The Age Of The Universe
How can I say the universe is only about 6,000 years old when the smartest scientists say it is 14 billion years old?
I am not impressed by the supposed intelligence of other men. The Bible says that man’s wisdom is foolishness (1Corinthians 18:20). But if you look at how smart a person measures up to from a human perspective, I would have no problem setting my intelligence against the best of them…
States of Matter
Here is a scientific question for you. How many states of matter are there? In grade school we were taught of the three most common states: solid, liquid and gas. In higher grades we were introduced to a forth state: plasma. But have you ever heard about a fifth state of matter? I was theorizing about a fifth state of matter when I was still in high school, and how it would be reached at the most extreme cold temperatures near 0 degrees Kelvin. Most of the people I mentioned it to just though it was some kid’s foolishness.
Several years after my high school experience I stumbled upon a science documentary about some researchers who were attempting to prove the existence of a fifth state of matter that had been theorized by none other than Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter#Bose-Einstein_condensates).
IQ
To my recollection I have never taken a formal IQ test, however I did graduate at the top of my class in Mathematics. A few years ago I got curious and decided to take some of the available internet IQ tests. What you need to understand is that most IQ tests are designed to measure the average person, so there is an upper limit of IQs beyond which they cannot measure for the simple reason that they can’t test any higher than their pool of questions. My IQ tested at 145 on one test, and 154 on another, but since I got 100% correct for both tests those scores are just the limits of what the tests could evaluate. I usually tell people my IQ is about 160.
People with IQs at my level fall within the top 1% of intelligence in the world. Essentially, I am smarter than most college professors, doctors, and professional people you might meet, and in fact it is possible that I am the smartest person you have ever encountered. My understanding is easily equivalent to big name scientists from the past, and even today.
What is my point?
I didn’t say this to brag, or to put down people with lesser IQs. My point is that my faith in God, and my trusting the Bible records as correct does not come from any lack of comprehension of science or reality. It is my premise that God is always up to the challenge. The Bible is not a collection of idealistic inventions that fail to fit within reality, the Bible is a collection of facts that will always fit and support an accurate scientific perspective.
When you count the years recorded in Bible genealogies you find that creation day 1 occurred approximately 6,000 years ago (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i4/TimelineOfTheBible.pdf). Everything there is on this earth, and throughout the universe came to pass on or after Genesis day 1. It doesn’t matter whether the speed of light suggests billions of years longer, or whether they have yet to find archeological proof of the described event. How is this possible with all the contradicting information of modern science?
The problem is that modern science does not have an accurate perspective…
Modern science is in many cases a collection of lies that rely on the support of other lies, all with the specific intent to avoid acknowledging that God is real. Here are just a few examples:
Rotation of Galaxies
Modern science says that the outer stars of a galaxy rotate around its access at virtually the same speed as its inner stars. When you consider Newtonian Physics this is absurd. It is equivalent to saying that the outer planet Neptune completes a circle around the sun in the same amount of time as the Earth (365 ¼ days), when we know by simple observation that it takes much longer (164.79 years).
So why does science say this about a galaxy? Have they actually measured the speed of these stars’ rotation around their galactic access? No, science has not been observing distant galaxies long enough to be able to measure such a phenomena. Have they determined this with speed calculations using the Doppler effect? No, the differences between the speeds of inner and outer stars is too small to be measured on a Doppler scale and also receives too much interference from other stars in the galaxy. Then is there any other scientific basis for them making this claim? No.
Why then does science make this claim? Because according to big bang theory the galaxies are billions of years old, and under Newtonian Physics it is impossible for a multi-billion year old galaxy to show spirals having so few twists. Billions of years means millions of rotations which would result in an even disbursement of stars around the galactic access, not a spiral. To explain this preposterous anti-Newtonian idea science had to invent the idea of “dark matter”. To have a distinguishable spiral under Newtonian Physics reduces the age of the galaxy’s down to… about 6,000 years.
Accelerating Universe Expansion
Modern science says that the universe is not only expanding apart, but that this expansion is actually getting faster and faster. When you consider the physical laws of energy and inertia this is absurd. Although Doppler effect measurements support the idea that the universe actually is expanding, and there are legitimate repelling forces that could cause objects to push away from each other, there is no precedent for a theory of universal expansion being accelerated.
So why does science say this about the expanding universe? Have they actually measured differences in the speed of expansion between one time of observation and another? No, science has not been observing distant stars long enough to be able to observe any detectable change in their speeds. Is their any scientific basis for them making this claim? No.
Why then does science make this claim? Because according to big bang theory the universe is 15 billion years old, but with the Hubbell telescope we are now able to see galaxies that are an estimated 14 billion light years away. Since this light had to originate when the universe was only 1 billion years old, it does not make sense under big bang for these galaxies to be as mature and well formed as they are. To explain this maturity the galaxies must be much younger than their distance would suggest, therefore science had to invent the idea of “dark energy” to accelerate mature galaxies out to the 14 billion light year distance they are now seen at.
