Big Bang in Trouble? Physicists Challenge Key Component of Cosmological Theory

A team of physicists from Harvard and Princeton universities recently ignited a controversy among the scientific community by pointing out apparent weaknesses in a key element of the Big Bang theory.

Physicists Anna Ijjas, Paul Steinhardt, and Abraham Loeb wrote a critique of the standard model of the universe’s beginnings in an edition of the Scientific American earlier this year. Recent scientific measurements, they wrote, have “cast doubt” on a key element of the Big Bang theory and “exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory.”

The key element of the Big Bang theory that the physicists call into question is the theory of “cosmic inflation.” Cosmic inflation is the widely-accepted idea that, immediately following the Big Bang, the universe grew exponentially, expanding in size much faster than it is today.

In their paper, however, Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb cited several pieces of evidence that they believe undermine cosmic inflation, later writing, “the prospect that inflation did not occur deserves serious consideration.”

“Yet even now the cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened,” they asserted. “Rather cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.”

Not only have recent astronomical observations “shaken the foundations” of the Big Bang theory, but the theory of inflation has “theoretical problems” as well, the physicists wrote. Thus, they reasoned, “The prospect that inflation did not occur deserves serious consideration.”

The physicists’ paper elicited a response from a group of 33 physicists, including Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss. Even though they conceded that “no one claims that inflation has become certain,” they noted that they “disagree with a number of statements” in the original Scientific American article.

  • Connect with Christian News

“By claiming that inflationary cosmology lies outside the scientific method, IS&L are dismissing the research of not only all the authors of this letter but also that of a substantial contingent of the scientific community,” the physicists wrote. “Moreover, as the work of several major, international collaborations has made clear, inflation is not only testable, but it has been subjected to a significant number of tests and so far has passed every one.”

“Inflationary models, like all scientific theories, rest on a set of assumptions, and to understand those assumptions we might need to appeal to some deeper theory. This, however, does not undermine the success of inflationary models,” they asserted. “The fact that our knowledge of the universe is still incomplete is absolutely no reason to ignore the impressive empirical success of the standard inflationary models.”

However, Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb did not back down, remarking in an online blog post that they are “disappointed” by the response from the physicists.

“We firmly believe that in a healthy scientific community, respectful disagreement is possible and hence reject the suggestion that, by pointing out problems, we are discarding the work of all of those who developed the theory of inflation and enabled precise measurements of the universe,” they wrote.

“Unlike the Standard Model, even after fixing all the parameters, any inflationary model gives an infinite diversity of outcomes with none preferred over any other. This makes inflation immune from any observational test,” the physicists noted. “We advocated against invoking authority and for open recognition of the shortcomings of current concepts, a reinvigorated effort to resolve these problems and an open-minded exploration of diverse ideas that avoid them altogether. We stand by these principles.”

Weighing in on the cosmic controversy, Jake Hebert, a physicist with the Institute for Creation Research, said that the Big Bang theory is “riddled with serious scientific difficulties, some of which have been highlighted by this recent spat among leading theorists.” Not only that, but the theory “flatly contradicts Scripture,” he stated.

“Many Christians are tempted to accept that the Big Bang was the means God used to create the universe,” he wrote in a blog post. “But … where would it leave Christians if secular scientists should ultimately abandon the Big Bang? Christians should resist the temptation to accommodate Genesis to the fallible, ever-changing ideas of secular scientists.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Colin Rafferty

    This is a very interesting article. But a quick reminder of definitions: a theory is something that we use to explain observed facts. The observed fact is that about 13 billion years ago was what is colloquially called the Big Bang. The Inflationary Model that is being discussed in the article is part of a set of theories that try to explain this fact.

