Big Bang Shockwave

Just as you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, you can't improve bad science using Shockwave/Flash animation.

Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land (DAL) has produced an animation "Is the Big Bang Theory a Scientific Theory Or Is It Just a Big Dud?" [1]   The basic premise of this presentation is similar to the misrepresentations seen in Hovind's seminars [2].  While those claims have been debunked elsewhere on this site [3] we will focus specifically on the arguments presented in this animation.

A full version of the animation is available here or here (300Kb - Requires Shockwave/Flash)

The thrust of the argument presented by DAL begins with the following distorted summary of the Big Bang model;

"According to the Big Bang the universe was started by a cosmic explosion somewhere [sic] between 10 and 20 billion years ago, which hurled matter in all directions." [1]

Within one sentence two important misrepresentations are made.  First, the Big Bang is not claimed to be an explosion like a grenade, rather an expansion like a cake in the oven. It is claimed that space/time itself expanded in all directions. Second, the Big Bang model does not propose matter existed at the very beginning of the universe.  In conclusion, according to the Big Bang model, the universe did not explode and there were no pieces of matter flying around like shrapnel.[4] 

However, DAL takes these two errors and detours into conservation of angular momentum.  From this law we are told the original matter in the universe (which didn't yet exist) should all spin in the same direction due to the Big Bang (which wasn't an explosion). 

"According to the Big Bang Theory the little dot exploded and created a bunch of little dots. Now, these are all the stars and planets. All those dots, like the planets, should be spinning the same way but they're not. We find planets and moons and even entire galaxies spinning totally backwards." [1]

How can the claim of "one dot" forming "a bunch of little dots" and then onto "stars and planets" be justified? The presentation shows us an illustration from Encyclopedia Encarta [1].  The first obvious detail is the diagram is written in French!  Maybe that is why DAL could not understand what they were reading.  The bottom of the diagram shows a logarithmic timescale ranging from fractions of a second up to billions of annees (years).  The scale is further divided into two halves; predominance des radiations (predominance of radiation) and predominance de la matiere (predominance of matter). This detail shows even DAL's own materials expose the misrepresentations mentioned above.

This timescale diagram also appears to be the origin of the claim of "little dot exploded and created a bunch of little dots". In the early time period little spheres are seen around a "Big Bang".  These spheres represent the formation of subatomic particles; leptoniques (leptons), quarks, etc.  These spheres are not shrapnel flying away from our proverbial grenade and they are not "the stars and planets".  Stars and planets are not represented on the diagram until billions of annees (years) later.

Carl Marychurch, 2004.

[1]  Dinosaur Adventure Land (2004) Is the Big Bang Theory a scientific theory or is it just a big dud? http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/kidos/cartoons/danny2.html [November 2004]

[2] Hovind, K. (2003) Seminar Part 1 - The Age of The Earth http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Seminar/vids/index.jsp [November 2004]

[3] Marychurch, C (2002) The Professor and Mr. Hovind http://www.oocities.org/kenthovind/ [November 2004]

[4] Any decent text on the subject will confirm this.