Archive

Posts Tagged ‘creationism’

New Ceres Data Defies Big Bang and Evolution Theories, Supports Genesjs Creationism

Kenneth Miller’s (of Brown.edu) Evolution Propaganda Fails

December 27, 2011 2 comments

Post link: http://delusional.tk


Evolutionary Biology is very much like the pseudoscience Phrenology

Professor or former Professor Kenneth R. Miller, of Brown University, said, “Though some insist that life as we know it sprang from a Grand Designer’s Original blueprints, Biology offers new evidence that organisms were cobbled together layer upon layer by a timeless tinkerer called evolution.”


An Evolutionary Tree Made by the Fraud Scientist and Evolutionist Ernst Haeckel


A weird coincidence, after posting this article on the 27th,
and then this morning looking for evolution trees, found
this circular version, but then looking to the right noticed
a smaller version, placed against this phrenology looking ad!


Here’s yet another evolution tree I found before the one on New Scientist,
and is in conflict with the others. Interesting to note that this comes from
the nih.gov website (a US government website), and that on the page it is
described as a “Phylogeny showing evolutionary relationships”.
Very strange how much that sounds like phrenology!

Question: why do evolutionists keep resorting to flowery speech and poetry? Can they talk plainly and straight for once instead of like narcissist goof balls? That evolutionists keep talking like that is a clue that many narcissists take to this stupid theory, the reason being that it frees man from having to be responsible to God and makes out man to be the Intelligent One for revealing and understanding evolution (which is a weak way of trying to come close to being the Designer) and opens up the possibility for man to be a Creator himself by genetic engineering and finding out how to create life (which evolutionists imagine they will one day learn, because they tie in evolution to how life was created yet hypocritically accuse creationists as being the only ones who do that).

Second question: Why is Kenneth likening evolution to being a designer? Evolution isn’t a designer of anything, it’s a natural process according to the definition, just like the wind and space dust eroding a rock away. The wind and space dust aren’t designing anything by eroding away a rock.

Third question: what evidence? Kenneth like all other evolutionists are all talk and no substance. On the page from which I got those quotes is NO EVIDENCE. Rather, it’s THEIR DELUSIONS, their day dreaming:

“But evolution can be used as an explanation for complex structures, if we can imagine a series of small, intermediate steps leading from the simplex to the complex.”

Yes, just imagine it people, and look at a few pictures of made up steps or watch a cartoon of dinosaurs running around on the Discovery or History Channel, or pictures of an angry T-Rex eating meat in Discover Magazine or Scientific American, which never stop preaching Darwinism or Evolution. Talk about “all you say God all the time:” Shut up yourself with your 100% faith-based materialistic preaching. The evidence for evolution is chanting, dreams, poetry, cartoons, coloring books and liberal dandy’s playing dress-up in movies. I have no problem with hypothesizing, with imagining how something might be possible, but if there is no evidence to support it, and there is none to support evolution theory hypothesis, then it’s not something you can truthfully teach as being factual or proven or evident, especially if there’s evidence against it, and there is plenty, easily found, on my journal, throughout the Internet, books in libraries all over the world, and from what can be observed of nature.

Keep your cult out of God’s universe and shut up with that stupid vain “keep your religion out of my science” line. It’s “my twisted reality disguised as science so that I don’t have to admit responsibility for my actions and how completely not good I am” that should be used in place of “science.” May I ignore you evolutionists now, or are you going to break “your” logical fallacy lists again and leave me a comment appealing to emotion, ad hominem, mere rhetoric, or concluding before examining the evidence, like this one which commits all four fallacies at once: “You idiot. You know evolution is right and creation wrong, right?” Or how about begging the question: “Just look at this website right here about how bacteria learned to eat citrus fruits which it could never do before.” And your point is? It would have to be: therefore God wasn’t needed to make the universe, life, lightning and mud can come to life, and mud can turn into men. If we can just imagine it, just have faith, it will be true, and the Christians will finally disappear. Just name it, and claim it.

