Available on Bitchute.com
Currently the standard model incorporates the hypothetical stuff called ‘dark energy’. That is some sort of anti-gravity type energy that is alleged to have caused the expansion of the universe to start to accelerate back about 5 billion years ago. But ‘dark energy’ is otherwise unknown to modern physics. Really it is a fudge factor in the big bang theory.
Now some cosmologists have suggested ‘dark energy’ may have had another role in the early universe. This occurred after some very brief period of hypothesized cosmic inflation that spread out whatever particles existed in the universe then to make it extremely dilute.
Astrophysicist Paul Sutter in an article on Space.com wrote:[i]
“The researchers found that a brief fluctuation in dark energy could have flooded the early universe with exotic particles like quarks, gluons and leptons that would eventually congeal into the atoms we know and love today.”
Some biblical creationists argue for a mature creation as an explanation for the history of Genesis to align with modern cosmological observations. Don DeYoung1 is one who argues that such a view is not refutable, and he is quite right. But neither is any cosmology as really cosmology is not science.2 It is not subject to repeatable laboratory type tests that is normally required in science. Its goal is to reconstruct the history of the Universe, and in so doing cosmology is more akin to evolutionary biology or geology in which researchers must simply accept some facts as given. That makes cosmology more like a religion, a belief system, with its unprovable axioms upon which everything else is based.
De Young argues that all biblical creationist cosmogonies (i.e. worldviews) contain some level of mature creation, which I do agree with. The problem, though, which he does not address, is the issue of false information in starlight.
We know that the Universe is very large. Light travels very fast indeed, yet light travelling at its measured speed travels one light-year distance in one year (by definition). The Bible tells us that the Universe is only about 6000 years old, but the distances light needs to travel from the most distant sources to Earth, since creation, is about 14 billion light-years. So DeYoung, and others like him, claim that God created the ‘light in transit’. He says that this explanation is valid as it is equivalent to the mature creation of our sun or even to adult forms of life created on Earth (i.e. Adam and Eve created in the Garden as adults and not babies or embryos). On some level this may be true, but the ‘light in transit’ remains a problem in terms of God’s truthfulness.
No doubt DeYoung, and those others who hold similar views, believe that God is 100% truthful, yet they see no problem with false information in the ‘light in transit’. DeYoung excuses it by saying that it is nevertheless true in the mind of God. But there still remains a problem.
In Psalm 91 (and other passages in the Bible) we are told that the heavens tell us of God’s workmanship. Is this also only in the mind of God? Is everything that is in the astrophysical heavens just part of a big light show, which has no reality, such as the reality we can discover with the rest of our senses here on Earth? I don’t think so.
So how do you justify ‘light in transit,’ which does not relate back to real events in the past history of this Universe? If you want to take the approach of the least number of assumptions, that is, using Occam’s Razor,3 a law of economy, then I would say that a time-dilation model or a time-convention model is a far simpler and better choice.4 For example, I could construct a cosmogony (description of the origin of the Universe) where our Creator God makes the sun, the moon, the planets and all the stars and galaxies on Day 4 of Creation Week, according to Genesis 1.5 But in so doing He slows the rate of clocks on Earth during that day only. Really that means he slows the rate at which time passes on Earth relative to elsewhere in the cosmos. He makes some galaxies initially and places them throughout the Universe, like unfurling a flag or tent. It does not necessarily involve any stretching of the fabric of space, or of time or of space-time. This Universe is not an expanding, but created static, with the galaxies essentially in the same locations now as when they were created 6000 years ago, as measured by Earth clocks.
—The bankruptcy of big-bang thinking and its ‘dark’ fudge factors
Six important questions are asked in regards to the alleged big bang origin of the Universe? These questions highlight the bankruptcy of big bang thinking, about the origin of the universe that needs numerous fudge factors.
Embracing the ‘darkness’ has led man to develop unprovable fudge factors to plug the holes in his failed theory. I deal with each of these:
- Where did the Universe come from?
- How did nothing explode?
- How did stars and galaxies form?
- Why does CMB ‘light’ cast no shadows?
- Why the ‘Axis of Evil’?
- What about expansion of space?
…. 14 more problems are listed but not discussed in any detail.
Six major fudge factors are highlighted as a result but there are many more. The big bang needs these unverifiable fudge factors; so why hasn’t it been discarded? The answer is simple. The alternative, for the atheist–a Creator God–is unbearable, and for the compromised theist or deist, who accepts a big bang origin for the universe, the Creator as described by a straightforward reading of the Bible, is unbearable.
An illustrated talk presented at the Creation Ministries International 2016 Creation SuperCamp at The Tops Conference Centre, NSW, 7:30 pm Monday January 4, 2016.
