So Many Large Galaxies, So Little Evolutionary Time

By -
Secular astronomers and cosmologists are finding more problems with their deep time paradigm, so once again they have to trot out rescuing devices. Their own assumptions are working against them. According to expectations from the current Big Bang model, huge galaxies should not exist. But there they are.
Evolutionists rely on luck, but it has not worked for them. Massive galaxies should not exist, and secular rescuing devices refute themselves.
Derivative from The Passion of Creation by Leonid Pasternak, 1880s
Once again, the secular version of the history of the universe has to be rewritten. Sure, the rescuing devices look like they may work, but circular reasoning is involved; these "explanations" refute themselves. Muy grande galaxies exist before stars had time to form, explode, and seed the universe with stuff to make the universe (and ultimately, you and me) exist. All varieties of evolutionists, whether cosmic, biological, or geological, essentially believe in luck in the cosmic throws of the dice. When science is misused used to defy recent creation, the problems keep on piling up. This is God's creation, not Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, Atlantic City, or somesuch.
Nearly a century ago, Edwin Hubble found that there is a linear relationship between redshifts and distances of galaxies. We now call this the Hubble relation, or the Hubble law. The most straightforward interpretation is that the universe is expanding, but keep in mind that this is an interpretation of the Hubble law. The dominant cosmological model today, the big bang, is based upon an expanding universe. Within the big bang model, it is believed that most galaxies formed approximately the same time early in the universe, about 13 billion years ago. If the speed of light is finite, then there is a look-back time with increasing distance. That is, we will see the most distant galaxies (the ones with the greatest redshift) as they appeared in their youth. However, we will see nearby galaxies (the ones with the lowest redshift) much closer to their current age. Hence, the study of very distant, high redshift galaxies will lead to a greater understanding of how galaxies and stars formed. This is very important in modern cosmology because astronomers have developed elaborate theories of how the first stars and galaxies must have formed within the big bang model. A key part of this is the belief that in the early universe there must have been intense star formation, with stars forming at a much higher rate than they form today.
To read the entire article, click on over to "Massive Galaxies in the Early Universe — Lighting the Way to Dusty Death for Evolutionary Theories?" 

They're singing this song at the Darwin Ranch at times like these:

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more