“In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
- Terry Pratchett, British fantasy novelist

So assumes the (currently) most widely held origins theory as understood by the greatest minds in physics. It only gets better from there.

"'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing - no time, space matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which'" (Darling, 1996) everything came into existence.

Got that?

Oh, of course, a quantum fluctuation. I am not a scientist. I am not a physicist. I had enough trouble getting through high school physics, thank you very much. Once you start throwing words around like “quantum fluctuation,” most people take a step or two back and think, “Wow. I couldn’t possibly even hope to understand that process. What they’re saying must be true, no matter how extraordinary it sounds.”

I am not a physicist, but I can tell you a little fun fact about quantum fluctuations.

They are something.

And you don’t get something from nothing.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
- Romans 1:22

As fun as it is to take apart the actual event of the Big Bang, the problem with this theory goes beyond even this. We can start with common sense and say you don’t get something from nothing, even if you let it sit around for billions of years. But we can also continue to pick apart the model from there.

So let’s give the Big Bang model of origins the benefit of the doubt, at least for now. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it did happen.

Now what?

After the Big Bang, scientists say that the only thing that existed afterwards was gas. This gas was like the air we breathe, only it contained just the very smallest element: hydrogen.

This hydrogen gas, the only immediate by-product of the Big Bang, spent its first couple billion years just sort of floating around, not really accomplishing much of anything. But after a while, by chance interactions of atoms, pockets of slightly higher pressure gas started to form. The hydrogen gas kept compiling in this way until the gravitational force of the gas atoms overcame the gas’s natural tendency to spread away from high pressure areas, until it grew so large it imploded in on itself and became a star.

It’s really surprising that such a nonsensical idea has caught on with so many brilliant minds in physics. After all, anyone who has taken a high school physics course can spot the flaws in it. Scratch that – anyone who has studied air in elementary school can see problems.

I take that back – anyone with a general knowledge of reality and skills of observation can conclude, on their own, that the most widely held scientific theory of star origins is utterly and completely wrong.

Here is what the Big Bang’s model of star origins is essentially saying. Take a balloon and fill it with air. Don’t tie it; hold it shut afterwards between your fingers.

What you have here in your hands is a model of the first proto-star. Remember how our star origins theory says that the gas just sort of collapsed in on itself under high pressure? Well, what we have here is something like that: a pocket of air (gas) under high pressure.

A fundamental step of the scientific method is making a prediction based on your very own hypothesis. So, you tell me. When you let the balloon go, what do you expect to happen?

The Big Bang model of star origins would predict this: as soon as you un-pinch your fingers, air rushes into the balloon (a region of higher air pressure), such that, eventually, the gravitational force of the mass of air gets bigger and bigger until it implodes in on itself and becomes a star.

I’m guessing that doesn’t match your prediction.

In the universe I live in, air rushes away from high pressure regions. When I let my balloon go, air rushes out. The gravitational force of the air inside the balloon is not nearly enough to overcome the tendency of gases to spread out and reach the lowest pressure possible.

Now, there is a way to get such a vast amount of air in a very small area that gravity really does cause the air to implode in on itself. However, this unique circumstance requires a very unique event. Only the force of a supernova blast can get air to act in a way so deviant from our everyday experience of it.

Unfortunately for the Big Bang model, a supernova is an exploding star. I. e. you need a star to make a star. Just like you need chiral compounds to get chiral compounds*, you need an informed being to get information, and you need life to get life. There are so many things in this universe that just could never pop into existence on its own – and that includes the stars in the heavens.

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”
- Psalms 19:1

References:

Darling, David. (1996). On Creating Something from Nothing. New Scientist. 151:49.

*If that intrigues you, I highly recommend you check out Dr. McComb's article Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem With Chirality. Or, leave a comment and I'd be happy to ramble on about it a little. : P http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-hopes-you-dont-know-chemistry-prob…