Since starlight was created at the same time as the stars on day 4, the maturity of galaxies isn’t even an issue for Creation, but as science continues to enhance telescope technology they will continue to find stars and galaxies at even greater distances still, and will have to keep coming up with more preposterous patches to their dysfunctional universal theories.
Evolutionary Steps to Man
Modern science recognizes several evolutionary pre-human skeletal discoveries, which of course are essential links needed to support the theory of evolution. Unfortunately the actual evidence of the finds does not support the claims about them.
Evolution is quick to latch onto any find as being a pre-human missing link without considering the possibilities of poor nutrition causing deformities, or the resemblance of the find to present day animals.
Radioactive Dating Methods
Radioactive dating is based on several preposterous assumptions:
Sedimentary Fossils
Much of the proposed evolutionary tree, and the premise for evolution itself is based on the fossil remains found in sedimentary layers. When you look at the layers, findings would even seem to support a progression of the oldest primitive evolutionarily creatures at the bottom and more evolved creatures higher up.
Unfortunately this isn’t as supportive of evolution as one would think. When you consider the physics of an event that would cause sedimentary buildup, such as a river flood, it is obvious that the smallest creatures would sink to the bottom of that layer of sediment. This has nothing to do with how primitive they are or which creatures “evolved” first, it is simply a matter of size.
So when one finds a strata several feet thick with primitive fossils on the bottom, intermediate fossils in the middle, and more evolved fossils on top, that is not an indication of multiple events during different stages of evolution, it is just evidence of a single event where layering occurred naturally based on size.
Origin of Life
According to evolution, life began from a primordial soup of hydrocarbons that just happened to fall together in such a way that some natural phenomenon like an electrical storm animated them into a living cell that was able to reproduce itself.
Even the simplest form of life requires DNA, and that DNA has to be arranged in such a way as to support the continuation of that life, and it has to be imbedded within a cell that is able to support its operations, and both the cell and DNA have to be able to reproduce in a format that is compatible with the original cell’s functions.
No scientific experiment has ever been able to take a fully developed dead cell and reanimate it to life, let alone create one from scratch, yet the imaginary premise of evolution’s origin of life is that this happened by random chance.
I saw a scientist explaining the concept of entropy an a documentary the other day. His example was to pour cream into a cup of coffee. After pouring, he specifically said that it would take longer than the time span of the universe for the cream to on its own become separated from and removed from the coffee. This evolutionary scientist recognizes that cream mixed into coffee cannot separate itself apart, yet he believes that hydrocarbons could mix together to become life.
The Center of the Universe
Man used to foolishly believe that the earth was the center of the universe. It has been frighteningly amusing watching a number of astronomy documentaries lately, where multiple different telescope technologies and methods are being used to see as far into space as possible, to get a glimpse of what the universe looked like as close to the theoretical big bang origin as possible.
But where is it that they are looking in the starry sky? Anywhere and everywhere. Big bang is allegedly 15 billion light years due north, due south, and due every other direction. There is no rhyme nor reason in their preposterous experiments. They don’t seem to comprehend that if there actually was a big bang it would have taken place at the center of the universe.
Apparently they now believe that earth is the outer edge of the universe, that we have some kind of warped point of view as though everywhere we look out is looking in at its center.
Phlogiston
The other night I was watching a series on the history of the science of chemistry, and they were talking about a hypothetical substance called “phlogiston”, and how scientific focus on this imaginary source of combustion proved to be a distraction that impeded the progress of new developments.
I couldn’t help but compare this with today’s scientific focuses on big bang and evolution, and how much the scientific focus on these equally imaginary ideas is impeding true progress in their respective fields. Big bang and evolution are both phlogiston.
James :)
I am not impressed by the supposed intelligence of other men. The Bible says that man’s wisdom is foolishness (1Corinthians 18:20). But if you look at how smart a person measures up to from a human perspective, I would have no problem setting my intelligence against the best of them…
States of Matter
Here is a scientific question for you. How many states of matter are there? In grade school we were taught of the three most common states: solid, liquid and gas. In higher grades we were introduced to a forth state: plasma. But have you ever heard about a fifth state of matter? I was theorizing about a fifth state of matter when I was still in high school, and how it would be reached at the most extreme cold temperatures near 0 degrees Kelvin. Most of the people I mentioned it to just though it was some kid’s foolishness.
Several years after my high school experience I stumbled upon a science documentary about some researchers who were attempting to prove the existence of a fifth state of matter that had been theorized by none other than Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter#Bose-Einstein_condensates).
