Home / Science VS Evolution / PDF /Encyclopedia  /Pathlights Home / Bookstore


Scientists explain why the supposed primary "evidences" for the Big Bang are erroneous theories themselves. There never was a Big Bang, and stars cannot evolve from gas. Here are scientific facts to prove it. Evolutionary theory is a myth; creation science is correct. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENT: Scientists Speak about the Origin of Matter: 4

Quasars: Their existence ruins the speed theory
Conclusion: The Big Bang theory has been discredited

This material is excerpted from the book, ORIGIN OF MATTER.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Origin of Matter.


Quasars are unknown objects in outer space which emit powerful radio signals. They also have remarkably skewed redshifts. The tired light and gravitational redshift principles could explain the strong shift to the red; but, in order to protect their Big Bang theory, evolutionists declare that all observed shifts can only be caused by the speed theory.

But such an application causes serious problems, for it would make many quasars extremely distant, extremely bright, and traveling at astounding fast speeds away from us. "Inverse-square law: The fact that, under perfectly transparent conditions, an object's brightness is inversely proportional to the square of its distance. A star at two light-years is four times dimmer than it would be at one."—*Time-Life, Stars (1988), p. 137.

"It is difficult, even theoretically to construct a configuration of matter that fits the general characteristics of a QSS [quasar] and has so large a gravitational redshift."—George Abell, Exploration of the Universe (1973), p. 409.

"By the early 1980s, only one or two had been seen beyond a redshift of 3. There seemed to be a redshift limit beyond which quasars could not be seen . .

"Less than five years later, however, Pat Osmer would be among a host of observers vying for the distance record in the discovery of quasars. Between August 1986 and November 1989, ten quasars were found with redshifts greater than 4. Appropriately, Maarten Schmidt [discoverer of the first one] is a member of the team that has spotted half of them, influencing the most distant object ever seen—a quasar at redshift 4.73 [almost 500 percent!]. Discovered in late 1989, quasar PC 1158+4635 is receding at a rate equivalent to a distance of nearly 14 billion years.

" `If the age of the universe is 15 billion years [as predicted by the Big Bang theorists], this quasar was emitting light just over 1 billion years after the Big Bang,' says Donald Schneider of Princeton, a codiscoverer with Schmidt and fellow astronomer James Gun, `which places some serious constraints on theories of galaxy formation.' Suddenly, the theorists seemed to be running out of time for the standard schedule of events that were supposed to have led to the creation of galaxies. If those most distant quasars had somehow formed at an accelerated rate, they showed no sign of such behaviour. As Schmidt put it, `One of the interesting things about our redshift 4.73 quasar is how normal it is. Except for its great distance. It shows no significant differences from other quasars.' Debate continues as to the implications of these long-distance beacons, . . [and] perhaps, lend support to Arp's challenge."—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 68-69.

"The most surprising aspect of Tyson's discovery, though, is how quickly after the Big Bang stars seem to have started forming. From what scientists currently understand about the mechanisms of gravitational collapse, nebulous gases should have taken much longer than a few billion years to clump together into stellar bodies. As Tyson puts it, `I think these observations are beginning to constrain the theories.' "—*Op. cit., 61.

"Since the galactic distances are not obtainable [because astronomers only measure distances to galaxies by the speed theory of redshift, and refuse to consider other possibilities], there is no way of knowing if the redshift in their spectra might not have some gravitational component. Moreover, there is also no way to forge a redshift / distance measurement scale for galaxies since there are no known mass / luminosity or mass / distance relationships with which to calibrate it. Thus, we see that little is actually known about redshifts and their relationship to the mass or distance of a galaxy or quasar. Therefore, the contention that these are Doppler effects remains unprovable."—Vincent A. Ettari, "Critical Thoughts and Conjectures Concerning the Doppler Effect and the Concept of an Expanding Universe—Part 1," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988, p. 145.

"An atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated."—*Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1961 edition), pp. 130-131.

