young earth creationists vs. the big bang
When writing articles for Answers In Genesis magazines, those seemingly bottomless pools of anti-scientific pseudo-profundities and woefully ignorant gotcha pieces ran by Ken Ham, not even basic logic seems to be allowed. How else could you explain this article tackling the issue of matter/antimatter disparity predicted to have occurred after the Big Bang? After misrepresenting one of theory’s claims, correcting himself by quoting actual scientists and explaining what would’ve happened to the initial wealth of antimatter created by the blast, the author still demands that cosmologists produce the missing antimatter or admit that the theory is a bust.
Yes, let’s junk the best theory for the appearance of the known universe because some hack working for the guy who thinks that The Flintstones was a documentary can’t wrap his mind around something as simple as explosive reactions and having more of one type of matter than another. Unlike Michael Oard claims, the Big Bang theory doesn’t predict equal amounts of matter and antimatter being created during the event. Instead, it just says that antimatter would be created out of the insanely hot quark-gluon plasma spat out after the initial blast. Any of the slightest imperfections in the flow of this bizarre state of matter could create an imbalance of these two types of matter. When these opposites started annihilating each other with 100% efficiency, matter was slightly more abundant and hence, it persists. As a result, we live in a universe of matter.
But wait, how could there be just a slight surplus of matter if almost everything we know and see is made of it? On a macroscopic scale, matter only makes up around 4% of the visible universe. What may seem like a vast and endless amount to us is actually not much at all. The missing antimatter isn’t missing. It was destroyed in the primordial matter/antimatter interactions and therefore, to produce it to Oard’s satisfaction would be sort of like bringing a corpse back to life and having it testify that it did indeed die. I know that in the end of the day, the goal is to advance AiG’s apologetics. Yet challenging modern science with such simplistic, illogical bits utterly devoid of even the slightest attempts at finesse or putting two and two together, is downright embarrassing. I don’t know what kind of denial it takes to rationalize and ignore this kind of behavior, but I’m willing to bet that most fellows working for a high brow apoplogetics foundations consider Ham and his lackeys overconfident loudmouths who give their cause a bad name.