Here is the rest of this amazing history of how these peculiar origin of matter and stars theories came into existence. There never was a Big Bang, and stars and planets cannot evolve from gas. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
This is Part 2 of two web pages. Here you will find the last seven of 18 theories. This is the story of men who try to play god with the universe.
CONTENTS: Recent History of Cosmological Theories - 2
12 - Lemaitre's Primeval Atom Hypothesis - Lemaitre's immense "super atom" mysteriously appeared, then exploded, expanded, and produced planets and stars
13 - Big Bang Hypothesis - *Gamow, *Alpher, and *Herman dream up this theory, which claims that nothing existed in the Universe—except a dot which exploded
14 - Hoyle's Steady State Universe - *Fred Hoyle's continuous creation of hydrogen theory, which, in 1965, he repudiated and disproved.
15 - Alfven's Ambiplasma Hypothesis - *Hannes Alfven's "koinomatter" which shrank and then exploded, with help from antimatter
16 - Gamow's Oscillating Universe Theory - *George Gamow abandoned his Big Bang theory, in favor of this one, which has an infinite number of contractions and explosions
17 - Guth's Inflationary Hypothesis - *A.H. Guth's theory, which is also unworkable
18 - Misner's Mixmaster Theory - *C.W. Misner decided to use a kitchen appliance to explain his theory that the universe regularly oscillates between a cigar shape and pancake shape
The Nice Symposium - The astounding 1972 meeting of scientists, which discussed dozens of insoluable problems confronting the various cosmology theories. But the evolutionists do not tell you this
Conclusion - How the supposed age of the universe has changed over the past few decades
This material is excerpted from the book, ORIGIN
OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM.
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 the Stars.
LEMAITRE'S PRIMEVAL ATOM HYPOTHESIS (1927)—Between the two wars, *G. Lemaitre, a Belgium Jesuit, came up with an innovative idea which was to form the basis for the later influential Big Bang theory, although at the time few scientists gave it much attention.
A "superatom" the diameter of earth's orbit around the sun was said to have mysteriously come into existence. All about it was nothing. Then this giant "atom" experienced "radioactive disintegration;" by which Lemaitre meant that it exploded. After this, it quickly expanded, slowed, and then continued expanding. As it expanded, planets and stars formed from the expanding gases.
Scientists laughed Lemaitre to shame. How can expanding gas form itself into solids? But when, by 1939, all the other theories had exhausted themselves, the cosmologists decided that they had better stop laughing.
BIG BANG HYPOTHESIS (1947)—Although *G. Lemaitre really laid the basis for the Big Bang theory, it was *George Gamow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman who devised the initial model of the primordial fireball, or "big bang." This theory was supposed to explain how matter came into existence—or was matter already in existence? In some mysterious way, the universe was supposed to have been contracting for long ages. Was there any matter in it? Well, scientists say, no; but apparently yes, for when it reached its limiting contraction of 1014g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water, it then exploded. Gamow called this thick pre-explosion pre-soup "ylem" (pronounced "i-lem"). So if matter did not exist, there could be no "ylem."
Gamow said a "big squeeze" contracted the ylem into an extremely small, tight ball. Then the ylem exploded. According to Gamow's version, the ylem was said to already contain neutrons BEFORE the explosion. Where did they come from? Other versions have no matter of any kind prior to the explosion. Then how could nothing become something? Gamow's neutrons immediately afterward made themselves into full-scale atoms. They were highly educated neutrons.
At first *Gamow, *Alpher, and *Herman assumed that all chemical elements were created in the Big Bang. But later they admitted the impossibility of this occurring, so they decided that only a smaller number of elements were initially made. (Some say only hydrogen and helium; others hydrogen which then made helium; still others think that hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium were made in the initial explosion.)
Gamow eventually decided that "various differentiation processes" later produced stars, galaxies, and planets out of the superheated, outwardly expanding gas from that initial explosion. According to the model, galaxies formed in the first 109 years of the universe. The galactic matter condensed and produced stars. The heavier elements are said to have been produced within the stars and, later, when they exploded as supernova.