"A strong gravitational field at the source of light will cause a redshift."—*"A Quasar that's Far Away" in Science News, 110 (1976), p. 54.

"Some astronomers at once noted that the bigger the galaxy, [the larger the gravitational field] the bigger the redshift, and the greater the speed."—*R.A. Gallant, The Nature of the Universe (1966), p. 58.

"An object that goes faster than light is about as welcome to physical scientists as a real live ghost would be to the American Humanist Association. Yet there are at least three quasars that are flying away from each other at speeds greater than that of light. [!] The response of most astronomers is that it is just an appearance and must somehow be explained away. The most popular explanations to date seem a bit contrived, however . . the faster-than-light phenomena include apparent velocities up to 8c."—*"Computer enhanced Photographs of Galaxies," in Sky and Telescope 53 (1977), p. 1702. ["C" is the "Hubble Constant"—the speed of light; "8c" would be a speed eight times faster than the speed of light.]

"Some of this [quasar] material is extremely puzzling to astronomers, because it appears to be moving faster than light! According to Relativity Theory, light is the fastest-moving stuff in the universe. Thus the faster-than-light-quasars—or super-luminary quasars—shouldn't exist. But they do.

"It is thought that there is some illusion with these bizarre objects . . It may be an illusion, but its exact nature isn't yet understood.

"There are 30 or so known super-luminary quasars."—*Star Date radio broadcast, Tuesday, November 6, 1990.

"How can a branch of science stand when its most fundamental constant, the Hubble Constant, is constantly being changed? The admission of the above article is that we have no idea as to the true relationships between redshift and velocity or distance, and that the computed distances and speeds are totally unreliable.

"Their speeds could be halved or doubled depending on the prevailing opinion as to what the value of the Hubble `Consant' is. Moreover, an inverse of 100 percent in the Hubble Constant would decrease the computed age of the universe by 50 percent. If objects with still higher redshifts are found, the age of the universe could be decreased (to 10,000 years, perhaps?)."—Vincent A. Ettari, "Critical Thoughts and Conjectures Concerning the Doppler Effect and the Concept of an Expanding Universe—Part 1" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988, p. 145 [italics ours].

"If a set of fine scales is arranged so that one scale is kept dark, and light is allowed to fall on the other, the lighted scale will sink slowly. Light has `Weight.' The pressure of light on the Earth's surface is calculated as two pounds per square mile."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 330.


In spite of abundant evidence to the contrary, why are evolutionists so determined to cling to their theories regarding background radiation and the redshift?—They do so because that is about all the "evidence" they have for a Big Bang!

The Big Bang theory is dead and worthless. There are scientists who will admit it; there are others who will not.

"Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened—the Big Bang, the event that began our universe . . That it happened is reasonably clear. All the matter and energy now in the universe was concentrated at extremely high density kind of cosmic egg . . The entire universe, matter and energy they fill, occupied a very small volume."—*Carl Sagon, Cosmos (1980), p. 246.

"All the evidence needed for a scientific study of the cause of the great explosion was melted down and destroyed . . [in] the searing heat of the first moment."—*Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978), p. 12.

"A number of scientists are unhappy with the big bang theory . . For one thing, it leaves unanswered the questions that always arise when a precise date is given for the creation of the universe. Where did the matter come from in the first place."—*A. Krauskopf and A. Beiser, The Physical Universe (1973), p. 645.

"No existing view of the development of the cosmos is completely satisfactory, and this includes the standard model [the Big Bang], which leads to certain fundamental questions and problems."—*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," in American Scientist, October 1983, p. 474.

"Coincidence of prediction and observation made the big bang seem the most plausible of cosmological theories. From plausibility it became predominant and then virtually an orthodoxy . . But now its decade of total dominance may be starting to close."—*Dietrick V. Thomsen, "Cosmology Against the Grain," in Science News, August 26, 1978, p. 138.

