Faith in the Big Bang; Part 5

We have examined the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages. This is the final article. The other parts are linked below:

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

At this point, we have pulled the Big Bang train right up to the formation of stars, or stellar evolution; so for the final article, we will assume that despite science assuring it didn’t happen, we have somehow arrived at a first generation star, comprised of helium, hydrogen, and suspiciously absent of heavier elements. If you will recall, it took us 5 billion years to arrive here, so we must very quickly produce all other elements on the periodic chart, along with planets, moons, etc.

Scientists call the first generation stars ‘Protostars’. Since the creation of matter from nothing had to start with the simplest elements of helium and hydrogen, the theory goes that after the stars that can’t form were formed, somehow the 90 heavier elements or post-helium elements had to evolve via chemical evolution. The theory states that all these protostars repeatedly exploded; billions and billions of stars exploding for billions of years, and this volatility produces our heavier elements, second and third generation stars, and eventually the universe as we observe it today.

Problems:
1. Scientists call problem one the “helium mass 4 gap”. There are nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8, and they make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to change itself into any heavier element. “Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5.”  The theory of chemical evolution, and therefore arriving at our current catalog of heavenly bodies is impossible using this process. This science fails to justify stellar evolution on any level. As usual when it comes to evolution, chemists think biology has the answer, biologists thing geology has the answer, and geologists think paleontology has the answer, and around we go. But in regards to this science, the mass gap cannot be overstated, and is a huge problem. This problem is proven by both hydrogen bombs, which cannot change to heavier elements, but stop at mass 5; and also by the sun, which if not for the gap at mass 5, would be shooting uranium at us.

2. Even at 15 billion years, there is not enough theoretical time for this process to produce heavier elements.

3. Science would have to explain how random explosions resulted in the intricate orbits and beauty of circling patterns we find in space. Order from disorder. Again a violation of the 2nd law. Explosions do not create order. Since there are no or very few first generation stars, it stipulates that almost every star exploded at least once, meaning the order we see must have come from explosions somehow.

4. There are not enough super novas to produce the heavier elements. Statistically the rareness of supernovas (which is needed to supposedly produce the heavier elements) are way too few to create all the heavier elements needed. The lack of supernovas in the night sky has long been a problem for evolutionists. (see problem 5).

5. Supernova recordings in history: 185AD, 1006AD, 1054AD (Crab Nebula), 1604AD, 1918 AD in Aquila, 1987AD in the veil nebula. If you add them all up including these major events, you can get up to about 16 supernovas in the last 2000 years. With only a few hundred total in the night sky, not only can’t we make the elements, but we can’t account for a 15 billion year time frame. If they occurred at a great enough rate to develop the universe with their explosions, would there not be millions visible? Statistically this amount is essentially zero. About 1 per 650 years on average. Simply not enough to create a universe. They are a rarity and there are plenty of quotes from evolutionist to attest to this.

6. Why did explosions mysteriously stop? We should be able to see continued activity that was originally creating the universe. Evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago explosions stopped. A theory proven wrong, but held onto.

7. Super novas DO NOT THROW OFF ENOUGH MATTER TO MAKE ADDITIONAL STARS. A supernova may throw off as much as 10% of its mass, but this is not sufficient to create a new star. In addition, what matter did get thrown off would be dispersed in every direction.We can conclude easily that with not enough mass to form a second generation star, and not enough explosions occurring not enough times, to create all matter and elements in the universe with this method is lunacy, and not worth teaching.

8. If you turn a spectroscope towards a supernova explosion, the conclusion is that it throws off…. get ready for it…. HYDROGEN AND HELIUM. The a fore mentioned Crab Nebula only shows H and He, no heavier elements. Once again, observable demonstrable repeatable science defeats the theory.

I would encourage anyone who reads to please share some or all of these, and/or to ask questions, and allow us to explore the truth together. Taken as a whole, my hope is that it is apparent one cannot just blindly believe that the Big Bang Theory and ensuing results are facts. Each stage falls desperately short of being possible, and with even minimal logic, one can expose it as false. This is a godless theory, attempting to explain the wonders of the universe with natural processes. Typically the failure of each stage is glossed over, or not reported, and what you have is cleverly animated persuasion along side an agreed upon curriculum. But it is my mission, as a writer and believer, to help arm Christians with the courage to stand on the word of God, rather than the word of man. So I hope this was helpful in refuting faith in a godless creation, and pray that when faced with persecution for not believing evolution, you can take comfort in the fact that you are indeed beautifuly and wonderfully made, whoever you are. I leave you with this encouragement:

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

Nehemiah 9:6
You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 40:26
Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing.

