that dinosaurs were around at a time that completely destroys the evolutionary timetable. And evolutionists have to pretend that none of these measurements matter in order to maintain their theory. However, none of these tests disqualify the possibility of dinosaurs being on the earth in the last few thousand years.
INDEX
​
Fossils prove evolution
​
As can be seen in the challenge, it would take a huge number of transitional forms to change one kind of living thing into another. So this should mean when we look around us we should be able to see far more living things at a transitional point, than those with fully-formed features because evolution is supposed to be happening all the time. They are not there! Where are the arms turning into legs; the skin cells turning into eyes; the scales turning into hair: and so on? There is not one single example anywhere to be found alive on the earth today. The same applies to what we should see in the fossil record. They are not there! Even the 'simplest' fossil still has highly complex, complete organs to have made their lives possible. All we see, dead or alive, is the effect of natural selection, which is the loss or shuffling of pre-existing DNA information and never the result of new DNA coding for features that did not previously exist in the species.
​
It is argued that because 'simple' organisms can be found in lower layers than 'higher' organisms, then this shows the progress of evolution. However, even apart from the missing transitional forms that would be there had evolution taken place, it is certainly the case that they are buried in the order one would expect during a world-wide flood. The simplest organisms living on the sea floor would have been the first to be overwhelmed by the silt washed up by the turbulent waters. In other words, they were buried where they lived! And those more mobile and better able to retreat from the oncoming torrent of mud and water would be buried higher up.
​
The Mount St Helens eruption back in 1980 proved beyond doubt what would have happened, with the creation of many rock layers, mountains and canyons in days and weeks - not millions of years. This is a huge subject, but the total lack of erosion or vegetation in layers that according to evolutionary theory were laid down millions of years apart, is evidence that the theory is wrong. The folding without cracking of layers supposedly laid down millions of years apart is also impossible. The claim that they could fold without cracking if subjected to heat and pressure is false because this would produce change in the texture of the layers, and no such change can be observed. There is an excellent description of the Mount St Helens eruption here, along with photographs.
​
INDEX
​
Creationists Can't Predict Anything
​
This fallacy is easily exposed. See here for some examples of predictions made by creationist-scientists, which at the time were ridiculed by evolutionists but later shown to be true.
​
The next four paragraphs are quotes from the links.
In 1859 (the same year Darwin published Origin of Species), a creationist named Antonio Snider-Pellegrini suggested that the continents have broken apart from a single landmass. This was mocked at the time. It wasn’t until the 1960s when irrefutable evidence forced scientists to change their minds that plate tectonics became widely accepted and geology was revolutionized.
​
In 1987, as a geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, John Baumgardner predicted that scientists might find crust that cycled through the earth’s mantle during Noah’s Flood (as mentioned earlier). Ten years later, they found it.
​
In 1986, as a physicist working for Sandia National Laboratories, Russ Humphreys predicted that scientists would find evidence of a series of rapid reversals in the earth’s magnetic field during the Flood. Two years after his prediction, they found the evidence.
​
In 1984, he published a paper in which he assumed that the planets and their magnetic fields were created from water in the same way as the earth. In this paper he correctly predicted the magnetic field strength for both Uranus and Neptune, which Voyager 2 confirmed in 1986 and 1990 respectively.
​
On the other hand, it is evolutionary theory that has held up scientific progress. Based on evolution they claimed at one time there are 100 vestigial organs in the human body - left-over remnants of evolutionary past. The result was that at the time these organs were not considered significant. The lie that over 95% of our DNA is junk left over from our evolutionary past meant that for years scientists ignored it, thinking it was a waste of time to investigate it. Now they have realised it is not junk it is making possible medical breakthroughs to deal with ailments resulting from mutation in these areas. Had they listened to creationists, these blunders would not have happened!
​
INDEX
​
Big Bang or Big Con?
​
Since it is clear the universe could not possibly have created itself and the laws of physics show us its beginning could not have originated in the physical realm, there is only one possible candidate for the first cause. The God of the Bible. There are other religious books, but there is no other book that claims to be directly from the Creator that gives a detailed description of the universe's origins which is consistent with the observable laws of physics. Detractors may site the miracles of the Bible as events inconsistent with the observable laws, but there are eye-witness accounts of many thousands of people, past and present, who have personally witnessed such events for themselves. Science is supposed to be about accounting for what is observed, not pretending that what has been observed never happened!
​
The theory of evolution is rapidly unravelling before our eyes, as the more research is done into the makeup of DNA, the living cell, and how it all functions, the more obvious it becomes that such intricate, interactive systems simply could not have appeared as a result of random mutations, preserved by natural selection. Every observation of mutation has shown that it causes damage rather than improvement, and where that damage is so slight it has little effect on the organism and so cannot be eliminated by natural selection, the accumulative effect of a number of mutations certainly does have a detrimental effect. Some years ago doctors informed us that over 1,000 human ailments are the result of mutation. That is over 1,000 ailments now afflicting the human race that did not exist in early human history. This is clear, scientific observation that mutation causes harm, not improvement.
