Ancient. Where is the proof?

20180826_200826

The determination of just how old the universe might be is a daunting and complicated endeavor.  As a student of science, I will readily admit that in many ways it appears that the universe might be very old.  If we assume that everything we now see has existed since the beginning, and nothing has changed.  If we assume that God did not create everything, as the Bible suggests, a few thousand years ago (which is the basis for current atheistic science).  If we assume that we could know the ratio of the so called parent and daughter isotopes in various rocks when they were created (we cannot). If we assume that the light from the stars is not being affected by anything (such as the 95% of the universe we cannot measure) and they are therefore exactly as far away as they appear, then one would easily be led to believe that the universe is quite old.  (1)

However, Dr. John Baumgardner, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory has a M.S. and Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, and he clearly believes the evidence does NOT indicate an old earth or an old universe.  He states “Most people… including most scientists, are not aware of the systematic and glaring conflict between radiometric methods and non-radiometric methods for dating…”(2)  He notes the vast differences that result when using different chemical methods of dating.  For example, based on experimentally measured helium diffusion rates found in the zircons of Pre-cambrian granite, the age of the fossil layer is only a few thousand years old. Yet Uranium in the same crystals gives an entirely different (and much older) result.

Dr. Baumgardner notes that the present rate of uplift for the Himalayan mountains and the rate of ocean mineralization also point to a young age for the earth. In fact at their current rate of uplift, if these mountains are a mere 1 million years old, they should be 40 miles high!  And of course, the presence of unmineralized proteins in dinosaur bones from many locations should place a limit of a few thousand years at most on the age of the bones. (3)

Then he tackles the thorny issue of light from distant stars. This is generally thought to show the universe is billions of years old. Although it involves principles such as cosmic inflation, general relativity, and the place of the earth in the universe, it  may be said that Dr. Baumgardner, and many other scientists, believe that there is no reason to reject the possibility of a young universe, because there are far too many unexplained variables to compute any certain age at all.  (See blog entitled Bang… and nothing.)  “If, instead, the cosmos has the earth near its center, then its early history is radically different from that of all big-bang models.”(4) In fact, the massive distribution of matter near the center of any exploding model of the universe could alter the time gradient drastically, slowing time almost to a standstill (relative to the other/outer areas of expansion) if earth were indeed near the center.

We can imagine the possibility that as written in the Creation Science website, “factors combine in various ways: 1. A decrease in the speed of light. 2. An expansion of space. 3. Large concentrations of dark matter with each galaxy. 4. Dark matter concentrated near the center of the universe. 5. Stars dimmer earlier in their history. 6. An age of the universe somewhat larger than 10,000 years. In addition, there may be other factors that we are not aware of. But even the factors we know about seem sufficient to explain the observed universe within a short time frame.”(1)  All this being said, there is no reason to rule out a young earth based on science.  The Bible story is no less believable now than at the time it was written.

Yet one more point bears mention here.  Most atheistic scientists would discount it.  (See Unethicalists for reasons why).  Nevertheless, for a Christian it makes logical sense.  We know that a cell cannot operate without all its parts (DNA, RNA, nucleus, organelles, cell membrane, proteins, etc.)  No part of the cell will function meaningfully or reproduce without all the others. Therefore isn’t it logical that all cells were created intact, fully functional at the moment of their creation?  Likewise Mankind is not functional without the brain, liver, eyes, heart, skin, and all organs functioning.  So it is easy to believe that Adam was a fully formed, functional, adult human being at the moment of his creation.

Is it not equally possible, infact likely, that an infinitely wise, infinitely powerful Creator God would create a universe fully functional from the moment of its creation? What good are the stars in the beautiful sky if Adam will not seen them for millions of years?  Why create them at all? Creating light in transit is not a difficult thing for God.  It is only a difficult thing for us!  Yet who are we (our most brilliant scientists still do not understand the nature of light itself, and cannot tell if is is a particle or wave… so they say it is both).  Who are we to tell God how He should order his new and wondrous creation?

 

(1) Is The Universe Young?  https://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/universe.html

(2)  in six days, john r. baumgardner, Master Books, p 234.

(3) Ibid, p. 237.

(4) Ibid p. 238.

Try, Try, Trilobite.


20180907_105951

Most persons who have read anything about the fossil record, geological strata, or the theory of evolution have heard of the trilobite.  It appears in the lowest, supposedly oldest layers of rock.  It is called the earliest, most primitive of creatures.
According to Wikipedia, the earliest trilobites known from the fossil record are dated to about 530 million years ago. It “appears suddenly” (as if suddenly created) in the fossil record and flourished throughout the Cambrian and Permian periods and was then suddenly destroyed in a mass extinction. (Like the flood?)

