Our Awesome Universe - Church of God - NEO

27Before the expansion there was a universalCONTRACTION phase. Here, at last, astronomers tellus, the need for a single creation event is dispensedwith.George Gamow, the late cosmologist explained:"The Big Squeeze which took place in theearly history of our universe was the result of aCOLLAPSE which took place at a still earlier era,and the present expansion is simply an 'elastic'rebound which started as soon as the maximumpermissible squeezing density was reached." (TheCreation of the Universe, George Gamow, pages27, 2B.)Interesting theory but when questioned moreclosely, Gamow admitted: "NOTHING can be saidabout the pre-squeeze era of the universe." (page2B.)Here we are in trouble!More Laws InvolvedConveniently, it is claimed that the compositionof the universe before the "Big Squeeze" wasobliterated, so we don't know WHAT it was like norwhat LAWS governed it.Ah, laws ... !Now, what would make this gigantic universecollapse? What LAWS, what forces would cause itto contract together?Now we are walking on embarrassing ground.One scientist frankly admits:"The question we have to answer, though, iswhat can have made the contraction slow down,cease, and change to expansion. We ask WHY thecollapsing cluster of stars should slow down, stop,and then fly outward again."At present we have NO ANSWER: no physicalmechanism which would reverse the contractionhas yet been discovered." (The Mystery of theExpanding Universe, William Bonner, page 121.)The astronomer, attempting to explain theorigin of the universe, without recourse to aSupernatural Being - is up against a cosmic wall.No Astronomer In "Beginning"You see, the astronomer simply wasn't therewhen the universe began. But God was there, andcan quickly TELL US what happened.Astronomers still need someone to TELL THEMwhat happened in the "beginning" of the universe.But, unfortunately, they have refused to acknowledgethe Personality that could easily, quicklyand simply tell them the facts.They would rather speculate and espouse theirown ideas.One author, reviewing the major theories regardingthe origin and existence of the universefairly gasped out in surprise:"Regardless of the various areas a particularastronomer may be investigating, his findings AL­WAYS SUPPORT the same theory that he avowedlychampions."It is as if various scientists had been PRE­ORDAINED to discover only evidence which supportstheir favorite theory! One wonders, then, ifthere isn't a GREAT DEAL OF EVIDENCE going undiscoveredjust because of this situation." (ModernTheories of the Universe, James A. Coleman, page222.)In the same breath, the author had this to sayabout an evolutionary or steady state model of theuniverse: "The present state of both theories is thatboth are UNPROVEN."Rather a sad commentary on the scientificcommunity.Matter and AntimatterThe existence of what is called "antimatter"has recently given rise to a new theory of the universe.(We won't bore you with details!)This idea has been incorporated into a newtheory by Swedish physicist Oskar Klein. He claimsthe existence of antimatter portends DOOM for thecurrent theories of the origin of the universe.He claims:"Obviously, if antimatter exists on a largescale, the current theories of the history of theuniverse - the 'big bang' theory and the 'steadystate' theory FALL BY THE WAYSIDE."If the original nucleus had contained antimatteras well as matter, it would have ANNIHI­LATED itself; the big bang would have been a TOOBIG bang." (Antimatter and Cosmology, ScientificAmerican, April 1967, pages 106, lOB.)Problems in Klein TheoryHowever, the author is quick to point outthat the Klein theory has one basic assumption:"We do not venture to say HOW the cloud ofambiplasma originated ... we simply ASSUME THEEXISTENCE of the cloud and go on to show that bygravitation it would begin to contract very slowly"(page 109) .Oh,oh!The same problems rear their heads! We stillhave to explain HOW the cloud originated. But the