Welcome to Episode 8 of Foundations Restored, a Catholic Perspective on Origins.
I'm your host Keith Jones.
In this episode we will explain that the so-called Big Bang Model and other naturalistic explanations
of the origin of the universe fail from a scientific perspective.
The Big Bang Model fails when critically evaluated, but it is nevertheless propped up by a scientific
establishment that is philosophically opposed to considering the alternative revealed in
Genesis 1, that the universe was specially created by God through supernatural means,
making the origin of the universe a subject for historical theology and not for natural
science.
As with biological evolution, the failure of the Big Bang Model is apparent in the scientific
literature, yet it is taught as a fact to unsuspecting students, including seminarians,
who then wrongly believe that they must choose between faith and science.
Unfortunately, many of these students follow the so-called assured conclusions of modern
science and come to doubt many more aspects of the faith or even reject the faith altogether.
Our hope is that you will come to see the reality that the opposition to the testimony
of sacred scripture on cosmic origins is rooted not in valid scientific studies, but
in an underlying rationalism that continues to destroy the faith of millions.
Since the beginning of the so-called Enlightenment in the 17th century, the mindset of Western
society has been impacted by a secular ideology masquerading in the garb of a physics-based
science, the effect of which has been profound.
It is as if a new race of mankind had emerged, a people no longer capable of intuiting the
sacred and the supernatural.
And whereas the Catholic Church has been engaged from the start in combating this atheistic
onslaught, notably in the anti-modernist movement that emerged in the latter half of
the 19th century, a visible shift triggered by the Second Vatican Council has caused segments
of the faithful, including high spokesmen of the Church, to fall victim to the proffered
scientific premises, resulting in rampant confusion and apostasy.
One of the most pernicious of these touted discoveries is the astrophysical cosmology
known as the Big Bang Theory, which stipulates that the universe originated in an explosion
some 13.8 billion years ago and has been flying apart ever since.
What renders this stipulation well-nigh irresistible is the fact that it is supposedly based upon
Einsteinian physics, which, again supposedly, is founded upon the most rigorous scientific
grounds.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that this doctrine has been accepted by leading spokesmen
of the Catholic Church.
Yet the fact remains that inasmuch as Big Bang cosmology contradicts Catholic doctrine
radically, beginning with the opening verse of Genesis, as these have been understood
in Catholic tradition since apostolic times, the impact of this scientific innovation upon
the Catholic faith community as a whole cannot but be disastrous.
In this episode, we will explain the following about the cosmos and its history.
First, the universe is finely tuned, meaning that it has all the appearance of purposeful
design, claiming that the observed organization and fine-tuning occurred through natural processes
and from chaos defies common sense and, from a scientific perspective, violates the second
law of thermodynamics.
Second, a large portion of this episode will involve a discussion of the Big Bang model
of cosmic origins.
Although this model is widely viewed by non-specialists, including many Catholic clergy, seminary teachers
and apologists, as providing a sound explanation of how the universe came into being, the model
is contradicted by many observed phenomena and is maintained only through a patchwork
of weak speculations that more closely resemble science fiction than valid hypotheses.
Perhaps this is why, as we will see, many scientists have denounced the Big Bang model
and have called for an openness to consider alternative explanations.
Third, as the flaws of the Big Bang model are explained, viewers will also understand
that related claims of a universe that is 13.8 billion years old are also without a
solid scientific basis.
Fourth, after exposing the problems with the Big Bang and claims of an ancient universe,
viewers will see that the observable data are best explained by the historical and unchanged
position of the Church that the universe was specially created through supernatural means
during the six-day creation period.
In other words, naturalistic processes had nothing to do with the formation and organization
of the universe, as the laws of nature obviously did not predate the ex nihilo creation of
the natural universe and only began to fully operate at the end of the six-day creation
period.
The universe is our friendly and peaceful home.
We live on the Earth, surrounded by innumerable celestial bodies in space that, together with
the physical parameters on Earth, make our home uniquely favorable to support life.
It would take very little to turn the Earth into an environment hostile to life like all
other known heavenly bodies that are places of extreme temperatures, aridity, radiation,
poisonous atmospheres and natural disasters.
The Earth, in contrast, is like a magnificent garden covered with beautiful meadows and
forests, smooth mountains and fertile acres, calm lakes and wide oceans.
It is populated with all kinds of living creatures in water, on the ground and in the air.
Our biosphere is a highly ordered and fine-tuned system.
The complicated and very vulnerable biochemical processes in the cells of living creatures
can only work because most of the Earth's surface remains relatively stable at temperatures
between 0 and 40 degrees Celsius.
The Earth would be outside this narrow temperature window if the Sun were slightly closer or
slightly more distant, or if the thermal characteristics had varied by only a small amount at any time
in the past.
There are many more such properties that make the Earth unique in the vast universe, and
this uniqueness is now widely admitted even by prominent evolutionists, some of whom will
be quoted in this episode.
In addition to the narrow temperature window, the lengthy list of factors that make life
on Earth possible include the balanced presence of liquid water and dry land and the spacing
of the continents, as explained in the book Rare Earth.
The favorable composition of the Earth's atmosphere, with the proper concentrations
of oxygen and carbon dioxide, both of which are needed to support plant and animal life
and must be continually replenished.
The availability in the biosphere of the right amount and relative proportion of nitrogen,
carbon, and many other chemicals that are essential for life.
The Sun's size plus its reliable and stable output of energy that provide the luminosity
and temperature necessary to support Earth's extensive and varied ecosystems, as stated
in Rare Earth.
It is often said that the Sun is a typical star, but this is entirely untrue.
The mere fact that 95% of all stars are less massive than the Sun makes our planetary system
quite rare.
The most common stars in our galaxy are classified as M stars.
They have only 10% of the mass of the Sun.
Any planets orbiting them would have to be very close to stay warm enough to allow the
existence of liquid water on the surface.
However, as planets get closer to a star, the gravitational tidal effects from the star
induce synchronous rotation.
The same side of the planet always faces the star, and this leads to extreme cold on the
dark side and freezes out the atmosphere.
Such planets are not likely to be habitable.
Other finely tuned characteristics of the Earth include
The strength of the Earth's gravity that prevents the atmosphere from rapidly losing
water into space.