 

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 4

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

We continue to delve into the issue of matter organizing itself by natural processes in the vacuum of space. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same. In layperson’s terms, this means disorder will increase in a closed system. This bit is important so I will underline it. All of evolution is dependent upon the violation of this law. We see proof of entropy increasing all around us. Energy is added to house shingles or the hood of a car via direct sunlight, or weather, and what happens? Disorder. The breaking down of matter. Decay. This is as natural as can be, and without intelligence acting upon a system, complexity or additional information is never observed to occur. Yet, this is exactly what we are taught, and expected to believe happened over and over and over for 13 billion years in order to to bring about our existence.

If the Big Bang happened, imagining the explosion, and inertia, and vectors in frictionless space. What would the result be? If we pretend that it wasn’t a theory, and asked scientists to assume an explosion happened in a vacuum, how would they illustrate it?

There would be an outer rim of fast moving matter. With no matter ahead of it to collide with, the initial explosion would never slow.
Now, to produce a star, gas would have to: stop flowing outward,
then begin moving in circles, then rotating gas would have to contract or move close together – one would have to explain how linear motion required for the expanse that exists somehow changed into angular momentum.

A quantity of gas in frictionless space moving forward is way too stable for any of this to happen.

Gas in space which was circling would fly apart. Evolutionist Hawit’s research disproves the possibility of gas clumping. Density of matter in space is too low, and there is nothing to make them stick together. Harwit’s research was devastating to steller evolution. He was not a creationist. He wrote a book called Astrophysical Concepts. In it he surmises the mathematical likelihood of hydrogen atoms sticking together. Eventually forced to use most favorable conditions, and figuring for the maximun possible sticking ability, he determined that a clump that is one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter would take approximately 3 billion years to form. When converted to a more normative environment, mathematically it would now take 20 billion years. This is for a tiny spec of matter. This means that in our natural universe, a star cannot simply form. It is scientifically impossible.

Another evolutionist, Novotny researched gas in a vacuum and proved gas in a vacuum expands, and does not contract. Given any amount of time, gas cannot contract and turn itself into a star, or a planet. This opinion agrees with observable science. If you agree, you are agreeing with science, and not with evolution, just to make a point. This means stellar evolution is not science.

We must consider another if-then question. It is quite simple. If stars cannot form naturally, then why are there trillions of them? Does God not become more obvious, and not less, once we examine real science? If so, then why are they teaching our kids that 13 billion year old stellar evolution is a fact? The answer… what would they replace it with? God? Certainly not.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 3

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Click here for part 1.

Click here for part 2.

Part three must now begin with the assumptions that an initial singularity explosion has taken place, and created outward racing particles. And as illustrated in part 2 of our series, we must assume that these outward racing particles have somehow violated the laws of physics, and have begun to change direction and swirl into gas clouds, so that they may develop into stars. These clouds must grow in density in the vacuum of space,  but simultaneously must be hurling through space to account for the vast expansion needed to explain seemingly infinite galaxies. We have learned that both of these prior situations are impossible based on reason and logic, regardless of the time variable, and furthermore require faith in something akin to the opposite of natural law. But in order to follow the process of the Big Bang theory, and consider what comes next, we will assume these steps somehow have taken place.

1. At this stage, there are a couple things to note:

a. Gas in outerspace is so rare, that it is more of a vacuum than any laboratory vacuum on earth.
b. There is no gas on the periodic table that clumps together! So, neither helium nor hydrogen would clump together. Gas always expands, pushes apart. Always.
c. This means the gas from the big bang would have been even less likely to clump together in outer-space. It is the universe’s great vacuum, and as such, provides the worst possible environment for gas clouds to gain any sort of density at all.

I can say with certainty, that the idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form a star is science fiction. It is like fog forming itself into tight patterns, except exceedingly more problematic. As an experiment, place a drop of food coloring in water. stir it up (or wait a minute, as it will disperse on its own),  to simulate the entropy of an outward explosion. Now wait, and stare at that glass of water, and time how long it takes for the food coloring dye to clump back together into a tight ball or drop again.

When that happens, try and imagine the same experiment in a vacuum… with air. You will then have some idea of how probable star formation is.

An existing star does have gravity, and can pull in other gases. However, forming one is the difficulty, not the fact that it exists. Natural processes cannot do this. Gas cannot build up enough mutual gravity to bring it together in any amount, much less those vast amounts needed for star formation. For perspective, keep in mind scientists think first generation stars were 800 to 1000 times larger than our sun.

2. Careful analysis reveals there is not enough matter within a gas cloud to produce a star. Again, me must respect how utterly massive stars are. Mass is key here, and clouds verses stars are like apples and oranges.

