This is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
(7th Edition) by Dr. Walt Brown. The online version of the book is designed to be read online.
A PDF version or hardbound print version may be ordered.
Copyright © 1995–2008, Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.
Click here to order the hardbound print edition of this online book.
| u | “Even the most enthusiastic cosmologist will admit that current theories of the nature of the universe have some big holes. One such gap is that the universe seems to be younger than some of the objects contained within it. [See “How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is?” on page 340.] Another problem is that the observed universe just doesn’t appear to have enough matter in it to explain the way it behaves now, nor the way theorists predict it will evolve.” Robert Matthews, “Spoiling a Universal ‘Fudge Factor,’” Science, Vol. 265, 5 August 1994, pp. 740–741. |
| If the mass were slightly greater than this critical value (the closed condition): |
| i. | gravity would have quickly collapsed all the matter in the universe into one big ball, perhaps within seconds, |
| ii. | we would not be here to wonder how everything began. |
| If the mass were slightly less than this critical value (the open condition): |
| i. | particles would have expanded indefinitely, |
| ii. | stars and galaxies would not have formed, and |
| iii. | we would not be here to think about it. |
| This problem can be viewed another way. If the universe began in a big bang billions of years ago, it should: |
| i. | have collapsed on itself (closed), or |
| ii. | have expanded so much that stars and galaxies could never have formed (open), or |
| iii. | have expansion velocities for most visible particles in the universe that lie within a ridiculously tight one part in 1055 of their escape velocities! |
| Consequently, the universe probably did not begin in a big bang billions of years ago. |