EVIDENCE OF CREATION

AND SUPERNATURAL DESIGN IN

CONTEMPORARY BIG BANG

COSMOLOGY

EVIDENCE OF CREATION IN CONTEMPORARY

BIG BANG COSMOLOGY

I. Early Indications of CreationA. Einstein—general theory of relativityB. Hubble—red shiftsC. Penzias and Wilson—2.7◦ K uniformly distributed radiation

II. Evidence of A Singularity – Part I:Hawking-Penrose Singularity

A. Five Conditions Requiring a SingularityB. The Edge of TimeC. Requires Causative Force Transcending

Space-Time Asymmetry

In 1980, Hawking wrote, “a curvaturesingularity that will intersect every worldline… [makes] general relativity predicta beginning of time.”

---Hawking, Stephen. 1980. “Theoretical Advancesin General Relativity.” In H. Woolf (ed.), Some Strangeness in the Proportion. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley). p.149.

III. Evidence of A Singularity – Part II:Pre-GTR Considerations

A. A Pre-Big-Bang Era and Quantum Cosmology

B. A Pre-Big-Bang Era and String TheoryC. The Inescapability of a Singularity (or

Singularities) in PBB Era (Hawking, Hertog,and Turok).

D. Time Asymmetry in the Pre-Big-Bang Era(Penrose)

“...[E]ven the conventional viewpoint tells us thatit should be quantum gravity that will come to theaid of the classical theory of general relativity andresolve the riddle of space-time singularities. …However, theorists do not seem to have comemuch to terms with the striking fact that quantumgravity’s mark is blatantly time-asymmetrical! Atthe big bang – the past singularity – quantumgravity must tell us that a condition somethinglike WEYL = 0 must hold, at the moment that itbecomes meaningful to speak in terms of theclassical concepts of space-time geometry.”

---Penrose, Roger. The Emperor’s New Mind. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 1989, p. 350.

IV.Evidence of A Singularity – Part III:The Inflationary Universe

A. Description of Universal InflationB. The Borde and Vilenkin ProofC. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin ProofD. The Inevitability of An Initial Singularity in all Inflationary Model Universes with a Hubble Expansion Greater than Zero

“Our argument shows that null and time likegeodesics are, in general, past-incomplete(requiring a beginning) in inflationary models,whether or not energy conditions hold, providedonly that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0hold along these past-directed geodesics. Thisis a stronger conclusion than the one arrived atin previous work in that we have shown underreasonable assumptions that almost all causalgeodesics, when extended to the past of anarbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflatingregion of spacetime in a finite proper time….”

---Borde, Arvind; Guth, Alan; and Vilenkin, Alexander. 2003. “InflationarySpacetimes are Not Past-Complete,” in Physical Review Letters(Vol. 90, No. 15, p. 151301-3).

“Our argument can be straightforwardly extended to cosmology in higher dimensions. For example, in the model of Ref. [19] brane worlds are created in collisions of bubbles nucleating in an inflating higher-dimensional bulk spacetime. Our analysis implies that the inflating bulk cannot be past-complete [implying a singularity]. ¶ We finally comment on the cyclic Universe model in which a bulk of four spatial dimensions is sandwiched between two three-dimensional branes. … In some versions of the cyclic model the brane spacetimes are everywhere expanding, so our theorem immediately implies the existence of a past boundary at which boundary conditions must be imposed. In other versions, there are brief periods of contraction, but the net result of each cycle is an expansion. … Thus, as long as Hav > 0 for a null geodesic when averaged over one cycle, then Hav > 0 for any number of cycles, and our theorem would imply that the geodesic is incomplete [implying a singularity].”---Borde, Arvind; Guth, Alan; and Vilenkin, Alexander. 2003. “Inflationary Spacetimes are Not Past-Complete,” in Physical Review Letters (Vol. 90, No. 15, p. 151301-3)

I. The Penrose Number

“In order to produce a universe resembling theone in which we live, the Creator would have toaim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phasespace of possible universes—about one partin 1010123 of the entire volume, for the situationunder consideration.”

---Penrose, Roger. 1989 The Emperor’s New Mind. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). p. 343.

EVIDENCE OF SUPERNATURAL DESIGN IN BIG BANG COSMOLOGY

II. Supernatural Design: The Gravitational and Weak Force Constants

“If G, or gw, differed from their actual values by even one part in 1050, the precise balance against bare would be upset, and the structure of the universe would be drastically altered. … [I]f Λ were several orders of magnitude greater, the expansion of the universe would be explosive, and it is doubtful if galaxies could ever have formed against such a disruptive force. If Λ were negative, the explosion would be replaced by a catastrophic collapse of the universe. It is truly extraordinary that such dramatic effects would result from changes in the strength of either gravity, or the weak force, of less than one part in 1040.

---Davies, Paul. 1982 The Accidental Universe. (New York:Cambridge University Press. pp. 107-108.

III. The Advent of Carbon

“Had the resonance level in the carbon been 4 percent lower, there would be essentially no carbon. Had that level in the oxygen been only half a percent higher, virtually all of the carbon would have been converted to oxygen. Without that carbon abundance, none of us would be here now. ¶ I am told that Fred Hoyle, who together with William Fowler first noticed the remarkable arrangement of carbon and oxygen nuclear resonances, has said that nothing has shaken his atheism as much as this discovery.”

---Gingerich, Owen. 2000. “Do the Heavens Declare.” In The Book of the Cosmos. Ed by Dennis Richard Danielson. (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).pp. 524-25.