IQ
To my recollection I have never taken a formal IQ test, however I did graduate at the top of my class in Mathematics. A few years ago I got curious and decided to take some of the available internet IQ tests. What you need to understand is that most IQ tests are designed to measure the average person, so there is an upper limit of IQs beyond which they cannot measure for the simple reason that they can’t test any higher than their pool of questions. My IQ tested at 145 on one test, and 154 on another, but since I got 100% correct for both tests those scores are just the limits of what the tests could evaluate. I usually tell people my IQ is about 160.
People with IQs at my level fall within the top 1% of intelligence in the world. Essentially, I am smarter than most college professors, doctors, and professional people you might meet, and in fact it is possible that I am the smartest person you have ever encountered. My understanding is easily equivalent to big name scientists from the past, and even today.
What is my point?
I didn’t say this to brag, or to put down people with lesser IQs. My point is that my faith in God, and my trusting the Bible records as correct does not come from any lack of comprehension of science or reality. It is my premise that God is always up to the challenge. The Bible is not a collection of idealistic inventions that fail to fit within reality, the Bible is a collection of facts that will always fit and support an accurate scientific perspective.
When you count the years recorded in Bible genealogies you find that creation day 1 occurred approximately 6,000 years ago (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i4/TimelineOfTheBible.pdf). Everything there is on this earth, and throughout the universe came to pass on or after Genesis day 1. It doesn’t matter whether the speed of light suggests billions of years longer, or whether they have yet to find archeological proof of the described event. How is this possible with all the contradicting information of modern science?
The problem is that modern science does not have an accurate perspective…
Modern science is in many cases a collection of lies that rely on the support of other lies, all with the specific intent to avoid acknowledging that God is real. Here are just a few examples:
Rotation of Galaxies
Modern science says that the outer stars of a galaxy rotate around its access at virtually the same speed as its inner stars. When you consider Newtonian Physics this is absurd. It is equivalent to saying that the outer planet Neptune completes a circle around the sun in the same amount of time as the Earth (365 ¼ days), when we know by simple observation that it takes much longer (164.79 years).
So why does science say this about a galaxy? Have they actually measured the speed of these stars’ rotation around their galactic access? No, science has not been observing distant galaxies long enough to be able to measure such a phenomena. Have they determined this with speed calculations using the Doppler effect? No, the differences between the speeds of inner and outer stars is too small to be measured on a Doppler scale and also receives too much interference from other stars in the galaxy. Then is there any other scientific basis for them making this claim? No.
Why then does science make this claim? Because according to big bang theory the galaxies are billions of years old, and under Newtonian Physics it is impossible for a multi-billion year old galaxy to show spirals having so few twists. Billions of years means millions of rotations which would result in an even disbursement of stars around the galactic access, not a spiral. To explain this preposterous anti-Newtonian idea science had to invent the idea of “dark matter”. To have a distinguishable spiral under Newtonian Physics reduces the age of the galaxy’s down to… about 6,000 years.
Accelerating Universe Expansion
Modern science says that the universe is not only expanding apart, but that this expansion is actually getting faster and faster. When you consider the physical laws of energy and inertia this is absurd. Although Doppler effect measurements support the idea that the universe actually is expanding, and there are legitimate repelling forces that could cause objects to push away from each other, there is no precedent for a theory of universal expansion being accelerated.
So why does science say this about the expanding universe? Have they actually measured differences in the speed of expansion between one time of observation and another? No, science has not been observing distant stars long enough to be able to observe any detectable change in their speeds. Is their any scientific basis for them making this claim? No.
Why then does science make this claim? Because according to big bang theory the universe is 15 billion years old, but with the Hubbell telescope we are now able to see galaxies that are an estimated 14 billion light years away. Since this light had to originate when the universe was only 1 billion years old, it does not make sense under big bang for these galaxies to be as mature and well formed as they are. To explain this maturity the galaxies must be much younger than their distance would suggest, therefore science had to invent the idea of “dark energy” to accelerate mature galaxies out to the 14 billion light year distance they are now seen at.
Since starlight was created at the same time as the stars on day 4, the maturity of galaxies isn’t even an issue for Creation, but as science continues to enhance telescope technology they will continue to find stars and galaxies at even greater distances still, and will have to keep coming up with more preposterous patches to their dysfunctional universal theories.
Evolutionary Steps to Man
Modern science recognizes several evolutionary pre-human skeletal discoveries, which of course are essential links needed to support the theory of evolution. Unfortunately the actual evidence of the finds does not support the claims about them.
- Neanderthal man (1 skull and several bones) resembles a modern person suffering from rickets, not a prehistoric man.
- Java man (1 skull, 2 molar teeth and a thigh bone) is actually the bones of an extinct large gibbon, not a prehistoric man. 2 human skulls were also found at this same site, showing that this alleged pre-human did not predate humans. Also the teeth and thigh bone were not found at the same time or specific location as the skull but were just presumed to be part of the same animal.