3. A more complex notion is that there isn’t enough time proposed. Evolutionists often scrutinize the creationist timeline as an impossibility, which never bothered us seeing as how our model includes the creator of the heavens and the earth, the only logical explanation for what we see. But they don’t often publicly admit that their model contains its own time crunch, which calls into question everything about how to date the stars.  We have stars that based on a 400% red shift and a calculated distance from earth, should be approximately 15 billion years old. The theory calls for stars to form after the first 5 billion years. This means that the singularity and first explosion must have happened 5 billion before this, or our methods for dating stars is far off the mark. This is problematic in a 15 billion year timetable. This issue,  in conjunction with the need for random chance to cause order, is why the age of the universe continues to grow, as if the magic element of time will eventually solve the puzzle. The math is wrong, or the technique for dating is wrong.

This is not the only evolutionist time crunch problem. 1st generation stars are supposed to be big, burn bright, and die fast, creating new stars and new elements when going supernova. This theory is the supposed catalyst for chemical evolution, where we try to convince the world that the rest of the elements on the periodic table were formed from these supernova explosions from only hydrogen and helium. But we see supposed 1st generation stars still today. Evolutionists tout it as proof they were right about their existence, however, we must ask if they should be there at all?

But they are made new all the time, right? Good question, and I will answer by reminding or teaching the reader that we have never witnessed a star form. They do try to teach how it happens, again because they must push a theory. Consider these quotes: “The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.”—*Martin Harwit, “Books Reviews,” Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.

“There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.

“Basically there does not appear to be enough matter in any of the hydrogen clouds in the Milky Way that would allow them to contract [into stars] and be stable. Apparently our attempt to explain the first stages in star evolution has failed.”—*Garrit Verschuur, Starscapes (1973), p. 102.

4. Observation of gas clouds in space show them expanding. Gas clouds in space expand. They do not contract. With not enough matter, and expansion as a factor, this is not a recipe for success. Hence the devastating and truthful quotes above about the science of cosmology.

We will discuss more on stars later, but any one of these points would discredit the idea of stellar evolution. I will summarize the problem this way: The core of a star, in this case the first star, must generate a temperature to 10 million Kelvin degrees, to create nuclear fusion, at which point it can become stable. So,  from nothing a group of sub atomic particles must explode out, then coalesce, despite a tenancy to repel, and somehow clump to gain such heat and density as to generate nuclear fusion, so it can supernova, and create more stars as well as all elements in the periodic table. Tell me again how this is science and not faith?

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 2

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Click here for Part 1.

In Part 1 we examined why the initial explosion cannot randomly create itself, and ignite itself in a vacuum. If you stare at nothing in a vacuum, whether it is for 5 minutes, or 13 billion years, no amount of wishful thinking will make it turn into a universe. However, for arguments sake, we must assume that this first impossible moment occurred in order to examine how the next stage of the Big Bang Theory fails. So let us pretend, as modern science does, that an explosion of nothing from a single dense singularity in the vacuum of space has exploded outward sending newly and spontaneously created hydrogen and helium atoms into the void. Based on observable laws of science, what do we know would happen?

First we must make clear what the theory depends on, in order to progress towards the formation of stars. The theory necessitates that these outward flying sub atomic particles must migrate towards one another and begin to form gas clouds in separate spots all over the universe. As I write that out, my hope is that it sounds as ridiculous to you while reading it as it does to me. Perhaps this is why when they teach children of the theory, they present mostly the end result, and do not teach the required process to achieve it. I believe most second graders would scratch their head at the idea of air coming together, rather than dispersing in a vacuum. The problems with this stage are summarized as follows, assuming the matter created contained enough material to begin a universe, and the explosion allowed the particles to break free from the gravity of a singularity:

1. There is no way to unite particles after an explosion; they would continually and forever get farther apart as they left the central explosion

2. Since there would be no matter, space would be frictionless, therefore there would be no way to ever slow any of the particles (3rd law of thermodynamics).

3. Particles would maintain the same speed and vector… forever. There is no way to change direction of even one particle, to make it begin circling another.

4.Laws of physics and angular momentum dictate that not one particle would change direction and the formation of a cluster of atoms, and then a gaseous cloud would be necessary to begin stellar evolution, or the evolution of stars.

5. Science must ask about the origination of atomic structures. From vectored sub-atomic particles into complex atoms (even hydrogen is complex at the sub atomic level). Considering the mass of a first generation star, we must unite the first sub-atomic particles, but also generate new ones. This isn’t even chemical evolution yet, which will be addressed later. This is simply the generation of enough hydrogen and helium in one place to gain a mass required for a star, but in trillions of places at once.

So what we have, all told, is the violation of the first three laws of thermodynamics right off the bat, along with contradictions to known physics principles, such as the law of conservation of angular momentum. And from these particles, the theory hopes for gradually outward racing particles to begin circling one another. These must form atoms, and change directions further still, towards one another, to create gas clouds which then produce the first star or stars.

