Piltdown Superman

Back in 1929, Edwin Hubble realized that the farthest galaxies had a redshift in the spectrums, and those also had the greatest redshifts. That became known as the Hubble Law , and was the beginning of what became the Big Bang origin of the universe story. Based on assumptions and speculations, secular cosmologists and cosmoginists did the math and expected evidence for the Big Bang in the Hubble telescope. It did not happen. The James Webb Space Telescope was built to be bigger and better — perhaps too good for their purposes. Phantom Galaxy M74, Flickr / James Webb Space Telescope ( CC BY 2.0 ) Amazing photographs were produced (but what we see is adjusted because the JWST works in the infrared). Secularists were alarmed because images were not comporting with the Big Bang tale . Worse, information actually supported biblical creationist predictions . The difficulties are compounding for the frequently-Frankensteined Big Bang, which should have been abandoned long ago. Hubble's

There is a story that a book in 1931 had 100 scientists against Einstein, and Uncle Albert replied that to defeat relativity, just one fact would be necessary. People tend to forget that science proves nothing , but can disprove established beliefs, theories, and all that good stuff. For many years, the secular science industry has propped up the Big Bang and Frankensteined it many times. They had high hopes that the James Webb Space Telescope would provide evidence of the Big Bang and subsequent cosmic evolution. The opposite happened . And it happened again. Oopsie! JADES-GS-z14-0 galaxy, NASA, ESA , et al. JWST is supposed to look "back in time" at the earliest stars and galaxies. By secular standards, they should be primitive and have little structure. Not happening, old son. Not just stars, but formed galaxies with structure exist — which is right in line with biblical creation science. Now two more galaxies have been found, and one is a whopper. Also, oxygen was detect

When a theory or hypothesis is presented, it is reasonable to expect supporting evidence to be displayed as well. Predictions are often made. Scientists are supposed to do that sort of thing. Unfortunately for science, poor reasoning and incomplete procedures are all too common. We have seen that the Big Bang as an explanation for the origin of the universe has been Frankensteined so much that it has little resemblance to Grandfather's Big Bang model of the 1930s. At least, the original had superficial plausibility. Recently, cosmologists attended a conference, doubting fundamental principles of the source of cosmic evolution. The Passion of Creation with JWST image from NASA , both modified According to secular scientists,  homogeneity is expected, meaning a certain degree of sameness regarding the spreading of energy and matter. Ain't happening, Zeke. There are structures of sorts in the universe, such as the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall of galaxies. Things like tha

Secular cosmologists, cosmogonists, and astronomers are frequently astonished when their expectations are not supported by space exploration. So are deep-time creationists and many in the Intelligent Design community. They expect to see evidence supporting their beliefs in cosmic evolution. There were high hopes that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would reveal the primordial universe. Galaxies still forming, stars with only the lightest elements, and certain aspects of the redshift. Instead, they were astonished — again — and rescuing devices ensued. M80 galaxy, Flickr / NASA's James Webb Space Telescope ( CC BY 2.0 ) Over ten years ago, some atheopaths started a Page on Fakebook for the purpose of attacking me personally because of my stand on biblical creation science. (Attack the person instead of rationally dealing with the content...it's who they are and what they do.) I had written that there is no evidence of stars forming, and they found a secular piece that cla

Big Bang supporters have always struggled to find incontrovertible evidence for their beliefs. Something gets run up the flag pole and while some folks are saluting it, others are pointing at problems. Over the decades, the Big Bang has been Frankensteined by having numerous parts stitched in. In the 1976 Columbo  episode " Old-Fashioned Murder ," the Ruth Lytton character asked, "If the hypothesis doesn't fit the premise, isn't it more reasonable to question the hypothesis?" The same thing could be asked of secular cosmologists and cosmogonists. Love the Big Bang, JWST image ( NASA et al ) modified at PhotoFunia New discoveries keep presenting difficulties to the Big Bang and cosmic evolution, with rescuing devices and excuses conjured (including things like this at an Intelligent Design site). If the universe is as old as secularists claim, certain objects out there, thataway, should look far different — or even not exist. Instead, observed evidence and