    So even if science threw out the Inflationary Model completely, it would not change the fact of the Big Bang occurring about 13 billion years ago.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    We know the patterns how the non-believers behave. Big Bang theory was invented by a Catholic scholar to oppose the idea of universe always and for-ever existing. Now atheists use the same theory to deny God. Scientists should look into the possiblity that God created a finished universe, as Adam’s full-grown body, and the universe having started deteriotating because of the Fall. Genesis 1 alone flawlessly matches the current observation of our universe. Robots are fashioned and not evolve but deteriotate over time, although God made humans and not robots; it’s highly likely that the universe has existed with a finished form the beginning.

    • BuckeyePhysicist

      No, Grace. The Big Bang was theorized, not invented, by Fr. Georges Lemaitre, a French priest. The Bible says God existed forever but He created the heavens and the earth somewhere in time.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Yes. It’s his original idea; that’s what I mean by invention.

  • Ray Black

    those three Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb scientists have been ridiculed like they were juveniles by about 35+/- scientists of very staunch support for existing Inflation theory, they even used the fact that it IS unmeasurable as a grounds to prove its verity.

    • Sisyphus

      Scientific American is not an example of a rigorous peer reviewed journal. Perhaps Ijjas, Steinhardt and Loeb could publish the mathematics they believe brings an inflation model into question in a scholarly journal. Then other physicists could also test to further confirm or refute an existing model. That is how actual science works​.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    The universe seems to say to mankind that there is another world. “In the beginning, God created the heavens (plural) and the earth.” (Genesis 1)

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      you know Grace ….. in the scriptures it usually says “heaven” …… singular … but looking at the original Hebrew ….. you are precisely correct ….. it is heavens and a plural ….. Amen ….

      H8064
      שָׁמֶה שָׁמַיִם
      shâmayim shâmeh
      shaw-mah’-yim, shaw-meh’
      The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): – air, X astrologer, heaven (-s).

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Yes, Amos, thank you. We are boundlessly blessed to know what lies ahead, beyond our observable universe and in the different dimention. The Throne. The Kingdom of our blessed Lord and Saviour God. Revelation chapter 4.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          amen ………

  • Sharon_at_home

    Moderator please help us know what people have been doing to be deleted or banned?
    Shouldn’t there be written rules for us to follow before we can be banned for anything. If you don’t know why your posts are being deleted that are not rude or argumentative how can you change the way you post? Where are the rules, I’ve looked for them and cannot find any. Please direct us to the new rules that has affected the posters so much.

    I’d sure appreciate it and I am sure others here will too. Otherwise you are punishing us for something we did not know not to do.

    • james blue

      At the bottom of each article there is a paragraph that starts with “Commenting Guidelines” and ends with ” Read More” which you can click on for the full guidelines. Hope this helps

      Of course it doesn’t explain why comments that do not appear to break any rules are deleted, but it’s their site and I support their right to delete for any or no reason.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    1:1 In the beginning (time is created) God created the heavens and the earth (all matter is created).
    1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (God enters the creation).
    1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light (all energy is created and added to the creation).

    the reason the creation is so large and our place in it is so small …… is so that man understands mans place in it ….. just this little bit …… and that God is far bigger than man can imagine ……….. and yet God cares for man above all else ……….. all praise too Him …………

    • Tonya Elise

      God Created the Big Bang.. this solves this whole thing.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        yeah ….there is no scripture for that ……………

    • Recognizing_Truth

      Since man is a fallen creature and our understanding is thus tainted by sin and its root cause (selfish ambition), and since we are only able to observe a cursed and fallen creation, then ANY explanation we think we can come up with from our own observations will necessarily be incorrect.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        and yet God/Christ saw fit to give us the truth through the scriptures …………..

        • Recognizing_Truth

          Right. And that is where we do get the truth as well as the Truth. Amen to that!

          The problem is that, since Genesis 3, mankind has not been listening to the Truth but has been listening to the voice of the serpent: “Yea, hath God said…?” and “Ye shall be as God…”

          • Steven Thompson

            You’re relying on your fallen, tainted understanding to pick out the right scriptures, to pick out the right interpretation (e.g. “windows of the sky” figurative, “seven nights and days” literal), etc. On your own argument, you’re most likely incorrect on both counts.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            And yet…the New Testament writers – which Scripture claims are inspired by God to speak truth – are in agreement with my statements. So I’ll stay with them.