The Earth's just-right ozone layer that filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation and helps
moderate temperature swings.
The atmosphere's transparency that allows an optimal range of life-giving solar radiation
to reach the biosphere.
The water molecule's unique physical properties that include its higher density as a liquid
than a solid, allowing ice to float on water, which allows fish to survive under frozen
rivers and lakes.
Moreover, as explained in New Scientist
Water's life-giving properties exist on a knife edge.
It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous but incredibly delicate balance
of quantum forces.
We are used to the idea that the cosmos' physical constraints are fine-tuned for life.
Now it seems water's quantum forces can be added to this just-right list.
The incredible characteristics of the carbon atom, which is the fundamental constituent
of all biological creatures.
As Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle wrote
Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom.
Common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics
as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking
about in nature.
The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this
conclusion almost beyond question.
Plate tectonics, referring to the movement of the Earth's crust, that does not occur
on solar system planets.
The benefits of this feature include
First, plate tectonics promotes high levels of global biodiversity.
Second, plate tectonics provides our planet's global thermostat.
Third, plate tectonics is the dominant force that causes changes in sea level, which, it
turns out, are vital to the formation of minerals that keep the level of global carbon dioxide
and hence global temperature in check.
Fourth, plate tectonics created the continents.
Finally, plate tectonics makes possible one of Earth's most potent defense systems, its
magnetic field.
Without our magnetic field, Earth and its cargo of life would be bombarded by a potentially
lethal influx of cosmic radiation and solar wind might slowly eat away at the atmosphere
as it has on Mars.
The size and distance of the Moon that likely makes life possible because of the Moon's
gravitational impact on the Earth.
Again, from Rare Earth.
The likelihood that an Earth-like planet should have such a large Moon is small.
Of the many elements of the Rare Earth hypothesis, the presence of our huge Moon seems to be
one of the most important and yet most perplexing.
Without the large Moon, Earth would have had a very unstable atmosphere.
In short, numerous features of our universe seem fantastically fine-tuned for the existence
of biological life.
While some secular physicists and atheistic philosophers still hope that naturalistic
explanations may someday be found, many others are now coming to grips with the realization
that recent scientific studies, rather than providing satisfactory naturalistic explanations,
continue to add to a list of phenomena and fine-tuning in the universe that cannot be
explained through natural laws.
Such considerations ultimately drove Anthony Flew, the man who described himself as the
world's most notorious atheistic philosopher, to change his mind and acknowledge that the
evidence for design was so great as to make his faith in random chance unreasonable.
In his book, There is a God, Flew explains that in his search for truth,
Three domains of scientific inquiry have been especially important for me.
How did the laws of nature come to be?
The second is, how did life as a phenomenon originate from non-life?
And the third, how did the universe come into existence?
Of course, natural science offers multiple naturalistic hypotheses to answer Flew's
questions.
But unlike most students and teachers, Flew had performed sufficient study to know that
the naturalistic explanations were lacking.
This honest assessment of the evidence, rather than the blind acceptance of what is taught
in most schools and even in seminaries, ultimately drove him to the following conclusion.
It's time for me to lay my cards on the table.
I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence.
I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called
the mind of God.
When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because
my paradigm remains.
We must follow the argument wherever it leads.
I have followed the argument where it has led me, and it has led me to accept the existence
of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient being.
With this background, we are led to one of the questions that Flew asked.
Is it possible that our finely tuned cosmic dwelling place is the result of a giant explosion
that self-organized only through the laws of nature?
Alternatively stated, are there physical processes by which an expanding chaotic hotspot called
the Big Bang could evolve over billions of years the ordered and peaceful place in which
we are living?
Natural science itself tells us that it is impossible for a finely tuned universe to
emerge from a Big Bang.
This is due to one of its most fundamental laws, which is called second law of thermodynamics,
or the law of entropy.
This law confirms our day-to-day experience and states that all physical and chemical
reactions can only proceed from order to disorder and never vice versa.
This fundamental law completely contradicts the Big Bang hypothesis in which the universe's
entropy or disorder was initially at a maximum and then is claimed to have somehow decreased
by self-organization through natural processes.
Since entropy or disorder can only have increased since the universe first came into existence,
the highly ordered universe and solar system now observed must have been highly ordered
from the beginning.
This is a strong argument against cosmic evolution and the chaotic Big Bang event.
We will return to a more thorough discussion of the second law of thermodynamics later
in this episode and defend our position against the so-called open systems objection.
For now, we will provide some additional background about the Big Bang model.
The originator of Big Bang cosmology was the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre.
In the first half of the 20th century, he proposed the idea that the universe is not
static or stationary.
Instead, he said space is expanding at a constant velocity and in all directions.
According to this idea, each point of the universe would be a center of a cosmic expansion.
In much the same way that a dot on the two-dimensional surface of an air balloon is a center of two-dimensional
expansion when the balloon is blown up.
Father Lemaitre argued that such an expansion has implications about the past.
Namely, the further back in time one looks, the smaller were the distances between galaxies
and stars.
If this extrapolation is extended to the most distant past, there would have been a time
when all the matter of the universe was compressed into a single point, which Father Lemaitre
called a unique quantum.
This concept was announced in 1931, when Father Lemaitre published an article in the
journal Nature, entitled, The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum
Theory.
He wrote,
If we go back in the course of time, we must find fewer and fewer quanta, until we find
all the energy of the universe packed in a few or even in a unique quantum.
According to the Big Bang model, this unique quantum, or primeval atom, somehow exploded.
The universe came into being, and the matter in the explosion gradually evolved into today's
universe.
This explosion would have initially occurred at an enormously rapid rate, faster than the
speed of light, and is referred to as cosmic inflation.
During the brief period of inflation, the expansion of the universe is said to have
settled down and occurred at a steady rate, such that the recession velocity between any
two galaxies is proportional to their distance.
Closely associated with the idea of the Big Bang is the notion that the universe is billions
of years old.
In fact, once a Big Bang cosmology is assumed, it is a quick exercise to arrive at an apparent
age of the universe, based on a few key assumptions, including the assumption that the universe,
or space itself, has expanded at a constant rate.
If this assumption holds, then the age of the universe can be estimated by applying
the basic law of linear motion, which has the following form.