The other day, Lisa Myworries, the Winkie Guards supervisor from the Darwin Ranch, stopped by my place to discuss some Darwin doubts that she dared not say at work. At one point, she blurted that there were so many stars, there just had to be other planets with life on them. Then she suddenly asked, "So where are they?" Darwin's disciples are dancing with space aliens in the pale moonlight, it is important to prop up Charlie's Victorian myth. All of alien speculation is based on naturalistic presuppositions and assumptions. Darwin dancing with space alien in pale moonlight, made at Bing AI , edited at cleanup.pictures What Lisa was doing was expressing a common thought: Space is so big, it simply must have intelligent life out yonder. (Many Christians think the Creator did not stop with us, but that idea is theologically unsound.) In addition, she indirectly brought in the Fermi Paradox. One big reason for secularists to want to find extraterrestrials is that they thi

We have seen that, according to the expectations of secular cosmologists, the universe does not act its age. Expected antiquity is absent, and celestial bodies in our own solar system show activity that should not be happening. The bigger picture of the universe is also troubling to cosmic evolution. Earth orbits the sun, a well-behaved star in a galaxy with billions of its closest friends. Our galaxy is called the Milky Way. It is part of a larger group and...things just keep getting bigger. Barred spiral galaxies (like ours is thought to be) are another problem for secular scientists. Hubble image of barred spiral galaxy, NASA , ESA, et al  (usage does not imply endorsement) (modified at PhotoFunia ) It's that pesky James Webb Space Telescope contraption again. Secularists put that thing up there to confirm their biases about the Big Bang and the age of the universe, and they may very well be having some regrets. Spiral galaxies, expanding universe — okay, fine. But according to

The Big Bang and cosmic evolution are thought by some to be as important as descent-with-modification biological evolution. Both have their problems, and with advances in technology, those problems become glaring. Indeed, more difficulties are found. It infuriates evolutionists when their belief system is called a death cult, but study on it a spell. In biology, death of organisms is necessary for life to advance. In cosmology, the death of stars (which were never actually alive) is necessary for the evolution of the universe. So where are the supernova remnants? Supernova RCW 86 remnants, X-ray: NASA et al; Infrared [spelling corrected] NASA et al, usage does not imply endorsement of site contents Skipping many details here, but the Big Bang supposedly provided the materials necessary to build the universe. Stars and galaxies formed, stars forged heavier elements, big stars went supernova and spread the materials, other stars formed. Atheopaths say that we  are stardust. Lawrence Kra

As indicated several times previously, the Big Bang has little resemblance to its original incarnation. It has been Frankensteined over the years with material being added, some things lopped off because they are distracting to the main story, and fluffed up. The James Webb Space Telescope is a successor to the Hubble, providing extremely detailed images of stars and galaxies out there, thataway. Instead of supporting the Big Bang and deep times as many hoped, it caused problems — and even supported predictions by biblical creationists ! The Passion of Creation with JWST image from NASA , both modified Believers in the Big Bang have certain expectations and use the framework to interpret the data. They often have to make it fit the narrative one way or another. Probably taking his cue from the complex secular scientific principle of Making Things Up™, one owlhoot is running his idea up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes it. Not yet. But then, the Big Bang itself was originally met

It may seem counterintuitive, but the Big Bang and all those studies of the vast universe involve the tiniest particles. The Big Bang has been Frankensteined over the years and has little resemblance to the original, but all those rescuing devices do not hold up — and even work against it. Indeed, several years ago some physicists were experiencing cognitive dissonance when they said that the universe should not even exist . In addition, there are different kinds of particles comprising parts of an atom, including opposite antimatter versions . Big Bang abstract, Pixabay / Geralt (Gerd Altmann), modified at PhotoFunia Good science in particle physics works against Big Bang cosmogony. Like a relationship status on some social(ist) media: "It's complicated." If the Big Bang were true, there are certain asymmetries that should be detected way down at the subatomic level. Electrons are too perfectly round. Science supports creation (which secular scientists will not admit),

