EVIDENCE OF CREATION AND SUPERNATURAL DESIGN IN CONTEMPORARY BIG BANG COSMOLOGY

1. EVIDENCE OF CREATION AND SUPERNATURAL DESIGN INCONTEMPORARY BIG BANG COSMOLOGY

2. EVIDENCE OF CREATION IN CONTEMPORARYBIG BANG COSMOLOGY • Early Indications of Creation • A. Einstein—general theory of relativity • B. Hubble—red shifts • C. Penzias and Wilson—2.7◦ K uniformly • distributed radiation

3. Evidence of A Singularity – Part I: • Hawking-Penrose Singularity • Five Conditions Requiring a Singularity • The Edge of Time • Requires Causative Force Transcending Space-Time Asymmetry

4. In 1980, Hawking wrote, “a curvature singularity that will intersect every world line… [makes] general relativity predict a beginning of time.” ---Hawking, Stephen. 1980. “Theoretical Advances in General Relativity.” In H. Woolf (ed.), Some Strangeness in the Proportion. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley). p.149.

5. 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 Theory • C. The Inescapability of a Singularity (or • Singularities) in PBB Era (Hawking, Hertog, • and Turok). • D. Time Asymmetry in the Pre-Big-Bang Era • (Penrose)

6. “...[E]ven the conventional viewpoint tells us that it should be quantum gravity that will come to the aid of the classical theory of general relativity and resolve the riddle of space-time singularities. … However, theorists do not seem to have come much to terms with the striking fact that quantum gravity’s mark is blatantly time-asymmetrical! At the big bang – the past singularity – quantum gravity must tell us that a condition something like WEYL = 0 must hold, at the moment that it becomes meaningful to speak in terms of the classical concepts of space-time geometry.” ---Penrose, Roger. The Emperor’s New Mind. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 1989, p. 350.

7. IV. Evidence of A Singularity – Part III: The Inflationary Universe A. Description of Universal Inflation B. The Borde and Vilenkin Proof C. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Proof D. The Inevitability of An Initial Singularity in all Inflationary Model Universes with a Hubble Expansion Greater than Zero

8. “Our argument shows that null and time like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete (requiring a beginning) in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 hold along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time….” ---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).

9. “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)

10. EVIDENCE OF SUPERNATURAL DESIGN IN BIG BANG COSMOLOGY I. The Penrose Number “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes—about one part in 1010123 of the entire volume, for the situation under consideration.” ---Penrose, Roger. 1989 The Emperor’s New Mind. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).p. 343.

11. 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 AccidentalUniverse. (New York: • Cambridge UniversityPress. pp. 107-108.

12. 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.