Distance equals velocity times travel time.
The distance here refers to the distance of any two stars or galaxies, and velocity is
the speed with which they are receding from each other.
Again, by assuming a constant velocity, a linear motion of the universe's expansion,
and a simple correction for a so-called gravity reduction factor of typically two-thirds due
to assumed temporal variations of the Hubble constant, the travel time of any star, since
its origin in the early universe, would be given by distance divided by velocity.
Based on unproven interpretations of redshifts and faintnesses as being due to velocities
and distances, all galaxies show a similar quotient of velocity divided by distance,
which is called the Hubble constant.
Therefore, for any star or galaxy, the simple calculation of its travel time, the quotient
of distance divided by velocity, is the same, and this is interpreted as the age of the
universe, which is reported to be 13.8 billion years.
One way to think of this estimated age is to consider that if we know the expanse of
the universe, and assume it has always expanded at a constant rate, then we should be able
to play the tape backwards, so to speak.
And we could calculate that the day before, the universe was just a little smaller, and
the day before that, it was even a little bit smaller yet.
Following this process, as we look further and further back in time, the universe would
have been continually smaller and smaller.
In fact, based on an assumed constant rate of expansion, we can determine how long ago
the universe would have been contained in a single, unique quantum if the Big Bang theory
were true.
Using our balloon example, this process is very much like having an air leak in an inflated
balloon.
If we know the rate at which the air escapes, and if we know the size of the balloon, we
can determine when the balloon would have been fully deflated as long as the rate of
leakage has been constant.
In this framework, another common objection against the biblical chronology is this.
How can the universe be less than 10,000 years old, when many stars are so far away that
their light takes billions of years to reach us here on Earth?
Two supposedly strong pieces of evidence are routinely cited as support for the Big
Bang theory.
The first evidence is called redshift.
Redshift refers to the fact that if light passes through a prism, and this includes
light coming from distant galaxies, the different light frequencies that comprise the light
beam are separated.
One can also observe small dark zones between the colors that are called absorption lines.
These lines can also be obtained in the laboratory when light passes through gases that absorb
certain light frequencies.
The frequencies of these absorption lines have certain characteristics for particular
chemical elements.
When one compares the spectral position of the absorption lines coming from starlight
with the lines coming from laboratory light, it is seen that the results are not identical.
The lines coming from the cosmic light are almost always shifted towards lower frequencies
and therefore towards the color red.
In the framework of the Big Bang theory, this phenomenon has been interpreted as a type
of Doppler effect caused by a receding movement of the stars, similar to the shifting to lower
frequencies of a police car siren moving away from the listener.
Therefore, the standard interpretation of the redshift is that the universe is expanding
at a rapid rate.
The second evidence, often given in favor of the Big Bang model, is the observation
of what is called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
It is claimed that the initial Big Bang produced a sphere filled with hot radiation.
During the subsequent expansion of space, this radiation was diluted and therefore its
temperature decreased.
The residue of this would be a cold radiation coming from all directions of the universe.
Based on the premise that the Big Bang is true, the existence of such a Cosmic Microwave
Background had been predicted by a number of scientists, including Ralph Alpha and Robert
Herman, who, writing in Nature in 1948, expected there to be a temperature of 5 degrees Kelvin,
which is minus 450.67 Fahrenheit.
Seventeen years later, Cosmic Microwave Background was actually discovered and its temperature
was measured to be 2.73 Kelvin.
When faced with a naturalistic explanation of origins that appears to conflict with sacred
scripture and historical church teachings, it is important to critically evaluate background
assumptions in order to understand whether the evidence presented carries any weight.
As Catholics, we would expect a harmony between faith and science and we must realize that
as with Darwinian evolution, false or speculative claims represented as very sound in the domain
of cosmology can give the false appearance that modern science has somehow exposed sacred
scripture or the views of the church fathers as naive beliefs.
In this segment, we will discuss several observations that suggest the Big Bang theory is not a
viable model.
Before we begin this discussion, however, it is important to point out that the perceived
problems with the Big Bang model are widely discussed in the scientific literature and,
in fact, a growing number of cosmologists have dismissed the concept altogether, most
notably in the journal New Scientist, a group of 33 cosmologists published an open letter
to the scientific community in May of 2004 to express their doubts about the standard
model.
The statement included the following.
The Big Bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have
never observed.
Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent examples.
Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the Big Bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted
as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation.
It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the Big Bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
What is more, the Big Bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently
been validated by observation.
The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively
fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters.
An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.
Whereas Richard Feynman could say that science is the culture of doubt, in cosmology today
doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they
have something negative to say about the standard Big Bang model.
Those who doubt the Big Bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Reflecting upon this statement, it appears that highly trained scientists are aware of
a failure of the Big Bang theory, but this somehow fails to be mentioned in material
aimed at high school, college, and even seminary students.
In the remainder of this episode, we will now explain why so many cosmologists doubt
the Big Bang model.
The first problem with the Big Bang hypothesis emerges at the very beginning.
Recall that the concept involves the notion that a dense primeval atom somehow contained
all the matter of the universe and then exploded.
But this scenario fails to address multiple and basic questions about this single quantum
because science cannot provide answers to the following.
1.
Where did the single quantum reside if the universe began with the Big Bang?
2.
How did the quantum come into being?
Was it an effect without a cause?
3.
If it had a cause, would it not have been a supernatural cause since the laws of nature
did not exist before the Big Bang that brought the universe into being?
4.
If a supernatural cause was involved, doesn't it expose the Big Bang as a failed naturalistic
theory in merely a rationalistic account that, to rephrase Pascal's criticism of Descartes,
requires God to flip the switch and then walk away?
Again, little time is usually spent discussing this part of the story because science has
no answers to these questions.
5.
The notion that cosmic microwave background radiation supports the Big Bang model is incorrect
for a number of reasons.
The almost perfect homogeneity of radiation across the universe is one such observation
that contradicts predictions of the Big Bang hypothesis.
The temperature distribution of this radiation is so evenly spread across the universe that
the temperature fluctuation in all directions is only one thirty millionth of one degree
Kelvin.
This uniform distribution leads to a difficulty for the Big Bang scenario because it is known
that temperature differences must have existed in an early universe formed by the Big Bang
in order to account for the clustering or agglomeration of galaxies.
