Piltdown Superman

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

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. 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'

People tend to use cosmology when they are really discussing cosmogony, but that is not surprising because the fields tend to overlap. Scientists riding for the cosmic evolution brand tend to get a mite pretentious and make proclamations about how the universe formed and operates, then get surprised when their beliefs turn out wrong . Image credit: NASA , ESA, M. J. Jee and H. Ford et al. (Johns Hopkins Univ)  (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Secularists reject recent creation, and do not even consider the evidence for it. There are several materialistic models for the origin and development of the universe, but they are continually changing. The Big Bang is the best of the bad ideas, so secularists cling to it and continually patch it up.  Atheists and anti-creationists show their lack of knowledge regarding science and fields related to astronomy by insisting that the evidence requires certain conclusions. Not hardly! This is where underdetermination  comes i

You may be surprised to learn that the Big Bang model for the origin of the universe began way back in the 1920s and has been modified numerous times since then. However, the Big Bang simply does not work, so older ideas are being retooled, and new ones are being considered and slipped through the secular torpedo nets. Credit: Pixabay / Johnson Martin Astronomer Fred Hoyle came up with the title Big Bang out of derision. He and other scientists did not like the idea of the universe having a beginning, and preferred the even less scientific but predominant steady state concept. Since the Big Bang has been Frankensteined with parts added on through the years in futile attempts to keep it alive, some scientists are dreaming up other ideas to cling to their cosmic evolution ideas. They will not admit that the facts support  what the Bible said all along: God created. There is definitely no valid reason for professing Christians to use this philosophy as an add-on. A recent New Sc

When materialism and evolutionary thinking bushwhack science, observed facts are lassoed, tied, and branded for the secularism brand. That is, the narrative drives the evidence instead of the other way around. We see this in stories about human evolution , our wonderful brains , and other areas. Of course, the deep time story must  control cosmology. Dark matter  is a rescuing device. Credit:  NASA / JPL-Caltech / ESA / Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia, University of Basque Country/ J HU (Usage does not imply endorsement of site content by any of those organizations) The Big Bang is the current secular myth of origins and it is infested with rescuing devices. We recently saw how inflation  and the multiverse  are efforts to save the Big Bang, and another is dark matter.  (Dark energy is occasionally invoked as well.) This stuff has never been observed, only inferred, and that because Big Bang speculations need it to keep their conjecture together and the money coming in

Believers in evolution, whether cosmic or biological, essentially depend on luck. The owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch do not like to play the hand they are dealt, so they reshuffle and cheat until they think they are winning. Attempts to rescue speculations on the origin of the universe may look good on paper, but they still fail. Made at Atom Smasher We had the Big Bang, but that bronco bucked them off for lack of evidence. Now we have the inflationary universe, and then the multiverse  concept. That is, there are many other universes (some folks think the universe is still inflating way out yonder), so despite the odds, here we are through a series of lucky accidents against all odds. That is called "science" in their eyes, old son, but it is blind faith and circular reasoning. Quite a bit of work to disavow the Creator, don't you think? Creation scientists have long pointed out the enormous difficulties with ‘goo-to-you’ evolution, and even evolutionists ha

The hands at the Darwin Ranch were whooping it up and passing around a bottle of rye to celebrate the discovery of the first molecule. Well, they did not discover the first molecule per se, but they found helium hydride. Cosmologists think that was the first molecule that formed after the Big Bang, but they have no actual scientific evidence. Looks good on paper, though. Credit: Hubble, NASA , ESA; Processing & License : Judy Schmidt Space is full of atoms and molecules, but the ones that are the least likely to react are in the areas between stars. Planetary nebula NGC 7027 was the area being studied, and yee ha boy howdy, they found themselves the molecule that doesn't occur naturally on Earth! This thing is essential for the Big Bang, but all naturalists have are theories and guesswork. In reality, the discovery is not all that impressive happening because the helium hydride will probably react with other molecules quite soon. Try as they might, secularists cannot ove

It is pretty much a given that the universe is expanding, but cosmologists are puzzled by conflicting calculations on the Hubble constant. This is used to support the Big Bang. The numbers from the direct and indirect methods should agree, but calculations provide two different results. Credit:  NASA / JPL-Caltech  /STScI (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The Hubble constant is important because secularists hang their hats on it for determining the age of the universe. Although the contradiction has been known for a long time and many cosmogonists don't pay it no nevermind, new calculations are more difficult to ignore; the narrative drives the evidence again. One scientist followed the lead of other evolutionists, both cosmic and biological, by saying the problem is "exciting". They should be delirious with joy, then, because we have seen that the Big Bang is saturated with difficulties, but secularists offer jejune explanations. These scientist

