An Open Letter to Pinellas County Churches

cathedral interior

Dear Pastors, Lay ministers, and Board members,

We all know Christianity is under attack.  Secular atheism has taken over the colleges, the prep schools, the media, the entertainment industry, and much of society. We have been passive for so long, and have lost so many battles, ceded so much ground that there is now an epidemic of mental health problems and all of society is suffering under the weight of sin and hopelessness.  Drug abuse and addiction are rampant. The family is under siege. But all is not lost.

At the center of all this confusion and suffering, I absolutely believe, lies the scientifically unpalatable and discredited theory of evolution.  As stated by University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne,   “Evolution is the greatest killer of belief that has ever happened on this planet because it showed that some of the best evidence for God, which was the design of animals and plants that so wonderfully matched their environment could be the result of this naturalistic, blind materialistic process of natural selection.”  Of course I vehemently dispute his assertion that natural selection could intentionally or accidentally design anything. (Please see prior posts on “Natural Selection” and “Branch or Vine”.) But I absolutely cannot disagree with his statement that belief in evolution kills belief in God.

What we believe about our origins has a profound affect on what we believe about ourselves. I am confident that evolution will someday be exposed as the greatest lie in the history of science.  Take a few minutes to view my blogs on “A totally Modern View on Evolution”, and  “BIG GOD, small god: Why Cosmology Matters”. Or look at “The Data in the Strata” on my blog.  You will find that none of the supposed scientific foundations of evolution are valid.  You will find proof exposing many of the fraudulent efforts of secular atheists to promote evolution.  And you will find there is no real scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Like most of you, I was taught in our secular schools that Creation was a myth, and that science had all the answers.  Although I found this teaching upsetting to my core faith, I had no idea how to respond. Atheistic scientists and educators told us they had all the answers, and the Bible, we were told, was just a fairy tale. As a physician and a scientist, one who has studied this social phenomenon for decades, I am absolutely certain that the opposite is true.  There is absolutely NO evidence that evolution or Natural Selection has created any of the immense variety of life on our planet.  Yet Public schools and Universities continue to teach the lie.

I would love to see the truth of the Bible brought forward in a way that offers a path to faith, hope, love, and most importantly salvation.  My blogs at Evolutioncreation.net and Debunking-evolution.com offer the reader many scientific proofs of the absurdity of evolution, and the scientific impossibility of the Big Bang.

In Pinellas County we have hundreds of churches serving a population of a million persons.  It is the most densely populated county in all of Florida. Because of this we have a unique opportunity to serve, and to shine brightly for Christ in these dark days, and we can do so together.  If the Body of Christ can unite in service to humanity here, we can show Truth to a doubting and confused world! But how can we act together?

Christian Evolution

We can come together in 2 major ways.  First pastors and ministers who are not themselves scientists, should look within their congregations for believers who are skilled and knowledgeable in the fields of science to help them, and to explain scientific principles. WE CAN  NO LONGER CEDE THE INTERPRETATION OF SCIENCE TO THE ATHEISTS. Pastors and leaders should become familiar with the latest findings by reading books like “In Six Days” and “Refuting Evolution“.  They should go to good websites like http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test, or read my blogs listed above. And they should visit sites that support Bible history like the Ark Encounter, the Creation Museum, and The Museum of the Bible to find out how science supports the Bible.

Second, it would be entirely possible for Bible believing pastors, Christians, and scientists in Pinellas county to begin a world class Creation museum and Bible history museum right here, serving not only the millions of people in the Bay Area, but also the ten million more who visit the Bay area on vacation every year.  And in the process, by teaming up with other Christian ministries like the Museum of the Bible, we could offer hope and salvation to a generation that is lost and suffering without Christ.

I work as an ER physician in Largo, and I live right here in Pinellas county.  If you have caught a glimpse of the vision that I believe God has for us, please reply to this blog with a message, or email me at anmack55@aol.com. And please ask all your friends and fellow ministers to join the cause. Truth saves lives.  Truth saves souls. May God bless you as you spread the Truth.