This dependence upon the absurd is, in my opinion, an embarrassment to science. To consider such events in real time and space is laughable. I would remind the reader that all of this conjecture has come about to support evolution, because we “cannot let a divine foot in the door.” (Richard Lewontin). Reason compels us to ask ‘if-then’ questions, and if man evolved, then the earth must have evolved before it, and if that, then the solar system, and so on, until you become so dependent upon making the theory work that science drifts into philosophy and religion, and we are forced into an indoctrination that every component of the natural world arrived via the same process. If only one step is proven a failure, reason must dictate that all following processes leading to the arrival of man are likewise doomed. So what we witness is the scrambling to prop up or maneuver around a failing faith by its loyal followers.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote

 

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 1

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

First a definition:

1) The rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

2) a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density – (Merriam-Webster)

3) An effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe…Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as “singularity” around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a “singularity” and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don’t know for sure… – (www.big-bang-theory.com)

Please notice in definition 3 the use of phrases like, “effort to explain”, and “we don’t know for sure”. There are many of these when you consider the science. More I found were, “a theory deducing the cataclysmic birth of the universe”, and “leading explanation of how the universe began”. After http://www.space.com states it as their leading theory, they begin with statements like this: “In the first second after the universe began, the surrounding temperature was about 10 billion degrees.”

10,000,000,000 degrees. Stated as fact. And when they teach children natural sciences in school, these numbers, these “facts” are taught, remembered, written down, and tested on. 10 billion degrees. 13.8 billion years ago. Make no mistake, since it is the “best explanation” science has, it is taught as truth. If not taught, the prevailing question asked by science professors is, “Well, what are you going to replace it with?”

The Big Bang Theory is mostly based on math, red shift, waves found in space, and lots of assumption.  If you can find a text book that gets specific, you will find that “nothing” packed tightly together  and then exploded outward containing hydrogen and helium into frictionless space.  If space was full of anything else, it wouldn’t be the beginning, so logic dictates this moment of nothing at all to something. The spontaneous generation of matter. It is interesting to note, the person who made it popular was George Gamow, who was a science fiction writer in 1948.  It is unfortunate that science fiction has taken such a strong role in what we force our children to learn. He campaigned using cartoons, which he stated really helped sell the theory.

So you take these huge numbers, 13.8 billion years, 10 billion degrees… and nothingness explodes out.  Over the next several articles we will look at the assumptions that must take place for this to end up as a universe.  Today is step one:

The actual big bang explosion:
1.  You are asking people to believe that a tiny bit of “nothing” blew up and created all matter.  This is based on theoretical extremes and calculations.  Nothing more.  and it sounds like the fairy tale that it is.
2.  Nothingness cannot pack together. It has no way to push itself in close, and no barometer for density, as it contains no parts. Looking out into a void, how would one imagine a single point of nothingness gaining density. Just this alone rails against physical laws.
3.  A vacuum has no density. It is stated that the singularity was dense before it exploded, but a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
4. There is no ignition.  No fire if no match.  As we all know from studying actual science, a fire needs three things to exist: Fuel (there is none), flammable gas (there is none), and heat (which would be caused by the friction of nothing, so in essence, none could exist). Couldn’t be chemical, because there were no chemicals.  They surmise the event would have been nuclear, but if you have no atoms, you cannot have a nuclear blast.
5. No way to expand nothing.
6.  Nothingness cannot produce heat.  Intense heat supposedly caused nothingness to turn to protons, neutrons, and electrons… but a vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself.  It would be purely magic if an empty void changed itself to matter. Again, we have no energy source for this to occur.
7. Technically speaking, the calculations of what needed to happen are too exacting.  In layman’s terms, it means the math is too perfect. The narrow mathematical limits of a singularity’s expansion are such that its too narrow to have happened.  R H Dickey wrote gravitation and the universe,and in it he states that if the expansion was .1 percent faster it would have gone too fast, and if .1 percent slower it would have re-collapsed.
8.  Roger L St Peter in 1974 developed math stating that if a big bang happened, it would collapse forming a theoretical black hole, and could not have happened.  In essence you would have one theoretical action swallowing another one.
9.  The theory states that anti matter would have to be created in equal amounts.  what is well known to physicists is that there is not enough anti matter in the universe, and that antimatter immediately destroys matter, therefor would have destroyed any matter created, again theoretically.

So before getting out of the gate in our secular dependence upon explaining everything sans-God,  there are certainly some issues with the ridiculous moment that nothing exploded out to start forming the universe with a few sub atomic particles.  When examined closely, and with reason, it does not, and should never hold water.  But as Gamow said, cartoons may help.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

 

Diamonds Have Carbon-14; Why Is This Important?

