Piltdown Superman

It seems that every time cosmologists find a safe trail to ride in tracking the Big Bang, another rattlesnake pops out and spooks their horses. Cosmic microwave background radiation was supposed to be a smoking gun proof of the Big Bang, but it raised more problems than it solved. More recently, the revamped Big Bang hypothesis has had problems, including  quantum fluctuations , primordial lithium , the recent "gravity waves" fiasco , and speculations that there was no Big Bang after all . They keep drawing cards and ending up with a losing hand. Another problem for Big Bang proponents is a cold spot in the sky. A big one. Attempted explanations are failing, and fouling up the whole shootin' match. Reason indicates a Creator, not a cosmic accident. In a new paper, scientists have announced the discovery of an enormous region of lower-than-average galaxy density about three billion light-years from Earth. This "supervoid," the largest single structure ev

Some people put their faith in science as the ultimate source of truth (Scientism). Worse, some Christians rely on science to prove their faith in God. Both groups are in a heap of trouble when the scientific claims have to be revised, and the Christian who does this is hurting himself because his faith is to be in the only real truth, the Word of God. I disremember how many times I've heard something like, "The Big Bang shows that there is an origin of the universe, so there's a God. Checkmate, atheists!" Checkmate? Nah. I wouldn't pay it no nevermind. Original unedited image credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team The Big Bang hypothesis has changed many times over the years, and is quite a bit different from the original. Some things look good on paper until you realize that they are based on assertions and presuppositions, which make for a flawed foundation. The current trend is to proclaim the "multiverse" based on "inflation". Why are they

The Big Bang has little resemblance to the original concept of yesteryear. It would be adjusted when scientists discovered problems with it and to hopefully fit in new supporting data. Although there are people who insist that it's a fact (and some think it negates the Creator), the Big Bang is full of speculations, conjectures, suggestions of things that should exist but cannot be found, and more. Actual science took yesterday's noon stagecoach out of this fantasy land. Many people reject it on scientific as well as theological reasons. Modified from an image by NASA / JPL (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) A new theory is puzzling. It draws from relativity and quantum mechanics, postulating that there was no singularity, no Big Bang. That would rule out the Big Bang's predecessor, the Oscillating Universe, since bang-expand-contract-crunch-repeat would not be possible. Imagine the gravity of the situation. Will this new theory become the new sher

Lithium is the lightest metal. Big Bang proponents make predictions on what they expect to find that bring to mind the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent . "If the Big Bang happened, then is seems mighty likely that we'll find certain elements in certain quantities. We find them, so it must have happened." Sorry, Hoss. There are other possibilities for your observations — if they're correct. The amount of lithium doesn't fit the theories.   Not all scientists, secular or creationist, accept the Big Bang. Lawrence "Theoretical" Krauss insists that the Big Bang is true, and gives "evidence". Some of the elements match predictions of Big Bang proponents, but his material on lithium is false. (I could be like some anti-creationists and say that he's lying, but I don't know that he's intending to deceive. It's possible, sure, atheists do that, but I won't casually make that possibly libelous affirmation — unlike som

That story about the origin of the universe popularly known as the Big Bang has to keep evolving. (Some people get upset about that name and when people use the term "explosion", but they need to cut some slack to people who use those words because such usage is completely understandable , even if technically inaccurate.) Currently, it is considered a period of inflation. A few times, "proof" of the Big Band or inflation has been presented, only to be found seriously lacking. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team The "proof" of the inflation of the universe was supposedly found in cosmic microwave background radiation imprinted by so-called "gravity waves", but this was quickly put in doubt  because it was probably nothing but dust. Now it looks like data from the Planck satellite will put that proof six feet under where it belongs. It would be really something if proponents of the evolution of the universe would admit that the evidence reveals t

Critics of creationists will often complain that all we do is pick at flaws in evolutionary theories, so why don't creationists round up some research? Well, busting evolutionary broncos is often quite easy because Darwin's Cheerleaders frequently fail at critical thinking, and there are numerous flaws in what is considered evidence for evolution. They get ornery when we point out those things. But more than that, anti-creationists seldom do their homework, preferring prejudicial conjecture instead. If they did scout around the Web, they would learn some starting things that interfere with their biases. Creationary scientists actually do research, write papers, have jobs in scientific fields, publish in peer-reviewed journals and more. Although the Bible is their foundation, they still conduct "real" science, including life sciences . Here is an article by Dr. Jason Lisle from the Institute for Creation Research about activities in biology, DNA, stratigraphic c

The universe is not supporting deep-time cosmology and the Big Bang, among other established "facts". Once again, what has been believed by secularists is being challenged. W e find out that the more we learn, and the more that scientific equipment develops, there is still a great deal to learn. It seems that the most consistent fact about science is that many "facts" are uncertain and keep changing . Yet, many secularists keep citing things that are outdated and incomplete, dogmatically asserting that the earth and the universe are very old, and that there is a consensus about various forms of evolution. Messier 54, PD / NASA / ESA / Wikimedia Commons In cosmology, cosmogony, and astronomy, many speculations have been asserted as facts, and people spread them around. However, many of these (even long-established), have been overturned or are in serious doubt. The Big Bang itself has always had flaws, and more are found. Are black holes a certainty? Well..