Neal Mack MD

church interior

 

 

 

 

New Evidence Humans Recently Evolved?

flight technology tools astronaut
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

A Berkeley site developed to promote belief in evolution has some interesting comments on recent human evolution. They suggest that evolution is now occurring at an accelerated rate, and that humans are evolving at a much more rapid pace than in past millennia.  An article from Berkeley on “Understanding Evolution” offers some hypotheses about techniques investigating possible adaptations to the human genome…

When Henry Harpending of the University of Utah and his colleagues applied this technique to the genomes of people who trace their ancestry to different geographic regions (Europe, Africa, China, and Japan), what they found surprised them — lots of evidence for favorable mutations! Natural selection seems to have acted on these mutants in many different areas of our genome. In fact, the team identified more than 10,000 selection events (i.e., stretches of DNA bearing the marks of natural selection) that seem to have taken place in the past 80,000 years of human history. Interestingly, the researchers found that most of these selection events traced to the recent past, with the largest numbers having arisen in the last 10,000 years. Judging by these results, human evolution seems to have sped up: small numbers of beneficial mutations spread through human populations for most of our history, but since the end of the last ice age, we’ve experienced a renaissance of evolutionary innovation in which many new advantageous mutations arose and began to spread.(1)

Note the words “seems to have acted“, and “seem to have taken place“.  It is refreshingly honest of the authors to admit the weakness of their position.  Also note that the vast majority have arisen within a timetable compatible with the Bible in the last 10,000 years”!  In fact they even say that they have occurred since the Ice Age, which Creation scientists argue very convincingly, occurred soon after the flood!

Also note that in spite of 10,000 supposed mutations, in approximately the last 10,000 years, people still people look, act, walk, eat, and talk like people.  We cannot dig up skeletons or look at mummies from thousands of years ago and see any evidence of these supposed mutations. In fact, for the last several thousand years of recorded history, during this time of “accelerated human evolution” nothing about human appearance or capabilities appears to have really changed.

The authors go on to say, “These results are intriguing (and controversial — they’ve already generated much discussion within the scientific community), but they do have limitations. The technique that the researchers used (looking for genomic evidence of past hitchhiking events) is reliable, but it is not particularly good at detecting very old or very recent episodes of selection.” (2)

Now note further, that the evolutionists themselves admit that the results they depend on are controversial, and have substantial limitations.  Yet you will not see evidence of that uncertainty or controversy in the writings of most secular scientists, or hear it in their voices as they lecture on the supposed scientific certainty of evolution!

person s tummy and hand
Photo by Daniel Reche on Pexels.com

Nevertheless many scientists are finally admitting that research does NOT support the belief that humanity is constantly improving, getting larger or smarter or more robust.  “If you had looked at Stone Age people in Europe … you would assume the trend was for people to get bigger and stronger all the time,’ said Prof Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. ‘Then, quite abruptly, these people were replaced by light, tall, highly intelligent people who arrived from Africa and took over the world. You simply cannot predict evolutionary events like this. Who knows where we are headed?” Some scientists believe humans are becoming less brainy and more neurotic; others see signs of growing intelligence and decreasing robustness, while some, like Jones, see evidence of us having reached a standstill. All base their arguments on the same tenets of natural selection.(3)

From this we learn two things.  First, these scientists who believe in evolution admit that the evidence support the sudden appearance of the modern human race (from whence they have no idea).  Second, that using the exact same evidence, they come up with many different theories or explanations.  Third, phrases like “you cannot predict” and “who knows” absolutely reek of conjecture, not scientific certainty! Yet they teach gullible college freshmen that they “know” evolution is a fact and creation is nonsense!

The real fact is that mere guesses and conjectures about past events that occurred many thousands of years ago are not “science”.  Claiming scientific credibility is not just an overstatement, it is a complete fabrication! Wherever you look into the details at the forefront of “evolutionary science” you will find observations and conclusions that are based not on science, but on the secular atheist world view!

For more proof that evolution is NOT scientific, please see my last blog “Branch or Vine”, and Jan. 14th blog, “A totally Modern View on Evolution.”

 

(1) evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080101_recenthumanevo

(2) ibid

(3) http://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/feb/03/genetics.research

Branch or Vine? Evolution and Scripture.