"Some cosmologists, all but a minority, do sometimes wonder whether the confidence so often claimed in the big bang picture is justified by our observational knowledge. In this article I will air a few of these misgivings."—*Jayant Narlikar, "Was There a Big Bang?" in New Scientist, July 2, 1981, p. 19.

"The evidence in favor of a big bang cosmology is much less definite than is widely realized . . This concludes my discussion of direct observational evidence bearing on whether or not the universe is evolving and began in a dense state. I believe that if one attempts to evaluate this evidence objectively there is still no really conclusive evidence in favor of such a universe."—*G. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" in Nature 233 (1971), pp. 36, 39.

"There are four fundamental problems associated with our picture of the Big Bang. Three of these are problems of the first kind [basic disagreements], and a failure to resolve them would have to be taken as evidence of a major weakness in our understanding. These problems are (1) why there is so little antimatter in the universe, (2) how the galaxies could have formed in the time allotted for this process, and (3) why the universe is isotropic [a universe the same physically in all directions]. In addition, there is one problem of the second kind that is traditionally associated with the three problems of the first kind: why the mass of the universe is so close to the critical value required to close the universe."—*J. Trefil, The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics (1983), p. 48.

"There has been remarkably little discussion of whether the basic big bang hypothesis is correct or not . . The large body of observations which are not in agreement with it are either accounted for [explained away] by numerous ad hoc hypotheses [hypotheses especially selected to prove a predetermined viewpoint] or simply neglected."—*H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma (1981), p. 125.

"The standard `Big Bang' model has come into increasing conflict with improving observational data and may require substantial modification . . [There is] a deliberate refusal on the part of some theorists to accept such results when they appear to be in conflict with one of the present oversimplified . . theories."—*R. Oldershaw, "The Continuing Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology" in Astrophysics and Space Science 92 (1983), p. 357.

"A number of serious difficulties have to be ignored, swept under the rug, difficulties which indeed it may never be possible to resolve from within this particular theory . .

"I have little hesitation in saying that, as a result, a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. As I have mentioned earlier, when a patter of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that it rarely recovers."—*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution (1983), pp. 179, 186.

"Can we really be sure of the standard [the Big Bang] model? Will new discoveries overthrow it and replace the present standard model with some other cosmology, or even revive the steady-state model? Perhaps. I cannot deny a feeling of unreality in writing about the first three minutes [of the Big Bang explosion] as if we really know what we are talking about."—*A. O'Rahilly, Electromagnetic Theory (1965), pp. 335-336.

"Less than 50 years after the birth of what we are pleased to call `modern cosmology,' when so few empirical facts are passably well-established, when so many different oversimplified models of the universe are still competing for attention, is it, may we ask, really credible to claim, or even reasonable to hope, that we are presently close to a definite solution of the cosmological problem."—*G. de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology," in Science 167 (1970), p. 1203.

"Perhaps cosmologists have been charging up a blind alley for the past quarter of a century, and there never was a big-bang at all. It would not be the first time that science took a wrong turning."—*J. Griben, "Cosmologists Move Beyond the Big Bang" in New Scientist 110 (1511):30 (1986).

"Many cosmologists now feel that the shortcomings of the standard [Big Bang] theory outweigh its usefulness."—*J. Griben, "Cosmologists Move Beyond the Big Bang" in New Scientist 110 (1511):30 (1986).

"You may know the word `entropy.' It's a word that physicists use when talking about the amount of disorder in a system. It appears to be a basic physical law that, in our universe, entropy always appears to increase as a system evolves.

"In other words, once you scramble an egg, it stays scrambled; it doesn't turn spontaneously back into a whole egg again. Likewise, tidy rooms get messy; you have to keep cleaning your house over and over again. Or consider a sugar cube dropped into a cup of coffee; it dissolves and disappears. It never turns back into a cube again.

"The list goes on. But the idea is, in our universe, when things are left to themselves, they tend toward disorder. That's entropy.

"Yet, for the last several decades, the most widely believed theory about the birth of the universe says that it began in a Big Bang; [which would be] a state of unimaginable chaos.