​
Indeed, many scientists, unwilling to let go of their previous belief in evolution, now subscribe to the 'Intelligent Design Movement'. This means they accept that only an intelligent cause could produce a living organism, and it could never come about by the observable scientific processes we can observe today. However, they do not identify the Intelligent Designer, and usually accept evolution and billions of years for the planet. This is totally contradictory. They accept that the processes we see could not produce life, so therefore believe the Intelligent Designer used processes we cannot see. But then they claim He (or it!) had to use the slow processes we see today to create the universe and develop all living things from the first living organism. If the Intelligent Designer didn't use processes we can see to create life, why should He have used processes we can see to create the universe, or create all living things? It simply does not make sense.
​
In the same way that evolution of living things is falling apart, the evolution of the universe is equally proving more and more difficult to sustain, with all theories of how it happened on its own coming to grief in the light of further research. In the 21st century the Big Bang theory is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain in the light of observation and research.
​
There is only one candidate for Creator - the God of the Bible. And so why would He lie about the way He did it?
​
John 17:17 ...Your word is truth.
​
He specifically told Moses He created everything in six days; so if He didn't, He was lying!
​
Exodus 20:11; 31:12, 17 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day... And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying... for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested.
​
The idea God was actually meaning "In six periods of billions of years the Lord made the heavens and the earth, so you must work for six days every week" is plain nonsense. This is very clearly a device to try to shoehorn the Bible into agreeing with the unscientific notion of the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory neither neatly fits into six specific 'day' periods nor 12 alternating periods of dark (evening) and light (morning); and in Genesis a day is defined as one evening and one morning, not 821 billion evenings and 821 billion mornings, which it should have been if those 'days' had taken around 13.5 billion years!
​
If you want to be sure what God meant, just think about what the people to whom He was talking understood Him to mean. If I said to you, "I took six days to build my model aeroplane and then had one day off, so you should work six days and have one off every week," you wouldn't think to yourself, "He means he spent six weeks building his plane;" or "He means he spent six months building his plane!" You would, quite rightly, assume when I said "days" I meant days! Moses and the rest of Israel would not have had any thought other than that God said what He meant and meant what He said.
​
Furthermore, it contradicts the chronology of Genesis 1 & 2 at almost every point.
​
The Bible says The Big Bang says
Earth created in the beginning
Earth created 10 billion years after the beginning
Earth began as formless water
Earth began as molten blob
Light for half a week before the sun
Light only after the sun appeared
Earth before the sun and stars
Earth after the sun and stars
Vegetation before the sun and stars
Vegetation after the sun and stars
Birds before land creatures
Birds evolved from land creatures
Adam created from dust
Humans evolved from primitive ape-like creatures
Eve created from Adam's side
Humans evolved from primitive ape-like creatures
​
The Big Bang is a Big Con, and when we come across falsehood, we do not compromise with it, we expose it!
​
You and I live on planet earth in the 21st century because the God of the Bible created everything the way He said He did; and it is vital we should find out exactly what He wants of our lives, so we can fulfil the purpose He had in creating us. He has given us His word in written form, telling us how He did it and what He wants of us.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (ESV)
​
"God-breathed' means God gave to the human writers what He wanted them to say. The Bible - "All Scripture" - is not man-made theories but God-given instruction.
​
The day is coming when each of us will stand before Him to give account of the way we lived and the choices we made. He has provided the way for us to be able to stand unashamed on that day, because we have accepted His offer, through Jesus Christ, to be brought into a right relationship with Him.
I said earlier that God is more like the Force in the Star Wars than other ideas about Him; but He is much more than that. Because He made us in His image we know that He has personality, knowledge, wisdom, emotion and everything we see in our makeups. However, what we are is a tiny fraction of everything He is. So to feel His love is to enjoy the most pleasurable experience you could possibly imagine; and to experience His anger is the most terrible thing that could happen to anyone. When we stand before Him at the end of our earthy lives, we will experience one or the other. The way to be sure you will experience His love is simple.
​
God's nature is such that He has to punish sin, which is disobedience to His will. Because of His love for us He doesn't want to punish us, but punishment has to happen because that is His nature. So He chose to take the form of a human - Jesus Christ - and accept the punishment Himself, making it possible to forgive us and give us His love. If you choose to ask Jesus to take charge of your life, you are included in those for whom He took the punishment. If you reject Him, then you must take it yourself, and you certainly don't want to spend an eternity doing that!
​
Speak to Him. He can see you and hear everything you say. Tell Him you are sorry for ignoring Him and for doing things He didn't want you to do and not doing the things He did want. Ask Him to forgive you on the basis that Jesus took the punishment for your sins in your place. Ask Him to make you His child. Then thank Him for doing it. You may not feel any different, but the Bible says He is looking out for anyone coming to Him and He will not turn you away. Very soon you will discover that life has become different, as you daily ask Him to give you the strength to be what He wants and start to read the Bible to find out what He has told us to do. Start with the New Testament. Find a church where people will be able to guide you in your new life.
