Big Bang, Redshift and Start of life.

The term "Big Bang"
I am using the term "Big Bang" because it is commonly used to refer to an event which we can only theorise about, but all our known laws and theories fail as they approach the theoretical speck that spewed out all the gas that became the building material for the entire universe. I imagine it was more of a very long drawn out Whoooooosh, if one is to believe the BB, perhaps for the equivalent of millenia, as nothing made everything, but we are not supposed to point out the problems of the basic assumptions. Has it stopped spewing out gas, but is so distant that we cannot tell, or is there an empty space that everything was ejected from, or perhaps like an old volcano there is a plug of debris left when it fizzled out? Try thinking outside the box, as I have done here, because perhaps the box, as you conceive it, and were taught, is confined by theoretical boundaries instigated by people to suit their belief in the randomness and meaninglessness of life, that fail to include some important information that would explain things you desperately need answers to, or don't yet see your need of, but would greatly improve your life if you understood and followed a new understanding. Try it and see.

Theory.
Big bang theorists imagine that matter fills all space, that there is no empty space and no centre. The Copernican Principle "we are not in a unique location in the cosmos" is used to say we are lost somewhere in the vast random expanse, (even though it is very structured, in galaxy after galaxy) .
This principle is arbitrary and formulated to support evolutionary beliefs, but departing from science as there is no actual scientific evidence, but assumptions were easy at the time as little was known about the universe and galaxies, recession rates and redshift etc.

Admixture of ideology.
In a book by Hawking and Ellice, they say "however we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology". That is that something must be added, ideas that people assume without a reasonable proof or evidence. The facts and data are not sufficient, you have to add assumptions to make it seem to work out right, fitting it to your own understanding of what "must" have happened. The Copernican Principle works (for evolutionists) because you are likely to be in a non--special place", unless you have evidence to the contrary.

What does research show us?
But we do look like we are in a special place in the universe, while the evolutionists want there to be no special place as it might infer that God made it special. We could be near the centre. But evolutionists claim, and needed it to be so, that there is no centre and from any place everything would look the same in every direction. This is to support the theory of accidental and purposeless existence, resulting in what we seem to see, and interpreting it according to the evolutionary theory, to make it seem like support. It is likely that many assume that we got here by pure accident, as they opposes the possibility of organisation by some god with a purpose, who just might have rules to keep.

The BIG BANG really?
If there was a big bang then we can't be at the centre since everything was being blown out from the centre. If there was a big bang then there is a centre, it is where the "nothing expanded into everything" and everything streamed outwards in all directions spherically. If we are at the centre then there never was a big bang, since we didn't get blown out from the centre. The big bang depends on many assumptions the most obvious is "what was it that went bang", and created all the matter. Then the question of how were stars formed. There are many assumptions and wonderful stories but no evidence, since it is believed that only light elements, probably only Hydrogen or helium according to theory, came out of the "big bang" and had to form stars to get the conditions for creating the heavy elements, it requires compression and an explosion to get the violence needed to disrupt and reform atoms. If you disrupt light elements why would they form into other elements, and not just disperse as energy? But science points out that the gasses will not condense into planets or stars, as the gasses will spread out as there was nothing to draw them together, as there was no gravitational force to attract the gas.

(1)
Some scientific research indicates that the fabric of open space stretches out, stretching the wavelength. This assumes not only that the most distant galaxies started out sooner, but are still travelling faster, stretching the fabric of space, if space is a substance that can be stretched. It could be that galaxies could each be disconnected and travelling outwards, but that space itself is just empty space and has nothing to be stretched, ie has no fabric, just nothing. Dark matter is an assumption that is needed to round out the formulas about the galactic system, but as yet cannot be confirmed, except that something is needed by the equations, so we assume something we cannot detect.

Stretching out the heavens also stretches the wavelength of light waves giving the red shift of distant light sources.
(Take a flat rubber band, and draw on it a sine wave, then stretch the band to see the assumed effect of space stretching and causing light waves, (and radio waves etc) to stretch longer, hence blue light stretches towards the RED wavelength of visible light). The greater the distance, and therefore the longer the light waves have been subject to stretching the greater the red-shift would be.

(2)
If you are at the centre then everything is moving away from you in all directions, so stars that are further away would have travelled faster so their light wave is stretched by the fact that the more distant source was receding faster compared to nearer objects and then to the observer. The "stretching" of the fabric of space, if it does, would add to this effect. If you are not at the centre, then red shift will be less in some directions than others. This is not observed, as the redshift is constant in all directions, according to research.

(3)
It could be that more distant galaxies started out much earlier but travel at the same speed as more recent galaxies, in which case the red shift would be due only to the speed of recession, in which case all in one direction, whether near or far, should have the same red shift, which does not seem to fit the observations. But the stretching of the fabric of space could change that, but it probably wouldn't stretch unless the more distant galaxies are travelling faster, dragging the fabric with them. Probably the Dark Matter that we cannot detect, but assume, is what stretches. Different red shifts have been observed within some galaxies so there is also another cause of redshift
If the first material to come out of the BB travels faster then we came out later, not so fast, then what came out as the BB lost its power will be slower again.
If there was a BB and it ceased, then if all matter is moving outwards from that spot, then there is a vast empty sphere at the center, which we cannot detect.
Diagram of REDSHIFT. Assuming we are randomly located far from a possible center.