If I told you that the RATE Team found Carbon-14 in diamonds would you care? Maybe you should.

Why is this important to you, you may ask? It may change your perception of history. You see, diamonds were thought to be millions if not billions of years old. Academia teaches students that coal takes millions of years to form, along with great heat and lots of pressure. This organic plant material is mostly carbon, and is an energy source we use every day in the world, typically dated to 300 million years old. An assumption based on the laughable geologic column, index fossils, and the presupposition that the evolutionary timetable is a fact. Hopefully, if you have been following along, and/or doing your own research you know better by now, or at the very least are questioning it.

Diamonds, a hardened form of carbon, is said to take even longer to form, often with a timetable of billions being attributed to them.

And who is the RATE Team? Only your scientific Christian heroes! A team of eight Christians who are all doctors of various fields that set out on an 8 year scientific journey to verify that our concept of geological, evolutionary time is grossly inaccurate. If you’d like details on this journey, I highly recommend reading Thousands not Millions. For our purposes, all you need to know is that these highly trained, meticulous scientists discovered carbon-14 in both “300 million” year old coal, and also in diamonds. If you know anything about carbon-14, you already know this is impossible.

Why shouldn’t there be carbon-14 in it? Good question. The answer is simple, and I will put it in layperson’s terms so that we can all enjoy the dumpster fire that is evolutionary theory. As living things interact with our atmosphere, we absorb carbon-14, a radioactive form of the element that breaks down slowly at a speed that we call a half-life. According to the creation model, there was most certainly less carbon-14 in the atmosphere prior to the flood, but we will get to that in a minute. As we live, breathe, exchange air with the world, we reach an equilibrium with the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, but when we die, we are no longer breathing it into our cells, and so it decays from our remains at a specific rate.

The interesting thing about carbon-14 is that it decays fast enough such that it can only be detected for a few 10’s of thousands of years. With modern equipment, potentially 50,000 to 100,000 years, but with a large margin for error. Coal, our “300 million year old” carbon, is supposed to be 3000 times older than any age at which we can detect carbon-14 before it reduces to an indeterminate amount. And yet, what do we find? Carbon-14. In 300,000,000 year old carbon we find something that cannot be detected past 50 or 100 thousand years.

Now, wait, you may ask? What about the fact that creationists claim the bible dictates a world that’s only a few thousand years old? This is not a problem, as the atmosphere was much more favorable in pre-flood conditions. It fits the model beautifully, pointing to a pre-flood earth with more protection from the sun, and less carbon-14 in the atmosphere. You see, like all dating methods, evolutionists assume way too much. One assumption is that the carbon-14 levels have remained constant. But consider, if the pre-flood world is exchanging less carbon-14 with plants, humans, and animals such as dinosaurs, then when tested, those specimens will seems much older, because much less carbon was there to begin with. Also, we must remember that most specimens tested were buried in Noah’s flood, and therefore do come from this pre-flood environment. And lets not fool ourselves. Solving for a discrepancy of 20,000 years is a much easier task than trying to ignore the glaring 299,900,000 year that evolutionists are stuck with.

That being said, it should of course be even more inconceivable that diamonds would hold carbon-14, since it takes a billion years to form, and should have leached all traces out long ago. But I am sure you have already guessed what our scientific heroes found in the carefully tested diamond specimens. That’s correct. Carbon-14.

I must of course qualify the statements by using adjectives such as ‘carefully’, and ‘meticulous’, because when results do not fit the theory, the demagoguery and ad hominem  attacks ensue. Not real scientists because they believe in God, must have tainted the samples, etc. These attacks are launched at men with impeccable credentials, but I would have you check for yourself, rather than take my word.

This carbon-14 is an example of a ‘limiting factor’ like I mentioned in the article 35 Years or 2.6 Million Years. This means that despite common theories, it takes much less time to create coal and diamonds in nature than previously thought. And the flood was catastrophic enough to cause the geological conditions we see today, and explains a great deal of the earth’s features.

Consider this as well: Scientists in a lab made coal in 6 hours. At a different time, in 1982 the British made oil in 10 minutes. Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University triumphantly stated, “We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do.” This is yes another stellar example of our presuppositions determining our interpretations. Another, more obvious conclusion, if one were not blinded by evolutionary theory would be to instead  triumphantly announce, “It doesn’t take nearly as long as we thought for coal and oil to form!”

Please share with friends and family, and as always feel free to ask questions. We will find the answers together. I wanted to leave you with one final truth however, before your curiosity prompts you to ask. The answer is yes, they have found carbon-14 in dinosaur bones as well, along with soft tissue, and blood cells. We are not holding our breath for the scientific community to adjust their timeline accordingly.

