The Center of the Universe?

photo of night sky with stars
Photo by Bryan Schneider on Pexels.com

Scientific textbooks show a diagram of the big bang and the subsequent expansion of the universe. So it must be true! Right?  Someone took the time to draw a diagram, and lots of people copied and reproduced it, so it is a proven scientific fact, right? Well, lets look into that.

The Big Bang: Solid Theory, But Mysteries Remain

First, let’s consider just the basics about the who, what, when, where and why questions. People (secular atheistic scientists) claim they “know” the big bang occurred 13 Billion years ago. But who or what caused it, why did it occur, and where was the Bang? If it occurred, shouldn’t we be able to tell WHERE? In fact, scientists have been looking for the answer to that question for decades! Here is an explanation written by Marcus Woo from the site Livescience.com:

“Looking up at a clear night sky, you see stars in every direction. It almost feels as if you’re at the center of the cosmos. But are you? And if not, where is the center of the universe?

The universe, in fact, has no center. Ever since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the universe has been expanding. But despite its name, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion that burst outward from a central point of detonation. The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center.” (1)

So apparently, since they could not find where the center was, they have decided there was no bang, or maybe the bang was everywhere at once. But first there was nothing, then EVERYTHING appeared ALL AT ONCE from nothing… EVERYWHERE.

In fact “everything and everywhere just appeared all at once from nothing” is a quick summary of what science has to say about Origins.

There was nothing, and then there was everything. You can see that Scientific Cosmology has no answers.  Sounds more like a lot of scientists gossiping about things they frankly admit (among themselves) they don’t understand. So to cover their lack of understanding, they say maybe there is a missing dimension, or maybe you (and I) are just not smart enough to understand. Some even say our entire universe appeared from another dimension… (as if that is any sort of a scientific explanation!)

Woo continues, “So far, theoretical ideas and observations — such as those of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the afterglow from the Big Bang — point to a remarkably flat universe. But cosmologists still aren’t sure if the universe is indeed flat or if the curvature is so wide that the universe only appears flat — similar to how Earth feels flat on the surface.”(1)

Did you catch that?  Now of course the meaning of flatness in cosmology is entirely different than the meaning of the same word in geometry.  Nevertheless, people used to think the earth was flat, and now cosmologists refer to the universe being “flat”.  But note the phrase “cosmologists still aren’t sure“… but wait! I thought scientists knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred and how hot it was and that it came about due to the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle!

“That the universe has no center — and, by extension, no edge — is consistent with the cosmological principle, the idea that no place in the universe is special. Observations of how galaxy clusters are distributed and the cosmic microwave background reveal a cosmos that, when you zoom out far enough, does indeed look the same everywhere.  Throughout history, humans have wrongly thought we were at or near the center of the universe —whether that center was the Earth, the sun or even the Milky Way galaxy. But no matter how special we humans think we are, the universe has, so far, shown otherwise.” (1)

So let me get this straight.  There was a Big Bang.  But since there is no sign of where the Big Bang occurred, we just assume it’s hidden, or maybe it is curved or flat or in a different dimension. But nevertheless, Woo and the scientists somehow know that we are certainly NOT at it’s center? To further explain this, let’s go to another well know internet site that explains the Big Bang, Cosmology and the “inflationary universe”.

Like dark mattercosmic inflation (even if it is not actually proven beyond all doubt) is now usually seen as part of the standard Big Bang theory, and to some extent the two additional concepts rescue the Big Bang theory from being completely untenable. However, other potential problems still remain.“(2)

So you see, what we really have in the Big Bang is a “completely untenable” theory that must needs be rescued by any means necessary!  But anyway, the ONE thing you can be sure of is that it is all under control due to the immensely strong effects of dark matter, right? That invisible , undetectable , theoretical stuff that holds everything together and keeps the universe “flat” (keeps it from exploding into nothingness).