Update 12/30/2011: A blog I found while looking for evolutionary tree pictures. Notice the description of the blogger here, “Callan draws cartoons.” Third story on the blog of this geology teacher: “19 December 2011Video book review: cartoon books”. Can you smell the science? I checked out Alexa (an unreliable site for statistics on websites when if they have a small amount of traffic) and saw that it says mostly 65 year olds and older with no kids go to this website mostly from some location at school. Can anyone say, “Old evolutionists stuck in their ways”?

Related Information:

Unique Fungal RNA Splicing Mechanism Strikes a Blow Against Darwinian Evolution

Is Intelligent Design Compatible With Darwinian Evolution Theory?

On 6/20/2010 on Coast to Coast AM, radio show host George Noory interviewed “Dr. Bernard Haisch” who the C2C AM website describes as “an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. He served as a scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal for ten years, and was Principal Investigator on several NASA research projects. His professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory and Deputy Director of the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley. In addition, he was also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.” George almost right away brought up Stephen Hawking asking what was going on with him, and Bernie made it seem as if Hawking had had a change of mind after having written a book (his latest) called The Grand Design and might believe in an intelligent designer who designed the universe, saying that it seemed to Hawking that the laws of the universe were “finely tuned” (designed) for life (an old evidence for God or someone or someones like him having created the universe), but actually Hawking hadn’t changed his mind since writing his book, and was simply stating what seemed true to him, yet is in denial about it as his book The Grand Design shows. Bernie then said that he believed that humans had been created with a purpose and that’s “It’s more likely that the universe is a finely tuned place for life.” Bernie also brought up how astrophysicist George Ellis said that “life would not be possible if there were very small changes”. What Ellis said actually said was, “What is clear is that life, as we know it, would not be possible if there were very small changes to either physics or the expanding universe that we see around us.

However he said that he believed we were created through evolution, and “to learn” and that God didn’t create us in the way the Bible says and doesn’t “interfere” , because that would be “like [the] Santa Claus [story being true]” He also said that “the purpose behind all this is for God to evolve himself”. He said that he went to the “Latin school of Indianapolis” and to a Catholic seminary for one semester in an attempt to become a (Catholic) priest. He also posed the question “was the universe was made in a way that was conducive for life” and answered himself, saying “yes it was.”

Bernie’s misdescribes what it is when God acts within the universe, calling it “interference”. Why so? When a human does something is it automatically “interference”? Obviously not. Further, he compares the claim that God directly created humans instantly as being like the Santa Clause story, but does not explain why, or how such a comparison is evidence against the Genesis record. Further, his claim that God acting within the universe would go against “us” (humans) learning anything is without evidence. He doesn’t explain how that would prevent us from learning anything. And it goes against common sense: why if God gave us information would that PREVENT any human from learning anything? It would be just the opposite: they would learn about God (some way in which he does or can communicate) and learn the information he gave them if he allowed them to understand what he said. Also, why if God was able to create the laws of the universe (which is nothing simple, and which no creature has apparently mastered, not even aliens being that they can crash and die, must travel in vehicles to get to Earth and use created tools to examine us further than what they can learn simply by their senses), why if God could do that, and create a universe itself, would he NOT be able to see the future perfectly as the Bible claims, or alter it in anyway without preventing us or himself from learning or evolving as Bernie implied? Why would God NOT learn anything by altering what he made? Would God NOT learn something he spoke to a human or any of his creatures and observed how they reacted? I also noticed that part of Bernie’s illogical beliefs about reality was due to his belief in randomness, a thing which doesn’t exist being that everything, as he himself acknolwedges, goes by finely tuned laws, and that there is a purpose behind everything, not a “random non-purposed experimental universe by a God who failed at his experiment”. So, he contradicted himself. And because of his belief in randomness (a thing which allows for things to happen for no logical reason, apart from the laws of the universe and therefore unable to be purposed/directed), he also believes in Darwinian evolution. Bernie also believes in the “Big Bang”, a thing which has much evidence against it.