The model thus predicted that there would be a hot and cold spot in the universe right
after the Big Bang.
The thermal equilibrium that is observed would have only been reached as a result of heat
radiation traveling from one side of the universe to the other side, with this process continuing
until all temperature differences had been essentially balanced.
However, light and therefore heat radiation could only start to travel freely in space
when the universe had cooled down sufficiently so that the light-disturbing electrons were
captured by protons.
This is calculated to have happened 380,000 years after the initial Big Bang.
On the other hand, the calculations show that at this time the universe would already have
been too large for light to travel from one side to the other one.
Thus, equal temperature in the microwave background would not be observed today.
The alternative could only be that thermal equilibrium was produced much earlier, less
than 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang.
That means a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.
When the universe could have been so small that the hot and cold regions of space could
have been in thermal contact and equalized.
However, this implies another difficulty.
The mass of the universe at such a small size would have been so dense that it could never
have grown to the big size observed today.
Gravity would have held all of it together and prevented its large-scale expansion.
As a way to solve these enormous difficulties, so-called inflation theory was developed in
1979 by theoretical physicist Alan Guth and others.
Guth imagined that after the initial 10-36 seconds of the expanding cosmos, there suddenly
was an exceptional, ultra-fast acceleration process, much faster than the speed of light.
It should have lasted for roughly 10-32 seconds, blowing up the cosmos to a size of about 10
meters.
After that, the expansion continued with its initial slower rate that it had before inflation
took place.
Once the universe was inflated to this size, Lemaitre's universe can now continue its
evolution without imploding.
Since there is no evidence that inflation through natural processes ever occurred, inflation
theory is clearly a tale invented to salvage a naturalistic theory.
Inflation theory is a concept that cannot be directly measured and observed, and its
only purpose is to help prop up a problematic Big Bang model.
There are additional problems with the Big Bang scenario.
According to the calculations, the galaxies should not be distributed in such huge ordered
structures or clusters across the cosmos as we observe them.
There is too much lumpiness in structure compared to predictions of the Big Bang model, which
predicts a dispersed distribution of galaxies.
Instead of giving up the model at this point, another theoretical fix was employed.
It was suggested that there must be a massive amount of matter that provides the necessary
gravity for the visible clustering of galaxies.
This mysterious matter, which has never been observed or measured, is called dark matter.
However, the addition of this dark matter led to another problem.
The strength of the gravitational forces produced by the dark matter would mean that the universe
could not expand at the required rate suggested by redshift.
In fact, according to the calculations, the amount of dark matter required to solve the
ordered arrangement of the galaxies would require the cosmos to be less than 8 billion
years old, which disagrees with the 13.8 billion years suggested by the common redshift interpretation.
How was this discrepancy overcome?
It required the introduction of another, unknown and invisible component of the universe that
was given the name of dark energy, as it is supposed to lie outside the electromagnetic
spectrum and cannot be detected in any physical or empirical way.
Only with this hypothetical energy is it possible to calculate the expansion of the universe
in a way that it shows an age of 13.8 billion years.
But neither dark matter nor dark energy can be detected directly or even indirectly.
They are not observable or measurable.
They are only inferred because they are required by the model they were created to support.
The essential assumption behind the conclusion that the universe is 13.8 billion years old
is the idea that the velocity of the assumed star movement in the universe has been the
same for billions of years, other than the observed initial inflation needed to save
the Big Bang model.
In other words, the dating of the universe is absolutely dependent upon the rationalistic
presupposition foretold in sacred scripture that all things have continued as they were
from the beginning of creation.
But viewers should understand that there is no known way to prove this extreme extrapolation
scientifically.
In fact, there is now widely accepted scientific evidence that the rate of expansion is not
constant.
In 1998, an accelerated expansion was reported by two independent projects, the Supernova
Cosmology Project and the Hi-Z Supernova Search Team, both of which used distant supernova
to determine acceleration by the associated redshifts.
They concluded that the universe appears not only to be expanding, but to be expanding
at an increasing rate over time.
This is not what was predicted from the Big Bang hypothesis.
Cosmologists had expected that the expansion would be decelerating as a result of the gravitational
attraction of the matter in the universe.
The solution to this contradiction between theory and observation was to again invoke
the unknown and unmeasured force called dark energy to explain an inconsistency with the
Big Bang model.
Not only is this problematic from an explanatory perspective, but the conclusion that the universe
is expanding at an increasing rate completely invalidates the assumption needed to accurately
date the universe, namely that the expansion has occurred at a steady rate.
Therefore, the reported age value of 13.8 billion years cannot be considered reliable.
Additional problems with the Big Bang model are suggested by recent observations of the
cosmic microwave background.
Another Cosmos by Thomas Le Pelletier of Oxford University and Jean-Marc Bonnet-Vidot of the
French Commissariat of Nuclear Energy presents the views of several astrophysicists about
problematic arguments given as proof for the Big Bang model.
One of the interesting points is that the microwave background radiation can be explained
in other ways that are not associated with the Big Bang, as can redshift.
Alternative explanations for microwave background radiation have been known for nearly 100 years.
For example, as early as 1926, Sir Arthur Eddington predicted the existence of cosmic
microwave radiation.
He came to this conclusion not from a cosmic evolution model, but from studying the energy
associated with star radiation.
From this, he calculated that the temperature or radiation in the empty space between the
stars must be at 3.2 degrees Kelvin.
This prediction was much closer to the measured value of 2.7 degrees Kelvin than the value
based on the Big Bang assumption that, in fact, is off by more than 80% of the true
value.
As another example, in the same year of 1926, Eric Regener started from the energy distribution
of cosmic particles, and he concluded that a cosmic microwave radiation must exist.
His model led him to a predicted temperature of 2.8 degrees Kelvin.
A third prediction was made by Fred Hoyle in 1964.
Based on the observable helium in space, which he interpreted as a product from strongly
exothermic hydrogen fusion reactions, he predicted a resulting cosmic background temperature
of 2.78 degrees Kelvin.
Only a 0.05 degrees Kelvin difference from the real value of the radiation which was
discovered one year later.