 

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

We have previously discussed the scientifically discredited evolutionary “Tree of life”. It appeared for nearly a hundred years in texts as an illustration of how evolution progressed from one species to another. It suggests that humanity evolved from apes, which evolved from other lower life forms, and eventually from some single celled organism such as a bacteria or slime mold. It suggests mankind is just one of the many thousands of branches on the random tree of evolution. Here are just a couple of the hundreds of variations.

 

 

Image result for image of the evolutionary tree

Branching diagram that appeared in Charles Darwin's _On the origin of species_, illustrating the idea that new species form from pre-existing species in a branching process that occurs over extended periods of time.

We showed that this imaginary “tree of life” has been totally discredited by scientific (not religious) means, such as archaeology, geology, paleontology and genomics. Proponents of evolution have tried to “improve” and “re-engineer”  the diagram hundreds of times, but to no avail.  It is finally being discarded by many who study evolution, yet it still appears in many recently published secular texts.  You see, even pro-evolutionary institutions like Berkeley admit that NS does NOT explain the origin of life, that evolution is NOT random, that evolution can (and supposedly did) occur RAPIDLY, and that evolution cannot explain morality.(1) Yet all these ideas would have been considered anathema to Darwin. Most are the antithesis of evolution.

Evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste recently admitted that the project to build the tree of life is pretty hopeless, saying “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality“. (2) Or as stated by Michael Rose of UCM Irvine,  “The tree of life is being politely buried… What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”(3)

As written by Dr David Raup, Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.(4) (Bold type added) When he states it is “jerky” that means animals suddenly appear fully formed in the geological strata… that sounds far more compatible with creation than with evolution!

To further explain I will quote evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt, who wrote: “The major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps…The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: ‘the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.’”(5)

We have not yet examined the alternative view point, mentioned in scripture in which we (humanity) are viewed as branches of the one true vine.  John Chapter 15 verse 5 reads ““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (6)

nature countryside grapes vineyard
Photo by mali maeder on Pexels.com

I have no intent to pursue this as analogy thoroughly here, except to say that how we view our origins has a great deal to do with how we view ourselves. Science, that is to say, true and intellectually honest science, is not incompatible with faith, or with the Bible. But the intellectually dishonest, secular atheistic, brainwashed view of science (more accurately called scientism) taught in our educational institutions now is an entirely different matter.

The “vine and branches” verse is traditionally viewed as referring to Christian Churches, ministers, and believers, who derive their life source and meaning from their connection to a living Christ.  However the verse is also applicable to the study of the sciences. I have stated before that the truest definition of Scientific study, is as follows; “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.”

Certainly that definition is at odds as with current secular atheistic presuppositions, but we have proven many times over that the goal of secular atheism and scientism is NOT maintaining truth and objectivity.  It is focused rather on indoctrinating gullible youth into their atheistic, anti-God, Anti-Christ mindset.(7)

Many of the authors and originators of Scientific study (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus, and hundreds more) were Christians, and for hundreds of years we have seen our standard of living, and our standards of education moving forward at a steady pace.  But more recently scientific advancements have no longer been leading to increases in individual freedom, or an improved standard of living for society as a whole.   We have instead seen burgeoning technological advancements that have created an unbelievably wealthy class of billionaires while doing little to advance the condition of the billions trapped in poverty. And worse yet we have seen a dark curtain of spiritual and intellectual dishonesty descend on our campuses, our media, and our entertainment industry. I think it is fair to say that the current trends in science are not leading to the betterment of society and mankind nearly as much as they once did.

Perhaps, you say, that is a sociological or political question, not a scientific one. And certainly in one sense that is true.  But each is connected and intertwined with the other. The sociological phenomenon of secular atheism, for example, which is overtaking our campuses is highly dependent on the belief in and promotion of evolution.  So perhaps, just perhaps, Real Science, practiced in the setting of belief in a loving Creator, offers more hope and solutions than the pseudo-science of the secular atheists. Perhaps by reconnecting with “The Vine” also called “the way , and the truth and the life“(8), even science, cosmology, and our understanding of life itself will be greatly enhanced.