But, as we have already discussed, the Big Bang theory is totally impossible. (1) It could not begin as it did. (2) It could not possibly produce stars, galaxies, and planets. (3) There is no real evidence that it ever occurred.
HOYLE'S STEADY STATE UNIVERSE (1948)—In 1925, *Sir Oliver Lidge and, in 1928,*Sir James Jeans had suggested a continuous creation of matter, but it was *Fred Hoyle, *Hermann Bondi, and *Thomas Gold in 1948 who brought it widely to the attention of astronomers.
This is the teaching of spontaneous generation of matter! According to this theory, hydrogen, as self-creating matter, then sets itself to the task of making itself into stars, planets, and ultimately—into plants, animals, and people. This is evolutionary theory taken to its climax. With regard to the pivotal question of just where the newly arrived matter came from, Hoyle replies that this query is "meaningless and unprofitable." (*Fred Hoyle, Frontiers of Astronomy (1955), p. 342.) But to add a touch of science fiction realism to the show, a "creation field" has been introduced. This imaginary force field is said to exist throughout the universe wherever matter is present, and is a "four-dimensional space-time continuum." In certain locations, the "C-field," as he calls it, is said to build up to greater intensity—and then "matter happens," that is, comes into existence, based on something of a "genetic code" housed within the C-field.
That is a description to tempt any science-fiction loving mind to acceptance. But it is all foolishness. Since matter is but a variant form of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics forbids the formation of matter out of nothing.
In a lecture delivered on September 6, 1965, at a meeting to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Hoyle listed reasons why his steady-state universe theory was in error. At that meeting, he officially abandoned it (Nature, October 9, 1965, p. 113).
Yet within a year he came out with a new theory which he described as his "Radical Departure Hypothesis." This view remains keyed to self-creating matter, but in the universe which "bounces along" like a ball from self-creation stages through non-creating stages, and back into self-creating stages.
ALFVEN'S AMBIPLASMA HYPOTHESIS (1965)—In 1950 *O. Klein, a Stockholm physics teacher, came up with a new idea in an attempt to solve all the problems of the earlier theories. *Hannes Alfven of Sweden revised it in 1965. The theory begins with a mixture of "koinomatter" (common or regular matter) and antimatter. This mixture Alfven calls "ambiplasma." Gradually, over a period of trillions of years, this matter is said to shrink. As it does so, the matter and antimatter makes contact and then annihilates one another. This leaves electrons and protons, and lots of radiation. After trillions more years, the radiation reverses the contraction to an expansion. This brings us to the point of an expanding universe without an initial explosion.
Localized regions of perhaps a billion light-years across begin forming galaxies. So we are back to gas clumping together to form stars, galaxies, and their complicated orbits. Alfven admits that there are "serious difficulties" concerning the mechanism of stellar and galactic formation. Add to this the problem of matter and antimatter coming in contact as the stars form. At this point they would blast themselves out of existence. To solve this problem, Alfven came up with the idea that koinomatter and antimatter somehow segregated themselves into different regions of space, with buffer zones of ambiplasma between them! This would be equivalent to lukewarm water in a tub automatically separating itself into hot water and cold water. Alfven admits that problems remain.
OSCILLATION UNIVERSE HYPOTHESIS—*George Gamow, after giving the Big Bang theory both its name and his most urgent support for years, later began campaigning for the oscillation universe theory. This is nothing more than a recurring Big Bang every 80 billion years. Each explosion begins a new cycle that ends with another explosion.
GUTH'S INFLATIONARY HYPOTHESIS (1980)—*A.H. Guth invented an accessory theory, the inflationary universe, in an attempt to salvage the Big Bang from some of its many theoretical problems.
This inflation model is based on a family of very speculative theories in elementary particles physics, called "Grand Unified Theories" (GUTs). But there is, in fact, little reason for believing in GUTs. It is based on over 20 theoretical requirements that cannot be established. Should GUTs be correct, there may still be no inflation; should it be wrong in the slightest way, there can be no basis for inflation.
The inflation hypothesis may make the Big Bang sound more believable to a scientist, but neither theory can surmount the major hurdles mentioned elsewhere in this set of books.