These alternative explanations require additional efforts to explain how the distribution of
the frequencies of the microwave background turned into the perfect blackbody radiation
spectrum observed, for example, by a particular kind of interstellar dust.
The Big Bang model is superior in this regard, because it predicts a blackbody spectrum without
any additional frequency transformation.
Nevertheless, in summary, the existence of background radiation does not per se prove
a Big Bang or any other particular model of cosmic origins.
As physicist Bonnet-Bidot explains…
Due to the lack of these basic confirmations, the cosmological character of the background
radiation cannot be considered as proven today.
Because of its very weak energy, it can be produced by a very large range of physical
processes.
There may also be alternative explanations for redshift that do not involve an expanding
universe.
As admitted by astronomer Edwin Hubble, who did much pioneering work on redshift observations,
there could be another cause for redshift, such as the loss of energy from light while
traveling.
As Hubble pointed out…
Light may lose energy during its journey through space, but if so, we do not yet know
how the loss can be explained.
Hubble's statement reflected the fact that the frequency of a light particle is proportional
to its energy, and thus a redshift would result from an energy reduction.
In 1942, Hubble pointed out that the Doppler redshift interpretation is not free from difficulties
with regard to other astronomical observations, writing…
Careful examination of possible sources of uncertainties suggests that the observations
can probably be accounted for if redshifts are not velocity shifts.
If redshifts are velocity shifts, then some vital factors must have been neglected in
the investigation.
And in another book, dating from 1942, Hubble writes on the conflict between the Big Bang
interpretation and the way the universe actually looks…
On the other hand, if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts are not primarily
velocity shifts, the picture is simple and plausible.
In his paper, The Problem of the Expanding Universe, from 1942, he once more concluded
that the Big Bang model is not capable of explaining what we see in the universe.
All the difficulties are transferred to the interpretation of redshifts, which cannot
then be the familiar velocity shifts.
An alternative explanation of redshifts has been provided by astronomer Giant Narlikar,
who proposed that the effective mass of distant atoms could be different from atoms of nearby
stars.
Since the frequency of light emitted by the atoms is correlated with their mass, it would
lead to the emission of lower light frequencies at greater distances.
In other words, to a redshift observation scaling with distance.
There is also another straightforward reason to doubt that the cosmological interpretation
of redshifts is true.
Harvard University published a diagram of the reported values during the last 100 years
for the Hubble constant, which is the quotient of velocity divided by distance for galaxies.
Its reciprocal is, as discussed previously, considered as the age of the universe after
a simple correction factor has been applied.
Since in the Big Bang model, space is expanding in the same way at every spot in the universe,
the values for Hubble constant should be roughly the same for all galaxies at every place.
This assumption is at the basis of the calculation for the age of the universe.
However, the published data reveals that there are large uncertainties in the measurement
of Hubble constant, which means that there are problems with the measurements of the
distances and velocities of galaxies.
Around 1930, values for H0 of approximately 500 km per second per megaparsec were reported.
A megaparsec is a standard astronomical distance unit and corresponds to 3.26 million light-years.
These values would correspond to an age of the universe of 2 billion years.
20 years later, these results were replaced by H0 values only half as large.
After another 20 years, these values were also deemed to be incorrect and were replaced
by only a value of 70 km per second per megaparsec.
This would correspond to the currently reported age of 13.8 billion years.
Even today, the published values from different measurements are not in agreement with one another.
As the value of 70 km per second per megaparsec is only the average of many competing measurement
results that differ from each other by up to 100%.
Some cosmologists have proposed that the observed discrepancies in the Hubble constant are due
to the individual rotational movements of galaxies being superimposed through the general
receding movement of galaxies.
However, this is now known not to be a dominant factor.
Therefore, if different measurements of velocity over distance lead to largely different results,
then there must be something wrong in the way how these velocities and distances have been derived.
Recall that the velocity is obtained by measuring redshift and treating it as a Doppler effect
coming from a receding movement of galaxies, and the distance is obtained by measuring
the faintness of a galaxy or under the unproven assumption that the loss of brightness only
has geometrical reasons.
To summarize, if Hubble's law is correct, all galaxies should show the same quotient
of velocity divided by distance.
But if observations show that different galaxies lead to different quotients of velocity divided
by distance, then either the interpretation of the redshift being due to the recessive
movement of stars is incorrect, or the faintness of the stars is being interpreted in the wrong
way, or both errors are occurring to a certain extent.
If the faintness of stars really displays the correct distances, then the redshift results
did not originate from space expansion, at least not entirely, but from something else.
If, on the other hand, the redshifts really reflect space expansion, the measured star
faintness is not only due to the distance of stars, but also due to something else,
for example, luminosity absorption by so-called grey dust.
Although there is ongoing discussion about unsolved problems of such alternative models
for the redshift, this discussion shows that there may well be other processes than space
expansion that account for the observations.
It is also clear that the Hubble constant and consequently the age of the universe are
based upon many unproven assumptions and vary widely even today.
Another issue that directly contradicts the predictions of the Big Bang hypothesis involves
observations from deep space, or the most remote portions of the universe.
One such prediction is that we should see evidence of cosmic evolution if we look deeply
into space.
This follows from the assumption that light coming from distant stars would need much
more time to reach us than light coming from closer stars.
Therefore, when we look at a star at the end of the visible universe, what reaches our
telescopes would be light sent out approximately 13 billion years ago.
This means that the light we see coming from large distances would have been emitted when
the star was still very young and had just come into existence.
This distant starlight should function as a snapshot in stellar time, giving us a picture
of what the star looked like at the time the light was emitted, and also a picture of what
happened at an early stage of the universe.
For nearby stars the situation is reversed.
The light that we see today from these stars would have been emitted more recently because
it would only have had to travel hundreds or thousands of years depending on the distance
of the star.
Until we could see it here on Earth.
Therefore, it should show us the events from the more recent past and at a later stage
in the supposed development of the stars or galaxies.
Under these circumstances, we should see distant galaxies in a much less evolved state than
nearby galaxies, but this is not the case.
An article in New Scientist quoted astronomer Eric Lerner on these faraway galaxies.
But there is a problem.
We don't see young galaxies, says Lerner.
We see old ones.
They have pretty much the same range of stars as present-day galaxies.