After, George said to Bernie that he didn’t believe that God sent floods and Bernie agreed saying that there were verses in the Bible that were “simply awful” like a verse in Deuteronomy in which if a man discovered his bride wasn’t a virgin, that he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep, and saying that that was man’s evil projection onto God, and so revealing his ignorance about God’s authority, the symbolism in the Bible and his laws, and projecting his evil mind onto God’s, which is obviously a hypocritical thing and which contradicts his self-righteous “spirituality” which he said he had on the show. George asked Bernie if he believed that there was a purpose behind everything, and Bernie said that he believed there was. Bernie then said he believed we had spirits that continued to exist after we died.

After that, but not immediately after, George allowed a caller to correct him and Bernie, but they both rejected the correction. Among other things the caller said that there was no evidence for evolution, and said that the claim that God loving everyone would prevent him from harming anyone was false. George challenged the caller a little asking illogically how God could flood the world (and be loving), which is nonseniscal because the caller didn’t say that God WOULDN’T do that, but was saying the opposite of that, and that probably confused the caller a little, because the caller made the mistake of at first denying that God directly caused the flood, but then said it was necessary to get rid of the corruption in the world, the corrupt people being like a poisoned leg that needed to be removed lest the whole body dies. The caller also believed wrongly that the “Nephilim” were all evil (which he implied were of the corrupt people that needed to be killed), which isn’t something you can know being that that word means “giants” and is debatable as to whether or not it also means “bully” which is another way it can be used. When the caller met George’s challenge George seemed a littled annoyed, and Bernie failed to refute the caller, and in part of Bernie’s reply to the caller, claimed that he was wrong to say that there was no evidence for evolution and that it was “well laid out”, even though the caller made it clear that he was talking about two different types of evolution: micro evolution and macro, but again, Bernie ignored that and simply said “evolution”, ignoring the two types, and so committed the logical fallacy of bait and switch (equating two things which are not equal).

It’s also notable that George is a Catholic and pro-Catholic and anti-fundamentalist Christian, yet by denying “awful” verses in the Bible is committing heresy against Catholicism, and he’s been doing this for many years, in the ears of many millions of people, including Catholics, and yet his Pope has not excommunicated George for this nor rebuked him for it. So, George is a hypocrite, and it is strong evidence that Catholics are poorly unified. Unity is supposedly one of the evidences that Catholicism is the true religion according to various Catholics, including the Popes who has lead them. On about June 6th I had been in a Catholic church and observed Catholics doing mass for the first time, and the priest gave a sermon, and in it said that Catholics had a problem with unity, so, at least one Catholic of standing is in agreement with me (but he didn’t know that that is what I believed).

For those who might argue, “Evolutionists who say that evolution is random don’t understand what they are talking about since evolution really isn’t random but follows the laws of the universe. So really there is no problem with evolution science it’s just one of the laws of the universe.” Still, such a statement doesn’t give any evidence that molecules can by the laws of the universe turn into living things, like the simplist living thing to humans or aliens as intelligent as or more intelligent than humans. And for those who simply argue that it’s a myth that evolution is random, like Cameron McPherson Smith and Charles Sullivan, two evolutionists, they give no evidence for this being a myth, but use this stupid time-wasting insulting argument: “But we know that a glance at a flower or moose or meadow isn’t enough to appreciate all of nature, just as a glance at a book isn’t enough to appreciate a whole story. A glance at a living thing sees the here and now, but is blind to the billions of years of life recorded in the fossil record,” as if anyone has been around to see billions of years go by. And from the rant I took that quote from, they don’t say why it’s a myth, but end their insultingly stupid time-wasting rant with, “Both supporters and critics of evolution use the same phrase–“evolution is random”–to support their claims. To really understand the phrase we need to distinguish between how it’s used to support these opposing viewpoints.” I wish I could punch them for deceiving me into reading their Internet pollution, their misleading search engine dung. Why did these idiots claim that “evolution is random” is a myth and why do they claim to be scientific and scientists and yet use non-scientific ranting like that? It’s digusting and sickening to me. And that I still take a chance and read supposed “why creationist is wrong and evolution is right” evidence refutes the moron evolutionists who claim I ignore the evidence and don’t listen and am deluded and close-minded etc. No morons: I have read your “evidence” very carefully as the many articles in my journal and elsewhere shows, and everytime I take a chance to read some new evidence, it turns out to be a disgustingly time-wasting rant or dumb false cult-minded claims, not evidence. And I think that that is the last time I am going to use my time to read anymore supposed evidence for evolution. I am utterly sickened by being told such and such is evidence for evolution and against creationism, only to read an illogical claim. I see now it’s all a shell game and time-wasting game and show-off “look at me and what I feel” game and spam the net to force it down the throats of non-liberals game. Doesn’t the world refer to people who do this as “trolls”? And yet the world calls true Christians “trolls” in their hypocrisy instead. That is what is truly “hypocrisy” and “blind”.