            I am not ashamed of the Gospel, it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes it. To God be all the glory. Always.

  • Tangent002

    If one element of Big Bang cosmology is imprecise or incorrect, that doesn’t make Biblical Creationism automatically true by default. Scientific theories are constantly being refined and revised as the evidence dictates.

    • Sisyphus

      Argument from ignorance…we can’t explain this with 100% certainty, so it must be god, or something metaphysical.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        I believe that’s called the God of the Gaps argument. But you’re right, it’s a subset of Argument from Ignorance.

        • Sisyphus

          There is a show on the History Channel that employs the same logic error RE: aliens. Your semantic point is well taken.

      • Oboehner

        Argument from ignorance…we can’t explain this with 100% certainty, so it must be random chance, or un-provable “bazillions of years”.

        • Sisyphus

          And science continues to look for answers, religion claims to have all the answers.

          • Oboehner

            Right, evolutionism claims there was this exploding dot followed by some kind of speciation nobody has ever seen. That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.

          • Sisyphus

            That is somewhat of a description of the current paradigm, if you don’t agree, you are free to conduct your own science.

          • Oboehner

            That much I know, but my intelligence is constantly insulted by evolutionism being pushed as fact.

          • Sisyphus

            Your intelligence is not equally insulted when YEC is pushed as fact?

          • Oboehner

            Only when my tax dollars go toward pushing it in government schools.

          • Sisyphus

            So you don’t want your tax dollars spent on teaching creationism in public schools? Good idea!

            We live in a society, there are processes in place to have a voice in where your taxes are spent.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionism either.

          • Sisyphus

            Fortunately the Theory of Evolution is based in a scientific method; Creationism involves no objective science.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            No objective science is or can be used to test a hypothesis about a past occurrence that cannot be repeated. Evolution – biological, geological, or cosmological – as a definition of origins is untested and untestable,
            The scientific method does not even allow for the hypothesis to be called a theory. According to the National Academy of Sciences: ‘A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.”

            Call it a scientific hypothesis and teach it as such – because that’s what it is.

          • Steven Thompson

            You’ve just asserted that the entirety of forensic science is useless — that we might as well fire every medical examiner, arson investigator, crash scene investigator, archaeologist, etc., since they all deal with past occurrences that cannot be repeated. I’m not sure you want to do that.

            It is of course possible to test hypotheses about past events, using evidence that has survived to the present. If your fingerprints in the victim’s blood are found at a murder scene, you will not fare well trying to convince police or prosecutors that you can’t test hypotheses about unobserved, unrepeatable past events.

            Shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates, fossil skulls that straddle any dividing line you might wish to draw between “fully-formed humans” and “fully-formed apes,” the nested hierarchy of variants in common proteins, all are “fingerprints” left by branching descent from a common ancestor in the past.

            And all this evidence can be repeatedly examined and used to test hypotheses about past events.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            Forensic science for recent real historic events (e.g. a murder, a theft) has a different set of bounds and relies on a completely different set of criteria and methods than attempting to explain the cause and sequence of an unknown event or events that is purported to have occurred in the far distant past, when systems, environments, and even (in the case of cosmological origin) the laws of physics or (for the abiogenetic origin of life) biology were not yet in place.
            In quick answer to your examples:
            Your DNA found at the scene of a known crime would still exist in you for comparison testing. Ditto for your fingerprints. The shorter the timeframe and less contamination of a scene, the more accurate can be the tests and comparisons – leading to highly probable determination of the causal agent. They would, however have trouble determining the outcome if only DNA evidence were available with nothing else – it only meant that a person who had the DNA was there at some point. That, combined with the fact that many components of DNA are shared between family members and not all DNA samples from crime scenes are complete make it difficult to make definitive statements as to the identity of the perpetrator just from DNA. (Unlike in the movies and TV)
            Similarly in the case of partial DNA or chromosomal similarities or common proteins within the various lifeforms – this does not give incontrovertible proof that the lifeforms they come from are familial or ancestrally related, only that they’re made from the same components. This is as consistent with an intelligent designer/creator origin of life within the confines of the Biblical creation account as it is within the evolutionary hypothesis of abiogenesis from inert matter to increasingly complex and varied lifeforms. The evidence remains the same, the interpretation of the evidence is based upon subjective analysis, whichever side of the spectrum you live on.