It is interesting to note that even Wikipedia admits “By the time trilobites first appeared in the fossil record, they were already highly diversified and geographically dispersed. “(1) This of course supports Creation.  It is not supportive of evolution.  “Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups do not seem to exist.” (2)

Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling goes on to explain that in addition to being highly diversified, they were highly developed and advanced.  Let that sink in.  The first creature we can find in the strata was highly developed, highly advanced, and highly diversified!

“Often regarded as primitive creatures, their anatomy reveals that they are,  perhaps , the most complex of all invertebrate creatures.”(3) Dr. Snelling describes their sophisticates aggregate schizochroal eyes as “the most sophisticated optical systems ever utilized by any organism”. (4)

So let’s stop there. The most highly developed, highly sophisticated optical system ever developed appears suddenly, at the the lowest layers of the geologic record.  It appears there with absolutely NO possible evolutionary ancestors.  It appears fully formed.  It appears all over the world.  Any geologist who does not recognize the likelihood of creation in these facts  is looking with both eyes closed.

I particularly like the following quote from the American History of Natural History website,  “Yet dealing with the age of trilobites… the age of our planet… the age of the universe, often seems beyond the realm of what our “primitive” brain can deal with. Sometimes we imagine we’ve got all these Cambrian Explosion, Snowball Earth and Punctuated Equilibria things figured out — with all the adjacent, Plate Tectonic and Shifting Polarity mumbo-jumbo thrown in for good measure. Apparently, for a species that has existed in its present form for far less than a million years, and whose entire lineage can presently be traced back some 14 million years, we Homo sapiens can be an arrogant bunch.” (5) Arrogant, prideful, and foolish.

Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction”
Proverbs 18:2 “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

(2) ibid.

(3) Dr, Andrew Snelling, in six days, Master Books, pp. 293-4.

(4) ibid.

(5) https://www.amnh.org/our-research/paleontology/paleontology-faq/trilobite-website/the-trilobite-files/geologic-time

(For more information see blogs on “The Data in the Strata” and “Just the Facts”)

Bang… and nothing

img_20170214_115107928

Problems with the “Big Bang” are overwhelming.  Yet we are told by supposed “scientists” that it is an established fact.  What utter nonsense.

Problem #1.  The vacuum catastrophe.  Those who would like to create something out of nothing have always existed. The perpetual motion machine has always been a dream.  If you read a little bit about the big bang, you will soon find that it is nothing more than another version of the perpetual motion machine. Creating everything out of nothing. Someone wrote a formula (Quantum Field Theory) that says there would be vast amounts of energy available if there was actually a state of nothingness.  Someone else recalculated the formula and it turns out the value of vacuum energy was actually 10¹²⁰ times less than the prediction made by Quantum Field Theory! Which, it turns out, is less than nothing.  This can also be referred to as a cosmological constant problem, which is explained on the Red Shift Academy website as follows: (1)

So, a large vacuum energy presents a huge problem for 
General Relativity because the absolute amount of vacuum
energy has a real physical meaning.  In fact, the 
Cosmological constant and the vacuum energy differ by 
about an astonishing 120 orders of magnitude!  This 
is the infamous "Cosmological constant problem" which 
remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of physics
in the modern era.

Problem #2.  95% dark matter? Astronomers now calculate that the universe consists of 4.9 percent ordinary matter, 26.8 percent dark matter, and 68.3 percent dark energy. (1) The rest is made up of WIMPS (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles).  What are WIMPS? Can they be seen, felt, tasted, heard, or measured in any way… no.  How do we know they exist?  We don’t.   Why do the astronomers suggest they are there?  Because the same formulas on which they base the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe say they MUST be there.  Or else the formulas are wrong!  (Now there’s an idea!)  As Scott Dodelson (a cosmologist and the head of the Department of Physics at Carnegie Mellon University) states on the site Space.com, ” we’re not sure our current way of thinking is correct because it essentially requires us to make stuff up, namely dark matter and dark energy. It could be that we really are just a month away from a scientific revolution that will upend our whole understanding about cosmology and does not require these things.” (2)

Problem #3.  In the first stages of the universe there was no reason for cohesion (the forces of dispersion were much stronger).  This means scientists can’t explain galaxy formation.  Just like Problem #1 (Big bang should not have happened), Problem #3 means the Galaxies had no reason to form.  Picture any explosion of any size in any situation, and you will see what this means.  If something is blown apart into tiny fragments by some great energy, the fragments travel at great speeds getting further apart from each other and from the center, until at some point they are overcome by some other force or energy.  In the case of the Big Bang, there were no other forces in existence.  There was no other energy in existence.

Problem #4.  The Big Bang clearly violates 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Every counter to this is ineffectual, or requires “special circumstances”, or assumes some other plane of existence was also present.