​
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
​
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
​
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
​
Romans 10:9 ...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
​
INDEX
​
Post Script: How Did the Big Bang Start?
It just so happened that I stumbled across this video less than a month after posting this page; so it’s a good way of rounding things off! I give the timings of the statements made when quoting them.
​
Don Lincoln (born 1964) is an American physicist, author, host of the YouTube channel Fermilab, and science communicator. He conducts research in particle physics at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and is an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame.
​
Don Lincoln begins by telling us what we know for sure.
0:28
"We know that the visible universe was once smaller and hotter and it’s expanding. We know that there was a moment when the expansion began. We know that that moment was about 13.8 billion years ago."
1:33
"However, while the oldest thing we can literally see existed 400,000 years after the universe began, we actually know about the condition in the universe much, much before that time. For instance, at the moment we can see the CMB, the universe had a temperature of about 2,700 degrees centigrade."
How does he know? It is not by observation, since by definition what things were like billions of years ago cannot be observed today. The reason he thinks he knows is the basic argument:
If ‘a’ is true, then ‘b’ must also be true. If ‘b’ is true, then ‘c’ must be true. If ‘c’, then ‘d’; if ‘d’, then ‘e’; and so on. I don’t know how many links there are in the chain, but eventually we get to ‘z’ (for the sake of argument) where we ‘know’ that:
9:02
"So let’s concentrate on the visible universe. It was very tiny. All the matter and energy of the universe was squashed down to a size that is super, incredibly, microscopic. It wasn’t zero size – that’s a common misconception – but it was very, very, small."
That leads to the supposition that the thing that started everything off was probably either [1] different universes in other dimensions than our own; or [2] our universe crashed into another universe, which caused the Big Bang; or [3] universes move around and ours broke apart from them:
11:33
"Suppose that there exist additional dimensions beyond the usual three of space and one of time. If that’s the case, there may be existing different universes in those higher dimensions that we can’t interact with. That’s not so different from birds soaring in three dimensions, when we must walk in two. If that’s the case, then perhaps the universe we exist in now always existed, floating around in higher dimensions. Perhaps our universe crashed into another universe and the impact energy is what caused our universe to heat up and expand."
(As an aside, it is not true we walk around in two dimensions, because wherever we go we will be going up or down some kind of incline at some point, which means we are moving in three dimensions!)
12:17
"Then there’s the third idea, which is called eternal inflation. Perhaps universes move about like blobs in a lava lamp, with blobs breaking apart and combining. In this idea, a universe existed, and we budded off from it."
Well of course, if ‘a’ really does mean ‘b’, and ‘b’ mean ‘c’, and so on, then yes – we do know the above ideas must be the case. But it only needs one link in that chain to be false and the rest collapses like a pack of cards.
I do not know what those links are; but I certainly know what ‘a’ is: it is the premise that God does not exist and therefore there must be a naturalistic explanation for everything. In other words, the entire edifice of reasoning is based on a religious idea about God. This is nothing to do with science, because those most influential in developing science in the past were Christians, who believed that the God of the Bible would create a universe that could be explored and understood. This fact is totally lost on Don Lincoln, whose antagonism towards those who trust in God can be seen here.
Furthermore, there are many scientists who are also atheists like him, but who believe the Big Bang is a flawed argument. This means they think one or more of the links in his chain of reasoning are false. So his confidence in ‘what we know’ is by no means as certain as he would like us to think.
Don Lincoln believes there could be another dimension where other universes exist, but does not believe there is a spiritual dimension where God exists. He believes our universe may have always existed in another dimension, but does not believe that God could have always existed in another dimension.
It is very clear that the requirements for evolution are exactly the same as for creation – whether evolution of the universe when time, space, matter and energy did not exist, or of all living things from inanimate matter. Both require something or someone that has always existed in another dimension to act outside of the laws of physics in order for it to take place.
-
In regard to the universe, the laws of physics cannot function at the start according to Don Lincoln; so it required something in another dimension to bring about the Big Bang.
-
In regard to abiogenesis every observation ever made demonstrates that computer code can never appear without intelligence, proving that the coding for a living organism could never appear without intelligence either to produce the first cell from inanimate matter.
So he is forced to believe that contrary to all scientific observation – the laws of physics – the miracle happened.
Therefore his entire reasoning is meaningless, because its very first premise is incorrect.
Toward the end of the video, the caption beside him reads:
CAPTION: We have data after 10^-13 seconds, but not before
We think physics breaks down before 10^-43 seconds
The truth is we don’t know
So based on what he does not know, he knows the creation of the universe had nothing to do with an eternal being from another dimension, even though he knows that everything in our universe probably began through something eternal from another dimension.
7:40
"It’s not a sin not to know something. It’s only a sin to think you do, when you clearly don’t."
The Bible says:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools…
Romans 1:20-22
INDEX
​
Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
​
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®) Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. ESV Text Edition: 2016
​
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible,
copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
​
Page picture free image from here