          • Robinske2

            You’re wrong of course- evolution is just as you said- a theory – never proven and never will. It’s accepted on faith by “The scientific community” even more so than the faith that there is a creator by Christians.

          • Sisyphus

            You should learn the meaning of the word “theory” before attempting to engage in a discussion about scientific theories…not the same as hypotheses.

          • Oboehner

            Unfortunately empty science claims mean nothing, there is no observation, no repeatability, nothing but assumption and blind faith.

          • Sisyphus

            Fossils, DNA, stratigraphic superposition. Faith is for the intellectually lazy and/or emotionally weak.

          • Oboehner

            Fossils = dead things, no proof of evolutionism there. DNA, could show common designer, no proof evolutionism there. Stratigraphic superposition = layers, no proof of evolutionism there either.
            I can grasp science, and science has NO proof whatsoever anything ever “evolved”. So, am I supposed to take it on blind faith like you?

          • zampogna

            What is “evolutionism”?

          • Oboehner

            Evolution: the scientific belief explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms.
            -ism: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

          • zampogna

            Most people just say evolution.

          • Oboehner

            They probably think it’s provable as well.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            And here’s why they’re sticking to it:

            “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

            It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Professor Richard Lewontin)

          • Oboehner

            Patent absurdity is just soooooo scientific. Every “in spite of” on the list is due to plain old blind faith, no more no less – they just live in denial of that fact.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            No, “religion” doesn’t have any answers.
            Only God has the answers and they are contained in His Word.
            “Religion” is just man refusing to accept the clear truth from God and trying to put his own spin to satisfy his own sinful nature.
            That’s why there’s so many “religions”, but only one God and one Word of God.

          • Sisyphus

            0 God’s to be exact, except for the one you’ve created in your own mind.

      • Recognizing_Truth

        Actually you have that backwards:
        God did it, and described the order in which He did it. And so far, everyone else who thought they could prove the creation account wrong with some other cosmological origins story, has failed to prove creation wrong.
        The science of the gaps just doesn’t hold up.

        • Sisyphus

          How could a non-existent being describe anything? You book of myths is not objective proof.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            The one true God, who has always existed, has answered your questions already.
            – Here He defines your problem:
            Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2nd Timothy 3:7)
            – Here He challenges your pink unicorn (or your flying spaghetti monster, and any/all other pretenders):
            Set forth your case, says the Lord; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you. (Isaiah 41:21-24)
            – And here he proves He is truly God:
            “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’…I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it. (Isaiah 46:8-11)

            The Scriptures regularly record God’s word given ahead of time (prophecy) about some future event (many times hundreds of years in the future from the recorded prophecy), that then happened exactly as God said. He alone is God – able to say and bring it to pass, able to tell the end of something before it even starts.
            That is the objectiveness (historical proofs of previous prophecy from God) that Christians can rely on.

            And you can have that reliance and assurance as well. No need to continue being a Sisyphus, always failing in your futile attempts. God’s remedy is simple:
            Believe on the Lord, Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved (Acts 16:31)
            if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:9-13)

    • Oboehner

      Bringing up Creation doesn’t by default make evolutionism any less a religion with no proof whatsoever.