"Later that chaos had to evolve into the extremely orderly structures we know today: majestically rotating galaxies made of billions of stars; stars that cycle through various predictable [theoretical] stages of evolution; and, last but not least, those most complex of all known organisms: human beings, who contemplate it all.

"So how can a universe that tends toward disorder, have evolved such orderly structures? That's one kind of question being asked today in cosmology, the study of the whole universe."—*Star Date radio broadcast, October 9, 1990.

"According to the theory of evolution, there should be a progressive building up from the simplest hydrogen to the most complex uranium. [But, in reality] The exact opposite is found. Uranium is known to disintegrate into a series of elements of diminishing weights, the most sensational of which is radium, and the final one is lead. During this process, atoms of the gas helium, the next lightest to hydrogen, are thrown off. The heaviest elements are therefore the origin of the lightest."—*H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1967), p. 142.

"Astonomers are quite willing to choose their own preferred values for the Hubble Constant, within the accepted range, and they can handily justify their choices as well. But the bottom line is that nobody really knows; the best astronomers can do is agree that the light from the most distant objects we see had been traveling for some 10 to 20 billion years."—*Op. cit., p. 102.

"Cool radiation pervades all of space in this full sky map of microwave emissions recorded by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite [COBY] early in 1990. The swath of purple indicates the radiation's remarkable evenness; pink and blue areas are distortions caused by the motion of the Milky Way against the cosmic background . . [This radiation has] a uniform temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin."—*Op. cit., p. 93.

"The cosmic background radiation is considered by many to be the major evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. However, the extreme uniformity of this radiation and the huge voids and uneven distribution of matter [stars and galaxies] in large regions of the universe are inconsistent with the Big Bang. While it is true that the Big Bang theory can be juggled to fit the total amount of helium in the universe, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) contradicts the theory. If the Big Bang occurred, the universe should not contain rotating or highly concentrated bodies. Galaxies are an example of both. Furthermore, a big bang would, for all practical purposes, only produce hydrogen and helium. Therefore, the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang would have been basically only hydrogen and helium. Many of those stars [Population III stars] should still exist. However, none can be found."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 12.

"In conclusion, it is suggested that it is totally useless to speculate about what the universe used to be—when we don't even understand what it is today! The challenge to those who reject the Word of God on the subject still stands:

"Let him who scoffs at the Genesis record state specifically which hypothesis he should put in its place. Then let him attempt to resolve the insuperable difficulties inherent in that hypothesis and defend it against the onslaughts of future experimental findings.

"If this can be done successfully, it will be a `first' in the history of astronomy." —Walter Lammerts, book review, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1973, p. 171.

Accepting the Big Bang, here is how some view the universe:

"It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing."—*Allan H. Guth and *Paul J. Steinhardt, "The Inflationary Universe," in Scientific American, May 1984, p. 128.

"Where did the substance of the universe come from? . . If 0= +1 +(-1), then something which is 0 might just as well become 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combine once more and vanish. We are in one of these globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it."—*Isaac Asimov, "What is Beyond the Universe?" in Science Digest, April 1970, p. 69.

"It is very hard to realize that this all is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerably heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible (via the big bang), the more it also seems pointless."—*Steve Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (1977).

"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy."—*Steve Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (1977).

"Our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum or state of nothingness."—*Edward P. Tyron, "What Made the World?" in New Scientist, March 8, 1984, p. 16.

Rejecting such foolish theories, here is how others view the universe:

"A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion which may be summed up . . In the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician."—Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, p. 140.

"Curious as that seems, it is a possibility worth weighing—against the only alternative I can imagine: Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist."—*George Wald, "Fitness in the Universe," Origins of Life, Vol. 5 (1974), p. 26.

"It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it . . One could perhaps decide the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."—*Scientific American, May 1963, p. 53.


To the next topic in this series: THE ELEMENTAL FORCES OF THE UNIVERSE: and how very amazing they are.