35 years or 2.6 million years?

There is an intimidating section of science for believers known as radiometric dating. The presumption of an old Earth came long before this discovery, invented by those who wished to ‘save the sciences from Moses.’ Radiometric dating has since been utilized to support this presupposition. By definition it is a method of dating geological or archaeological specimens by determining the relative proportions of particular radioactive isotopes present in a sample. In layman’s terms, this simply means measuring how fast something has decayed in order to determine how old it is. I have debated many evolutionists, and in the end, many will never be able to get past this idea that the world is billions of years old. To suggest otherwise would be anathema. It is as true to them as stating water is wet, and has been beaten into their psyche from early on, from the first kids books that say millions and millions of years ago…

I remember the shocking freedom of letting that assumption go, and how the facts we observe so easily fell in line with biblical truth after that. It was truly like waking from an oppressive dream, where nothing fit, but the ‘authorities’ of science and education and television and magazines were all telling you it was so.

This is what those authorities won’t tell you. Science is filled with limiting factors that exempt creation from being old. Most dating methods point to a young earth. Only the ones that can be shown to align with our evolutionary understanding of the geologic column are kept and published, and taught. These methods are ripe with assumptions, and results are cherry picked to align with what the observer ‘knows’ already. I could write for days on dating methods, and it is such an interesting topic, that I am sure more articles will follow. But I owe you the reader more than just my opinion and conjecture. So let’s get a little more specific.

Today we will examine potassium-argon dating. Again, I want this to be understandable to as many readers as possible, so very briefly, radioactive potassium usually from igneous rock (cooled lava) decays, and argon is a byproduct of this reaction. This method is widely used as a dating method all over the Earth. Now, without getting into overly complicated chemistry, or methodology, we can simply use common sense to ascertain whether or not this is a viable method for determining specific dates.

Below is a chart from samples taken and tested from the eruption of the 1980 Mount Saint Helen’s volcano. These are samples carefully tested from a volcano we saw happen with our own eyes on May 18th of that year. Using our ‘trusty’ potassium argon dating method, used the world over for proving that fossil layers fall within geologic parameters, we arrived at the following dates:

AGE-RadioDate-Fig13-HelensChart-400x300

 

This study indicated that, barring tolerances, the rock formed from that 1980 explosion was between 300,000 years old and 3,400,000 million years old. We saw it form 35 years ago!

This error is extraordinary, but what is beyond comprehension is that rather than call in to question the methodology, science has instead thrown out the results, and continued to utilize the method. I could ask a 5 year old, “what do these results tell you, considering a large part of science as we know it consists of observation?” It would be clear to anyone being intellectually honest that though still valuable in determining composition and how geological events relate to each other, the method’s ability to determine geological time was an abysmal failure.

There are results like this from other events as well; Hawaii, the Philippines. This means that we assume the results are bad when they do not correlate with what we know, but when we do not know, the results are accepted, based on our assumptions. I would ask you, is that science? is that an observable, demonstrable, repeatable result? Should they teach the geologic column, index fossils, dating accuracy based on these results?

But they do. And they start young. And by the time you are in college you have heard the mantra of millions of years so often that you have become indoctrinated. And if someone then comes along and tells you, the bible is accurate in its chronology, you might scoff in derision at the implication.

What does our bible say about this possibility? That the prevailing opinion would state things have continued on the same way all along, i.e. uniformitarianism. That there was no evidence of God’s hand upon the earth?  I would point to this warning.

2 Peter 3:3-4 “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” 

____________

UPDATE:  – Rock collected for radiometric dating was pulled from Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, from cooled magma flow from the years 1949, 1954, and 1975. This was tested and an age of 3,908,000,000 years was observed. Actual date of fifty years vs 3.9 billion. This is a discrepancy of 7.8 billion percent.

 

Is it arrogance to think you’re special?

PaleBlueDot
Pale Blue Dot

Let me start by saying I don’t believe interpretation of facts will bring people to the Lord. I think that is a Holy Spirit thing. My hope is to grow a ministry that affords people the ability to stand fast in what I consider authoritative scripture. Today, we will address the chances of other earth like planets supporting life, as a follow up to my UFO’s and God article.

https://jrcooper.org/2016/01/20/ufos-and-god/

Several years back NASA published a famous picture of earth from space (shown here) showing just how not-special we were, a distant spec among millions of others. It was named ‘the pale blue dot’. Promoter of anti-creation sentiment Carl Sagan famously commented, “Consider again that dot [Earth]. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”

Well, of course the creationist community was in a scramble, trying to prove that this little blue marble wasn’t so matter-of-fact, and insignificant. After all, our bibles tell us we are a special creation, made in His image. Despite the many problems with the big bang, and the several brands of evolution that must exist to generate life

[Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”,
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds,
and  Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter]

the crux of Sagan’s criticism was that the odds of other planets like ours existing goes up exponentially with our understanding of the vastness of the universe. This would seem like reasonable logic, but I don’t mind telling you, this has been debunked, and very soundly at that.

