A Study of the Origin of the Universe

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

Andromeda Galaxy

Articles and Links to Articles Which Discuss
the Origin of the Universe

Genesis 1:1 - 2:3. How Did Our World Get Here? (Introduction)

Gen. 1:1. Day One of Creation. 1.1: God's Creation of the Heavens and the Earth

Gen. 1:2. Day One of Creation. 1.2: The Preliminary Condition of the Earth: Unorganized and Empty

Gen. 1:2. Day One of Creation. 1.3: The Preliminary Condition of the Earth: Darkness

Gen. 1:2. Day One of Creation. 1.4: The Preliminary Condition: The Activity of the Spirit of God

Gen. 1:3. Day One of Creation. 1.5: "Then God said"

Gen. 1:3-5. Day One of Creation. 1.6: "Let there be light!"

Gen. 1:5. Day One of Creation. 1:7: How Long is a Day?

Gen. 1:6-8. Second Day. Creation of an Expanse to Separate the Waters from the Waters

Gen. 1:9-13. Third Day. Formation of Land and Creation of Vegetation

Gen. 1:14-19. Fourth Day. Creation of Sun, Moon, and Stars

Gen. 1:20-23. Fifth Day. Creation of Aquatic and Aviary Animals

Gen. 1:24-25. Sixth Day, Part 1. Creation of Land Animals

Gen. 1:26-31. Sixth Day, Part 2. Creation of Man

Gen. 2:1-3. Seventh Day. The Completion of Creation; God's Rest

Genesis 1:1 - 2:3. A Table of the Creation Week. Posted November 4, 2019

Genesis 1:1 - 2:3. How Long Is a Day in Genesis 1? Posted July 29, 2020

Genesis 1:6-8; 7:11-12, 17. The Water Vapor Canopy Theory  Published November 18, 2018

Genesis 1:1-5, 14-19. A Critique of the Big Bang Theory. Updated February 10, 2022

Contradiction beween rotation signatures and ages of globular clusters: and indicator of relative youth?

By Jake Hiebert

This article is from the Journal of Creation 36(2):12-14, August 2022

Posted on WordExplain September 8, 2023
Abstract: Astronomers have noted that stars in the cores of 11 Milky Way Globular Clusters were orbiting a preferred axis of rotation. They had already detected rotational signatures in the outer regions of some well known globular clusters. They were surprised to find rotational signatures in the central parts of these clusters.
     This means that there is an apparent contradiction between these central rotation signatures and the presumed ages of these globular clusters. If these globular clusters are as old as astronomers say they are, they should have lost this "ubiquitous and strong rotation." The rotational core should have collapsed by now. But the rotation persists. Conclusion: Perhaps these clusters are not as old as the astronomers have made them out to be?
The Framework hypothesis, missionary societies and the Gospel: Should Christians promote the Framework hypothesis?

By Russell Grigg. First published on on 8 October, 2019. Re-featured on homepage: 2 September 2023.

Abstract posted on on Saturday, September 2, 2023
Abstract: The Framework hypothesis does not correlate well with the Six Days of Creation revealed in Genesis 1. The 10 Commandments are fatal for the Framework view, because they assume literal days, not vast periods of time. The record of the early days of earth's history is a historical record based on eyewitness accounts or on God's own eyewitness account of what happened. The Big Bang and Evolution are both events that  were never observed by humans. They are based largely on human conjecture. Therefore they lack scientific credibility. Conclusion: "It is impossible to harmonize two mutually exclusive doctrines [of Creation and Evolution] by combining them, as Framework theorists try to do. Evolution over billions of years denies God's Word, undermines the Gospel, and is the reason why two-thirds of youth raised in Christian homes reject Christianity .... So to answer the question posed by the subtitle of this article, Should Christians promote the Framework hypothesis? Absolutely and unequivocally NO."
Water Near Edge of Universe Bolsters Creation Cosmology. By Brian Thomas, PH.D. August 3, 2011.
Linked in WordExplain October 6, 2022
Abstract: "A tremendous cloud of water envelops a quasar in distant space, according to new reports. Where did the water come from? A straightforward understanding of the biblical account of creation provides a possible answer ...." The writer links this discovery to the statement in Genesis 1:6 in which God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang? by Jake Hebert, PhD. May 31, 2018.
Linked in WordExplain September 13, 2022.
Abstract – quoting the article's "highlights":  (1) Secular scientists use three main arguments to defend the Big Bang: the apparent expansion of the universe; the percent abundances of hydrogen and helium, and the cosmic microwave background. (2) The Big Bang model has often been wrong in its predictions. (3) Inflation theory was developed to explain some of the Big Bang's biggest  problems, but inflation is very difficult to defend. (4) Despite its popularity and longevity, the Big Bang model remains weak.
Dark Matter Doesn't Exist: Cosmology's collective delusion. By Pavel Kroupa. July 12, 2022
Linked in WordExplain July 16, 2022.
Abstract quotes that of the article: The current cosmological model only works by postulating the existence of dark matter – a substance that has never been detected, but that is supposed to constitute approximately 25% of all the universe. But a simple test suggests that dark matter does not in fact exist. If it did, we would expect lighter galaxies orbiting heavier ones to be slowed down by dark matter particles, but we detect no such slow-down. (Emphasis mine.) A host of other observational tests support the conclusion: dark matter is not there. The implications of this are nothing short of a revision of Einstein’s theory of gravitation. Why the scientific community is in denial about the falsification of the dark matter model is a question that requires both a sociological and philosophical explanation, argues Pavel Kroupa.  
Dark matter: our review suggests it's time to ditch it in favour of a new theory of gravity. By Indranil Banik. Published in The Conversation July 7, 2022. Linked in WordExplain July 8, 2022
Abstract, quoting the first two paragraphs: "We can model the motions of planets in the Solar System quite accurately using Newton's laws of physics. But in the early 1970's, scientists noted that this didn't work for disc galaxies – stars at their outer edges, far from the gravitational force of all the matter at the centre – were moving much faster than Newton's theory predicted."
     "This made physicists propose that an invisible substance called "dark matter" was providing extra gravitational pull, causing the stars to speed up – a theory that's become hugely popular. However, in a recent review my colleagues and I suggest that observations across a vast range of scales are much better explained in an alternative theory of gravity proposed by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom in 1982 called Milgromian dynamics or Mond – requiring no invisible matter."
Dark Matter and the Standard Model of particle physics – a search in the 'Dark'. By John G. Hartnett. Published 28 September, 2014.

