Many do not realize that there are quite a few cosmologies that are being explored by secular scientists. In fact, there are several versions of the big bang. We are currently in an era where the general consensus is changing about the big bang. It used to be thought that space is curved and limited in size. Now the thinking is moving toward the idea that the universe is infinite in size and not curved (flat). That was a minority big bang position just ten years ago. Get up-to-date here. Some of those cosmologies answer a lot of questions created by the big bang. But, the big bang is so entrenched in the professional journals and research protocols that to get funding, tenure and respect of colleagues, one must toe the line. You can see a petition signed by many secular scientists who are quite dissatisfied with the big bang. It started as a letter to the editor of New Scientist in 2004. Others have signed on since the letter was published.

Please note, we realize that the big bang does not adequately account for many new findings about the universe, it does not mean creation is automatically correct. It just shows that the big bang is deeply entrenched at the exclusion of other cosmologies. The primary reason the big bang is so well liked is because it is one of the few cosmologies that can explain why the earth is not in the center of the universe even though it appears the earth is in the center of the universe. Consider this quote in Scientific American, 273(4):29 from coauthor George Ellis, with Stephen Hawking, of The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, "I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations... You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.” To see why a young earth (6000+/- years) cosmology is correct and how the evidence points to the earth being in the center of the universe, see our page on Creation Science White Hole Cosmology (WHC).

The below links are to secular sites, mostly news articles in scientific publications. The articles are about findings that don't fit in the BB or contradict predictions of the big bang. Some are linked to creation science sites with analysis of problems... we'll let you know in the description by placing a "*" at the end of the link.

Finally, please note that the contradictions you find below fit the white hole cosmology and in many cases are predicted by the WHC. For example, the WHC predicts that galaxies at any distance can be spiraled, the Big Bang only allows galaxies far away to be spiraled.

......Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (usually abbreviated CMB):

......Dark Energy:

Dark Energy is a theoretical feature created to explain features of the universe that the big bang cannot explain based on what we actually know about the universe. Not much is found in the literature in terms of what it does. Primarily it is the explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe (note that other cosmologies do not see the expansion accelerating). Here is a description. There are other cosmologies that have no need of dark energy, including the creation science white hole cosmology.

......Dark Matter:

Dark Matter is a theoretical feature created to explain features of the universe that the big bang cannot explain based on what we actually know about the universe. Here is a description. There are other cosmologies that have no need of dark matter, including the Creation science white hole model.

New Scientist article that illustrates how the concept of dark matter is adjusted to explain new problems

Alternate explanation to Dark matter and Dark Energy. Big Bang is not only game in town
............Creationist response to supposed find of Dark Matter

......Galaxies:

One problem with the big bang is that we find mature galaxies and galaxy clusters that could not form so quickly after the big bang. We have never spotted an "immature" galaxy. In fact, every structure we find, no matter how soon it formed after the big bang, is mature... billions of years mature based on physics of star formation.

Mature galaxies in huge quantity just 500 million years after BB

Very mature galaxy cluster found where there should not even be a single developed galaxy*

Growing Up Fast in the Cosmos - 3rd story down (original journal article unavailable without cost)*

Milky Way Rotates in two Directions Note that the article states this is evidence that smaller galaxies were absorbed to make the Milky Way. We see no evidence of this phenomenon when galaxies are viewed billions of light years away when they would have been doing the same. We should see it happening elsewhere if it is really happened as explained.

Another galaxy that rotates in two directions

Young galaxies have strong magnetic fields (they shouldn't)

Galaxy spirals should not exist in nearby galaxies*

......General Big Bang Problems:

This is a general catch-all section for items that don't fit specific categories.

The Big Bang ignores how the universe was first created. That, they say is beyond naturalism to explain. That, of course, is a cop-out. But we'll let them take it. After the instant of the big bang, naturalism kicks in according to their own theory. About 1/40,000,000 of a second after the big bang, INFLATION supposedly occurred. The claim is that it was caused by "negative-pressure vacuum energy" which is never fully explained. Other amazing attributes are attributed to inflation. If you read the entire articles, you will see there are some problems. One of the biggest, which you will not see on the page, is how the expansion of the universe slowed back down. Naturalism has no explanation. This might be a good time to review the letter written by cosmologists who think the big bang should not dominate cosmology.

Billion light-year hole in the universe unexplainable

Missing Monopoles, Missing Antimatter & Missing Population III Stars*

American Scientist Magazine - Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale? Some insights into the real problems

Carmeli Cosmology explains a universe without all the assumptions of the Big Bang

......Solar System Formation - The Nebular Hypothesis:

The Nebular Hypothesis is the part of the big bang cosmology that supposedly explains the formation of stars and planets... solar systems. You can read about the hypothesis here. Laplace was quite a brilliant man to come up with this idea in the 1700's. We knew some things about the solar system at that time, but not much. The hypothesis has been developed further as we have learned more about the composition of stars and planets. As you will see below, there are some major problems with the idea. One of them is that we built a model based on our solar system. In the past few years we have discovered scores of planets orbiting other stars. None of them fit the current model. In fact, they violate the current model in many different ways. In some cases there are giant gas planets near the sun, in others the gas planets are far from the star. How can it happen both ways? This is one of the problems. There are plenty more.

Our moon is young as proven by the moon's recession from earth... all the math included*

An article on how Neptune and Uranus may have formed, but does not take into account the effect they would have had on earth that would have disrupted the start of life. Full of speculation to explain away a problem.

Headline says planet formation problem solved, but at the end says there are many problems

Comets should all be gone. Oort cloud & Kuipler Belt once thought to be a source but are not*

Mercury should not have a magnetic field, but it does!*
News Flash !: Mercury magnetic field decreasing very rapidly! & Russ Humphreys prediction is correct!*

Neptune defies nebular hypothesis*

Venus defies nebular hypothesis*

Outer Solar System mysteries - Note all the assumptions made that are unsupported by actual evidence

Comet mysteries - many assumptions and failed predictions

Several pieces of evidence from comets, the moon and Jupiter that the solar system is young*

......Star Formation:

This basic question has to be answered. If the Big Bang caused matter and energy to separate and move outward at tremendous speeds, at some time that matter had to coalesce and come together. The explanation offered is that as cooling occurs; particles slow down and clump together. The problem is, however, that these celestial objects are moving at relatively high speeds away from each other. There is no empirical evidence to support the star formation theory proposed by evolutionary cosmologists. No star or galaxy has ever been seen to form in space from star gas. As the Harvard astrophysicist, Abraham Loeb stated, "The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level." Marcus Chown, "Let there be light", New Scientist 157 (2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.

In addition, if somehow the particles started moving toward one another, or started to clump, Boyle's Law would prevent that clumping. A corollary to Boyle's Law is that a gas will expand to fill its container.

Many reasons why stars have not evolved from one stage to another - blue stars in particular*