Rescuing the Big Bang from Reality

When secular scientists attempt to do historical science involving deep time, their reality checks keep bouncing. This is primarily because they have a worldview based on atheistic materialism, but observed evidence do not fit the narrative. Nothing left to do but use the standard practice of Making Things Up™.

Three articles linked here expose secularists for making up ridiculous speculations in their efforts to rescue the frequently-Frankensteined Big Bang.
Image credits:
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ of Missouri/M.Brodwin et al;
Optical: NASA/STScI;
Infrared: JPL/Caltech
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
We have three articles on this theme to consider. The conflict between storyline and reality is seen in both universal common descent evolution and Big Bang cosmogony. In both kinds of evolution, these owlhoots constantly have to rescue their fundamentally flawed worldview with various excuses. They also say things like, "...earlier than previously thought". A lot. Not earlier than biblical creationists thought, though. We are not surprised by discoveries, so we don't have to saddle up and ride over to Spin City for supplies. They wouldn't have this problem if they accepted the reality of recent creation.

The excuse for this astronomical problem sounds like the excuses Darwinists give for sudden appearance.

To set the stage for this little problem that astronomers found, one must have a basic understanding of Big Bang theory. The Bang was the only ‘sudden’ thing about it. . . .

In this grand scheme, Big Bang believers would not wish to find complete galaxies in the earliest 10% of the universe’s assumed age. Similarly, in the Darwinian scheme, evolutionary biologists would rather avoid finding complex animal body plans showing up all at once (the Cambrian Explosion, sometimes called ‘biology’s big bang’). Yet both observations plague the two materialistic theories.

To learn what's happening, see "Big Bang Anomaly Prompts Excuses". Kindly come back for the next surprising installment.

While a minority of creation astronomers believe dark matter is something to seriously consider, most think it is a rescuing device for the frequently-Frankensteined Big Bang. It has never been seen and nothing can detect it, but it supposedly comprises most of the matter in the universe. They also have the problem with antimatter, which never has fit the Big Bang idea. However, new information has secularists scrambling for excuses because the facts are recalcitrant to the narrative. It must be difficult to constantly live with cognitive dissonance, seeing how the fact fit a young universe and all.

If you thought Darwinists were the storytellers while physicists do hard science, look at this.

Observers of modern cosmology already know that the “experts” believe we can only detect about 4% of reality by observation. The rest of the universe is made up of completely unknown entities called “dark matter” and “dark energy,” they tell the non-experts. But their imaginations don’t stop there.

See the rest of the article at "Big Bangers Are Making Things Up". Don't forget to return for the final short installment!

The Hubble constant is used to calculate the expansion of the universe, but since secularists don't get the results they desire, there are other calculations used as well. Since there are discrepancies, a professor used the old Making Things Up™ principle. Assumptions and guesswork, but no actual science.

. . . two different ways to measure H0 have produced conflicting results in the past. The first method assumes that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is an afterglow from a time about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. Given this assumption, cosmologists find the values of important cosmological parameters, including the Hubble constant, that give the best overall fit to the CMB data. Using the precise data supplied by the Planck space mission, and making the usual Big Bang assumptions, a value of 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec3 is obtained for H0 with this measurement method.

Wow! To read the whole thing, head on over to "Reconciling Two Different Calculations of the Hubble Constant".