Original article posted on

Reposted on WordExplain on June 12, 2022
Abstract: "The Standard Model of particle physics (SM) has been very successful at describing the elementary particles and the forces that bind them together. However, the Standard Model presents some significant problems for big bang theorists. This is because the SM does not contain any Dark-Matter particles, and the neutrinos in it are described as exactly massless. Which means that in its present form, it is in clear contradiction with the big bang model as required by various observations...."
"But note what this worldview [of materialism] leads to, the invention of new particles (axions, sterile neutrinos and other forms of Dark Matter), and new forms of energy (Dark Energy that drives the supposed acceleration of the expansion of the universe). None of these are found in laboratory experiments. Yet this is not a small correction, but these new forms allegedly comprise as much as 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe. This is so bizarre, it is hard to believe that anyone believes it—such is the commitment to materialism...."
"As it stands now, though, the most successful theory known to physics, the Standard Model of particle physics, contains no Dark-Matter particles, but big bang cosmology demands them. Therefore, because of this prior commitment to materialism, the Standard Model ‘must’ be changed, else it will remain a stark reminder of the failure of the standard big bang model."

This abstract quotes excerpts from the article, retaining its emphasis.
The Singularity – a 'Dark' beginning. By John G. Hartnett. Published 15 July, 2014.

Original article posted on

Reposted on WordExplain on June 12, 2022
Abstract: "Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?" ... "Don’t be taken in by the technical bluff and bluster of the big bang proponents. It is not science in the usual repeatable laboratory experimental sense and it is very weak as one can never be certain one’s model actually describes reality. This is story-telling at its best...."

This abstract quotes excerpts from the article, including the original byline and a portion near its conclusion.
Galactic Conjunction. Original article found in SciTechDaily.

Originally posted Jan. 2, 2022.

Posted on WordExplain Jan. 3, 2022
Abstract: Cosmologists can make accurate predictions about distances from the amount of light emanating from stars and galaxies. But the standard cosmological model keeps falling short of the actual measurements. This is a source of consternation to astronomers.
Dark Matter Search Keeps Coming Up Empty

By Jake Hebert, Ph.D.

Posted by Institute for Creation Research on April 9, 2020

Posted on WordExplain Nov. 24, 2021
Abstract: A recent study has ruled out a possible candidate for dark matter, the mysterious invisible “stuff” said to comprise 85% of the matter in our universe. The Big Bang model needs dark matter for a number of reasons. So, this is bad news for the Big Bang model. (This abstract quotes the first paragraph of the article.)

Starlight, Time, and the New Physics

John G. Hartnett, Ph. D.

A presentation to the International Conference on Creationism


Posted on WordExplain November 12, 2021

A novel solution to the creationist light-travel-time problem is presented. The concept requires new physics—Carmeli’s cosmological relativity. But that physics has been successfully shown to apply to the large-scale structure of the universe. In order for the new physics and Einstein’s physics to apply over their respective domains it is required that the universe underwent enormous expansion that produced massive time dilation on earth, at the center of the physical universe, at some point in the past. This assertion is justified by observational evidence and it is postulated that the time dilation occurred during the Creation week, on Day 4, resulting from the expansion of the fabric of space as God created the galaxies of the cosmos. (This abstract was copied verbatim from the document online.)