    • Recognizing_Truth

      The Biblical account of creation is not a competing theory, it is a statement of the facts of the Creation.
      Any cosmological origins hypothesis (a theory would need to be able to be tested and verified) that does not agree with the facts will always fail to be correct no matter how much refining and revising is done.

  • Oboehner

    “rest on a set of assumptions” Highly scientific!

  • PilgrimGirl

    Really?!?! LOL!! Scientists keep trying to nail it down but The Book already has it all in writing.

    • Cady555

      Yeah, who needs astrophysicists? Let’s just read the book with the talking snake and the “waters above the firmament” and the fruit trees created before the sun and every living creature (includung the insects that pollinate fruit trees).

      Have you ever actually read your book?

  • Sharon_at_home

    @James Blue; Thank you you are a good man. Be Blessed!

  • Ivan Kos

    The same goes for the rest of the theoreticians …. Here is what Tesla thinks of Einstein and “his ” theory o relativity ( it was stolen from Olivio de Pretto who published it in Italian science magazine 3 years earlier)…..”Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space(Einstein’)s is entirely impossible ..Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
    At times, Tesla’s criticism of Einstein was even personal in nature, suggesting that Einstein was not merely mistaken, but actually a fraud:

    “Einstein is a beggar dressed in purple clothes and made king using dazzling mathematics that obscure truth”…

    “Relativity is a massive deception wrapped in a beautiful mathematical cloak.”

    “The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.”

    “The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.”

    “Relativity is a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a King.”

  • MCrow

    So I read the article. All they are saying is that there needs to be more effort put into cosmology and not accepting the Plank model as it currently stands. They are not saying that the Big Bang is necessarily incorrect, but are presenting alternatives to it. None of which involve the supernatural, btw.

    That’s how science works: you create a hypothesis, test it, refine it, test it again, send it into the community to conduct further studies and research, etc. They are offering competing naturalistic models to try to shore up some of the weaknesses of the current model, which is what a lot of researchers do because it is literally their job

    • Kevan Massey

      “That’s how science works: you create a hypothesis, test it, refine it, test it again” And what part of evolution has been tested, refined, and tested again???

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      so how exactly do you “retest” the Big Bang ….. especially when it cannot be explained what the proximal cause to it is ….. a force equal or greater is required for such an event … that is basic physics …….. how do you create a Big Bang …. when you cannot define what caused it …..

      • Recognizing_Truth

        According to God, the Big Bang didn’t happen yet. You see, the Big Bang is not how all things came to be, it’s how it will all end.
        But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are in it shall be burned up. (2 Pet 3:10)

    • Recognizing_Truth

      Modeling is not the same as testing.
      Just so you know…

  • InTheChurch

    As long as the Big Bang remains a theory, it’s all good.

    • Bob Johnson

      We probably disagree on the definition of “theory.”

      • InTheChurch

        Theory is a guess or an idea with no proof. Same?

        • Worf

          “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.”

          • Kevan Massey

            “based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment” And exactly what part of evolution has been proven by observation? Experimentation? Absolutely none… Yet it is called science and not religion. Give me and the rest of us a break…

          • Worf

            Not only have we directly observed and participated in evolution through natural and artificial selection, we have also observed complete speciation.
            As for experimentation, scientists can look at any living thing’s DNA and find a common ancestor with any other living thing. Humans share 98% of our DNA with chimps so our common ancestor is quite recent. But we only share 36% with a fruit fly so that common ancestor is a tremendous number of generations past.

            The origin of DNA, while technically the first step in evolution, is scientifically treated as separate. It is its own area of study called abiogenesis, and while the current potential theories are all similar, it is still unsettled and requires much more study. Science is mostly done through observation but, as far as we know, abiogenesis has only ever happened once, and life as we know it is the result.