This mix of redshifts is not what we observe.
I am sure that had it been observed mathematicians would have calculated our position in the greater sphere of everything, and our rate of recession from the origin point of the "Big Bang", and the actual distance and travel time since our matter was ejected. They haven't, because in every direction we look, the redshift is consistent with the distance, the most distant galaxies having the greater redshift, but there is some variation of redshift within some galaxies, so there is also some other cause of redshift.

At the center by chance?
What many scientists and people are afraid of is that we may be at the center, by chance most unlikely, so it could infer that we were positioned in a safe place, and a good position to observe from, by some intent. That life started from non-life is impossible, as the complexity of even a simple protein cannot happen by random chance, particularly in a watery environment, as the water will breakdown the proteins structure as it begins to form, and other amino-acids will attach in wrong positions. Even if a simple protein did form, and fold correctly into a useful protein, would it ever bump into another, and enough of them to start forming a self-replicating entity? Most textbooks say that life only comes from life, as is scientifically proven, but then in another part will say that life started by abiogenesis, that is from unguided chemistry. Evolutionists and humanists want it both ways, so they can defend their assumptions, that life is an accident, with no purpose or meaning, in spite of the actual scientific evidence. Years of research in how life could have started have all come up with the same two problems, ie:-
A. Chemistry will not form into the life giving forms as many of the processes require energy to be applied in an exacting way to create a bond, but chemistry readily forms gunk.
B. Life can only work if everything is assembled according to some integrated plan, for all the inter-related parts, but there is no organisational force in nature that that can guide chemistry into anything better then gunk. Crystals form a pattern according to their material, but there is no information involved, except that with your intelligence you can enjoy the patterns in snowflakes, of determine the material of the crystals.

The start of life chemically.
Proteins are made of a string of amino acids which can link up with several types of bond, but if any are not a peptide bond the molecule will not fold into a protein, or will be deformed and may not work at all. Amino-acid mixtures left to react in a test tube form peptide and non-peptide bonds in roughly equal probability. As amino-acids link the probability they are joined by a peptide bond is 1/2 so to form a small to average protein chain 150 amino-acids long the chance that all will be peptide bonds is about (1/2) ¹⁵⁰ roughly 1 chance in 10⁴⁵. In natural chemistry amino-acids come about equally left and right handed, but only lefthanded ones are used in life, so again 1/2 for 150 amino-acids is about one chance in 10⁴⁵. combining both all lefthanded and all must have peptide bonds gives 1 chance in about 10^90th power.

Moreover there are 20 biologically occurring amino acids, and a protein must have them in the correct order or it won't fold correctly and perform it's function. One chance in 20, for each of 150 amino acids is about 10¹⁹⁵, and including the previous chances of lefthanded and peptide bonds, comes to about 1 chance in 10²⁸⁵, and then you only have one of the smaller proteins in a sea of hostile chemistry that will contaminate it in seconds! Chemistry has no inherent self-organisational attractions that would lead to joining up with other proteins in a useful way for life, just readily forms gunk.

RNA or DNA first theories.
Many people pin their hopes on the "RNA first" or the "DNA first" theories But these have very similar problems as above, and are statistically impossible, and would require much more in supporting infrastructure to be able to assemble.

Abiogenesis?
Did your science teacher clearly explain to you that this is why LIFE DOES NOT COME from ABIOGENESIS? Not likely, it would be counter-productive as the insisting on evolution is so you won't have any hard and fixed morals or standards, so you can be pushed into any mindset to accept whatever humanists and others want to have as society's "normal (a)morals", and to heap scorn on Christians with Biblical standards that would help you to navigate through a corrupt and evil world, to get the best and happiest outcome for your time on this planet. George Orwell observed that "He who controls the past controls the future" and Karl Marx's dictum, " A people without a heritage are easily persuaded." If you can be convinced that you are just mindlessly evolved Pondscum, as Richard Dawkins claims, then you can be lead into any mindset that furthers the aims of international leaders, for their benefit, not yours. Your mind will limit you to mindless and purposeless evolutionary mindset of pondscum, as you cannot conceive of a higher more grandiose purpose, as that has been eradicated from your mind.

One way your heritage is destroyed is in deliberately re-writing history. To this end school books delete the purposes. hopes and inspirations of the Founding Fathers of the USA.

The new School textbook version:

The Mayflower Compact
November 11, 1620
We whose names are underwritten
Having undertaken, a voyage to
plant the first colony . . . . ."


The original Version:

The Mayflower Compact
November 11, 1620
"In the name of God, Amen.
We whose names are underwritten
having undertaken, for the glorie of God,
and advancement of the Christian faith . . .,
a voyage to plant the first colony . . ."