Consider odds, since that is all this is based on, conjecture that it simply must be. First science began to determine what factors were needed to have a planet capable of supporting the diversity of life we find here. Abundant factors were apparent: We must be within a galactic habitable zone, be around the right type of star, protected by gas giants, distance from sun, nearly circular orbit, oxygen atmosphere, a terrestrial planet, large amounts of water, one moon the correct size (I could do an amazing write up on the extraordinary moon alone),correct mass, iron core for magnetism, proper thickness of earth’s crust, plate tectonics, heat within its interior, and on and on, and furthermore they are all factors that must be met at one place and at one time, or the possibility of life fails. Just to extrapolate a bit on one factor alone, we can consider the sun. It is technically classified as a spectral type G-2 dwarf main sequence star. If it were less massive, like 90% of the stars in our galaxy, the habitable zone would be smaller, and we’d have to be closer to remain within livable boundaries, but increased gravity would lock our planets rotation into synchronization to its orbit, forcing one side of the earth to continually face the sun, exposed to radiation and heat, while the other side would lay in a frozen state of perpetual ice. To say we existed within a delicate balance would be the scientific understatement of the century.

Of course, as one considers this, one could still say, “Yes it would be rare, but hey, we are talking about the whole universe here. Billions and billions of stars, right?” So we will consider actual odds. In an attempt to estimate the probability of attaining this perfect combination of factors, a conservative 1 in 10 chance was applied to each. Once you multiply the probabilities of 20 factors needed, you get 10 to the -15, or one one thousandth of one one trillionth. Some estimate there may be as many as 200 separate factors, but  I’ll let you do the math. Once those odds were overcome, we would have to then consider odds of random chance creating the order necessary to produce a complex living cell, which are even more tumultuous odds for evolutionists, as it is mathematically impossible. If you wish to read a short article to provide insight on that, here is a link by Dr. Henry Morris, an author and apologist.
http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

The bible says God stretched out the heavens, and further states, “He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.” Psalms 147:4. Space is vast, to be sure, which naturally fills us with awe and wonder. But depending on perspective, some look up at the night sky, and feel insignificant, like Mr. Sagan. Others look up and and feel blessed at how special they are, and can be nothing but grateful that the Lord placed us under all that glory, one of many ways He chose to love us.

UFO’s and God

5874hreu

There is a large percentage of the population that believes in UFO’s, or more specifically, alien life on other planets. I have studied cosmology and astronomy to a degree (I am by no means an expert), and could write a fairly technical article on the theoretical science behind space travel to convince readers of its ridiculousness.

Example? How about the simple math of exploring the 400 million other stars in our galaxy alone; or applying Einstein’s theory of special relativity and propelling an object at the speed of light, the fastest possible speed (c) which would allow you the ability to get to the next closest galaxy, Andromeda, in 2.3 million  years traveling at 186,000 miles per second where you would have only just begun exploring the universe; except as our speed increases, so does our mass increase necessitating even more power to generate this kind of speed, such that a mere one pound object, far smaller than what is required to transport life, would need the energy of 100 atomic bombs to travel at 50% the speed of light. If we do the math, this means that a modern-day sized ship traveling at 90% the speed of light would require the energy of 73 million atomic bombs. Furthermore, it takes the same amount of energy to slow down the object, meaning a round trip would cost 4x the energy required to make speed just once. But consider also the particles of dust in all of space too small to detect (hence the force fields and deflector shields in sci-fi). Hitting an object the size of a pea at 50% of c would impact like 2 atomic bombs. Even dust would be catastrophic. Safe to say, without a lot of unreasonable mental gymnastics, UFO visitors are not possible.

I understand this can be an emotional subject for certain people. There are those who believe to there core that aliens are so, and no amount of reason or logic will dissuade them. But I would implore you to ask yourself why this is so. My opinion is that evolution requires it to be considered. There has been no gains in the theories pertaining to life-from-non-life, and genetics have proven no friend to the theory of evolution (genetics articles to come). So evolutionary science is forced to look to the stars for answers, so long as the answer is not God. The idea is technically called panspermia, and suggests that life was started by a distant race of other beings. My last article highlighted the influence and suggestion that science has on society. Can we not say that alien mythology permeates our social construct?

Example?  When I say picture an alien visitor, do most people not picture the pale-skinned, long-necked, oval-faced, black-eyed, bald, prototypical alien? In mass interviews from supposed sightings, these were non-existent before the 1977 movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Afterwards, this became the popular description among those who reported seeing aliens.