As written by Sarah Irving-Stonebraker of Western Sydney University, a convert from atheism, “Christianity was also, to my surprise, radical – far more radical than the leftist ideologies with which I had previously been enamored. The love of God was unlike anything which I expected, or of which I could make sense.”(9)

(1) evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#f2

(2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

(3) http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life

(4) (1) http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/tomball/opinion/article/The-fossil-record-offers-no-support-for-gradual-9373494.php

(5) Goldschmitdt, R. B. (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven CT: Yale Univ.Press. ISBN 0-300-02823-7

(6) John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” 

(7) John 4:1-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh… and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.”  

(8) John 14:6

(9) http://www.veritas.org/oxford-atheism-to-jesus/

 

Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM

 

Evolutionary Card Tricks

gaming cards on hands
Photo by Midhun Joy on Pexels.com

I’ll bet you were taught that Natural selection proves Evolution.  For nearly a century evolutionists have conflated natural selection with evolution. But read just a bit further and you will find it is nothing more than a sleight of hand card trick. Natural Selection (NS) is real.  NS exists.  But NS is NOT evolution, is not responsible for evolution, and in no way supports or proves evolution. No matter how much conjecture and theorizing sites like livescience.com subject us to, there exists absolutely NO proof of evolution.(1)

In reality, NS has nothing to do with Evolution.  How do I know this? Natural selection is conservative of genetic material, whereas evolution requires the creation of vast amounts of new genetic material. NS creates nothing. Evolution (if were a reality) would have created the genetic material for every living thing on earth.

In other words, natural selection can only increase or decrease the number of certain cats, dogs, moths, or bacteria in a larger population. It cannot alter, evolve, or morph them into new or different creatures. Scientifically studying natural selection does not lead to a conclusion of Darwinism or evolution being true. It is merely an observation which is equally as supportive of a created world or an evolved world.

The online dictionary defines natural selection as follows: “the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.” Note the insertion, without any proof or logic, of the concept of evolution, and note the assertion “now believed”. Even pro-evolutionary writers admit there is absolutely no proof they are connected. Yet atheists and educators everywhere have for decades performed this sleight of hand, explaining one logical concept (NS) and then substituting another completely illogical and unsubstantiated theory (evolution).

For decades, evolutionists and liberal educators used the peppered moth as “proof” of evolution. Sewall Wright called it “the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed.”(2) But while the peppered moth does provide evidence of natural selection, it in no way supports evolution. In fact, one wonders, if this is, in the words of Sewall Wright the “clearest case of a conspicious evolutionary process”, why he supported evolutionary theory at all!  If a change in the proportions of two different phenotypes of the same moth is considered the best evidence zoologists have for evolution, it is indeed a theory without scientific support!

Creation and Evolution advocates can agree, the light colored phenotype (of the moth) may confer a survival advantage where light colors blend in, and the dark phenotype may be beneficial in a darker or more polluted environment. However, that is where the agreement (and the science) ends and the conjecture begins. The dark and light alleles may just as easily have been created or evolved, and neither side can scientifically prove that their side must be correct. But every scientist should readily agree that when either phenotype becomes more prominent, NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL is produced or created.

It should be noted that whatever you believe about evolution and the tree moth, the dark and light alleles have never changed or evolved. No new moth has been created. Both colors have been present through all of the recorded history of the tree moth. Thus Natural Selection is NOT Evolution. Evolution requires a gradual change in the genetic material over time. Natural selection is simply a mechanism by which members of a population best suited to the environment may survive and pass on their genetic material. These are vastly different concepts.

Or as written by Biochemist John Marcus, (Dr. Marcus is research officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia.) “The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on.”(3)

Eve pro-evolution institutions like Berkeley admit that Natural Selection can NOT explain the origin of life, NS does NOT occur by chance, and evolution often occurs RAPIDLY.(4)  All of these ideas would have been considered complete nonsense to Darwin.  Yet these institutions persist in pushing the idea of evolution, because they cannot accept the alternative of a Creator, God, with all the implications of Divine Creation.

NS does not create life, or create molecules, or create DNA.  NS simply allows one already created creature to thrive over another created creature. There is much more we will discuss about NS.  But for know just know this.  NS is real.  Evolution is not.

Isaiah 45:7 states, “The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”

(1) http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

(2) Rice, Stanley A. (2007). Encyclopedia of Evolution. New York: Facts On File. p. 308.

(3) In Six Days, p. 172.