But what is dark matter?  Scientist don’t know. What caused it? Scientists don’t know. How does it act? Where did it come from? Scientists don’t know. How do we test it or prove it or find it or measure it?  Scientists don’t know. Hmmm.  That’s a lot of not knowing for people who assure us they know exactly how old the universe is and who assure us they know everything originated an a big bang

Or back to the original question.  Where is the center of the universe?  Here is info from the site spaceanswers.com:

“If you were around in the 1500s, during the time of the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, then the answer to this question would have been the Sun. Obviously, despite how we see the planets and stars moving across the night sky, our star is not at the centre of the Universe. So what is?

Today astronomers believe that there is no centre to the cosmos. You might think that there must be a central point – after all, the Big Bang must have started somewhere? While great explosions of say, a bomb, do start from one point, the Big Bang that is believed to have created our Universe nearly 14 billion years ago was a different matter entirely and appeared to happen everywhere all at once – time and space did not exist before the Big Bang and so there was no point from where it could have erupted from.” (3)

If any of that makes sense to you, and explains where the universe originated… congratulations. Because scientists still don’t know. They really don’t have a CLUE!

 

(1) http://www.livescience.com/62547-what-is-center-of-universe.html

(2) http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_accelerating.html

(3) http://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/is-there-a-centre-of-the-universe/

 

Isaiah 66:2  “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”

9 Facts Evolutionists Hope You Never Learn.

pexels-photo-1329296.jpeg
Photo by Magda Ehlers on Pexels.com

Scientifically speaking… someone lied to you.  When they told you “Evolution has been scientifically proven” or “Evolution was the mechanism by which life appeared and grew on Earth“… they lied. They probably even told you if you ever doubted evolution, you must be a religious fanatic, science denier, or a hopelessly ignorant person. (Also a lie.) But here are 9 SCIENTIFIC problems with evolution.  Just 9 are listed here, but there are thousands more..

  1. The fossil record does not support Evolution. For proof see my prior blog post “The Data in the Strata” and also see “Intelligent Design has Scientific Merit in Paleontology” (www.discovery.org/a/7271). As written by Casey Luskin, “ID predicts irreducibly complexity. Because irreducibly complex structures require all of their parts to function, they cannot arise in a gradual, step-by-step manner. If many characteristics of life are irreducibly complex, then ID leads us to expect that the fossil record will exhibit a pattern of abrupt appearance of novel, fully functional body plans that do not develop in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. This is precisely what we typically find in the fossil record.” (1) So in point of fact, the fossil record actually supports CREATION.
  2. Molecular biology has completely failed to demonstrate Darwin’s “Tree of Life”. See my prior blog post “Branch or Vine?”. That diagram you have seen in dozens of textbooks, some sort of “tree” or branched diagram allegedly illustrating the “inter-connectedness of all species”… It doesn’t exist in nature.  Nowhere in the real world have scientists found evidence that the species actually evolved, or are evolving, one from another. And genomics has virtually destroyed any possibility that such a tree could exist by showing patterns of genetic changes completely inconsistent with any known evolutionary paths.
  3. The geological strata do not support gradual evolution.  Archaeologists have almost universally agreed that life seemed to appear suddenly, more or less all at once, not gradually as predicted by evolution. (They will tell you it was millions of years in the past… but this also is unproven.)  Wikipedia states, “In 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, were announced to have been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting “an almost instantaneous emergence of life“.(2) Note “almost instantaneous.”
  4. The Fossil record does not support gradual evolution.  There are no proven transitional fossils. (There there should be countless billions of transitional fossils if evolution were true.) As stated in Wikipedia, “More than 99% of all species of life forms, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinctSome estimates on the number of Earth’s current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.”(2)  Yet of all these millions of living and extinct species, none have been proven to be transitional!
  5. There is no evidence of current evolution.  The rate of evolution required to transition from apes to man would have required extremely frequent changes (several positive mutations every year) in order to evolve in just a few million years. Yet  in hundreds of years, no one has ever seen any current signs of evolution! And of course, this does not even account for the fact that negative mutations VASTLY outnumber any possible positive mutations, and these too are largely missing!
  6. Evolution cannot explain the origin of life.  The law of abiogenesis states life cannot create itself.(3) This law has never been disproven. Evolution could never have occurred because life could never have begun.
  7. Even the most primitive forms of self-replicating life are incomprehensibly complex. The idea of a “primordial chemical soup” which  is transformed into a living cell so completely unscientific it is laughable. (4) A single living cell is more complicated in its chemical and electrical engineering processes,  as well as its manufacturing processes than the most advanced, largest city on earth!
  8. No “primordial soup” could have existed in the first place because the proteins would have of necessity been all isomers (not a random mix) and they would have been degraded by natural processes a thousand times more quickly than they could have ever formed. (5) Those ancient “experiments” from a hundred years ago which supposedly showed that the building blocks of proteins could have appeared accidentally when lightning hit ancient ponds were fundamentally flawed in dozens of ways.
  9. Evolution (and its best friend Old Earth Cosmology) have no explanation for why the earth or the universe is so perfectly fine tuned for life to occur. Things like gravity, radiation, rate of expansion, tides, temperatures, and many more universal constants are so finely tuned that even minor alterations would make life as we know it absolutely impossible. (6)

