Piltdown Superman

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

Way, way out yonder, water was detected in a pair of galaxies known as SPT0311-58. The radiation from them was detected through the help of a massive object between them and us, which caused some gravitational lensing. Uncle Albert Einstein discussed how space is warped by gravity in a way similar to a bowling ball resting on a trampoline. Light from out there gets bent and distorted before it gets here, and that lensing effect made it possible to detect SPT0311-58 at the edge of the known universe. South Polar Telescope, National Science Foundation / Dr. Daniel Michalik Water has never before been detected so far away, but that should not be all that surprising because it is not in liquid form (that has only been found on Earth), and water in other forms is rather common out there. It's probably frustrating to secular scientists because this indicates problems for continually-Frankensteined Big Bang cosmogony. It also brings Genesis 1:6-8 to mind, which mentions the waters above t

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™. 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 ove

According to biblical creationists, the universe was created roughly six thousand years ago. This prompts hails of derisive laughter from misotheists and other evolutionists. What is considered a smoking gun against creation is the age of the universe through speed-of-light calculations.  Credits because their caption is so small NASA , ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA), none of whom endorse the contents on this site However, that gun shoots at the pistolero  as well as the target, as Big Bang proponents have serious problems with the amount of time that light can travel in their scenario. Meanwhile, believers in stardust-to-steelworker evolution claim that the age of the universe is a fact  (which has changed several times), but this is based on unproven and apparently unprovable assumptions — many of which are used to "prove" the age of the earth in radiometric dating, as we have seen previously. Biblical creation astronomers have pointed these things out for

Not too long ago, we saw a ridiculous rescuing device for the failed Big Bang in the idea of a cosmic bubble . A more long-standing rescuing device is dark matter , and even some creationists believe it exists. However, there is still no evidence for it, and another attempt to rescue the rescuing device has failed. Supposed dark matter ring in galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 Source:  NASA , ESA, M.J. Jee and H. Ford (Johns Hopkins University) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Neutrinos are elusive because they have very little mass and are electrically neutral. Big Bang enthusiasts have tried to associate neutrinos with their concept, and then came up with sterile neutrinos  — "When you want to keep neutrinos as pets, to you get them fixed, Cowboy Bob?" Good luck finding a physicist to perform the surgery. Anyway, scientists are squabbling about evidence, and some are saying there isn't any. Others are saying that there is so evidence. Sorry to break it to

We have seen many times that the Big Bang that anti-creationists know and love is not anywhere near the original. It got its name because of the alleged explosion way back when . Evidence does not fit observed data, and the Big Bang has been Frankensteined yet again. Image credits:  NASA, ESA, Hubble Heritage Team; Reprocessed by  Maksim Kakitsev  ( CC BY-NC 2.0 ) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone, anywhere) A recent serious problem for the Big Bang speculations is the Hubble constant . There are conflicting results, and this should not be so if the science was valid. What's a secularist to do? Use the tried-and-true complex scientific method of Making Things Up™. In this case, float the idea that we live in a cosmic bubble that is different from the rest of the universe. Of course, there is no observational support, but is can be used as a rescuing device to keep the naturalistic narrative going. Cosmic evolution and biological evolution can'

There is a concept in cosmology that all matter is evenly dispersed throughout the universe. This idea is used to support the Big Bang, a concept that has been reworked and cobbled for decades because it is the best of the failed secular theories . However, the cosmological principle  is having difficulties. Seven-Year Microwave Sky image credit:  NASA / WMAP Science Team (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) It appears that matter is distributed throughout the universe, and the universe is expanding. A recent study of galaxy clusters, which could not be done before orbiting telescopes, detected that these galaxies emitted large amounts of X-rays. This study indicates that the universe is not isotropic  (uniform in all directions), which is a serious problem for cosmology and cosmogony if this study pans out. Since secularists are committed to atheistic materialism, cosmologists will probably not let evidence interfere with the cosmic evolution narrative, and certa

Although science is supposed to be about investigating ideas with evidentiary support, secular astronomers (as well as Darwinists) imagine something and then try to find evidence for it. They are riding for the Big Bang-Deep Time brand and are locked into naturalistic presuppositions, putting forth desperate and puerile attempts to justify their blind faith. Image source: NASA , ESA, S. Beckwith (STScI), and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Because the Big Bang works as well as a drunken outlaw at a church ice cream social, it has been Frankensteined many times in efforts to make it function. Dark Matter is one of those rescuing devices conjured up because laws of physics and observed evidence don't rightly comport with secular cosmogony and cosmology. They are like the Whos down in Whoville that Jim Carrey's Grinch described as relentless . Several new efforts have been run up the flagpole, but not many folks are

Great news for creationists, bad for believers in current cosmic evolution ideas. A paper was published that examined galaxies and their associations with quasars. This gets into some deep astronomy and mathematics, such as redshift and whether or not the association is random. Galaxy Cluster, Quasar 3C 186 image credits: NASA /CXC/SAO/A.Siemiginowska et al. Optical: AURA/Gemini Obs. (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) "This is all very interesting, but what is a quasar, Cowboy Bob?" Glad you asked. Like a social media relationship status, it's complicated. When first detected, astronomers were puzzled and decided to call them  quasi-stellar  objects, shortened to quasars.  Has a catchy sound do it. They are very bright and contain a great deal of energy, and seem to be the products of black holes at the cores of galaxies. Or are they something else? It took a mighty long time to get a handle on quasars, and that has changed. The paper is stron

First, a word of caution. We keep seeing how materialists get all excited and shoot holes in the saloon ceiling in their exuberance about something they think proves something, then it turns out to be nothing. Research shows big problems in the belief in dark energy. Type 1a supernova 2005ke image credit: NASA /Swift /S. Immler (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The Big Bang took center stage as the main cosmogony by secularists and compromising churchians. However, observations and additional calculations found flaws, so rescuing devices like dark matter and dark energy were cobbled together. They may look good in models, but since they presuppose naturalism instead of the Creator, it is no surprise that further adjustments are frequently necessary for cosmic evolution. You know how fundamentalists evolutionists will say foolish things like, "Write a paper and get it peer reviewed, then get a Nobel Prize!" The prize is not all it's cracked up