Piltdown Superman

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

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

The simplest form of the first law of thermodynamics is that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. The second law is that everything goes from order to disorder and energy becomes less useful (also called entropy). Materialistic speculations of the origin of the universe and cosmic evolution fly in the face of these established laws. Flame Nebula image credit:  NASA /DSS (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Secular owlhoots invariably tell biblical creationists that we do not understand those laws and try to evosplain why we are wrong with atheistic talking points. However, village secularists end up demonstrating that they are the ones who do not understand these laws. I'll allow that some well-meaning creationists have misused the laws of thermodynamics, so caution is advised. Fortunately, the article linked below was written by someone who knows his way around physics and astronomy. The Big Bang has been Frankensteined repeatedly over the de

It is probably human nature to wonder how something happened, such as when someone gets new employment or when a vehicle is seen in a ditch. Following close on the heels of why is the question of how something happened. Secular scientists disrelish admitting that they really do not have the answers to many things, so they use the scientific principle of Making Things Up™. This is frequently evident in the tall tales of cosmologists and cosmogonists. Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA , Acknowledgement: Sarajedini et al (Usage does not imply endorsement of site content) There are a couple of things that we have seen here many times before. First, scientists are like the rest of us and interpret data based on their presuppositions. Second, the narrative (which includes models) drives the interpretation. If facts interfere with the story, the facts are put out to pasture. Two articles are linked below that illustrate how secularists would rather tell cosmic evolution stories than adm

The word evil is commonly used, but it is often used incorrectly. When the James-Younger gang held up trains, banks, and stagecoaches, depriving folks of their hard-earned money could be considered evil. When they killed people, well, that was more evil. Nowadays, evil is often used to mean, "Something I dislike". (If you want to get a foundation of what is evil, the Bible tells you about both evil and salvation.) The dramatic term axis of evil is found in astrophysics. It refers to something that puts a burr under the saddles of Big Bang proponents. Planck enhanced anomalies image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration. (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents. Fair Use provisions apply.) To get a handle on this, some background on the Big Bang and cosmic evolution is necessary. Like Darwin and his disciples, cosmologists and cosmogonists believed in something that did not have evidentiary support. Instead, they waited for it. It was proposed that there

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

Secular astronomers and a few vacillating creationists believe in that elusive stuff called dark matter. It supposedly makes up the overwhelming majority of the stuff in the universe, but dark matter has never been seen, nor has any evidence for its existence been decisively indicated. I'll allow that some astronomers insist that dark matter has been indicated, but they set up a consequent to affirm and ignore other possibilities for explanations. 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) Many tests for dark matter have been set up, but they keep jumping the fence. An 80-day experiment by Chinese scientists was a spectacular failure where the PandaX detector thumbed its nose at researchers. They get mighty disappointed when failing to detect something that probably doesn't exist in the first place. Cosmic evolution fails again. Since dark

Sometimes we see pictures from deep space that claim to show stars forming, "stellar nurseries", and whatnot. In reality, nobody has ever seen a star form because it takes too many Darwin years. Not that stars are anywhere near as complicated as the cells in our bodies . The "star formation" is not from actual science. Instead, the story drives the presentation of what is observed. Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Univ. of Virginia (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) As we have seen here many times, indications reveal that the universe is far younger than naturalists want to admit. They still saddle up to ride for the evolution brand, preferring bad science and frustration to giving the Creator his due. Yes, I said frustration. Those speculations about how stars form and keep going need to be revised. Again. Distant galaxies have stars that "should not" be there because those stars are too young to be in old galaxies. Risible ideas of yo

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

Years ago, Carl Sagan, the high priest of secular cosmology, gave the melancholy pronouncement that the cosmos is all there is. He also indicated that Earth and our solar system are nothing special. Although Sagan was using the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ and giving his religious opinion instead of science, he was also using some of the information available at the time. We know a wagon train-load more now. Credit: NASA / Jenny Mottar (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Materialistic cosmology and cosmogony are unable to come up with convincing explanations for the origin of the universe, our solar system, and even moons around our planets. Observable data do not fit their computer models. In fact, there are instances of objects out yonder that seem to have uncooperative attitudes. Planets orbiting other stars seem to be spread out evenly, but on our own spread, planets are less tidy. The planets also have tremendous variations in size. Of course,

Secular cosmologists conjured up the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which was reluctantly accepted over other models such as the oscillatory and steady-state. Over the decades, serious flaws were discovered, so astronomers fudged data and came up with a prairie schooner full of patches for the Big Bang. One failed fake science patch is the concept of "dark energy" . Severely modified from an image at Clker clipart. "But Cowboy Bob, the Big Bang must be true, because here we are!" Yeah, that's the kind of thinking that tinhorns like this one use to justify the fictitious, evidence free rescuing device called the Oort cloud. Looks like a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy mixed with ad homiems , straw man arguments and the irrelevant thesis fallacy, but never mind about that now. But do  mind that people think illogically like that. Some cosmologists kept on fiddling with data and determined that this nice little universe we

An interesting story about the merging of neutron stars (who did not bother to consult the Federal Trade Commission on their merger) involved some interesting information on their history and detection. This necessitates material on gravity waves, and some of Uncle Albert Einstein's work. From there, we were given some Big Bang cosmogony, chemistry, and chemistry's weird great grandfather that nobody likes to talk about: alchemy. The Alchemist / David Teniers the Younger Way back yonder in medieval times, some folks were attempting sciencey stuff by attempting to convert base metals (copper, lead, tin, and so forth) into gold. Imagine the devastating impact on economies if they succeeded! Alchemy was distantly related to chemistry for reasons that should seem obvious. We get exceptionally dense neutron stars commencing to merge, and the interaction supposedly produced a passel of gold. Problem is, it's all based on Big Bang presuppositions on the origin of the uni