Piltdown Superman

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

If you study on it, the insistence of naturalists that life must exist elsewhere in the universe is irrational. They deny evidence for the Creator that is all around them (Rom. 1:18-23), but believe in their invisible friends when no evidence exists. Artist conception of the James Webb Space Telescope in action Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Over the years, people have tried to determine the possibility of extraterrestrial life out yonder. The moon? No sign of it, not even microbial life in the rocks brought back by astronauts. Venus? Conditions there make life out of the question, despite a hysterical claim that there might be a stinky indication. Mars? Secularists keep trying and coming up empty. Looking further, exoplanets (extrasolar planets) were found. With better equipment, scientists have been able to determine the sizes and atmospheres of many. They even selected a "Goldilocks Zone" where if a planet orbited a star, the conditions

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

Stars come and go, or so they say. The most spectacular exit from the cosmic stage is by a supernova. Astronomers have several ideas on how stars make their exits, but nobody has actually seen a star form. Galaxy NGC 2525 with supernova SN 2018gv Credits:  NASA , ESA, and A. Riess (STScI/JHU) and the SH0ES team; acknowledgment: M. Zamani (ESA/Hubble) Modified at Big Huge Labs (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone) Sure, secular astronomers and cosmologists make claims that there are "stellar nurseries" and such, but those are based on presuppositions of cosmic evolution. Biblical creationists know that God created the stars during Creation Week, and some creationists think that it may  be possible for a star to form because God also created the laws of physics, elements, and all, but that would not really be a big deal. There is no empirical evidence of stars forming. Because creation is running down, we have seen and will continue to see stars expir

As it is with any science, knowledge increases over time and with better equipment. This is especially true with astronomy. Classifications of celestial objects seemed to be under control, despite the occasional anomaly. Those pesky creationists with their science facts required a lot of Making Things Up™ to protect the deep time narrative. Gran cometa de 1882 by Jose Maria Velasco Don't be disunderstanding me here. It's a common practice to add new terminology to describe new discoveries or to give legitimate reclassifications. (Want an example? Pluto is now considered a dwarf planet, much to my sorrow, because of it size, the abundance of similar objects, and other factors.) However, there was some serious redefining of an object with the poetic name of P/2019 LD2 (ATLAS). It was a centaur, but because of a computer simulation that fits the deep time agenda, P/2019 LD2 (ATLAS) is now considered to be a comet. It is also a rescuing device from the Kuiper belt, there to save co

For several years, those bright spots on that world have been thought to be caused by salt . After commencing to cognate and get those mental wheels turning, secular scientists are realizing that Ceres is being recalcitrant to deep-time beliefs — like other objects in our solar system.  Occator Crater on Ceres in false colors  Credits:  NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) This is not a hit with cosmic evolution concepts. Trying to steal huge amounts of time, they are caught off base. Assigning dates and causes to the salt, secularists still drop the ball because those dates are nowhere near the billions of Darwin years they want to see. Worse, they are not catching on that the activity is indicative of recent creation. The bright spots on Ceres formed recently, say scientists, and activity could be going on today. It’s been two years since the Dawn spacecraft ended its orbital reconnaissance of Ceres, the largest body in the

There was a time when, with scant knowledge of Venus, people fantasized about it being a sort of paradise. That was spoiled by increases in science and technology; no life could exist there. Now because Venus stinks, there must  be life there. Idunn Mons on Venus image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / ESA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) I heard it said of Venus, "Baby, she's got it!" Not a chance. If you're into extreme heat and pressure, clouds of sulfuric acid, volcanoes,  a day there is almost as long as an Earth year,  and other things that make it low on recommended lists of vacation spots,  have a nice trip. Scientists are excited because the toxic, odoriferous gas known as phosphine may have been detected in its clouds, and as far as we know , it is given off by living things. So, life on Venus is the only possible explanation? Must be something interesting to survive all those other conditions, huh? Of course, it would need something

Whenever there is a noticeable celestial object in the night sky, people tend to make efforts to see it. As well they should. Annual meteor showers are interesting. Comets, however, garner more attention, possibly because they are less common. Have you ever stopped to consider them? Credit: Unsplash /  Tim Dennert F'rinstance, comet C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE) was discovered, and was eventually close enough to be seen with the naked eye . (By the way, it's thought that those annual meteor showers are from the debris of comets.) Comets can only last with an upper limit of 10,000 years, which is far too small to fit old solar system narratives. Various rescuing devices are concocted using the principle of Making Things Up™ and then passed along as science. So, they have to be replenished. One of the alleged sources for comets is the Oort cloud, which has no observational evidence and the concept is self-refuting; it can't work. (One jasper with Atheism Spectrum Disorder decl

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 .)