 

So, all things considered, the most plausible  SCIENTIFIC explanation for life on earth is… Genesis. 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

 

(1) http://www.discovery.org/a/7051/

(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms

(3) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

(4) http://science.sciencemag.org/content/300/5620/745

(5) http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/primordials.htm

(6) http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/11/are-the-laws-of-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life

Astonishing Ice Age Facts!

 

cold foggy freeze freezing
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

 

You can’t have an Ice Age without extremely warm oceans and really cold air…

You can’t have an Ice Age without extremely warm oceans and really cold air

You can’t have…  Well, you get it.  Secular science has good geological evidence that an Ice age occurred.  There are telltale signs all over the northernmost landscapes that suggest massive erosive patterns from huge ice sheets and glaciers. But while most secular geologists have absolutely no idea how or why these occurred, geologist Tim Clarey, Ph. D. believes he has the answers in his article “Subduction Was Essential for the Ice Age.”

Image result for ice ages pictures

An ice age requires massive, enormous, unprecedented, ridiculous, astronomically unbelievable amounts of snow.   Estimates require at least 4,000 inches of snow a year just to keep up with melting snow at the leading edge! That’s not even considering how much is needed to create the massive fields of ice to begin with!

As Written by Michael Oard, “melting in a dry, cool Ice Age climate (50°F, or 10°C, average summer temperature) near the edge of the ice sheet is about 400 inches (10 m) of ice a year. One inch of ice corresponds to an average of 10 inches of powder snow. So for Minneapolis this would represent 4,000 inches (100 m) of powder snow a year, which is about 100 times their annual average. So, even during a relatively cool summer, the amount of snowfall required is tremendous.”(1)

Such massive amounts of snow require constantly replenished moisture in the atmosphere. The only possible source of such abundant moisture is you guessed it, WARM OCEANS. Why is this important?

For decades secular atheist scientist have told us they understand the ice ages. They claim to know when they occurred, and they claim to know what caused them.  But if you ask any secular scientist how they explain the astronomically vast amounts of moisture that would have been required to create the glaciers… you can hear the cricketsThey have no idea. Most do not even address the topic!

Image result for ice ages pictures

Traditional ice age explanations involve only periods of extended cold.   The theories postulate that there might have been extended decades or centuries of cold because of sun spots, or wobbles in the earth’s orbit, or changes in the axis. Scott Elias writes,

Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth’s climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles.”(2)

Or as written by Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek, “Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession).”(3)

Note that there is still no mention of moisture, just cold. But at least the plebeian Wikipedia is honest, stating, “The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age.” (4)

So who, exactly, does have a plausible explanation for both the COLD air and the WARM oceans?  Well, it turns out that creation science may have the explanation. Creation meteorologist Michael Oard has written extensively about ice ages, and he states that an ice age would require much warmer oceans than we have today and much cooler summers then we have today.  And what could cause such conditions?   According to Tim Clarey, Ph.D.  “the answer is the rapid subduction involved in catastrophic plate tectonics.”(5)

But what is catastrophic plate tectonics?  It involves rapid movement of continental plates, and subduction of these massive plates over and under one another (as might have occurred when Pangaea broke up and plates moved rapidly toward their current positions.) At such times, it is likely, almost guaranteed, that large areas of the earth’s molten core on which the plates rested would have been exposed to the oceans, and unbelievably massive quantities of ocean water would have been vaporized into steam and then converted into water vapor, and subsequently rain or snow. Thus providing PLENTY of warm water and cold atmospheric conditions… just right for an Ice Age!

