How is it that the “science is settled”? In regards to the Earth’s temperature, some headlines in the 1970s painted the opposite picture of what they do today. Regardless of the background science, that was actually done, the media pronouncements warned of global cooling back 40 years ago. Continue reading
Abstract: In creationist cosmologies do we expect to find a systematic trend of decreased metallicity in stars as a function of redshift? Some may claim such a systematic decrease is a ‘lay down misere’1 in favour of the standard big bang model. Here I show that that is not the case, and when the assumptions are changed so does the outcome. Therefore such a claim does not automatically rule out creationist cosmologies with no such redshift dependence. First published in Journal of Creation 29(1) :3-5, April 2015. (This article is TECHNICAL.)
In astronomy, metallicity applies to all elements other than hydrogen and helium. The term ‘metal’ in astronomy describes all elements heavier than helium.2,3 A systematic trend of weighted mean metallicity as a function of look-back time in the Universe is sometimes shown in support of the standard big bang model.4 Though stated some find that this trend is not always so well supported by the observational data.5
Does this rule out certain creationist cosmologies? Take for example, Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) model,6 which essentially describes all galaxies with the same youthful age of about 6000 years but includes the notion of a mature creation. According to Lisle no ages of any structures in the universe should be greater than 6000 years, therefore based on evolutionary assumptions, if some object appears older due to so-called maturity, i.e. a fully formed galaxy, then that is in-built maturity that was from the creation.7 Continue reading
The CERN1 Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the biggest particle accelerator on the planet. It is implemented in a 17 mile storage ring located on the French/Swiss border and was restarted in June 2015. It is common to hear that one of the goals is to create, in the particles that are smashed together, conditions similar to those in the alleged big bang.
Since the LHC was brought back online, I have had several people contact me asking my opinion of the astounding claims of some preachers and Bible commentators in regards to this facility “opening a portal to Hell” or even destroying the Universe. As result I recently watched the YouTube video “C E R N the Opening of the Abyss?”2 The following is my assessment.
The preacher, Charles Lawson, is a church pastor and he speaks very strongly about his concern that Lucifer will be unleashed on the planet through a portal created by the LHC. For the record, I do not share his concern. But like any commentary on world events and on their connection to Bible prophesy there will always be undeniable truths. I do find that I agree with some things he says, but largely I find the claims without foundation and more based on emotional hype than solid scientific facts. Continue reading
If you thought Dark Matter was strange enough—the new ‘god of the gaps’ in cosmology—the ‘unknown god’ used to force the ‘square peg’ of observational evidence into the ‘round hole’ of the standard big bang theory, then I say you have good reason to think again.
Dark energy is even stranger still. It is allegedly some form of ‘anti-gravity’ energy forcing the Universe apart at an ever faster rate as the Universe gets older. It has arisen from the need to fit theory to observational data that purportedly gives the distance to very distant galaxies as a function of their redshifts.1 Those redshifts are believed to mean that the Universe is expanding, a claim I believe there is sufficient reason to doubt.2-5
However when two independent teams of astronomers used the Type Ia supernovae as a means of determining the distances of galaxies independently of their redshifts, they both discovered the same thing, that you had to add something else—Dark Energy—to make the big bang theory fit the observational data. I have previously pointed out the implicit circular reasoning in their methods, that is, assume the cosmology you want to prove, use that to select the supernovae you will use in your analysis, then use those supernovae to test your cosmology.4
Dark Energy, I say is just another fudge factor, because the theory is wrong and should have been rejected a long time ago. You might ask, what evidence do I have for such a claim? The actual non-existence of Dark Energy in laboratory physics is evidence for its fudge factor status. As it currently stands it is stuff stranger than fiction—it needs to have physical properties unknown to physics, as we’ll see below. Though that in itself is not necessarily grounds for its rejection, we must remember the origin of the idea—it has only been proposed because of the a priori assumption that the big bang cosmology and history of the Universe is true.6 Continue reading