Richard Ellis from the California Institute of Technology published this expression of
astonishment when faced with the observations.
The real puzzle is that these galaxies seem to be already quite old when the universe
was only about 5% of its current age.
The situation with this cosmic fossil record is quite comparable to the geological fossil
record.
The timescale associated with the Big Bang hypothesis is not supported by the data suggesting
stasis or constancy throughout stellar history.
The data does not support notions of stellar evolution.
There is another very fundamental failure of the Big Bang hypothesis.
Just as attempts to explain the origin of life by natural processes have failed, so
all attempts to explain the origin of the first stars by natural processes have failed.
Star formation theories in vogue today are associated with the chaos of a quantum explosion.
The model speculates that the extremely hot universe expanded quickly through inflation
and then cooled down, allowing electrons to be captured by the nuclei of light elements.
This would have produced the first atoms, which in turn would have assembled into gas
nebulae.
These clouds would have contracted themselves due to the gravitational attraction of their
constituent molecules.
In this way, the accumulated matter should have become very dense and hot, ultimately
producing shining stars.
However, these ideas are in conflict with observed natural laws.
Specifically, the Big Bang theory of star formation conflicts with the general law of
gases, which determines that a gas contraction inevitably leads to an increasing gas pressure.
This pushes the gas molecules in a direction opposite from the direction that gravity would
pull the molecules, leading to their dispersion rather than to aggregation.
And since gas pressure is invariably much stronger than gravity, it is not clear how
star formation could ever occur by gas contraction.
The concept can be illustrated through an aerosol can.
When the trigger is pushed, the pressurized gas is released in the environment.
However, we will never observe gas re-entering the can.
The tiny amount of gravitational attraction between the molecules cannot provide the necessary
force to pressurize the can by itself.
The same is true for gases in a nebulae.
They can never contract themselves by their gravity because their own gas pressure induces
a much stronger outward movement.
This is why we see nebulae today instead of only stars.
In order to solve this basic problem, different solutions have been proposed.
For example, a supernova explosion could have produced an enormous pressure wave that contracted
a neighboring gas cloud to such an extent that the gas pressure repulsion was overcome
and the resultant molecules were so dense that gravitational forces could keep them
together as a star.
However, this proposition, even if it worked, does not resolve the fundamental problem of
the production of the first star because a supernova is an explosion of a pre-existing star.
So this explanation only removes the problem by replacing it with an identical precursor problem.
Another suggestion rests on the injection of cold particles into the gas nebulae.
This could have decreased the gas temperature sufficiently to cause contraction.
This cooling of gases does cause them to reduce in volume.
With the introduction of cold particles, it is possible that the pressure could have been
reduced to overcome the repulsion.
Yet, even if this scenario worked, it also cannot avoid the fact that the grains and
particles involved must have been produced beforehand in a pre-existing star.
Yet another suggestion is that two galaxies collided and this event compressed the nebulae
to such an extent that stars are formed.
However, once again, this hypothesis does not address the basic question of the origin
of the first star because it needs to start with galaxies which are assemblies of pre-existing stars.
Thus, this solution aggravates the problem thousands of millions of times over.
To summarize this issue, since the Big Bang hypothesis involves the beginning of a universe
that was filled only with gas long before any star existed and since there is no observed
or even theoretical process through which the gas could have spontaneously turned into stars,
the very existence of stars represents an insurmountable contradiction to the Big Bang idea.
In contrast to popular media, the scientific literature admits that cosmologists cannot
find a way to reconcile the Big Bang theory of star formation with the known laws of nature.
For example, the cosmology textbook of Ewa Nowotny states,
The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together
gravitationally to become a protostar is not known.
Martin Harwit admitted in a book review in Science Magazine,
The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.
And another science article confirmed that more than 80 years after the Big Bang cosmology had been introduced,
it is still in contradiction to natural scientific laws.
The origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.
Star Formation
Let us also understand that all naturalistic models of star formation are in conflict with the most fundamental natural law,
the second law of thermodynamics.
This law describes the inevitable flow of all natural processes,
which must always proceed from order to disorder, and never vice versa.
The entropy, or disorder, in the universe will always increase over time,
and changes in entropy can never be such that they produce a new kind of order which was not pre-existing in some way.
Related to star formation, the agglomeration of disordered gas molecules in the form of a star from a gas-filled universe
would mean a huge increase of order or decrease of entropy.
The same applies to the order of our beautiful Earth.
A fine-tuned arrangement of so many properties that make our home habitable cannot be the result of natural processes.
What physicist Joseph Holzschuh wrote on the theory of biological evolution can therefore be extended to the idea of cosmological evolution.
The second law of thermodynamics poses an insurmountable scientific barrier to evolution.
Sometimes an objection to this conclusion is raised, claiming that the constraints of thermodynamics are not valid for so-called open systems,
open means that matter and especially energy can be exchanged between the system gas molecules, or the Earth, and the surroundings, the empty space.
And indeed, there are processes in open systems that can apparently produce order from disorder,
like the formation of snowflakes from a water vapor cloud when energy is exported, meaning when the cloud is cooled down.
However, all such phenomena work only if there exists already an ordered structure, which is then only made visible by heating or cooling.
In the case of the snow crystals, it is the pre-existing ordered geometry of the atoms in the H2O molecules
and the particular kind of intermolecular force that holds them together,
which, upon cooling, inevitably causes the molecules to arrange themselves in the form of a six-fold symmetrical crystal structure.
The order of stars, the Earth, and biological structures, on the other hand, are not contained in the geometry of the underlying molecules.
Therefore, they do not belong to the open system exceptions.
Cooling or heating a universe by expansion cannot move the disordered gas molecules towards each other to form stars,
cannot turn chaotic element assemblies into our highly ordered Earth, and cannot generate biological organs,
no matter what kind of mechanism is supposed to accomplish the transformation and how much time would be at its disposal.
This is also true for the suggested process of mutation and selection, since it is a purely physical process.
The second law of thermodynamics is insurmountable for matter.
In addition to these fundamental objections, there are many more astronomical observations that contradict the Big Bang theory.
One such observation is the measured rotational speed of spiral galaxies.
The rotational speed of galaxies has been found to be so fast that the speed is not compatible with the long rotation time required by the cosmological standard theory.