MISNER'S MIXMASTER HYPOTHESIS (1980)—In the same year, *C.W. Misner came out with a "mix-master model" of origins. His theory proposes an expanding universe that irregularly oscillates between a cigar shape and a pancake shape! Did you know that the universe regularly changes shape in this way? Well, Dr. Misner has decided that that is the way things exist in outer space.
Here is additional information that you will want to know:
THE NICE SYMPOSIUM—By the early 1970s, so much scientific data had poured in repudiating every basic aspect of any cosmology, that something had to be done. In the past, the elusive hope had always offered itself that even though all the past theories of matter and stellar origins might be in shambles, there was always the possibility that some brilliant mind might yet come up with a solution.
But it was becoming clear that the necessary basics of all cosmologies—past, present, or future,—were hurdles that probably would never be cleared.
In April 1972, the top minds in stellar physics, chemistry, and astronomy gathered at the Nice Symposium. A declaratory statement of purpose included this comment:
"The Symposium has also served in delineating the reason of our ignorance, in particular in relation with the hydrodynamics of the nebula [motions of gas clouds], and with the physico-chemistry of the `sticking process' [getting gas together into stars and planets]."—Symposium statement, quoted in R.E. Kofahl and K.L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation, p. 141.
A later review of the problems discussed at the Nice Symposium provides us with further insight into the matter:
" Yet to be discussed adequately is the detailed fragmentation of the massive cloud in which protostars are born.  Also in question are the hydrodynamics and stability considerations of the protosun nebula.  Most important, there remains to be specified the crucial experimental tests that can distinguish between the available viable theories.  It is particularly disappointing that we have almost no useful information on the specific solid state processes at work in the accretion phase."—Review of Nice Symposium, quoted in Op. cit., p. 143.
Stating the above points in simpler language: (1) How did the first cloud break apart and change into stars? (2) How did the gas clouds whirl themselves toward production of stellar objects, in such a way as to solve the angular momentum problem? (3) Boys, we ought to be able to experimentally prove at least one of these theories! (4) How did the gas push itself into solids?
*H. Reeves, the editor of the final Symposium report, listed seven fundamental problems. The above reviewer quotes these for us:
"Do the sun and planets originate in the same interstellar cloud? If so, how was the planetary matter separated from the solar gas? How massive was the nebula? How did the collapsing cloud cross the thermal, magnetic, and angular momentum barriers? What were the physical conditions in the nebula? What was the mechanism of condensation and accretion [of the gas into stars, planets, etc.]? How did the planets, with their present properties and solar distances, form?"—Ibid.
If you open a typical science book on astronomy, you will be bombarded with paintings of gas clouds and protostars and "facts" stated with great certainty. If you attend a closed-door conference, such as the Nice Symposium, you will find worried men, desperate theories, scientific facts which condemn those theories, a lack of alternate explanation, and an atmosphere of hopeless despair in the face of unproven and unprovable ideas, and no solutions for scientific experiments that can alleviate the situation.
CONCLUSION—What is the age of the universe, as calculated by some of the most prominent theories being considered in our time? Here they are:
*Gamow: 3-5 billion years. *Peebles and *Wilkinson: 7 billion years. *Ashford: 10-15 billion years. *Shklovski: 70 billion years. *Alfven: trillions of years. *Hoyle: infinite time.
It is clear from this brief study that all theories either begin with (1) self-creation matter and/or, a step further down the road, (2) hydrogen gas. In each case, the gas then—slowly or rather quickly—forms itself into solids: stars, planets, etc. And that is it. Strip the theories of their high-sounding words, scientific phrases, and complicated logic, and you come to the bare essentials: spontaneous generation of matter, to be followed by gas pushing itself into solids. The history of cosmology is the story of little men (as little as the rest of us) spending their spare time dreaming up ideas which violate natural law, in the hope that by so doing they will somehow be regarded as having great minds.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Forward to the next topic in this series: INTERSTELLAR SPACE ROCKET TRAVEL which explains the 12 reasons why it will never occur.