Piltdown Superman

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

It is clear that secular scientists are committed to the idea that the earth, the solar system, and even the entire universe are billions of years old. Although most scientists for hundreds of years believed that everything was fairly young, geologist James Hutton proposed an old-earth view, which was expanded upon by lawyer Charles Lyell, who wanted to " free the science from Moses ." His agenda was revealed. Charles Darwin was influenced by Lyell's  Principles of Geology while on the voyage of the Beagle , and he incorporated deep time into his speculations on evolution. Pixabay / jodylehigh Many Christians jumped aboard the deep time thing, possibly to look smart and be accepted by atheists. Moving forward and looking upward, cosmologists and cosmogonists got the bit between their teeth and galloped toward expanding deep time ideas to make the entire universe seem ancient. Of course, there have been many difficulties with the idea of an old earth and solar system in m

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

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

The other day, Stormie Waters and I were making chin music with Rusty Swingset, the supervisor out at the Darwin Ranch. We must have caught him in a contemplative mood because he was admitting that evolution has a wagon train-load of challenges. Then Rusty's lady friend Jacqueline Hyde joined us. She and Stormie kept Rusty and I from having another discussion about those "challenges". Jackie said that all the other detailed sciency things aside, she saw some basic hurdles that evolution would have to clear — if it were a sprinter. Unsplash / Interactive Sports Even though Rusty was in a thoughtful mood, Jackie's remarks made him a mite uncomfortable. The Big Bang was supposed to be the start of everything, cosmic evolution, things popping into existence and all that. It violates fundamental laws of science, and she was sorry to say that when scientists say laws were different back then, that's nonsense: "You can put 'em in the oven, but that don't ma

Whether it is cosmic or biological, atoms-to-astronomer evolutionary concepts are being herded by unscientific philosophical biases and presuppositions into the corral of atheistic naturalism. Using some critical thinking skills, people can reduce the deception. We have two articles to consider regarding cosmic evolution. These provide clear illustrations from astronomy of several basic approaches used in biology as well. As discussed in other posts, everyone has presuppositions of unproved beliefs that are assumed to be facts. For the most part, people are unaware that they are using them. Supposed newly forming exoplanet PDS 70b, credits: NASA , ESA, STScI, Joseph Olmsted (STScI) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) A rather impressive term is unargued philosophical bias.  Secularists assume that evolution happens slowly — except when it doesn't. Astronomers claim to be able to see a moon forming from dust around exoplanet PDS 70b (hey, that's my license plate

Здравствуйте on Cosmonautics Day ! Can you believe that is has only been sixty years since Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space? I was just a small buckaroo then. Anyway, this seems like a good day to consider further follies by naturalists to get everything from nothing. Image derived from a NASA illustration (Usage of original does not imply endorsement of site contents) Some misotheists will lie, saying that nobody believes that everything came from nothing, and when lassoed with the truth, they conveniently redefine nothing as...something else. I've been ridiculed for this, and the laughing emoji was hypocritically used on my proof by someone who owns the Krauss book, A Universe from Nothing . It's who they are and what they do. As we have seen many times, the narrative is more important to many than actually attempting science and learning the truth. There's never a sheriff around when you need one because these owlhoots are breaking the law. Specifically, the

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

Once upon a time, it was dark and there was nothing. Suddenly, nothing exploded for no reason. This gave us an orderly universe with predictable planetary patterns, and eventually atoms-to-astrophysicist evolution. But the naturalistic origins myth is continually being shown to be just a fairy tale. Made with Paint dot Net , then at PhotoFunia Materialistic cosmologies expect order and predictability from the Big Bang, but our own solar system belies those notions. We have planets and several moons out yonder that rotate in a manner that doesn't fit secular models. For that matter, secularists have trouble explaining why the composition of the inner planets is rocky, outer planets are gas giants, then rocky stuff out even further. Then there's that gigantic wall of superhot plasma that surrounds our solar system like a bubble.  No, don't let secularists buffalo you when they pretend they have everything figured out. "So what about that hot Neptune thing, Cowboy Bob?&qu

Heraclitus was one of the good ol' boys of ancient southern Greece. He drove a car with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof and yelled "whee-OOH!" a lot. Yeah, I know, it's usually pronounced CLY-tus, not CLEE-tus, but that's less conducive to word play. Anyway, why were (and are) Western people enamored with ancient Greek philosophers? Although nobody knows what Heraclitus looked like, here is a painting of him attributed to Johannes Moreelse from ca. 1625  I'll allow that some of the ancient philosophies are interesting. For that matter, Socrates had a fascinating method. The Ptolemaic system of geocentrism (Earth does not move, everything orbits us) was favored by the scientific community and the Roman Catholic Church . Greek philosophy influenced some of the Church Fathers, and can be see in the writings of Augustine. (When Augustine's work had a revival of sorts, things he had right were used but other things had to be corrected .)

"Houston, we have a problem." "Whazzat?" "I say again, Houston, we have a problem." "This is Tom the Trucker in doing the 'breaker 1-9' thing in Omaha, sorry. Can I help anyway?" "That DLA0817g Wolfe Disc is fouling up our naturalistic cosmology!" Credits: Original, DLA0817g Wolfe Disc Artist Impression NRAO / AUI / NSF, S. Dagnello Then I used Big Huge Labs for the billboard effect Tom proceeded to point out that the scientists, rooted in presupposing naturalism, called the discovery "a challenge" because it didn't fit the Big Bang paradigm. They also said it appears to be quite a bit like our own Milky Way galaxy, but they only have inferences about its appearance, and it took three years after its discovery to learn that Wolfe rotates. That's not supposed to happen. Also, Tom pointed out that the phrase, "Houston, we have a problem" had its source with the Apollo 13 mission, but tha

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