For those who don’t believe in an intelligently designed universe, or designed laws at least, and yet claim that evolution is not random – they are confused or being contentious, because IF THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE WERE NOT DESIGNED, THEN THEY WERE WITHOUT PURPOSE AND LAWS DON’T CREATE THEMSELVES, therefore they would have to be produced by the opposite of something with a purpose, a RANDOM act, and randomness is WITHOUT ANY PURPOSE. Purpose is only something a thing with a mind would have, not a law that came into existence by randomness. And for those who would argue that it’s more likely then that the laws that produced the universe were always in existence or that the universe and the laws of it always existed, then a Creator: such people have no evidence for that claim, it’s just their ignorant opinion, even if they call it a fact.

God didn’t use man-to-molecules evolution because it is a pointless process: God taught man both directly and indirectly what right from wrong was within a few days, and gave further insight over thousands of years to learn about it. To spend billions of years waiting to teach HUMANS that is nonsensical, since humans didn’t exist for billions of years in Darwinian Evolution Theory, but only for at the most, hundreds of thousands of years, and maybe a few million, and so God would have waited billions of years just to say, “It’s wrong to disobey me”. Bernie’s version of learning right from wrong is also nonsensical, since if God doesn’t teach what right from wrong is, then no one would ever learn what it was, since right and wrong would never be known: Darwinian Evolution Theory has nothing to do with right from wrong and there is no evidence that it would cause any living things to think, “This is good and this is bad” or “This is the right way to do something and this is the wrong way”. DE Theory is an UNINTELLIGENT MINDLESS supposed law, but mindless doesn’t produce minds. Further, there is no evidence for Bernie’s claim that we’re all here to learn and then go on as spirits. Yet Bernie insists that his belief is true without evidence, like a cultist would do, an idiot.

People like Bernie who have the contradictory belief that there is such thing as randomness and simultaneously unchangeable laws are confused and say contradictory things.

Related Information:

An M.I.T. trained scientist takes a look at Darwin, the fossil record, and the likelihood of random evolution

