Rebuttal to "Ten Problems Against the Big Bang"1
by Rich Deem





Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models

This statement is blatantly false. The static universe model is accepted by virtually no cosmologists or astronomers, since it fails to correctly predict what the universe should be like. In particular, it would predict that galaxies would be in all stages of development – forming, young, middle age, and old. However, the universe contains only middle-age galaxies. There are no old galaxies, and the only young galaxies we see are those that are 10-13 billion light years away –at a time that was only 0.5 billion years after the Big Bang event.


The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

Another false statement. The variation in background radiation is independent of stars or galaxy clusters within our universe. It is extremely even – something one would predict from an expansion that began 14 billion years ago. The variation in background radiation is only 0.00001°K – the exact amount predicted by the Hot Big Bang model. This variation represents the large-scale structure of the universe only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.


Element-abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

The overall prediction of element abundance is exactly what would be expected from the Big Bang. Immediately after the quarks and antiquarks combine to annihilate each other, atomic nuclei form (hydrogen) and for 3 minutes, the fireball remained hot enough to support nuclear fusion, which formed the 25% helium that we see in the stars today. In local areas, the abundance of elements is different from that predicted from the Big Bang. It is precisely because God has provided a way for heavier elements to form that we are alive today. The Sun and our Solar System formed late in the history of the universe, and so contain the remnants of heavy elements formed during multiple supernova events within our galaxy.


The universe has too much large-scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

The amount of matter – both baryonic and dark matter – is sufficient to account for the large-scale structure of the universe.


The average luminosity of quasar must decrease in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

Since quasars have a very short lifespan (a few billion years at most), they would all have the same apparent brightness because they would be all roughly the same age. All quasars have large redshift values, since they were all formed over 5 billion years ago.


The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

This appeared to be true a few years ago. However, recent measurements have indicated that the Hubble constant is smaller than originally thought (making the universe older) and the ages of globular clusters younger than previously thought. The results of these studies are shown in the table below from a study published in Science.


The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

The motions of the galaxies are exactly what are predicted from the Big Bang. The farther galaxies are receding at a higher rate than those that are nearer. The relationship is extremely linear (very little deviation).


Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

At least four different scientific techniques have confirmed the presence of large amounts of cold dark matter in the universe. For a detailed description of these studies, see Dr. Ross’ book, The Creator and the Cosmos.


The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

Recent pictures from the Hubble Deep Field have revealed galaxies when they were forming – over 14 billion years ago. The light that is reaching us now is 14 billion years old, and, as such, shows no evidence of evolution, since we are looking back in time, and can see even before true galaxies were formed. Quasars are formed when two galaxies collide and their combined gases ignite at the center of one of the galaxies. Since galaxy collisions were much more common at the beginning of the universe, most quasars were formed then. Since they burn so intensely, they do not burn for long. When we look at the universe we see quasars only at distances equivalent to less than 50% of the age of the universe, back to about 10% of the age of the universe. We don’t see quasars older than 50% of the age of the universe, because after that time, they ceased to exist (we only see them now because of the time it took the light to reach us). Likewise, we don’t see quasars earlier than 10% of the current age of the universe, because galaxies had not completely formed before that time. Therefore, we would expect to see protogalaxies and newly formed galaxies with redshifts greater than those of quasars. The result is not inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology, but is, in fact, predicted by it.


If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

This is true, and a subject of concern for atheists. The extreme fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the exact size of the universe is such that it is virtually impossible for the universe to have formed by chance. Rather than disprove the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests a level of design not possible by chance. Many atheists reject the Big Bang because the level of design suggests the intervention of a Divine Creator.


Age of the Universe2


Hubble constant

Age of universe
(billions of years)



50 ± 2

13.8 Spergel3


58 ± 8



Gravitational lensing

64 ± 13



62 ± 7



HST Cepheids

73 ± 11



Expanding photosphere

73 ± 7




Stellar Ages2


(billions of years)


Globular Clusters

11.5 ± 1.3


12.6 ± 1.5


12 ± 2


White dwarfs



8 ± 1.5


References Top of page

  1. Van Flandern, Tom. 1997. Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang. Meta Research Bulletin 6:64. (Bulletin address: P.O. box 15186, Chevy Chase, MD 20825-5186.)
  2. Watson, A. 1998. Cosmology: The Universe Shows Its Age. Science 279: 981-983.
  3. D. N. Spergel, R. Bean, O. Doré, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, E. Komatsu, L. Page, H. V. Peiris, L. Verde, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, N. Odegard, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, E. L. Wright. 2007. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology. Astrophysics arXiv:astro-ph/0603449v2.
Last updated June 25, 2007


Rich's Blog