It is obvious that curiosity, exploration, learning, explaining are all a part of human nature. Secular cosmologists and cosmogonists stifle themselves when they presuppose materialism, so they have ruled out the Creator as the logical explanation. These folks believe in cosmic and biological evolution despite the evidence. Huge amounts of money have been spent — wasted — in their search for dark matter and dark energy. The Big Bang has been Frankensteined with new parts for decades. While one concept of dark matter predates the Big Bang, it is still used as a rescuing device. Most of the universe is supposedly comprised of unseen dark stuff. One candidate for dark matter is axions . Galaxy clusters,  NASA / ESA / JPL-Caltech / Yale / CNRS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Instead of the spirit of investigation, secularists are propping up naturalism with imagined things. CERN was looking for axions, but all they found were places not to look. Still, the show goes on

People may rightly recollect seeing discussions on this here weblog about atheists claiming that everything came from nothing, then becoming furious when this fact is mentioned. They even deny it, even when given evidence that high-profile misotheists believe it . Quantum physics is a valid and rather mysterious science , and can even have temporary violations of the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. This law does not apply to God, because the Creator is above creation, upholds all things, and not confined to it. The Big Bang, however, is a naturalistic violation of laws of physics. Graphene, Flickr /  U.S. Army Materiel Command ( CC BY 2.0 ) (Usage does not imply endorsement) Virtual subatomic particles pairs, matter and antimatter, can pop into existence for a fraction of a second before canceling each other out. Julian Schwinger proposed a theoretical way that they could last longer. An experiment to validate the Schwinger effect was conducted using graphene. An article lied outr

A spell back, we looked at how secular cosmogonists and cosmologists want to bring back the oscillating universe , also called cyclic and even bouncing universe. There was a Big Bang and inflation, it expands, then slows, collapses in, lather, rinse, repeat. Those owlhoots are still gnawing on that bone, but as discussed a few times, there are secularists who are not content to go with the flow. A couple of physicists decided to examine things their ownselves. They pulled back the reins and hollered, "Whoa!" Universe and Genesis, Bible page from Pxhere  mixed with  NASA / ESA image (usage does not imply endorsement) The biblical account of creation is consistent with the laws of science. (Indeed, Genesis 1:1 is where they are first manifest.) The Creator is the First Cause, but the oscillating universe cannot happen because of that pesky ol' Second Law of Thermodynamics. It indicates all that universe bouncing they propose will stop. Thermodynamics was brought up before

The Big Bang has been frequently Frankensteined with rescuing devices when observed data do not fit the deep-time narrative. After all, it has very little resemblance to what was proposed early in the twentieth century. Biblical creationists are not the only ones who reject the Big Bang . Some folks think that, according to their physics, the universe should not even exist ! Others are beginning to ride for the oscillating universe brand again . A new observation may cause more secularists to abandon the Big Bang, or at least do some more Frankensteining to salvage it. Tucana Dwarf Galaxy and 47 Tucanae, ESA / Hubble & NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) It is thought that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our own Milky Way galaxy. (Fun fact: Galaxy  is ultimately derived from the Greek word  galaxías , part of which means milk .) A black hole cannot be observed because of its immense gravitational force — not even light can escape. They eat

Think back to those thrilling school days when you were taught that there were three main beliefs about the universe in the secular science industry. The most popular is the heavily-Frankensteined Big Bang, which violates scientific laws . Another unscientific idea was the steady-state universe that continually replenished itself. The cyclic  or oscillating  model presents the idea that the universe goes way out, slows down, then collapses in on itself, setting up another Big Bang. It keeps on a-trucking back and forth. Now a "new" idea has been proposed using the also-unscientific oscillating model. Made at photofunny with a NASA / ESA image (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) In their efforts to deny the Creator and evidence of a young universe (at least, younger than is convenient to atheistic materialism), Big Bang proponents utilize things like dark matter  and dark energy . Those things cannot be detected, scientists have no idea how to do it, and by

