In the new book Evolution Impossible scientist Dr. John F. Ashton, the Adjunct Professor of Biomedical Sciences at Victoria University, in Melbourne, Australia, provides 12 reasons why evolution fails to explain how life began.
This is the final book excerpt come from the chapter "The Big-Bang Theory Is Not Supported by Observed Data."
Another major problem with the big-bang theory is that it is way out in its prediction of satellite galaxies. University of Cambridge–educated professor of astronomy at the University of Bonn in Germany Dr. Pavel Kroupa points out that we only observe about 1 percent of the number of these galaxies compared to what the theory predicts. He believes this is the clearest evidence that there is something badly wrong with the big-bang model for the origin of the galaxies we observe in space.
Another aspect of the big-bang model we noted earlier is that it describes an expanding universe. This expansion, if it were really occurring, would produce time-dilation phenomena resulting in two light curve-broadening effects for supernovae. However, it has now been discovered from the study of the widths of supernovae light curves that there is only a single broadening effect observed. These observations again provide evidence that the big bang never happened. On the other hand, data from observed surface brightness measurements of galaxies is consistent with the calculations for a nonexpanding universe.
There are a number of other serious problems with the big-bang model that I have not discussed here as they are quite technical in nature. It is possible to propose any number of alternative cosmologies because in reality we cannot really “prove” how our universe came to be on the basis of what we can observe today. The fact remains, however, that some models fit the observed data better than others and to date no mechanical model like the big bang or anything similar has been proposed that fits all the observed data we have now collected. On the other hand, the instantaneous creation model of a universe with the earth near the center fits well with what we actually observe.
The big-bang model is taught in schools, colleges, and universities simply because it is the most popular model among scientists who do not want to bring any notion of God into the classroom. They argue that creation is not a testable scientific theory and therefore cannot be taught in a science class. However, to try to save the big-bang theory, they see no problem in teaching inflation theory, which is a nontestable philosophical view. As internationally renowned astrophysicist George Ellis reminds us, a spherical symmetrical universe with earth at its center cannot be disproved on the basis of observations. He goes on to point out that cosmologists are using philosophical criteria to choose their model for the origin of the universe, and a lot of cosmology tries to hide that fact.
When we consider the accumulation of knowledge of the physics and chemistry of our universe, the number of “just right for life to exist” scenarios in relation to our planet, and its location in our solar system, I believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports the philosophy that we came into existence as a result of the will of an all-powerful Creator God. There is presently no proven theory of how we came into existence. However, the fine tuning of the universe that we observe reinforces Professor Fred Hoyle’s decades-old suggestion that the universe and life are the result of a deliberate, intelligent act by a vastly superior intelligence.
Used by permission. All rights to this material are reserved. Material is not to be reproduced, scanned, copied, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without written permission from Master Books.