(4) evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#f2

Against The Odds… How Evolutionists Create Something from Nothing

black and grey casio scientific calculator showing formula
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

“The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell.”

Against all odds, Julian Huxley the renowned British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and proponent of natural selection believed that although the chance was statistically zero for evolution to produce a horse, it happened.

“To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way” (Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55).(1)

Still today, all those who believe in evolution follow in his footsteps, doing so not because of the evidence, but in spite of it!

As stated by Joe Crews, “What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man-made thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955: (2)

“From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life. “(3)

Of course, all the early evolutionists knew of this ridiculous improbability, but they expected to find evidence in the geological strata that supported their position.  They fully expected (or at least sincerely hoped) that in just a few more years, archaeologists would find transitional fossils and intermediary species, and mountains of evidence for their theory.  But the exact opposite has happened!  The study of archaeology has proven that life on Earth appeared suddenly, in its full array of complexity, not gradually over many eons.  (See prior post “The Data in the Strata.“) Consider the following written by Joe Crews in an article “How Evolution Flunked the Science Test.”

Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.(4) (amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test)

This is, of course, just one of the myriad reasons that evolution is impossible. (There are thousands.)  See my prior blogs for scores of examples. Yet secular atheists cling to evolution like it is the last life boat on the Titanic.

Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, made some brash statements may have cost him the Nobel prize when he stated that everyone in the scientific community relies on someone else to reassure them that evolution was indeed possible(5). The professor points out that biologists have assured astronomers and they, in turn, have been assured by “others” that it could happen.”The ‘others’ are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles,” says Hoyle. “They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology) . . . The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”(6)

Fred Hoyle also wrote: “Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)(7)

For many decades those who believe in a divine Creation have been labeled “science-deniers”, when in reality the opposite is true.  So, realizing that it may cost me my Nobel Prize as it did Fred Hoyle,

person holding round smiling emoji board photo
Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

let me further amplify the statements by the brilliant and honest Mr Hoyle, and state that all those who belief in evolution do so for reasons completely outside the realm of science.

For a more extensive, yet wonderfully coherent and readable presentation of the above, please see http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test.

(1) Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55)

(2) http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test

(3) Reproduction and the Origin of Life American Scientist Magazine, January 1955, p. 125.

(4) http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test

(5) wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101982213#h=3

(6) http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize

(7) Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

 

The Problem with Bangers

blue and yellow plastic toy revolver pistol
Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

If you believe in the big bang, I suppose I will call you a Banger.  (For a number of scientific reasons, I absolutely do not believe the big bang cosmology.) After reading the following, I hope you will agree.  I apologize in advance for two relatively lengthy quotations of over 100 words each, but I believe you will see their importance as we evaluated the scientific relevance of the so called big bang.

You might call me a science denier or a Bible thumper.  You might even call me an idiot or a moron.  As an ER physician I can say categorically that none of those accusations are true. Still you might choose any number of other insults or expletives which are leveled at anyone (scientist, physician, educator, or student) who dares question the prevailing big bang cosmology. I have been insulted many times in a similar vein by self-absorbed college freshmen with no training whatsoever in the sciences. But I will call you, and said college freshmen, Bangers. Why?

Because Bangers, with their unquestioning group think are a danger to the scientific community.  They are an embarrassment to science as a whole. They stand in the way of real scientific progress by their unassailable devotion to their atheistic and evolutionary mindset. And I am certainly not the only one who believes this. As explained by Tom Watkins, retired Military Scientist,the big bang is not only a mere theory, it is a very poor theory indeed. In fact there are astronomical problems with the Big Bang…

Unfortunately, we also found some verifiable evidence that cannot be explained by the BB theory.  For instance, there is an imbalance of matter and anti-matter and there is much less lithium than there should be.  Some other inconsistencies are so complex that they usually go by names such as the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the monopole problem. (look them up)  There are others.

And then there is the simple matter of timing of the BB.  If we see the universe is expanding and theorize that it must have been smaller in the past, wouldn’t it be necessary to know how large it is now in order to project how long it took it to expand to its present size?  Even at speed C.  We can not see past 13.7 BLY out but for a variety of reasons, the observable diameter of the universe is actually about 93 billion light years and the diameter of the whole universe beyond that can be seen may be as large as 3 x 10 (to the 23 power) times larger than 93 BLYs.  That is a large number but the difference (between that large number and 13.7) is explained, not by the BB but by the expansion of space itself by some, as yet, unknown process.