          • Kevan Massey

            That is a flat out lie. There are no examples in the fossil record of one species turning into another. Darwin even commented on this. And there is absolutely positively no way shape or form of any observation in today’s world of the same. Nice try, but as someone who has studied these things for years, you sir are not only wrong, but a liar… As far as something having similar percentages of DNA, the “minor” differences are huge and have no bearing on what you are trying to push. Evolutionists trying to say DNA happened by chance is like saying Windows and Mac happened by chance and furthermore you know this but choose to willingly ignore it…

          • InTheChurch

            still not a truth or a fact but an explanation that needs to be researched and observed.
            Just for the record, I have done research so I know about theories.

          • Worf

            Now you are just trying to abuse the looseness in the meaning of the word.
            Einstein’s General Relativity is just a theory, but we know it is the most accurate model of the large scale universe that we have because there is cosmological evidence and mathematical proof. This -theory- is used for all sorts of important real world things.

            As for the big bang, we see evidence for it everywhere. From observed evidence we know one of two things can be true: Either the universe is expanding or the speed of light isn’t constant throughout the universe. The latter is far less likely.

          • InTheChurch

            I agree that the universe is expanding. I studied astronomy. I did the work with GR. But, to automatically assume the Big Band Theory is the cause, can be questioned. Can they be two separate findings? yes. That is why I say, lose meaning, BB is a theory. I am not an export but I remember they were lumped together as the answer to the bigger question. When I saw that they can be two separate theories. Why are we expanding? or How? Still a mystery.

          • Cady555

            Then why did you define theory incorrectly?

          • InTheChurch

            please define it correctly and when you are done, please explain how the BBT is not a theory

          • Cady555

            A theory is the result of research and evidence. It is the conclusion not the starting point.

          • InTheChurch

            The key is evidence. if you have solid evidence then it’s a truth or a fact. No evidence or soft evidence, a theory. Big Band has soft to no evidence or more theories to support it. I know it’s a bit more complicated than that. But I hope you understand my short version.

          • Cady555

            A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.

            Theories are and must be supported by evidence. A theory is as good as it gets.

            Examples
            That gravity exists is a fact. The Theory of Gravity is the scientific explanation supported by evidence and not contradicted by any data.

            That atoms exists is a fact. Atomic Theory is the scientific explanation supported by evidence and not contradicted by any data.

            Continental movement is a fact. The Theory of Plate Tectonics is the scientific explanation supported by evidence and not contradicted by any data.

  • Cady555

    Number of times a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a scientific explanation (examples – the causes of various diseases, earthquakes, lightning, conception, inheritance of traits, etc. etc) – too many to count, and more everyday.

    Number of times a scientific explanation had been replaced by a supernatural explanation – Zero.
    Never. Not once, ever.

    • Kevan Massey

      Seriously??? How about the “scientists” of the day saying that the earth was flat. In the book of Job, it is clearly described as an orb. Fact. There are many more facts that cannot be ignored, but you and yours will never see or acknowledge them. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” Now, do you like to eat crow with or without ketchup???

      • Cady555

        And the bible describes the heavens as a dome and calls the moon a light. The OT writers got lucky once. Big deal. That does not make the bible a reliable source of information.

        Scientific explanations are often replaced by better scientific explanations. They have never been replaced by supernatural explanations.

        • Kevan Massey

          I guess Sir Issac Newton was wrong too. The Bible describes how to deal with a dead body, says the life is in the blood and many other medical facts. Archeology has proven the Bible correct many times over as an accurate historical document. There are too many things that God had his writers say that were totally unknown at that period in time that have proven correct by today’s “scientists” and once again being too lazy to investigate, you scoff. So be it, but I will be there when you and yours bow your knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord… I feel so sad for hardened hearts such as yours as you will miss everything of importance. What good is it to gain the whole world and lose your soul… May God open your eyes to the truth of today’s death and debt self important world of lies… God Bless You and yours….

          • Cady555

            There is not one thing in the bible outside the physical and moral wisdom of its time.

            You would think that the deity who created microbes would state this clearly and include the recipe for soap.