At that same time, the same plate subductions would have created hundreds or thousands of volcanoes. Those volcanoes were ejecting millions and millions of tons of aerosolized gases, chemicals, and ash high into the atmosphere and blocking the sun (probably for many years) leading to atmospheric cooling.  So it is extremely likely that if there was a global flood caused by plate tectonics and subduction, it would probably have been followed soon after by an ice age!

So to summarize, catastrophic plate tectonics (rapid movement of the large continental plates from ancient Pangaea toward their modern locations) wold have caused:

1.) Exposure of huge areas of magma under the oceans, vaporizing vast quantities of ocean water.

2.) Massive persistent rains for weeks or months while the continents moved and “mountains bowed down” (continental plates subducted and immersed).

3.) Expulsion of billions of tons of ash and sulfur into the stratosphere through volcanic venting, with subsequent rapid cooling of the earth.

4.) And finally an Ice age as the warm oceans continued their rapid evaporation, but the Northern and Southern hemispheres experienced severe cooling from volcanic shielding.

So the best, most plausible explanation for the ice age seems to be catastrophic plate tectonics. This means that in order to provide both warm oceans, and cooler atmospheres, we can look to the Biblical account of the flood. It turns out that massive amounts of water in the atmosphere were also required for a global flood, as written in Genesis 7:19, “And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.“(6) But it was not enough to just have “lots of water” in order for the top of the mountains to be covered. It almost certainly required the mountains themselves to bow down!  And this, too, involves catastrophic plate tectonics.

Psalm 104:6-9 reads, “6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7 But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; 8 they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. 9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.”

Job 9:5 reads, “He who removes mountains, and they know it not, when he overturns them in his anger”.

Those who believe the “Uniformitarian” assumptions assure us (with absolutely NO evidence) that Pangaea was hundreds of millions of years in the past.  They say the rate of continental drift we see today is the rate that has been present for millions of years. But if you read my prior blog “The Uniformitarians” you will see that such blatant over-reach is common on the part of secular geologists. And you will see that they routinely fail to actually apply Uniformitarian principles, only applying these assumptions when it is convenient for them and for their secular agenda.  (See prior posts for proofs including the Himalayas, the moon, the ocean floor sediment, and more.)

As I wrote there, “The principle of uniformitarianism has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied.”

So, as with much of science, the secular atheistic interpretations about the Ice Ages may be in conflict with the Bible, but the actual scientific facts are not. If you want to understand the Ice Ages, your best bet is understanding the events surrounding the Flood. For a very good discussion see the site at Answers in Genesis “The Mystery of the Ice Age“.(7)

 

 

 

(1) answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/the-mystery-of-the-ice-age/

(2) culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

(3) geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/

(4) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

(5) http://www.icr.org/article/subduction-was-essential-for-the-ice-age/

(6) Genesis 7:17 ESV

(7) answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/the-mystery-of-the-ice-age/

Jesus vs Evolution

Christian Evolution

Opinions on the validity of evolutionary theory are often viewed as being US vs THEM.  People believe that the Christian church is “against” evolution and scientists are “for” evolution. Nevertheless, many thoroughly trained scientists firmly believe in Creation, and church leaders today from different denominations often have opposing views on the validity of evolution.  Some insist we must believe the atheistic scientists and their interpretations.  Pope Francis stated, “Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”(1) Others Christian leaders insist that the Bible creation story is accurate.  So in discussing the possibility of evolution, I can’t help but wonder what would Jesus say?  (Also see my Prior blog, What Would Jesus Say?)