Volcanic activity on Venus has been suspected for a while,  which may dislodge Earth from its position as the only planet  that is currently active.  There are moons  showing volcanic activity and others that are suspect. While Venusian volcanism does not threaten old cosmos paradigms, this and other factors make secularists mighty uncomfortable. Credits: NASA , JPL-Caltech, ESA, Venus Express: VIRTIS, USRA, LPI The evidence is indirect. Scientists saw indications of prior activity, but it's hotter than the hubs of Hades. Space probes from the former Soviet Union landed there, but they didn't last long . It involves models based on images from more recent spacecraft. Some researchers are saying that the lava flows are several years old — not several million or billion Darwin years old. A big problem for secularists is that this indicates plate tectonics on Venus. Creationists agree with their secular counterparts that plate tectonics exists, but they do not have an ex

It seems that our moon is trolling materialists. Secular astronomers and cosmologists have no verisimilar explanations regarding its origin, but they cling to faulty stories rather than admit that it was created recently along with the rest of the solar system. Credit:  NASA  / ISS /  Col. Jeff Williams  (usage does not imply endorsement of site's contents) Some resort to the poorly-considered method of counting craters so they can provide Darwinists the deep time that they demand. Our moon, like others in the solar system , show that they are far younger than materialists expect — or desire. It is cooling and shrinking , which contributes to tectonic activity. Then there are the many paradigm problems caused by lunar volcanoes ... We have a couple of recent items about how the moon is putting burrs under the saddles of secular scientists and defying cosmic evolution. The neat theories for the origin of the moon and its subsequent evolution unravel when you try to stu

"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

The sun is the main cause of global warming, as we all should know. It makes things hot and a trip in the desert can be mighty unpleasant. Science articles tell us about all the explosive energy going on within, but if the sun were a living thing, it would have a good nature when compared to its peers. Credit: GoodFreePhotos Similar stars get rowdy, staying out late at night, disrespecting its parents — okay, bad analogies. But other stars can be ill-tempered in comparison with our own ball of fire. We can expect stars of different categories to be far more active, and any planet orbiting one could not have life on it. Even our own has the capability to wipe out life on Earth, but we have the assistance of Earth's magnetic field . Why doesn't it? Mayhaps its because our Creator formed the earth to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18), which is something that materialists cannot begin to comprehend because of their paradigms. And they have no reasonable alternative explanations.

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

Our own Jupiter is a massive gas giant that orbits the sun in just under twelve Earth years, and its rotation gives it a day of about ten hours. There are exoplanets  (planets outside our own solar system) that are called "hot Jupiters" because they are massive and close to the stars they orbit. There are problems for secularists. Cropped from an artist's conception, credit:  NASA / Ames / JPL-Caltech After all, nobody knows what they really look like (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Since they have hog-tied themselves to materialism, secularists are committed to the Big Bang and deep time. Luck must have been a lady because they feel lucky that they found these hot Jupiters. Although star and planet formation models consistently fail to explain scientific facts and observed evidence, they fallaciously select the best of the worst  and assume  that the star and planet must be ten billion years old. Because cosmic evolution. Like the folks who

Many of us in the Northern Hemisphere began stargazing by finding the Big Dipper (or Plough) and using the stars as pointers, and the two on the end of the "bowl" would point to Polaris , the North Star. This was also the beginning of the Little Dipper's handle. While Polaris seems fixed in the sky, it is not that way in the long run. Credit: Flickr / DSS / Giuseppe Donatiello (public domain) At one time, the North Star was Thuban, but that changed because of the precession of the Earth. Ever spin a toy top? It wobbles, and if you could have a laser pointer attached to the top, you might see it draw circles on the ceiling. The same thing happens with the earth, but since it is much larger, the precession takes a mighty long time and would take about 26,000 years to complete one cycle. Polaris is also a Cepheid variable , a kind of star that changes its intensity. (The name came from a star in the constellation Cepheus, which was the first of this kind of variabl

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