- Piltdown man (part of 1 skull and some teeth) was proven to be a forgery made by staining and filing down normal human bones.
- Peking man (20 skulls and 147 teeth) is actually the bones and teeth of a species of monkey, not prehistoric man. This find has mysteriously disappeared so it cannot be authenticated. Some of the men involved in this find were the same men responsible for the Piltdown man forgery.
- Nebraska man (1 single tooth) is actually the tooth of an extinct pig, not prehistoric man.
- East Africa ape (1 skull cap and a few bones) is actually the bones of a southern ape species, not prehistoric man.
Evolution is quick to latch onto any find as being a pre-human missing link without considering the possibilities of poor nutrition causing deformities, or the resemblance of the find to present day animals.
Radioactive Dating Methods
Radioactive dating is based on several preposterous assumptions:
- Known half-life of radioactive element: Considering many of these half-lives are claimed to span millions of years (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html) it is impossible for them to have been accurately measured. These lengths of time are all based on assumptions, and more often than not the assumption was made to support a wanted age for an artifact rather than any measurement of the actual decay process.
- Known original amount of mother and daughter elements: There is no scientific way to determine this information, it is all based on assumptions made to support a wanted age.
- Closed system preventing contamination of sample: It is absurd to believe that any sample would be protected from groundwater leaching or environmental erosion.
- Constant rate of decay: Modern science is in upheaval over the recent discovery that Radioactive Decay rates are not constant (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html, http://blogs.forbes.com/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/). When an assumed half life is millions of years, it doesn’t take very much distortion to drastically effect a dating timeline.
Sedimentary Fossils
Much of the proposed evolutionary tree, and the premise for evolution itself is based on the fossil remains found in sedimentary layers. When you look at the layers, findings would even seem to support a progression of the oldest primitive evolutionarily creatures at the bottom and more evolved creatures higher up.
Unfortunately this isn’t as supportive of evolution as one would think. When you consider the physics of an event that would cause sedimentary buildup, such as a river flood, it is obvious that the smallest creatures would sink to the bottom of that layer of sediment. This has nothing to do with how primitive they are or which creatures “evolved” first, it is simply a matter of size.
So when one finds a strata several feet thick with primitive fossils on the bottom, intermediate fossils in the middle, and more evolved fossils on top, that is not an indication of multiple events during different stages of evolution, it is just evidence of a single event where layering occurred naturally based on size.
Origin of Life
According to evolution, life began from a primordial soup of hydrocarbons that just happened to fall together in such a way that some natural phenomenon like an electrical storm animated them into a living cell that was able to reproduce itself.
Even the simplest form of life requires DNA, and that DNA has to be arranged in such a way as to support the continuation of that life, and it has to be imbedded within a cell that is able to support its operations, and both the cell and DNA have to be able to reproduce in a format that is compatible with the original cell’s functions.
No scientific experiment has ever been able to take a fully developed dead cell and reanimate it to life, let alone create one from scratch, yet the imaginary premise of evolution’s origin of life is that this happened by random chance.
I saw a scientist explaining the concept of entropy an a documentary the other day. His example was to pour cream into a cup of coffee. After pouring, he specifically said that it would take longer than the time span of the universe for the cream to on its own become separated from and removed from the coffee. This evolutionary scientist recognizes that cream mixed into coffee cannot separate itself apart, yet he believes that hydrocarbons could mix together to become life.
The Center of the Universe
Man used to foolishly believe that the earth was the center of the universe. It has been frighteningly amusing watching a number of astronomy documentaries lately, where multiple different telescope technologies and methods are being used to see as far into space as possible, to get a glimpse of what the universe looked like as close to the theoretical big bang origin as possible.
But where is it that they are looking in the starry sky? Anywhere and everywhere. Big bang is allegedly 15 billion light years due north, due south, and due every other direction. There is no rhyme nor reason in their preposterous experiments. They don’t seem to comprehend that if there actually was a big bang it would have taken place at the center of the universe.
Apparently they now believe that earth is the outer edge of the universe, that we have some kind of warped point of view as though everywhere we look out is looking in at its center.
Phlogiston
The other night I was watching a series on the history of the science of chemistry, and they were talking about a hypothetical substance called “phlogiston”, and how scientific focus on this imaginary source of combustion proved to be a distraction that impeded the progress of new developments.
I couldn’t help but compare this with today’s scientific focuses on big bang and evolution, and how much the scientific focus on these equally imaginary ideas is impeding true progress in their respective fields. Big bang and evolution are both phlogiston.
1Corinthians 18:20-25 - Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (NIV)
James :)
posted by AskAboutGod | Saturday, July 30, 2011
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home