Respected authors from nearly all the world’s great religions and even many  atheists have acknowledged that Jesus was a great man, a great teacher, a great intellect, or a great prophet.  Billions of Christians believe, and Scripture teaches, that He was literally the Son of God and had access to the infinite knowledge of his Father in Heaven.

man holding sheep statuette
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Jesus spent his early life studying the Scripture (the Torah) and he was so intimately acquainted with it that he amazed the scholars of the day at the age of twelve years when he stayed behind in the temple after his family left Jerusalem.

46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” 49 Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:46-49) 

So first let it be established that Jesus had great knowledge of and respect for Scripture. In fact Jesus Jesus quotes directly from Genesis chapter one, treating it not as allegory or fiction, but as the real, historical Word of God, saying, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female…” (Matthew 19:4) and also “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” (Mark 10:6 – parallel passage, but slightly different wording). 

In addition, Jesus clearly accepted Noah and the flood as historical fact, saying,

37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.  (Matthew 24:37-39).

Jesus held a high view of all scripture, including the verse in the Bible and the Torah which states, God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (Genesis 1:31)

Genesis 1:26 God (with Jesus and the Holy Spirit) says let US make man.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26)

This is important because the “US” here mentioned indicates that Jesus was present, with God the Father, at creation.  (This is what is called the Doctrine of the Trinity.  It is why Christians say God is Three in One.)  Jesus had intimate knowledge of all the events which occurred at creation.  If  evolution had been God’s preferred mechanism, Jesus would have known and directed the evolutionary process.  But that is NOT what he said.  There are of course many, many other verses which are applicable to those who take the high view of scripture (as Jesus did) that have implications for the creation vs evolution debate.  A few are listed here:

I have made the earth, and created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded” (Isaiah 45:12). 

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3 ESV)

 

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (Genesis 2:7 ESV)

 

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1 ESV)

 

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:16-17 ESV)

 

So, all things considered, it is evident that Jesus knew all the details of creation from an intimate, personal perspective, and he taught nothing about accidental cosmology, nothing about randomness in creation.  Every aspect of creation was purposeful. Everything was for the glory of God.

In fact, scientists who are professing Christians would do well to remember Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:33.  “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself.”  By seeking first God’s Kingdom, no scientist will fall prey to vanity, or pride or empty deceit, but will rather seek real, eternal scientific and spiritual Truths! Or perhaps even more to the point… “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8 ESV)

And finally, anyone who studies theology, knows that God created a perfect world, which is now under the curse of sin because of man’s actions. The theology of Christianity, sin, faith, and redemption is based on a perfect, created world, spoiled by the sin of humanity. It is based on a fallen world, and the entire fallen human race in desperate need of a Savior.  “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” (Romans 5:12-14)  What happens to such a theology when death and evolution have supposedly been present for hundreds of millions of years before man ever appeared? It becomes worse than irrelevant.  It becomes nonsense.

If there was no Garden, no perfect creation, no Serpent, and no sin, then what would be the purpose of a Savior?  Why, in Heaven’s name, would a Loving God allow his only Son to die a torturous death on the cross, unless it was exactly what the Bible says, the only path to redemption and salvation?

For decades Christians have taken a back seat to secular scientists and atheists in speculation about the origins of the universe.  But this no longer sufficient, no longer wise, no longer necessary.  And scientists who are Christians are stepping forward by the tens of thousands to support the creation story.

Those many Christians today who are active in the biological sciences are amazed as we uncover more and more of God’s creative actions in our daily research. We do not look for God in the ‘gaps’ in our scientific knowledge, but instead worship God for the whole of his created order, including those remarkable evolutionary processes that God has used for his creative purposes.”  Denis Alexander(1)

(1) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/pope-says-evolution-and-creation-both-right

(2) http://www.bethinking.org/does-evolution-disprove-creation/is-it-possible-to-be-a-christian-and-believe-in-evolution

Put no more confidence in mortals. What are they worth?”  Isaiah 2:22 Good News Translation