The stars would long ago have been thrown outside the galaxy if the galaxy had really rotated at the observed speed for the assumed long ages under the Big Bang model.
This is commonly admitted in the scientific literature.
In order to account for that unexpected observation, cosmologists rely once more on the unobserved additional source of gravity called dark matter.
With the existence of massive amounts of extra matter, several times more than the observed matter of a spiral galaxy,
the gravitational force holding the galaxies together would be sufficiently strong to keep the stars from spinning off into space, even over the amount of time required by the Big Bang hypothesis.
But again, as with dark energy, the existence of dark matter has never been verified empirically.
Instead, it is hypothesized as an after-the-fact explanation for a phenomenon that does not fit a theory.
Over and over again, we see this kind of bad science in cosmology.
Instead of observing a material phenomenon and then explaining what it does, unobservable phenomena are invented in order to maintain a theory of origin that the material facts disprove.
Another failure of the Big Bang theory presented here is that it makes incorrect predictions about the amount of light elements such as lithium, deuterium, and helium that ought to exist in the universe.
The formation of these gases and the hot and dense fusion reactor of a quantum explosion is a key step in order to explain how all chemical elements came into existence.
Yet the hypothesis is in severe conflict with actual measurements showing the density of matter in the universe, derived from the measured abundances of deuterium, helium, and lithium.
It is 20 times lower than the density predicted by the Big Bang model.
Instead of concluding that George Lemaitre's idea is wrong, the theoretical physicists rely once more on the unknown object non-baryonic dark matter.
Non-baryonic means that this matter is not composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, the building blocks of all chemical elements including all gases, liquids, and solids that are around us and form our experience of nature.
Considering all observations that contradict the Big Bang model, modern cosmologists have to resort to a revised model in which 27% of the universe is dark matter and 68% is dark energy, thus positing that we live in a universe that is 95% unobservable by any scientific means.
But neither dark matter nor dark energy can be detected directly or even indirectly, only inferred because they are required by the model they are invoked to support.
In other words, cosmologists who want to explain the origin of 5% of the universe by natural processes have to introduce an additional 95% that they cannot verify even exists.
In a roundabout way, they are in agreement with the Catholic doctrine of creation. It is not possible to explain the origin of the universe by natural processes.
The Big Bang
Now the good news is that in recent years astrophysical observations have detected and subsequently verified beyond all possibility of doubt a global cosmic structure which disproves the Big Bang theory definitively, that is to say, once and for all.
Whether the leaders of the astrophysics community are prepared to admit the fact or not, the theory is now defunct.
For all its vaunted accomplishments and Nobel Prize discoveries, which now prove not to be real, it too has turned out at last to be no more than a godless ideology masquerading in scientific garb.
What then are these findings and why do they prove fatal to the theory? That is what I wish now to explain.
It is to be noted, first of all, that Einsteinian physics, that is to say, the Einsteinian deviation from the classical theory, is premised on the stipulation that the cosmos is bereft of design, namely of structures that cannot be explained in terms of random fluctuations.
Unacknowledged though it be, it is upon this ideological assumption, for which there is no scientific support at all, that Einstein's so-called principle of relativity, and thus Einsteinian physics at large, is actually based.
Now, in the case of Big Bang cosmology, that stipulation takes the form of the so-called Copernican, also termed cosmological principle, which affirms that when viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the cosmos proves to be perfectly uniform.
It is supposedly with the cosmos at large as with a volume of gas, whereas on a microscopic scale there are molecules moving at different speeds and in different directions, yet when viewed in the large, the gas is nonetheless homogeneous and fully specified by its temperature, pressure, and density.
Inasmuch, therefore, as Big Bang cosmology satisfies the aforesaid Copernican principle, the discovery of even a single large-scale structure, a structure that is, which does not conform to that principle, suffices to disprove the theory.
And this is precisely what has happened within the last decade.
Meticulous and incontrovertible observations carried out by a satellite, named after the physicist Max Planck, have revealed a global structure extending through the cosmos at large, a fact which flatly contradicts the Copernican principle.
End of the story.
But actually there is more, a great deal more.
Let me fill in the specifics.
What has been discovered is an electromagnetic radiation, identifiable by its spectrum, filling the cosmos at large, known as the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB.
Aficionados of Einsteinian cosmology regard it as a remnant of the universe some 300,000 years after the Big Bang.
In truth, however, it is this structure in the CMB which rigorously disproves that Einsteinian theory by the fact that it constitutes an axis, a great circle in fact, something which, most assuredly, cannot be explained away as the result of statistical fluctuations.
As we have said, the existence of that axis disproves Big Bang cosmology, period.
Yet there is more.
The most amazing fact of all, utterly devastating to the Einsteinians, is that this axis constitutes a circle within the ecliptic of our solar system.
That solar system, which was supposed to resemble a random flake of dust in relation to the cosmos as a whole, proves us to be special, so highly special, in fact, as to determine the global structure of the universe.
Nothing could be more antithetical, not only to Einsteinian physics, but indeed to post-Galilean astronomy at large.
This discovery of what astrophysicists have quite understandably dubbed the axis of evil actually points us back to the brink of pre-modern astronomy and signals thereby the end of what historians term the Enlightenment.
It is instructive to compare the failure of the Big Bang model with the failure of the supposed spontaneous origin of life.
The origin of life model starts from disordered molecules that, through a process of chemical selection, supposedly self-assembled into the highly organized structures of the first living cell.
Similarly, the origin of stars model starts from a universe filled only with disordered gas molecules, which by themselves supposedly form the ordered and stable stars.
The problem is that when we get into details, both of these models break down and violate fundamental observed laws of nature.
Ultimately, neither of them are viable theories and it is apparent that the two theories of origins are maintained by most of the academicians for philosophical reasons.
Origins simply must be explained naturalistically.
This is demanded by the philosophies of rationalism and naturalism that have tried to remove origins from the domain of historical theology and cannot relinquish control even though naturalistic models fail to explain origins.
Those Catholics and other theists who blindly accept that there is a sound basis for the conclusions of these theories, and who then rush to abandon the historical and unchanged teachings of the Church, do great harm to the true harmony of faith and natural science.