Maybe 'dark matter' doesn't exist after all, new research suggests.

By Tom Metcalfe
January 6, 2021

Posted on WordExplain November 10, 2021

Abstract: "In research published in November in the Astrophysical Journal, the scientists report tiny discrepancies in the orbital speeds of distant stars that they think reveals a faint gravitational effect – and one that could put an end to the prevailing ideas of dark matter."

Editor's Note: It is impossible for me to decipher the technical jargon of astrophysicists / cosmologists. I do not know if what Metcalfe describes is accurate or not. However, it seems abhorrent to me for astrophysicists to assume the existence of cold dark matter that is invisible to detection in the electro-magnetic spectrum. I strongly suspect that if they would admit their anti-supernatural bias and assume the existence of a Creator God who hurled the existing galaxies and super-clusters into motion a scant 6,000 years ago, all their problems would be solved without having to resort to dark matter and dark energy. Regardless, I applaud Metcalfe for being open-minded enough to resist the prevailing counterintuitive paradigm (JTB).

Stars just don't form naturally – 'dark matter' the 'god of the gaps' is needed.

By John G. Hartnett. Published 1 September, 2015

Posted on WordExplain October 8, 2021. Revised November 10, 2021

" ‘Dark matter’ is an essential ingredient to form stars naturally given only standard known physics. ‘Dark matter’ is a hypothetical exotic form of matter, unknown to laboratory physics, which does not interact with or emit light in any way, hence it is invisible to all forms of detection within the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio-waves to gamma radiation. ‘Dark matter’ itself, therefore, is outside of standard known physics. It is made-up stuff that has been given one special property, which is that it gravitates, that is, unlike normal matter, it is a source of gravity only." (This is the first paragraph of the article.)

One must invent unknown stuff—dark matter—with the right properties—the unknown ‘god of the gaps’—to get stars to form naturalistically. Without it, it just can’t happen!

But why invent this unknown stuff? There are various areas in astrophysics and cosmology where dark matter is invoked to solve some problem. But more fundamentally why invent a ‘god’ to overcome established laws of physics to explain star formation? Is it because if they don’t astronomers will have to admit that materialism fails and that there is more to the Universe than hydrogen, helium, some heavier elements, magnetic fields, radiation and the laws of physics? (This is the conclusion of the article.)

Does observational evidence indicate the universe is expanding? - part 1: The case for time dilation.

By John Harnett, Journal of Creation, December, 2011). Posted on WordExplain August 2, 2020

The best evidence in support of an expanding universe consists of type 1a supernova observations. "However, to choose the candidate supernovae, the standard concordance model is used. And yet those same observations can be made to fit a static universe without the time dilation factor necessary to the BB (Big Bang) universe. In this case the main line of evidence in support of the big bang is the (1+z) time dilation factor, but if that is due to a selection effect, then there is no definitive evidence for an expansion as required. This paper has highlighted the lack of the necessary time dilation that should be present in an expanding universe. Part II of this paper details evidence against expansion." Neither quasar luminosity variations nor GRB (gamma ray bursts) support time dilation, a necessary component of an expanding universe. Moreover Scriptures used by some Creation Scientists to imply an expanding universe do not demand an expanding universe.

Does observational evidence indicate the universe is expanding?—part 2: the case against expansion.

By John Hartnett, Journal of Creation, December, 2011). Posted on WordExplain August 2, 2020

"Evidence is presented against cosmological expansion that involves both the angular size and surface brightness of galaxies as a function of redshift...." "Taking together all the evidences presented here in parts 1 and 2 (see table 1), in my opinion, it is impossible to conclude either way whether the universe is expanding or static. The evidence is equivocal. It would seem that cosmology is far from a precision science, and there is still a lot more work that needs to be done to resolve the apparently contradictory evidence."

Dark matter and a cosmological constant in a creationist cosmology? By John Hartnett. This article appeared in Journal of Creation 19(1):82-87, April, 2005. Posted on WordExplain June 1, 2021

Abstract: The cosmological general relativity of Carmeli can explain the expansion of the accelerating universe without the need to resort to dark matter. By making a reasonable assumption about the dependence of matter density on redshift, it is shown that dark matter can be eliminated completely from the universe.... The modified field equations used by Carmeli describe a universe that would be expected from a reading of the Bible.
Origins: Distant Starlight in a Young Universe. A video by Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist. Posted on Origins June 8, 2017. Posted on WordExplain Feb. 10, 2022.

Distant Starlight – The Anistropic Synchrony Convention, a web-based article, also by Jason Lisle. Published on Answers in Genesis on Jan. 1, 2010. Posted on WordExplain Feb. 10, 2022.
Abstract: How long does it take light to reach the earth? The reading of Genesis 1:14-19 provides the answer: Light from all the stars and galaxies reached the earth instantly.

(Scripture quotation taken from the NASB1995.)

Search here.

Updated September 8, 2023