We have seen in several posts that the Big Bang story has been Frankensteined for many years, but it is still deplorable. In fact, efforts to imagine a universe without God (I lack belief that a universe without God can exist) actually defies basic laws of physics . Then there's that pesky antimatter problem. Credit: National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) According to the non-science story, there should be a passel of antimatter in the universe equivalent to the same amount of matter (possibly to satisfy affirmative action laws). Good thing this is not the case. Matter and antimatter collide and release energy. The universe would destroy itself, but scientists cannot detect very much of the stuff at all. Certainly not enough to power a warp core. Some scientists are admitting that the lack of antimatter does not fit their cosmic evolution expectations. Since the narrative is more important than the truth, we are told things like &q

Particle physics is one of those areas that can be useful, but only look good on paper when applied to Big Bang guesswork. Secular cosmologists and cosmogonists are constantly attempting to conjure up rescuing devices for the Big Bang, appealing to their own "miracles" that only make things worse. Antimatter and baryons are bucking broncos that secularists cannot tame. Baryon decuplet image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Trassiorf Sometimes, they simply say that there is a difficulty, such as the baryon asymmetry problem , but they don't let details interfere with good storytelling, yee haw boy howdy! In the case of baryon conservation, there should be equal numbers of matter and antimatter colliding and giving energy. Not happening. That's because the Big Bang did not happen in the first place, and the universe was created by God. That is the logical conclusion, and our Creator told us about it in his written Word. Everything is made of matter. Matter is made

If you use a common but erroneous secular definition of miracle as meaning, "Something is impossible, but it happens anyway", then Big Bang stories are loaded with them. The original Big Bang has been patched together like a Frankenstein's monster and has little resemblance to the original tale. Since it does not work, secularists resort to Making Things Up™ and buffaloing the public with cosmic evolution stories. Image derived from a NASA illustration (Usage of original does not imply endorsement of site contents) Atheists have their own secular "miracles" , and secular cosmologists add ponies to the miracle corral as well. Apparatchiks will come up with big talk about how the Big Bang has answers to all sorts of cosmogony questions — except when they don't. For that matter, they invoke bad science and secular miracles to explain the origin of our lil' ol' solar system .) Quite a lot of work to deny the work of the Creator. A leading cosm

The articles linked here should have more appeal to people with physics and mathematics background. Secular physicists have been attempting to salvage their Big Bang concepts, but they only have theoretical constructs, not experimental support. The Higgs boson was thought to be a way to hitch a new team of mules to the old wagon, but that did not work so well. In fact, some scientists speculated that the universe should not even exist . Later, they came up with supersymmetry (SUSY) , where bosons and fermions would find their superpartners . Guess they could dance the night away. They don't know SUSI like I know SUSI. Dance in the City , Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1883 It was hoped that experiments at CERN would help lonely particles find their partners and help salvage the dark matter concept (the other team of mules hitched to the wagon for rescuing the failed Big Bang), and also the string theory ideas. Nope. For more about those subjects, see " SUSY is not the solutio

Cosmic microwave background radiation is not the byproduct of your attempt to cook a raw egg, in shell, in the microwave oven. The word "cosmic" is a big clue. This radiation is the supposed leftover from the fireball of the Big Bang, and proponents of deep time believe that this is evidence for their belief. Not quite. Credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The Big Bang has a passel of problems, and a search of this site will provide links to several discussion on that. Narrowing the focus to the CMB, while something is out there and has been mapped, bad logic from cosmogonists and cosmologists ignores other possibilities for the background radiation. This faint radiation is a prediction of the Big Bang, but scientists get many of its details wrong, and constantly have to adjust their speculations to accommodate new evidence. One modification for the Big Bang is the "inflation theory", which looks good on com

Nothing to see up there, folks.  Astronomers have detected a galaxy that does not have "enough" of the imaginary stuff called dark matter to suit them. Dark matter was proposed as one of several rescuing devices for problems with the Big Bang, and although it supposedly composes most of the universe, none has been detected. Secularists have a habit of believing in things that do not exist and calling their blind faith "science". Credits: NASA , ESA, and P. van Dokkum (Yale University) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The existence of dark matter is inferred by gravitational effects, and by ignoring other possible explanations for what is observed. Also, some tinhorns are unwilling to admit that gravity is not fully understood while still making declarations as if they understood both it and unproven dark matter — and all of physics. Dark matter is a controversial concept. A few creationary scientists believe it may exist, and some secul

Some secular astronomers are excited about light from the "first stars" in the universe that they supposedly detected. The research took several years, and they put a great deal of work into it. This was based on the presumption that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe, and this light was to have been emitted at the "cosmic dawn" several hundred years after the event. It is indeed unfortunate, since secularists know that their cosmology is useless . "Old" stars, Hubble image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The astronomers took many precautions, and wanted to make sure they were not getting readings from Earth or from the galaxy. Unfortunately, the results had a "dip" that was different than predicted, the results include the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and several unwarranted assumptions were made. Good science does not involve making pronouncements that require further evidence like they