One other interesting fallacy is related to the cosmological constant.  The error between observation and calculated (conjectured) vacuum energy of space is a factor of 1 x 10 to the 120th power.  That is the largest error between theory and observation of anything in any science.  This is called the Vacuum Catastrophe.  It is hard to relate to the size of this error, it is so big. (1)

For those who cannot comprehend 10 to the 120th power, it is estimated that there are approximately 10 to the 80th power atoms in the entire universe.  So that means that 10 to the 120th power is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than the number of atoms in the entire known universe. That it the error in the so-called “cosmological constant” that Bangers rely on.

So for those of you who are truly of a scientific mindset (not group thinking Bangers),  I hope you will recognize that those who tell you that the Big Bang is settled science are the TRUE science deniers.  They deny the matter/antimatter problem, the horizon problem, the monopole problem, the flatness problem, the cosmological constant discrepancy, the Vacuum catastrophe, and more. You see, for a Banger, there is no possible way to scientifically disprove the Big Bang.  It is an Article of Faith.

Even the Bangers admit this. A 2017 article by Fraser Cain on Cosmic Inflation, reads, “The Big Bang was one of the greatest theories in the history of science. Although it did have a few problems, cosmic inflation was developed to address them. Although there have been a few false starts, astronomers are now performing a sensitive enough search that they might find evidence of this amazing inflationary period. And then it’ll be Nobel Prizes all around.”(2) Note the words “might find evidence.” The inflationary period is so critical that the entire theory collapses without it, and yet we have NO evidence to substantiate it!

So in spite of what Bangers tell you, their theory is not proven, or settled in any way. There are myriad problems and confounding variables, some of which are more vast than the universe itself. But the true absurdity of their group think is explained in the following excerpt, from a 2018 post on Quora.com, by Bud Rapanault, in which we see that the big bang theory fails in almost every scientific sense, both BEFORE the so called inflationary period, and AFTER!

According to the big bang model, the “universe” sprang into being 13.8 billion years ago from a physically inexplicable initial condition wherein the entire universe was compressed into a volume quite a bit smaller than a gnat’s ass.

This remarkable and quite inexplicable initial condition then transitioned, for an inexplicable reason, to a somewhat explicable condition. At that point the model mathematically invokes an unobservable, ad hoc, inflation field to transition this “universe” to an even more explicable expanding state.

None of the foregoing has any empirical evidence to support it. It all took place, according to the theory, in a deep mythological past that is impervious to direct observation; the claimed events lie beyond the realm of science. Therefore, the model, to that point, is an unscientific mathematical absurdity. It says nothing scientifically meaningful about the nature of the cosmos.

It is then claimed that the post-absurdity, post-inflation “universe” can be modeled using standard physics to create an observable “universe” that might be said to resemble the cosmos we observe.

Except that, the big bang model’s version of our observed cosmos contains two significant features, dark matter and dark energy. Together they are said to comprise 95% of the matter-energy content of the “universe”. These features are predictions of the model; their existence is required to make the model agree with observations. However, no empirical evidence for either can be found. They do not exist in the cosmos we observe and measure. They exist only in the mathematical (big bang) model that requires them.

Therefore, it can be said that from its absurd mythological beginning to its empirically baseless description of a “current universe”, the big bang model bears no significant structural resemblance to the physical reality we actually observe and measure. The big bang model is nothing but a vapid mathematicism. That it is widely taught as unchallengeable scientific orthodoxy to impressionable students like Mr Fraser is a scandal.“(3)

So, sorry Bangers.  The improbable and imaginary science of the big bang is not settled at all. For more information please read my prior posts on Big God, small god; Why Cosmology Matters, AND Millennials: A Generation Lost in Deep Time.

 

(1) http://www.quora.com/Why-is-The-Big-Bang-Theory-widely-accepted-How-solid-is-the-evidence-for-it

(2) http://www.universetoday.com/tag/the-monopole-problem/

(3) http://www.quora.com/Why-is-The-Big-Bang-Theory-widely-accepted-How-solid-is-the-evidence-for-it

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1