Video of powerpoint presentation
Available on Bitchute.com
Notes of a lecture on starlight and time. Do they present an insurmountable problem for biblical creationists? The lecture was given August 1st, 2015. See Age and Reason Seminar Adelaide for details.
Here is the problem. The universe is truly vast in size, in fact, tens of billions of light-years in size. One light-year is about 10 trillion kms. It is the distance light travels in one year. By taking a literal history from Genesis chapters 5 and 11 you can calculate that the universe is only about 6000 years old. If so, how does starlight get to earth from a distance greater than 6000 light-years? Shouldn’t we only be able to see to a distance of 6000 light-years in the universe?
Is this a brick wall? Does it mean the bible must be wrong? Distances are billions of light-years. Surely that must mean light took billions of years to travel here from the distant cosmos? How do you explain that?
Ok, lets first look at some simple maths.
Distance = Speed x Time
So if you drive your car a distance of 100 kms and travel at 50 km/hr it will take you 2 hours. 10 billion light-years represents a distance in the Universe to some of the most distant galaxies like those pictured here in what is called the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field 2014.
Exposing the big bang’s Fatal Flaw
Evolution, in the cosmic sense, from the nothingness of the universe before the big bang and the alleged initial singularity, from which all energy, and hence all matter (i.e hydrogen gas), is alleged to have arisen, to the formation of our solar system, to the origin of life itself, to the evolution of man on Earth, has many fatal flaws. For that reason the title of this book (about these issues) makes use of the plural form of the expression “Achilles’ heels”.
In cosmology it is cosmic evolution that can be shown to be nothing more that cosmic mythology — a philosophical belief system. Cosmology when it tries to answer the question of the origin of the Universe itself is rendered not to be science but a philosophy, nothing more than a meta-physical belief system.
The big bang is a good story … as far as storytelling goes.
“Storytelling has been the single most powerful communication tool for thousands of years and we are just starting to understand how relevant and significant it is today.”1
But as Mark Twain once is reputed to have said:
“Never let the truth get in the way of a good story,”
In 2014 the BICEP2 team of astronomers operating out of their South Pole telescope made the spectacular claim of detection of cosmic inflation via a signal that was expected in the CMB radiation from accompanying gravitational waves in the period of time much less than a second after the alleged big bang. I expressed my doubts back then. And other scientists much closer to the field than I doubted the discovery. See the list of related articles below.
By the time the BICEP2 team’s 25-page paper was accepted for publication in the prestigious journal Physical Review Letters1 they had added a half-page caveat saying that they might be wrong. This was later confirmed that they were most probably wrong due to their not properly accounting for the foreground contamination of their putative signal from dust emission in the Galaxy. That highlights one of the dangers of rushing to publish when you have not ruled out all other possible sources. And cosmology is particularly more difficult than other branches of science, if we can even call cosmology science.
The Planck satellite team then looked at the foreground dust contamination problem:
This is Genesis Week, episode 5 season 4 with Ian Juby aka Wazooloo
- BIG BANG FUDGE FACTORS
- COSMOLOGY IS NOT SCIENCE!
- COSMIC MYTHOLOGY: EXPOSING THE BIG BANG AS PHILOSOPHY NOT SCIENCE
- THE LARGEST STRUCTURE IN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE OR COSMIC VARIANCE?
- HAS THE ‘SMOKING GUN’ OF THE ‘BIG BANG’ BEEN FOUND?
- HEY, NOT SO FAST WITH THE NOBEL PRIZE!
- INFLATION—ALL IN THE ‘DARK’
The Standard Model of particle physics (SM) has been very successful at describing the elementary particles and the forces that bind them together. However, the Standard Model presents some significant problems for big bang theorists. This is because the SM does not contain any Dark-Matter particles, and the neutrinos in it are described as exactly massless. Which means that in its present form, it is in clear contradiction with the big bang model as required by various observations.
Those observations have led to the need to include Dark Matter in the standard (ΛCDM1) big bang model, particularly during the period of nucleosynthesis, just after the big bang beginning when the light elements were allegedly formed from hot hydrogen. Therefore, the Standard Model of particle physics is in stark disagreement with the requirements necessary for the formation of the first elements in the alleged big bang.
Where are the Dark-Matter particles?
All challenges to the standard ΛCDM big bang model have been met and overcome, so far, by assuming ‘unknowns’ particularly Dark Matter and Dark Energy, wherever and whenever needed. Astronomical observations have led big bang astronomers and cosmologists to look for these new unknown Dark-Matter particles to solve many of their problems resulting from such observations; for example, the formation of stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters, the testing of the big bang model with type Ia supernova measurements, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropies, galaxy rotation curves, and in particular, as focussed on here, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN).2