Secular cosmology keeps needing repairs. Once they think they have something figured out, actual scientific data ruins their ideas. Observations (such as lithium content) are interfering with the Big Bang again, so new stories will need to be made up. If they did not have faulty presuppositions in the beginning, they would not have so many problems, would they? After all, the logical conclusion is that the universe was designed, not a product of an inexplicable explosion . You can read more about some of the new problems by clicking on " Big Bang’s Lithium Problem Gets More Problematic ". Also, you can read " Big Bang Fizzles under Lithium Test ".  

Evolutionary science (whether cosmic, biological or something else) has its share of attention seekers. But then, that's where the grant money lies — if you come up with the Next Big Thing and help convince people that evolution is true. So often, some sensational announcement is made in scientific fields (frequently distorted and exaggerated by the science press, of course) and people get all excited. Some Christians who base their faith on "science" and evidence are shaking in their boots as if some announcement will prove evolution, disprove the Bible or negate God's existence. When they send me inquiries, I remind them that our faith is based on the written Word of God, not the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies, and to just wait a while. As expected, the excitement fades and embarrassment for science sets in after further investigation. There is nothing in true science that is a threat to creation science or anything Christian. PD, modifie

At this writing today is August 30, 2014 and the Rosetta spacecraft has entered orbit around Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenk. (It is an understatement to say that this is an ambitious undertaking, since the flight alone has taken ten years.) The Philae probe is expected to land on the comet in a few weeks, and several sites have been projected . Comet on 23 August 2014 - NavCam / Copyright ESA / Rosetta / NAVCAM And I thought the 1986 Vega probes that dealt with both Venus and Halley's Comet were big deals! Well, they were for that time. It's interesting to me that the Rosetta will be using outdated equipment, because a great deal has changed in the ten years since it was first launched. But "old" does not mean ineffective. Secular scientists are starting with the presuppositions that comets are building blocks of the solar system. By rendezvousing with this comet, they hope to find secrets to the origins of many things, possibly even life itself. Not har

In their desperate attempts to explain the origins of the universe, living things, life itself and so on without God, secularists get hasty in their pronouncements. Once the latest great thing is proclaimed, the Evo Sith ridicule creationists by posting links — and embarrass themselves because they were arrogant too soon. In this case, the "smoking gun" proof of the Big Bang (a series of conjectures without substance ) and "inflation" was in dispute a short time after it was announced is receiving further criticism. Now scientists are saying that this "proof" is possibly nothing but dust . The scientists who thought they had proof of the Big Bang inflation disregarded this consideration, and may be regretting it. A word of caution to creationists who are alarmed at scientific findings: don't be. Just wait a while. Besides, our faith is not based on the latest whims of science, but on the unchanging Word of God. In March 2014, a team of radio

When the "proof" of gravitational waves, the inflation theory and Big Bang was announced, some of us were unimpressed. Like so many other big deal announcements, we wanted to wait and let other analyze it before we either panicked or cheered. After all, various scientific evidences have been offered, Darwinoids (thanks to the commenter at The Question Evolution Project who used that word) were waving their proof du jour in everyone's faces. Then they get embarrassed when it is discovered to be bad science, a hoax, fraud or nonsense in some other way. Regarding the tentative discovery of gravitational waves, materialists went wild and pulled the same antics. I was one of those who thought that the celebration was premature . Nobel Prize? Looks like that will have to wait for a while — maybe for forever. After all, assumptions can only take you so far, and also tend to prevent full examination of evidence and phenomena. (Ever notice that creation scientists are more

The fact that  many secular scientists  as well as biblical creationists reject the Big Bang should give people reason to pause and reflect. Instead, people keep believing the pronouncements of secular scientists and Bible compromisers affirming the failed Big Bang conjecture. Indeed, under-investigated findings are  touted as the "smoking gun" for the Big Bang , but indicate desperation to cling to a universe without a Creator. I think that is why the Big Bang won't die gracefully: People won't let it because they don't want to admit that God is the Creator and makes the rules. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams on Real Science Radio discuss evidence refuting the Big Bang, including how Laurence Krauss made untrue statements. You can listen to the audio online or through downloading, but pay attention to the page because there is a wealth of information and links. This should be the equivalent of driving a stake through the Big Bang's heart, shooting it wi