Panspermia is a convenient hypothesis for non-believers,  because it requires no proof, passes the problem of life-from-non-life to a distant time and space where it can be assumed to have happened, and can still dismiss the idea of a creator God. Some may find this silly that this theory has reared its head in the annals of science, but it is a strongly considered theory that allows for humanists to kick this pesky can down the road. Even atheist figure heads such as Carl Sagan promoted the idea, without a shred of scientific backing.

Why does evolutionary theory allow for this mindset, you may ask? The logical assumption is, if the universe is considered to be 14 billion years old, and we evolved by chance (or were planted here by someone who evolved by chance) then it stands to reason that it must have happened elsewhere too. This does seem logical on the face of it… almost, but not when science so clearly and so often precludes the result.

The mythology of aliens and appetites for sci-fi have only grown in our modern era. From Star Wars, to Star Trek, to Superman, alien life is fun to consider, no arguments here. But the lines between reality and fiction can often be blurred over time for even the most astute citizens. Without realizing it, people allow for things to be so in their minds that contradict the authority of scripture, and do so without evidence to back it up. Jesus says in Mark 10:6 “In the beginning God made them male and female,” clearly teaching the creation story as accurate. If billions of years existed between the beginning and Adam, this would make Jesus a liar. Furthermore, Christ says in John 5, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” and Matthew 24, “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.”

Christians must be careful not to strip authority from the very words of their savior, for it is clear that Christ Himself believed in a six day literal creation, the deluge, and historicity of Old Testament events. When you believe in aliens, you indirectly support and believe the reason why they must exist, evolution. If you believe in evolution, there is no getting around disagreeing with Jesus of Nazareth, or Moses, or Paul, or John, or any number of patriarchs. I am not saying you mustn’t believe in evolution to be saved, but I will say you have damaged your testimony in some way by undermining the authority of God’s word, and those who do will have to square with that some day.

Do you succumb to the power of suggestion?

neanderthal_lg

When your kids see this in class, or at the museum of natural history, what is the reaction? Is it an indoctrinating scene? Told of Neanderthals, beginning to walk upright. Even the term Neandrethal naturally invokes images of brutish hairy cave-people. Did you know that it is simply named for the Neander Valley, a small valley of the river Düssel in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, located about 12 km east of Düsseldorf.

Did you know that every time we see an image of cave people, it is purely dependent upon artist renderings, and subject to the presupposition of an evolutionary timetable? They will ask artists to draw, or mold a model based on bones, to which they reply, what would you have him look like? Many times, a find will consist of a bone, or a foot print. You have to be a pretty good artist to know what a guys wife looks like by looking at his footprint. But that is the exact way you and your children are receiving this information. And they receive it as fact.

Let us consider, the oldest known footprints ever found are human. In 1974, it was Leaky who discovered some “3.5 million years old” which showed no difference in ours today. Then the first in England during the ice age at around “800,000” years old showing England was inhabited by man at that time (probably ancestors of Japheth). There are African ones, Chilean ones, and per the fossil record, depending on how they are uncovered and what sedimentary layer they are found in, a date is attributed, and someone gets further funding for their dig. But the truth is, the Laetoli footprints of 1974 show man walked upright, and have shown no signs of evolution since, despite the many pictures suggesting otherwise. Neanderthals used tools, wore jewelry, buried their dead, cared for their sick, and have even been found wearing armor. This information comes to us from evolutionary anthropologists. Interestingly enough, they declare the DNA of Neanderthal to be almost identical to modern man.

Despite tee-shirts and pictures in text books, the fossil record holds no slowly evolving creature that goes from the ground to bipedal,and there is no evidence of information being added to bipedal, modern man in order to evolve him. There have been several finds of “out of place” fossils, or strange anomalies that garner no attention due to the inability to fit them within the evolutionary framework.  Many adults of today still remember being taught of Java Man, Piltdown Man, Rhodesian Man, Taung African Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, all of which didn’t hold water. Then we had the Calaveras skull of 1866 that was dated in the tens of millions because it was potentially pre-flood and fully human. Also the Guadalupe Woman, taken off display because of the controversy of finding a perfectly formed 5’2″ woman in a limestone casket from “25 million years” ago.

I would ask that you share, comment, and ask questions, but would leave you today with this thought? Have you been indoctrinated to believe you are nothing more than an evolved mammal? People are extremely susceptible to visual stimulus, and coupled with the respect we have for teachers and for elders, when they tell us this is the case, we listen. But there is no evidence out there, despite our myriad of drawings, paintings, and sculptures, to indicate we have ever been anything but a creation of the Most High.