Another Unpublished Letter to
Answers in Genesis
Updated 4 May 2005

The "Big Bang" really has nothing to do with biological evolution but this unpublished letter to Answers in Genesis serves to illustrate once again that creationists are loath to publish or acknowledge arguments that clearly refute their young Earth beliefs.

However, since this letter was posted, AiG have changed the URL of their page on this subject and have omitted their claim  # 8 concerning "Missing Neutrinos".

Dear AiG

It was with some amusement that I read your Q&A section about the Big Bang.  Without even needing to reference any of my physics notes I could refute every one of your so called arguments. Your arguments are indented -

The Big Bang as it is understood today is an inadequate theory since there are many fundamental problems that are seldom mentioned in the pertinent literature. The following are some "missing links" in the theory:

1. Missing Origin. The Big Bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, an energy source is still needed. Actually, there is no secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.

Obviously you do not know the meaning of a "Quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum", which shows a clear lack of research on your part. A vacuum fluctuation has zero mean (average) energy. Therefore no original concentration of energy is needed for a vacuum fluctuation to exist. Vacuum fluctuations do exist, and their effect has been experimentally measured in a process known as the "Casmir Effect". This is a process by which differences in energies due to vacuum fluctuations cause two metal plates that are held very close together to be pushed together.

2. Missing Fuse. What ignited the Big Bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from expanding outward.

The forces that existed at this time are greatly different from the forces that we experience today. This is because of the different energy density of the universe. The extremely high energies, and the different forces that go with them acted as an anti-gravity and caused the universe to balloon outwards.

3. Missing Star Formation. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.

Its interesting that in the previous point you assert that gravity overcomes all, and prevents the creation of the universe, yet here you say that gravity is too weak to pull gas together into stars and galaxies. Anyhow, it has been observed in images of the Cosmic Background Radiation from the big bang that inhomogenities were present in the energy distribution. This means that there was an uneven spread of mass and thus (after the matter had cooled and slowed from the initial expansion) the more dense parts of the universe would have attracted each other and eventually formed stars and galaxies. 

4. Missing Antimatter. Some versions of the Big Bang theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space.

I find it quite amusing here that you have used the logic that "Some models are wrong therefore all models must be wrong".

Both these sentences are correct (almost), but what you are implying is not. The models that predict (not require) equal amounts of matter and antimatter have not taken into account the recent evidence of CP violation in the decay of matter and antimatter. Put simply, this means that matter and antimatter decay at different rates (it has been observed as an experimental fact in the K-meson system, and I am currently involved in the observation of this effect in the B-meson system), and this means that in a system that produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, more matter will be left over in the end. To produce all the matter in the known universe only a very small difference (1 in a million or less) is required, and measurement of this difference is currently underway.

5. Missing Time. Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the Big Bang to unfold. A short time span would not allow for the gradual evolution of the earth, heavens, and mankind.

I would very much like to see these experiments. Did you not mention them because you know they are false? I cannot say anything more until you reveal what these experiments were.

6. Missing Mass. Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode, and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are a hundred times smaller than expected. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass is "missing."

This "missing" mass has no effect whatsoever on the big bang model. The suggestion that this idea was made up to avoid an origin and destiny to the universe (and hence a god) is absurd. Also you have stated that scientists "assume" this to be true. This is also false. We do not know if the universe is closed - ("oscillating") , open (will continue to expand forever) or flat (will expand forever, but that expansion will slow down to almost nothing). Recent evidence is pointing to somewhere between open and flat, but like all good science, this is open to debate.

7. Missing Life. In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?

It is widely recognised that life requires special conditions in order to survive and evolve. It is also recognised that for a civilisation  to evolve these conditions must be extra special ( eg easy to access copper and tin deposits for a bronze age to develop, stable climate for cities to grow, Oxygen to allow invention of fire, etc. ). Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume, based on the evidence of the other planets in our solar system, and the planets that we have detected so far orbiting other stars, that life supporting planets are not common.  For us to be receiving radio signals from other civilisations they must have developed radio before us since radio travels at the speed of light, and have sent signals strong enough for us to hear. A signal that is sent in all directions looses strength proportional to the square of the distance travelled. This means that for a far away civilisation it would be quite difficult for us to detect their signals, above the background noise of the universe. Another complication is that we have to be listening at the same frequency that the aliens sent the signal at. Since this frequency could be almost anything, we can only guess at what frequency they might use. Putting these all together, it is no wonder we haven't heard anything. And the possibility always remains that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. If this is true, it does not affect the big bang model, since evolution of life and creation of the universe are separate issues.

8. Missing Neutrinos. These small particles should flood the earth from the sun's fusion process. Their absence raises questions about the sun's energy source and man's overall understanding of the universe. How then can science speak about "origins" with any authority?

This statement is false. We do detect neutrinos from the sun, and they have the correct energies, as predicted but our understandings of the reactions in the sun's core. The "missing neutrino" problem is about the fact that we only detect about half as many neutrinos as we expect. This problem may now be solved, since it has recently been shown that neutrinos oscillate from one type to another. The type of neutrino they oscillate to seems to be one that we cannot detect with current detectors (and may prove virtually impossible to detect). There are several experiments currently being constructed to investigate this oscillation phenomena. 

The ease at which I was able to refute these arguments surprised me. While I have not been able to go into in depth discussions about these topics (both because of space considerations and reader understanding) I feel it was my duty to respond because of my hate of deliberate misinformation. Perhaps I am being a bit harsh and maybe your mistakes were due to genuine ignorance, but this then raises the question - why are you commenting on topics of which you have no real understanding?

I look forward to seeing my response in your feedback section. Or perhaps you can put it in Q&A to show a balanced view of the argument..... oh, I guess that would be asking a bit much.

R. D.

Melbourne, Australia