Piltdown Superman

Years ago, there were Maytag appliance advertisements focusing on their dependability and the loneliness of the unneeded repairman . Similar but also different for SETI enthusiasts. Initial excitement, hopes, and dreams need constant rekindling — without good reasons. The Wow! Signal in 1977 kept scientists hoping that they had some kind of signal from intelligent extraterrestrials. It took many years to find out that the so-called signal was just hydrogen acting up. Then there was the time that scientists were fooled about ET signals that were actually from a microwave oven . Scientists studying space alien, made with  Bing AI Image Creator Kind of like being teased, but there is no entity behind the teasing. Indeed, secular scientists desperately want to find intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. They seem to think it would vindicate their rejection of the Creator in favor of evolution. The James Webb Space Telescope was sent partly in hopes of finding support for the Big Bang

The Big Bang story has been built, rebuilt, cobbled, and Frankensteined in general. When told by card-carrying members of the secular science industry, it sounds tidy and almost plausible. It brought on both cosmic and biological evolution. Looks good on paper. However, the tale is told as if scientists were trucking along in complete unity. Nope. Cosmologists and cosmogonists in the ranks disagree. It is also presented without any actual science, driven by presuppositions and mathematics that support them. The cosmological constant problem may be a good reason to put the thing down. Made at  photofunny  with a  NASA / ESA  image (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Something that supports science itself is how scientific laws (as we understand them) are consistent and predictable, which fits both Intelligent Design and biblical creation science views. A scientist made a claim that is...truly bizarre: The fundamental principle called the cosmological constant  — isn'

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

Take a look at the starry skies and ponder them for a spell. We know that those points of light are not all stars. Mixed in with stars of varying sizes and colors are nebulae, planets, galaxies — and more stars. Once again, increases in technology bring new knowledge and more frustrations for cosmologists. It has been learned that many of the stars we see are binary (double) stars orbiting a gravitational point between them. Interestingly, Star Wars: A New Hope  used Tatooine, a planet in a double star system in the story before exoplanets were even discovered. Webb telescope shows dust rings around Wolf-Rayet 140, Credits: NASA, et al (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Remember, the prevailing view of solar system formation is that a hot, gaseous cloud coalesces into stars and planets. We can reasonably expect uniformity in orbits, content, and such. Many binary stars are doing their dance with mismatched partners, and some go beyond binaries into an even more intric

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

Mistakes are made in various fields of science, which is to be expected by realistic people. Scientists try to correct them, but some try to cover them up or invent rescuing devices. In historical sciences like biological and cosmic evolution, scientists tend to wrong quite frequently. Regular readers have seen examples of failed predictions in cosmology and unexpected signs of youth  in the universe. There are a few secularists who admit their problems — even the big ones — to their lapdog press. Nebula W51, NASA / JPL-Caltech (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Materialists deny the Creator and formulate their own creation mythology; it's who they are and what they do. Many scientists get mighty uppity and pretend they have things figured out. It's rather startling when they admit to being wrong. (They've not been humbled enough to give God credit, but it's a start.) Some admit that observations of galaxies make them think that the standard model of

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

Whether one believes the biblical creation account or the secular myth of origins and cosmic evolution, after it began, the universe was raring to go . Then it started slowing down and acting like it was tired. Eventually, the universe will come to an end, but that will happen according to the Creator's timetable. Creationists have pointed out (and many secularists admit) that there are numerous problems with deep time speculations. That is, what is observed is not consistent with the alleged ages of things. Dog Tired , C. R. W. Nevinson, 1916 The rings of Saturn cannot be explained, either their origin or how they could exist  the huge number of years that secular scientists allege. Geologic structures are not acting their ages, either. Consider that arches have been collapsing . Languages are becoming less complicated and even disappearing, and evolutionists trying to find the roots of languages in ape grunts is...truly bizarre. This tired old universe is wearing out. But that&#

The word paradigm  is related to worldview, so a paradigm shift  is a major change in how we view the world, process information, and many of our perceptions. Interestingly, I first came across that phrase in The Aquarian Conspiracy , which supported the evolution-rooted New Age movement. Regular readers have seen numerous reports here (which direct readers to additional information) about how secular cosmologists constantly have their views overthrown by observed evidence. This is happening with greater frequency, and there may be a paradigm shift brewing among them. Globular cluster Caldwell 73, NASA , ESA, and G. Piotto (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) We have two articles to consider, and the first has several instances of where the expectations of secular scientists are dashed by evidence. For example, the Big Bang got things started for cosmic evolution, and the formation of the solar system is a continuation. Space probes and other things are prompting doubts.

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

Pretty much everyone knows that the origins of the universe, the solar system, life, and humanity are fundamental questions. Believers in atoms-to-atheist evolution find science and logic abhorrent when they support special creation , so they come up with other ideas that are in keeping with materialism. There is no uniformity among scientists about the origin of the solar system, and there are several speculations that have their own adherents. The nebular hypothesis is the prize pig at the fair, the best of the worst . Artists concept of a protoplanetary disk at NASA People say that something is nebulous, meaning unformed or gaseous ( nebulous thinking is one example). In the imaginings of secularists, there was the extremely hot Big Bang, and eventually, swirling hot gasses came together to form the sun and planets. Except that this defies several laws of physics. Sure, some owlhoots may say, "A paper that says hot gases can contract," but those ignore important facts. He

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

We have been through this origin of the moon stuff before, but they keep gnawing on those old bones. Dipping an old bone in sauce may make it taste better for a spell but it is still an old bone. None of the stories make sense, but naturalists need an origin story, so the best of the worst is the impact theory. The story goes that Earth was a molten blob, and another inconsiderate planet came along and smashed into it. Instead of rendering both planets a mess of cosmic splatters, Earth evolved into what we have today, and some stuff formed the Moon. Yes, secularists believe such things, and NASA is sliding downhill with the rest of the secular science industry. Artist's concept of planetary collision, NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) NASA brought this thing to the fore because they were playing with a video game. "That's silly, Cowboy Bob!" I took that term from the article featured below because it fits. Researchers were tinkering with makin

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

After many years and a great deal of expense, the James Webb Space Telescope was put in orbit.  Secularists have high hopes for the JWST regarding the Big Bang and life beyond Earth, and were greatly relieved that it is working properly. Now they think they can check out cosmic evolution. It should be kept in mind that we are talking about preliminary findings, and peer-reviewed material takes longer to become available. It's the nature of that beast. We need to look back to see why all the ruckus. JWST deep field galaxy cluster SMACS 0723, NASA / ESA / CSA / STScI (usage does not i mply endorsement of site contents) Regular readers have seen material on how the Big Bang, a concept that was mostly established in the early twentieth century, is often Frankensteined with new parts stitched in (rescuing devices). Although a tenet of faith for materialists who claim to love facts and science, there is no empirical evidence for the Big Bang. Lots of theory, lots of attempted confirmat