Problem #5. The Big Bang also contradicts the Second law of Thermodynamics (entropy), which states that everything we see or measure in the universe is gradually “running down” or progressing from a higher state of energy to a lower state of energy.  The entire universe and all of creation must be considered as a single “closed system” that is just chock full of energy in the form of stars and heat and motion and light, just to name a few.  The energy had to come from somewhere.  It could not create itself (See Problem #4) and it could not wind itself up to higher levels (Problem #5). As Professor John Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering with a Ph.D. in aeronautics puts it, “One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.”(2)

Problem #6.  The Big Bang requires an early expansion rate that was at speeds greater than the speed of light.  The very same scientists who claim that they can know the age of the Earth and the universe based on current measured rates for the speed of light and the decay of isotopes have a HUGE problem here.  They admit that immediately after the BB, the expansion rate of the universe had to be much greater than the speed of light.  This means they are happy to suspend the scientific laws of the universe when it fits their purposes and preferred theories.  Just not when it involves Creation.

Problem #7.  If there really was a Big Bang, then equal amounts of matter and anti matter should have been expected.  Yet we find no such evidence.  Many theories and solutions have been proposed, but none  answer the question.  All require some “other” force or condition.  In other words, astronomers and scientists have no explanation for why the universe we live in contains only electrons and no positrons.  Only quarks and no anti-quarks.  Only protons and no anti-protons.

Problem #8.  With all the supposedly scientific precision of the calculations on which the age of the universe rest, no one even knows the value of the Hubble constant!  Hubble’s initial calculations for the value for the expansion rate (Hubble Constant) was approximately 500 km/s/Mpc or about 160 km/sec per million-light-years. This would have meant the Universe was only 2 billions years old. Others have calculated the constant to be as low as 2 km/s/Mpc.  The “current” accepted value is generally assumed to be 70.0 km/sec/Mpc.   In fact some now call it the Hubble Parameter rather than the Hubble constant.   This was all supposedly put to rest in about 2008 with the latest accepted value.  We shall see…

  1. http://www.redshiftacademy.com/index.php/redshift/topic/the_vacuum_catastrophe
  2.  John M. Cimbala, in six days, p. 203, Masterbooks.com.
  3. “Big Bang Theory — An Overview.” All About Science. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
  4. Space.com, New Map of Dark Matter Puts the Big Bang Theory on Trial (Kavli Roundtable) By Adam Hadhazy | 
  5. “Cambridge Cosmology: Hot Big Bang Model.” Cambridge University. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html
  6. Castellanos, Joel. “The Shape of Space.” NonEuclid. http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/space.html
  7. Felder, Gary. “Beyond the Big Bang: Inflation and the Very Early Universe.” North Carolina State University. 2002.
  8. “The Geometry of the Universe.” Astronomy 162. University of Tennessee. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/geometry.html
  9. Marmet, Paul. “Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death.” 21st Century, Science and Technology. Vol. 3, No. 3. 1990. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

 

Individualism

person with body painting
Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Pexels.com

Sometimes it just comes down to who you want to call God.  Do you want to believe there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator (One who might have rules and deserve worship)? Or would you rather put yourself in the place of God?  Both metaphysics and observation of reality suggest that we are sentient beings. They also suggest that we have choices in life.  I would propose that an infinitely wise God, in order to create beings who might truly CHOOSE to love Him, would create a universe in which they had the option NOT to love Him.  In fact they might have the option to despise Him, ridicule Him, and even deny His very existence.  Such is our very society. We get to choose.

David Foster WallaceThis Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life, writes,Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.”

I see evidence of the truth of that statement daily when I work in the ER.  I have seen thousands of people who chose to worship sex,  drugs, or alcohol, and I have seen the havoc and destruction it has wreaked in their lives. We all know of persons who worshiped popularity, and were crushed when it vanished.  Some have worshiped themselves, through vanity, and many have slipped into despair as their power, looks, or influence faded.

One of the things that offends many atheists is the idea of a personal God.  They are often critical of the idea that God could be described as a “jealous God”.  Richard Dawkins wrote, in the God Delusion,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Dawkins has been quoted thousands of times, and hailed as a hero for his bold words by those who are offended at the thought of a Supreme Being.  (See also blog posts on Science and Scientism,  and Differing with Dawkins).

On the other hand, C.S. Lewis wrote, in the Problem of Pain,

You asked for a loving God: you have one. The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the ‘lord of terrible aspect,’ is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of conscientious magistrate, nor the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests, but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artist’s love for his work and despotic as a man’s love for a dog, provident and venerable as a father’s love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes.” (1)

And somewhere, supposedly hiding from you in this vast and beautiful universe is the REAL God. Or perhaps he really is all around you.  But the point is that you, personally, get to choose in this life whether to believe in him or to love and worship Him.  You see, all though history, God has allowed persons to either believe in Him, or to worship other Gods. History is littered with gods (small g) who have been relegated to the trash heaps of time; Baal, Osiris, Marduk, or the entire Roman Pantheon of gods.

Today, we still have the same choice.  Do you worship the god of science (scientism)?  Or do you worship the Creator God of the Universe who has given us the Bible?  It is an important choice.  Choose wisely.