Piltdown Superman

Michael Crichton said, “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." Really, it is a way around doing actual science and fitting in with the crowd. Seems to this child that mavericks were the ones who impacted science the most. There has been consensuses about atoms-to-astronomer evolution (although adherents frequently slap leather over many aspects of it) and also about dark matter. Because of the way galaxies act, dark matter is supposedly an important part of the universe. Hubble image of galaxies,  NASA , ESA, & J. Lotz & HFF Team (STScI) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Cosmologists agree that most of the universe is comprised of this stuff that nobody has seen or can detect. (There seems to be no consensus about what percentage of dark matter makes up the universe.) But yee haw boy howdy, it must  exist because dark matter is presupposed and inferred, and it is need

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

The secular science industry desperately wants life to exist elsewhere in the universe, but those who believe this  walk by faith, not by science . Despite lack of evidence, huge amounts of money are spent to see if anything can be found supporting their speculations. Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ on teh interwebs insist that the origin of life is separate from evolution, deliberately ignoring that the OoL is also known as chemical evolution or abiogenesis. Life supposedly evolved from dead things and some organic chemicals, and the search is on out yonder in the rings of Saturn. Saturn image: NASA / JPL / STScI (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Secularists do not get a freebie on the origin of life so they can build from there. That's why so many scientists are working on the problem. Saturn's rings have a few of the components necessary for life, but no useable water. Time is vitally important in particles-to-planetologist evolution, and those rings (some of

Things got interesting at my place with surprise visitors and all. First, Darwin Ranch foreman Rusty Swingset and his lady friend Jacqueline Hyde (who was not herself that day) dropped in on their way to Deception Pass. We yakked about what may be getting built in town, and they left. About five minutes later, I was surprised when Stevia Dolce (the baker at the Darwin Ranch) knocked at my door. She brought some croissants. However, she said she waited until the others had gone because she did not want them to know that she visited. Color-enhanced image of the delta in Jezero Crater on Mars, NASA / JPL et al. (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Stevia keeps mum about her evolution doubts because she needs the job at the ranch. (I know the feeling, as I have to do the same when dealing with "pride" month and science deniers who have "preferred pronouns".) Anyway, I told Stevia that she doesn't need to give me baked goods or other gifts, that I fre

It is obviously human nature to want to know things. A wagon train-load of grotzits has been spent on space exploration even before rockets went up yonder. Telescopes, bigger and better telescopes, telescopes in space — not enough, people want to go and look. Cameras, telescopes, and communications equipment were loaded onto various space probes. Sending humans were just not feasible, so that was the next best thing. Jupiter and its moons have had several visitors from here: Pioneer , V'ger  (I mean, Voyager ), and others have shown Jupiter's moon Io to be recalcitrant to deep-time beliefs. Infrared view of Jupiter’s volcanic moon Io, NASA / JPL et al. It has been known for quite some time that Io is volcanically active, which should not happen if it was billions of years old. The Juno mission showed further images of volcanic activity. Secularists are attempting rescuing devices to explain what is observed, including how it spews lava, reconsumes it, and do it again hundreds

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

"He's heading for that space station." "That's no space station, it's a small moon." The secular science industry is all a-twitter about space probe information from Mimas, suggesting there is water under its surface. Interesting that the big crater named Herschel shows an impact that, if it were any stronger, this moon of Saturn would be crumbs. Believers in cosmic evolution seem to believe that if water is found, there will be life. Though the origin of life cannot be explained on Earth, it must have happened elsewhere in the universe. Because evolution. The Farce is strong in them... Mimas, NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute, modified at PhotoFunia (usage does not imply endorsement by anyone) It seems that whenever news arrives that is disastrous to deep-time beliefs, adherents put on happy faces and claim to be excited. Like paleontologists that skirt around the problem of dinosaur soft tissues, these jaspers divert people's attention. Some a

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

About planet formation, that is. Actually, those secular theories have already been discredited. The nebular hypothesis of planetary formation has accretion: Planets form because the stuff sticks together. Secularists know that this has problems  even in our own solar system. Also,  disk instability  is a failed rescuing device. Believers in the Big Bang and cosmic evolution apply their ideas of star and solar system formation to exoplanets (planets orbiting other stars). Problems with secular theories are seen in our own backyard ( consider axial tilt ), and are extremely apparent with exoplanets like LHS 3154b. Large planet orbiting a small star, AI graphic made at  Img2Go This maverick should not exist, and the secular science industry is in a tizzy. Interestingly, secularists frantically try to shoot down anything that threatens a prevailing viewpoint. LHS 3154b was measured by one method and nobody (including the lapdog science reporters) raised questions or wanted more data. Inte

My prospector friend Stormie Waters, her fiancé Roland Meadows, and I met up in town after getting our supplies. Stormie works the earth but ponders the skies, and asked Roland about seasonal changes. I simply sat back and listened to his good explanation. Many folks have a basic understanding of how Earth rotates once a day, moves around the sun in a year, and its tilt affects summer and winter. Digging a bit deeper shows that the axial tilt of Earth and other planets testify of design, and also trouble secular origins ideas. Earth's axial tilt and the solstice, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (usage does not imply endorsement) The Nebular Hypothesis includes a story about how all the planets and moons formed from the same stuff. Naturally, these objects should show some amount of uniformity in many areas, including how they tilt. Cosmic evolution fails, and expectations of secularists are not met. (Venus and Uranus don't even bother to rotate in the same way as the ot

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

Something that keeps coming up is how science and technology provide ways of learning and trying to understand the universe, but also knowledge thwarts both deep time and evolution. Stars and planets do not act their age, so to speak; they give signs of being much younger than expected. Pluto has shown geologic activity , which was a big surprise. Other activity such as volcanoes  on the moon Io , one over on Mars , the volcano on Venus , and now one way out yonder on Pluto are bothersome. Volcanoes bring to mind liquid hot magma. Those farther away they blast other stuff. Pluto from New Horizons, NASA et al (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Upon examining a crater called Kildaze (named after a Georgian scientist who put a great deal of work into studying Pluto), they realized that it sure does look like a supervolcano that blasts water. It's also a young volcano by their standards. Rescuing devices were utilized, but this activity is yet another testimony that

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&#

Believers in cosmic evolution have no desire to admit that there is a Creator, and that their naturalistic origins stories have no value. Sometimes they seem like children playing a game, making up the story as they go along. If secular cosmology worked, would it need four main stories about how the earth got its moon? Genesis 1:16 tells us that God made the moon, the lesser light, to rule the night. Secular formation tales cannot explain why it is beneficial to us . Now they want to retool the impact hypothesis. Silvery Moonlight , John Atkinson Grimshaw, 1882 You know the story. After a night of binge drinking, a celestial object about the size of Mars crashed into our still-molten world, and the resulting devastation gave us a moon of just the right size. Secularists knew the tale was full of hooey, but to admit that there's a Creator is unthinkable. Now they're trying to salvage the impact story with other nonsense. There have been four proposed mechanisms for the formation