Can we be so sure the Big Bang Model is accurate ?

[ElShamah]

http://creationwiki.org/Big_bang

Evidence Against

Age
Proponents of the Big Bang measure an age of 13.7 Gyrs by tracing back the expansion of the universe to an initial point. However, unless the universe has gravitational attraction exactly balanced against this expansion it will either collapse in a Big Crunch or expand too quickly for us to survive in it. The evidence shows that only with a young universe can this problem be resolved which flatly contradicts the Big Bang.
Alternative redshift mechanisms

Dr. Halton Arp and other astronomers have discovered evidence that the universe isn't expanding at all. Instead, their observations indicate that redshifts are likely due to other mechanisms such as atoms having variable mass. If the universe is not expanding then the Big Bang is completely falsified. The variation of mass also disproves radiometric dating since decay rates would change as the mass of protons and electrons changed. These exciting discoveries lead us to conclude that the naturalist assumptions about the age of the universe and its dynamical state are incorrect. In an effort to suppress this inevitability, the astronomical community has denied Dr. Arp telescope time.

Not enough antimatter

According to the Big Bang cosmology most evolutionists assume that there should be an exact counterpart to matter known as antimatter right down to the same mass. Each particle of antimatter is an exact copy of of its identical matter particle except that each antimatter particle has the opposite charge.[2]
These assumed predictions of the Big Bang have lost a lot of credibility because we have not found nearly the amount of antimatter in the universe that could be accepted under such a model.[3]
No plausible inflationary mechanism

Main Article: Cosmic inflation

The Big Bang hinges on a brief period of time called "inflation" during which the universe expanded exponentially. The only way that this can happen is if a hypothetical particle called the "inflaton" by theorists exists. This particle must have the properties of certain particles observed in physics laboratories called "zero spin". However, unlike particles observed with this characteristic, the inflaton must have a property that has never been observed: it must experience a very peculiar potential energy character that slowly decays. Such a feature has never been observed in any laboratory.
Ad hoc reliance on "quantum fluctuations"

In order to account for the differences in the density field of the universe, atheistic cosmologists utilize the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) to provide "variations" in their conception of an inflationary universe. Aside from this assumption relying on theories of quantum gravity which have not been developed, there is no way in which an "uncertainty" which is a statistical measure can account for a real physical overdensity or underdensity. These overdensities and underdensities are fundamentally required in order to explain the filaments, walls, and voids in the universe we see today, but the best that the Big Bang proponents can do is claim that there were "quantum fluctuations" without explaining the mechanism for their formation beyond a simple hand-waving appeal to "randomness".
Quantum gravity and the paradoxical singularity

For nearly 100 years, scientists and mathematicians have been trying without success to combine the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics together into a coherent theory of quantum gravity. This is a requirement for explaining how a Big Bang could have occurred. They have been unable to do so, despite the supposedly smartest minds in the world working on the problem. Instead, proponents of the Big Bang believe that a physically impossible "singularity" with infinite density, pressure, and temperature was the primal state of the universe: an impossibility that defies modeling. Instead of acknowledging this limitation of their theories, atheistic cosmologists prefer to use the paradox as the fundamental feature of the Big Bang: a universe in a single point that has no size or temporality. Rather than admit their inability to create a model that has any kind of physical meaning whatsoever, the atheistic cosmologists insist that their ideas that are not based on any coherent or consistent theory are correct.
The vacuum is not a vacuum contradiction

Most of the universe is empty space: a vacuum which is defined as a volume containing no particles, force fields, nor waves. By definition a vacuum has no energy. However, the Big Bang theory requires both in its early phases and in its later phases that the vacuum must have some energy (an obvious contradiction). This "vacuum energy density" is an obvious flaw with the theory because it has never been observed in laboratory experiments, and even theorists who believe in its existence cannot decide what its particular characteristics are. When theorists do try to calculate how much of the hypothetical energy should be in the vacuum, they derive a number that is at least one googol (10100) times too large. The other problem is that the two different phases of the Big Bang where energy of the vacuum is not zero have fundamentally completely different sizes of hypothetical energy, so there isn't just one vacuum energy that the naturalists need to account for, there are two. These artificial creations of naturalist astronomers are clung to in spite of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that the energy of the vacuum is zero and that the Big Bang is incorrect.
Electromagnetic forces unaccounted for
Naturalist astronomers assume that gravity is the dominant force in the universe driving the dynamics of the cosmos. However, the universe is mostly plasma which reacts strongly with electromagnetism. The Big Bang does not take this additional force into consideration.

