Universe (or should that be the big bang?) falls flat!

Preliminary comment by Dr Carl Wieland, AiG–Australia

1 May 2000

News is breaking of a set of observations and calculations which are said to “prove the universe is flat.” The information that is leading some scientists to this conclusion was gathered by a high-flying balloon over Antarctica.

Great resource for refuting the ‘Big Bang’!
Starlight and Time

Starlight and Time
Dr D. Russell Humphreys

The Bible teaches that the universe is just thousands of years old, and yet we can see stars that are billions of light-years away. In his book, Dr Humphreys explains his new cosmology with an easy-to-read popular summary and two technical papers. Also available, a companion video in spectacular 3-D imagery how a big bang and creation cosmos differ and why evidence supports a recent creation of the universe!


In layman's terms, this claim of a “flat universe” means that the space-time fabric of the universe is not curved in either direction—i.e. if there was more mass in the universe, there would be enough mass for gravity to eventually cause it to collapse in on itself, giving rise eventually to a “big crunch.”

This would give a particular “curvature” to space-time, whereas if there is neither too much nor too little, space-time will be “flat.” For the majority of people (including scientists) who are not trained in cosmology, it is hard from such reports to discern the degree to which the conclusions only follow once one already assumes that big bang belief is reality. It is certainly true that all facts in astronomy are generally interpreted within the framework of the dominant model (or framework, or paradigm): the big bang notion of cosmic evolution, in which the majority of the astronomical community is steeped.

Unfortunately, this often makes it sound as if a particular observation gives independent support to the big bang belief, even though the big bang is assumed in order to derive the result.

Despite creationist physicists not yet having had a chance to work through the actual scientific data in this case, it seems fairly safe to already say that this latest observation result cannot be seen as evidence supporting the big bang, because “big bangers” had not “predicted” this (or any other) curvature as an inevitable consequence of their theory.

In a recent Creation magazine interview, full professor of physics at California State University at Fullerton, Dr Keith Wanser, said that it is hard for lay people to realize how much, in this whole area of cosmology, philosophy is injected along with the mathematics. He also stated that there was much evidence against the whole big bang notion, and tried to convey just how huge the scientific uncertainties are in this whole field. Unfortunately, media reports tend to “hype” stories about the big bang significantly.

Published: 13 February 2006