Hi,
As an astronomer, I thought I would put the record straight in terms
of the things that scientists believe (rather than what creationists
CLAIM that scientists believe). I will not make any claims about what
creationists believe, as that would be hypocritical!
I noticed that some of the websites listed had flaws due to the lack
of understanding of the people writing the websites. I hope these
comments
by me will be helpful to future readers! Please excuse any typos as I'm
in a hurry.
1) http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Indeed the big bang theory does not address where everything came
from (who set off the Big Bang). There are a number of errors in
the rest of the text though. The Big Bang theory does not contradict
the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. If there was no angular
momentum at the start of the Universe, this law would require that an
equal number of Galaxies rotate in one direction as in any other --
in that way the total angular momentum cancels out to zero. This is
what is observed. Clusters of galaxies, galaxies, stars and planets
would all be expected to spin. As matter collapses together under its
own gravity, voids are created and the clumps of matter end up
spinning, just like the water going down a plughole. This is
unavoidable assuming the laws of physics are correct, and computer
simulations agree very well with what is observed in the night sky.
It is the force of gravity which causes clumping, as it pulls matter
(gas, dust and solids) together.
2) http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/stein.html is generally quite
accurate. However, the author states:
"Similarly, as the universe is fueled by Hydrogen, we might expect
to see the proportion of Hydrogen in the cosmos appear to increase
as we look out from the earth. Nowhere have I read that either of
these trends is actually found. On the contrary, most astronomers
comment on the uniformity of the observed cosmos."
Although the local universe is very uniform, objects viewed in the
very very distant Universe (observed when the Universe was very
young) usually have a higher hydrogen content (called a "lower
metalicity" by astronomers). This is a well documented fact.
I think the comments by "Riordan and Schramm" at the end of the
article are best ignored. It is quite clear that these authors do
not understand the physics and cosmology they are arguing against.
It would be impossible for the "blistering 10^55 degrees" to reach
us due to the high density of free protons and electrons in the
early Universe. These authors also fail to understand what redshift
is, so the last three paragraphs on Doppler Effect do not make sense.
3) The web page:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
is really quite poor.
For the first 5 points, the author appears to have taken the BEST
predictions of the Big Bang theory (the ones that work really
well!) and metaphorically put the word "not" before them! All of
these aspects are ones were simulations of the Big Bang agree
really well. For example, the Big Bang model was first taken
seriously when someone showed that it could explain the abundancies
of the chemical elements perfectly which could not be explained
by any other theory.
However point 6 is quite accurate. Current models of some globular
clusters are not consistant with the age of the Universe. It is
thought that simplifications in the modelling of the stars is to
blame
The "inflationary model" of the Big Bang predicts that the Universe
is not Uniform. If simulations are performed, one finds that
clusters and galaxies are formed, just as we observe in the night
sky. Point 7 is thus incorrect.
Point 8 is quite correct. The invisible matter is required to
explain the bending of light seen in the Universe (gravitational
lensing -- nothing to do with the Big Bang).
Point 9 is accurate, and is a strong argument in favor of the
Big Bang. Quasars would be seen at much greater redshifts if the
Universe was much older, as they are much brighter than the Big
Bang.
Point 10 is also accurate, and is a very strong argument for the
"inflationary model" model of the Big Bang which is favored by
astronomers.
4) The article
http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution
is very unfortunate. I will not bother to comment in detail on it
here, but suffice to say that it relies on word play, quotes out
of context and occasionally lies in an attempt to mislead the
reader into thinking that scientists are really stupid, and that
scientists have bothered to think things through!
The article
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html
is one I like a lot, as it combines good science with some
philosophy!
I hope these comments are useful! |