Too complex, too early

The universe has too many large structures such as interspersed walls and voids, to be created in 10-20 billion years. We know the rate of expansion, thus we can get a rough estimate on how long it would take for them to form. Some have proposed that the speeds of galaxies were much faster in the past by means of some sort of viscosity of space, but this is nothing more then wishful thinking. Also, in order for these to form, it would take about 100 billion years.
Not enough helium or lithium
Newer observations have found that there is only 10 per cent of the deuterium present than was previously believed. This would mean that there should be much more helium and lithium around than we actually see. But many Big Bang enthusiasts claim that the amount of helium is a proof.
Too many heavy elements
The Big bang only allows for the production of the lightest elements on the periodic table. However, our very existence is predicated on a concentration of heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. The oldest stars observed in the cosmos contain these heavier elements as well meaning that they had to be around since the very beginning of our universe. The Big Bang provides no explanation for where these elements originate.

The universe isn't homogeneous enough

In the year 2000, a survey of the red-shift found that it has an inhomogeneous distribution to a scale of at least 200 Mpc. This shows that there are no trends toward homogeneity even on scales up to 1000 Mpc. The Big Bang requires large-scale homogeneity.
Too much energy
The conservation of energy demands that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. In a naturalistic universe there would therefore be no source for the energy seen in our universe. The Big Bang is just a placeholder for an extreme violation of this fundamental physical principle.
Too much angular momentum
Everything in the universe is spinning with angular momentum. However, the conservation of angular momentum demands that angular momentum cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, similar to the energy problem above there must be a source for the angular momentum in our universe that cannot be accounted for by naturalistic theories.

[Canuckster1127]

This is 100% cut and paste and adds nothing to the conversation. It's fine to reference other pages and link to them when they are relevant to a conversation but this is not a conversation. Do you have a question or a point you wish to make?

[Kristoffer]

Yes but of course the "creationwiki" is not going to be vary favourable about the big bang model...

Why not have a additional source that is pro-big bang. Who banged? We really do not know about time before the big bang, its kind of a mystery. But mysteries are fun, the point is to have some curiosity and try and figure out what actually happened and is happening. Quite a lot of absolutely exciting stuff to be sure.

If you have killed your curiosity then that is a reason for me to mourn.

as atoms having variable mass.

Did they mention that the difference is almost near enough negligible?

[ElShamah]

i have started to examine this issue based on the recent information, that the farthest galaxies known to us have a blue shift, which indicates, these galaxies do not move farther away, but closer to us.
If that is the case, the universe would not expand.

[Kristoffer]

But some galaxies are moving towards us, Like the Galaxia Androméda which is our nearest, galactic "neighbour" that will actually collide and merge with the milky way in a fairly short period of time at least on the cosmological time scale, which of course actually means a extremely long almost impossible to comprehend amount of time if you put it into human terms. (gigayears)


Yep, that's our next door neighbour Maybe we should give them a knock?

I really think the vastness of even just our own galaxy should make you have a double take, is all of this JUST for human beings...or is there someone else out there? I would really wish to be optimistic and think that intelligent life generally either spontaneously Destroys itself or grows into a Benign wonderful thing. It is better to imagine the universe full of forces for Good rather than Races which just seek to expand and destroy everything.

I think that you cannot compare the Big Bang to a Regular explosion, it is not really even an explosion it is a Event in the early period of the universe tracing back from now. If their is some blue shift then it does not immediately disprove the theory, it could even articulate certain changes into the theory...Enhancing our understanding and change is what science is supposed to do well, we find things wrong with a particular scientific model and then incorporate improvements that build up over time leading to a more accurate picture of our universe that is lived in by us.