            And having created humans with anatomy that merged the airway with the digestive tract, instructions for the Heimlich manoeuvre might have been nice.

  • Theodore Martin

    The science crowd claims to be unable to detect anywhere from 70 to 95 percent of the known universe .Dark matter , dark energy etc. Yet they claim they can know how this universe was created when they can’t even tell what its made of . Maybe all you science guys should get the basics established before you go telling everybody how things were made. Simply saying all the matter in the universe was created from nothing when nothing exploded is not the least bit logical or scientific . And you laugh at the Christians ?

  • Tonya Elise

    REALLY simple God Created the Big Bang..

    • Recognizing_Truth

      God’s account of creation has nothing that resembles a “big bang” – there is no scriptural support to your idea.

      God does, however say that the end of the heavens and earth will be with a loud noise (big bang?) and intense heat ((2 Peter 3;10)) Now THAT is something that is very believable since we know what happens when WE split a few atoms, imagine what happens when God lets it happen to ALL of them…

    • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

      Isaiah 44:24, Job 9:8 and Isaiah 42:5 are some clues as to Big Bang cosmology. Also Jeremiah 33:25 can be used as support for the laws of physics remaining constant.

  • Trilemma

    It makes more sense to believe the universe has always existed than in the Big Bang Theory.

  • Krauss and Hawking are wrong, and Krauss’ marketing claim that, “All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang” lead to the creation of the #1-ranked article when Googling: big bang predictions. That article documents that their claims are simply false.

  • That there is a scientific controversy is a wonderful thing. Debate among physicists is a main driver of science. That is why research, in an attempt to refute verious hypotheses or theories, is necessary. It has nothing at all to do with religion.

    In fact, a valid, scientific theory is not the same as the general public believes the word “theory” to be. A scientific theory is not a hunch or a guess. In science, a hunch and a guess is called a hypothesis. From there, it goes through a rigorous process called the scientific method. Only after much experimentation by other independent scientists in an attempt to REFUTE the hypothesis–and it cannot be refuted–only then can it become a scientific theory (real scientists like nothing more than to refute a scientific hypothesis or a theory).

    A scientific theory is called a “theory” because it is always open to debate and objective evidence that may alter or refute the theory.

    In fact, gravitation is a scientific theory. At this point in science, evolution has been independently verified through a mountain of objective evidence and independent verification so thoroughly that it is, by any logical measure, a fact. And research in evolution is often in debate among reputable scientists unfettered by religion. This is why the scientific method is the most reliable method we have to arrive and the best explanation for existence of, and the nature of, natural phenomena.

    Keep in mind that a religious belief is subjective, requiring only a believer. A scientific theory is objective in that it requires physical evidence and independent verification.

    • Kevan Massey

      What physical evidence is there that the Big Bang actually happened other than theoretical models? What physical evidence is there that one species changed into another? Science is valid. But your points are not. When men take scientific hypothesis as fact is where science loses all credibility… And becomes a religion of it’s own, based on faith alone… Man is god… Totally upside down.

  • Recognizing_Truth

    According to God, the secular scientists got the Big Bang totally backwards.
    It’s not how things came to be – that was through the Word of God calling everything into existence in order, not chaos.
    No, the Big Bang is how it all ends:
    But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (2 Pet 3:10)

  • Robinske2

    In the beginning, there was a huge Earth shattering kaboom and then all suns, planets, and life forms were started by the initial Kaboom – and libs/atheists think Christians are crazy or backwards to think that there is a Creator?

  • Steven Thompson

    “Inflation” is not the big bang; it is one idea of how the big bang occurred. Steinhardt prefers a different idea about how the big bang occurred; he is one of the two main people (Neil Turok is the other) behind the “ekpyrotic” cyclic universe model, in which the big bang that started our universe was preceded by a big crunch of a previous universe. Everyone in the article accepts that the universe expanded from a much smaller, hotter, denser state 13.8 billion years ago; they disagree about what, if anything, preceded that.