Because naturalistic models of origins depart from the truth in theology and in natural science, and open the doorway to a naturalistic worldview and the loss of faith that has become an epidemic over the past 60 years.
Those who compromise are, unintentionally, backing the rationalistic explanation of origins set forth by Descartes in 1637 that marked the fulfillment of St. Peter's prediction that in the end times, mocking men will come and say,
All things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation.
In other words, natural processes have been at work already from the very beginning and accomplished the origin of life and also the origin of the universe.
An important point to close with is that whenever a domain becomes dominated by rationalism, whether natural science, philosophy, or theology, that domain will eventually settle into the absurd because it is in denial of the truth.
In cosmology, as the failure of the Big Bang has become more and more difficult to ignore, and the odds against a random explosion leading to the observed universe have become so high as to defy belief,
naturalistic science has now entered into the completely absurd with the concept of a multiverse that is better described as science fiction than as authentic natural science.
The basic idea of a multiverse is that because the odds of a random Big Bang event leading to the universe that we observe, there must be a near infinite number of universes that cannot be detected.
The claim is that the existence of these universes increases the odds of a universe like our own coming into existence.
The argument goes on to say that the reason why we are observing this ordered universe and not one of the infinitely many disordered ones is because the ordered one is the only one which could be able to produce a conscious mind like ours.
Therefore, it is no wonder that we find ourselves in the only good universe.
However, this idea fails to answer two fundamental questions.
First, where did all the infinitely many universes come from? What should produce them and why?
Second, how could a conscious mind be produced by natural processes?
According to evolutionary theory, everything in biology only exists because natural selection has found it beneficial for survival.
Survival, however, means that matter has to react in a certain way. For example, a microbe has to move away from heat or other dangers.
All such reactions can be performed without feeling something consciously. An unconscious robot can perform the same acts.
Therefore, there is no material evolutionary benefit if a mind comes to existence, even if one repeated a molecular dice game in an infinity of universes.
Philosopher Antony Flew explains.
The postulation of multiple universes is a truly desperate alternative.
If the existence of one universe requires an explanation, multiple universes requires a much bigger explanation.
It seems a little like the case of a schoolboy whose teacher doesn't believe his dog ate his homework.
So he replaces the first version with the story that a pack of dogs, too many to count, ate his homework.
Due to the enormous difficulties of explaining the universe and rational beings through the evolution and the multiverse concept,
there is a growing body of scientific literature that concedes even an infinite number of universes would not give rise to the present universe.
And so, perhaps our universe simply exists in the imagination of an alien being.
This is a serious topic of discussion among theoretical physicists, and it shows just how committed to the denial of truth natural science has become.
Cosmologists spend considerable time discussing unobservable universes and alien imaginations that give everything the false appearance of reality.
But we cannot accept the possibility that the universe was created by the one true God out of nothing, as explained in sacred scripture.
Let us summarize the reasons why it is impossible for truth-seekers to follow the pathway of Big Bang naturalism.
First, the Big Bang model rests on the redshift of starlight and the microwave background radiation.
Both observations, however, can also be due to other physical processes, which have nothing to do with reality.
First, the Big Bang model rests on the redshift of starlight and the microwave background radiation.
Secondly, a number of observations contradict the predictions of the Big Bang theory.
This includes the rotation speed of the spiral galaxies, the acceleration of the assumed space expansion,
the almost perfect homogeneity of the microwave background, and the low density of matter in the universe.
To maintain the Big Bang model, these observations necessitate the introduction of incredible amounts of unobserved quantities, called dark matter and dark energy.
Thus, the model ultimately leads to the conclusion that, in order to explain the origin of the universe,
the observable portions of the universe must constitute only 5% of the entire universe,
while 95% of the universe consists of that which has never been observed or proven to exist,
and whose existence cannot be explained by known natural processes.
Thirdly, if the cosmological timescale were true, then the evidence demonstrates a pattern of stasis in galaxy development, instead of cosmic evolution over time.
Finally, the formation of stars from an initially gas-filled space and the formation of a habitable Earth from a cosmic chaos
both are excluded by the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy.
So, what are the reasons why the Big Bang model should not be accepted by faithful Catholics?
First, as Catholics, we cannot ignore the scientific counter-arguments just mentioned.
We are bound to intellectual honesty and objective truth in research.
Secondly, the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation teaches that the universe has been created instantaneously,
while the Big Bang model teaches that if God created the universe, it was only by progressive creation over billions of years.
The Big Bang model provides no reason or necessity to depart from the straightforward meaning of sacred scripture.
Furthermore, even if the Genesis days were interpreted as symbols for billions of years,
the creation of the planets before the creation of the sun, as Genesis informs us, could not be incorporated into such a metaphorical reading.
Moreover, while the Big Bang model holds that the Earth has appeared roughly 9 billion years after the stars,
holy scripture reveals that the Earth has been created before sun, moon and stars.
Even a symbolic reading of the creation days could not be reconciled with the Big Bang sequence.
Finally, if God created matter and natural laws in such a way that cosmic evolution took place,
in agreement with God's will and according to his plan,
it would mean that God gave matter the power to do something that only God can do, namely to create.
But St. Thomas Aquinas tells us this is impossible.
Providing matter with the power to create and overcome natural laws, like the second law of thermodynamics,
would, in effect, divinize matter by giving it supernatural qualities.
This view could and has led to the loss of the true faith by millions who have followed Théâtre de Jardin into the New Age cult of matter.
Even though it is a transgression of God's first commandment,
you shall have no other gods before me.
The word of God often reminds us that what distinguishes our God from the false gods of the pagans
is that the Lord is the one who has created heaven and earth,
and that nothing in the world, not even the universe itself, is God.
Therefore, we shall adore him alone and repent from our sins against him and our fellow man.
We are accountable for our actions, and no cleverly designed theories of rationalism and naturalism can change this reality.
Fortunately, those who believe may also receive God's forgiveness and enter eternity with the one true God
through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, through whom the entire universe has been made.
So, we can thankfully join the psalmist in Psalm 102, who wrote,
In the beginning, O Lord, thou foundest the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands.
They shall perish, but thou remainest, and all of them shall grow old like a garment.
And as a vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed.
But thou art always the selfsame, and thy years shall not fail.
The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be directed forever.
For more information, visit www.fema.org