People have worldviews by which they live their lives. They interpret all kinds of evidence, and obviously, that includes scientists. From that worldview, scientists have speculations, hypotheses, theories, and all that good stuff. They have expectations and models that are expected to support their ideas. The prevailing viewpoint in cosmogony and cosmology is the Big Bang, so if that were true, observations should fit the models, yes? After the great cosmic inflation, stars formed, exploded, caused other stars and planets, then eventually particles-to-planetologist evolution would occur. Starburst Galaxy Messier 82 from Hubble,  NASA  / ESA / The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) (usage does not imply endorsement) Stars and galaxies are in the wrong place and time according to secular views. As usual, rescuing devices and excuses were utilized to explain away what are further problems for old universe cosmology. Such discoveries are well in keeping with biblical views of recent creati

The majority of scientists today presuppose materialism, which means there is no Creator, no miracles, and so forth. Conversely, biblical creationists and some in the Intelligent Design community presuppose what is abhorrent to secularists. The beliefs of materialists cause major scientific problems for them. Before materialistic naturalism became the a priori  driving force in the secular science industry, most scientists believed in creation. Those who reject the Creator cannot rationally explain energy in the universe. Ironically, they invoke unscientific philosophical explanations. Big Bang abstract, Pixabay / Gerd Altmann Two of the most important laws of physics are at play when considering the origin of energy. First, energy can be neither created nor destroyed, which is a summation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. (Amazingly, matter and energy are forms of the same thing.) Second, entropy: A summation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics  is that everything runs down. Materia

The Standard Model for the Big Bang, which has been modified with rescuing devices since its inception, is saturated with difficulties. Products of the Big Bang are expected and look good in models, but have yet to be found out in the wild. Something that is known to people outside the secular science industry and the hallowed halls of academia is the word antimatter . Supposedly, the Big Bang produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. All that antimatter is missing and the absence is yet to be explained. Antimatter bursts over thunderstorm, NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Antimatter does exist, and when it comes into contact with matter, energy ensues. (That's why we hear about matter-antimatter propulsion units in science fiction.) However, there is not enough of that. Lots of guesswork and rescuing devices, some of which are facepalm-worthy, and even tests at the CERN "antimatter factory". There are amazingl

For decades, governmental and private organizations have been studying space. Some of it was politically motivated at first, but these days, it is primarily in support of atheistic naturalism. Since there is no room for God in that worldview, they dreamed up their own creation mythologies. The current mythology, a highly-Frankensteined Big Bang, continually needs to be patched, repaired, and propped up. One result of the Big Bang is the formation of planets, weakly explained by the best-of-the-worst ( Best-in-Field Fallacy ) accretion theory. Most exoplanets are hostile witnesses. Artist's conception of a hot Jupiter,  NASA / ESA / G. Bacon (STScI) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Technology has advanced greatly, so the detection of extra-solar planets has become rather commonplace. Even amateur astronomers are doing it. However, from cosmic to biological evolution and everything between, speculations are not supported by evidence. TOI-2109b is, like other hot

Because secular scientists have materialistic presuppositions, they are compelled to deny special creation using the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. The Big Bang is the atheistic myth of cosmic evolution, and then other evolution stories are hitched to that one. The first three elements of the periodic table, hydrogen, helium, and lithium, supposedly fit Big Bang model predictions. The first two are the most common elements in the universe, so that seems like confirmation bias. Lithium is not cooperating at all. Modified from an image by  NASA  / JPL (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) We need to ride off on a side trail for a moment. A couple of basic science definitions are in order, since people who do not use them frequently get a mite confused. You have a poster of the periodic table of the elements on the wall of your living room, right? Sure, everyone does (mine is out to be resurfaced). It lists atomic numbers, how many protons, neutrons, and