I was going to ignore this story until one of Darwin's Cheerleaders posted it at me as if it refuted this entire article exposing the Tyson version of Cosmos . Here is a bit of humor to start us off. It was originally an ethnic joke (the nationalities are changed in various places on the Web) that I re-purposed. After having dug to a depth of 10 meters last year, scientists from Dawkinsania found traces of copper wire dating back 100 years and came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 100 years ago. Not to be outdone by the Dawkinsanians, in the weeks that followed, Tysonian scientists dug to a depth of 20 meters, and shortly after, headlines in the Tysonian newspapers read: "Our archaeologists have found traces of 200 year old copper wire and have concluded that our ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network a hundred years earlier than Dawkinsania." One week later, "The New Phys Science N

Some people think that the Big Bang is a refutation for creation science, and incorrectly believe that scientists are unified in their support of it. Others think that the Big Bang supports biblical creation, but that is also incorrect . ESA/PACS & SPIRE consortia, A. Rivera-Ingraham & P.G. Martin, Univ. Toronto, HOBYS Key Programme (F. Motte) On "Real Science Radio", two episodes give evidence refuting the Big Bang. The audio sections are about half an hour each, and there is information to read at the links as well. Part 1 is here , Part 2 is here .

COBE MBR (NASA) Some evolutionists think that distant starlight is the "smoking gun" that destroys creationism and the Genesis account. (Some make a desperate, illogical leap of faith that this also disproves the existence of God. That is patently absurd.) However much we have learned, we have not learned everything. Theoretical astrophysics and cosmogony are in a constant state of flux as new information comes to light, and theories need to be (or should be) modified or completely abandoned. The cosmic microwave background radiation was praised as strong evidence for the Big Bang. However, the uniformity of the MBR ("horizon") actually creates more problems than it solves. The ‘distant starlight problem’ is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel–time argument cannot be used

It keeps amazing me that fundamentalist evolutionists and Big Bang adherents cling to their faith in the theories despite scientific evidence against their validity. It takes creationists and Intelligent Design proponents to take news in the physics and astronomy journals to thoroughly discuss these flaws, but scientists should be discussing them instead of giving a "by the way" mention to the latest observation. A gamma-ray burst passed through two far-distant galaxies on its way to earth, illuminating them like a cosmic backlight and shedding new light on models of the origin and structure of the universe. Images from the event stunned some astronomers, because they show that the chemical makeup of these apparently young galaxies is far too mature to fit with the Big Bang theory. "These galaxies have more heavy elements than have ever been seen in a galaxy so early in the evolution of the Universe. We didn't expect the Universe to be so mature, so chemica

Hubble deep field/NASA Evolutionists are in disagreement about when, where, how and especially why evolution allegedly happened. (God forbid that they discuss "who".) Taking the problems further back in time, cosmologists are pretty well clueless about the origin and evolution of the universe as well. The deeper we see into space, the more galaxies that we find. And that throws off the presumed age of the universe . Let's face it, we have piles of "theories" based on other theories, wishful thinking and guesswork. Perhaps no realm of inquiry is as fraught with fantastic speculation as the origin of the universe. Theories of how it could have come about naturally have regularly been proposed and discarded as new evidence surfaces. Ongoing studies seem to have merely widened the gap in understanding how it began—or even how it currently works.  For example, astronomers have observed that the earth has hundreds of parameters fine-tuned for life. Thi

The June 13, 2011, issue of New Scientist magazine summarized recent work by astronomer John Kormendy of the University of Texas at Austin and cosmologist Jim Peebles of Princeton University, as well as others. Astronomers are finding evidence that, according to Peebles, shows that "galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form. It's really an embarrassment." In the January 2011 issue of Nature , Peebles summarized two papers that described galaxy discs that totally failed to fit the standard theories of how galaxies supposedly formed. The galaxies they investigated had very dense points of mass in the center of their cores, presumably black holes. But only about half of them had a "bulge" of associated stars nearby. The other galaxies were razor-flat in side profile, even though they appeared brighter near their centers. Read the rest of 'Wildly Unexpected' Galaxies Defy Simple Naturalistic Explanations he

From the way people talk, the so-called "Big Bang" was the start of the universe. Everyone knows this, scientists believe it, you should too. Case closed. Propaganda and lies, Leroy. When the Big Bang was proposed, scientists (such as Fred Hoyle) resisted the idea. Even today, there are scientists who do not believe that it happened . (Of course, they'll support other ideas about the origin of the universe, and some of those are pretty far-fetched.) It would be better to follow where the evidence leads, and not force-fit the evidence into piles of theories, suppositions and outright guesswork. By the way, some atheists cannot distinguish between disagreements about evidence  and outright lies.  That is, if you disbelieve in the Big Bang, evolution or other atheistic presuppositions, you are considered to be lying. Those of us with some sense consider people like that to be irrational. But enough of my rant. Few questions hold more intrigue than that of