Evolutionist Fantasies – Logical Fallacies Made by Evolutionists

June 19, 2011 4 comments

Post link: www.gaydna.tk

Yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, “Ian Punnett was joined by psychology professor Douglas Kenrick for a discussion on how the primitive, animalistic underside of human nature, with its sexual fantasies and homicidal tendencies, has actually given rise to the most positive features of our race.” I listened to this show and found it interesting that this professor said that those who were exclusively homosexual were “a puzzle” to evolutionists, because it didn’t help to spread their genes. He made a one or two other nonsensical statements like this, which evolutionists often repeat, which is that “genes want to spread” / “copy themselves”. They do this so often without explaining further what they mean, that such insane-talk can be taken literally. Evolutionists literally believe that animals “desire to spread their genes”, as if that that is what they are thinking when they are “in heat” or trying to mate, and are literally “looking for a mate with good genes” or “the best genes”. It’s absolutely stupid to say such things. Animals obviously are not intelligent to think such things, and how much less would genes have thoughts and desires? And back to the homosexuality “puzzle” which he seemed to imply must have some usefulness; says who? Why would it have usefulness in evolution? Why can’t something be a non-useful trait in evolution? Douglas said himself that exclusive homosexuality is an irrational choice, and yet he insisted that it must have some usefulness that couldn’t be seen (a clear contradiction). Is he biased? Is he double-minded because he is pandering to the homosexuals “community” and the liberals that determine his pay or whether he gets paid or not? Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s an aberration that repeatedly gets eliminated like evolution, like a harmful genetic mutation”. He also said that, “It’s not like homosexuality is a choice”, which was evidence of his bias. Who says it’s not a choice and where is the evidence? There are homosexuals who have said that it is a choice. There are also former homosexuals. Sexual attraction is also something that develops over time; people’s tastes change. And who would argue that babies are born being sexually attracted to anything? Are babies also born in the act of theft? This claim that babies can be born gay and is why they are gay or bisexual seems to be tied in to the illogical belief and excuse that God made sinners. For example, it’s common for ignorant and confused people to blame God for themselves being corrupt, asking, “Why did God make people sinful?” or “Why did God make me gay?” That’s as nonsensical as asking, “Why did God ecreat me in the act of stealing a car?”; no one is created in the act of stealing, lying, murdering, having sexual thoughts or committing adultery, married to anyone, or born a “Jew” (“Jew” and “Jewish” are racial words which are often incorrectly used in place of “Judaism”) or Christian. And a side note: The “Free Will” Christians who often make these claims of God making them the way they are (in the act of doing something including lusting to do certain evil things) are contradicting their claim that they have a completely free will which God isn’t allowed to and doesn’t “mess with”.

Also, does evolution also have desires and want to perpetuate itself? Yet so called “scientists” like Professor Douglas and others who believe in evolution, especially evolution-scientists, keep making the clear logical fallacy of giving emotions to dna and genes, and another fallacy, which is giving animals (and they consider humans to also be animals) false motives. It’s also bizarre that they give animals and their “genes” and dna the same motives, as if the dna and genes that exist in the animal they are in have separate minds of their own and are not apart of one being (creature). Even if they are speaking figuratively, it is a bad form of teaching to repeatedly do this (as bad as the nonsensical cliches “science tells us” and “science says”) and not explain what you mean, and to keep doing that leads to the ones you saying it to, believing such fallacies and to their own hurt, leading them to Hell because of believing such stupid and illogical things. It may be that certain evolution-scientists used this stupid talk to make it easier for kids and “stupid people” to understand, and got into the bad habit of repeatedly explaining things this way, and/or that certain ones with bad intent, noticed that by saying “dna is programmed to replicate”, which some evolutionists will admit, gives the correct implication that it was intelligently programmed (because mindless things like evolution and so called “nature” do not program things, and obviously dna didn’t create or program itself), and in their hatred of God and the Bible, didn’t and don’t want anyone to know or believe the truth, which is that we were created by God and that the laws of universe, including our biology, were made by him.

Categories: creation science, creationism, evolution propaganda, Evolutionist Education, evolutionist morality, Intelligent Design vs Darwinian Evolution Theory Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hi-Tech Eye Design in a Lowly Mollusk

by Brian Thomas, M.S.
5/6/2011

Human eyes are well-designed to see objects using light transmitted through air, but not through water, because light travels at a different speed through the two media. However, intertidal-dwelling marine mollusks called chitons can see equally well in both environments. How did they acquire this unusual ability?

Chitons scour intertidal rocks for algae meals. Eight integrated shell-plates cover their backs, and a muscular foot allows them to cling with surprising strength to the rocks they traverse. A recent study explored their unique dual-mode eye design. How do they see in both air and water without switching out eye lenses, and is this an “adaptation,” as suggested in a summary in ScienceNOW?1

Researchers publishing in Current Biology tested chiton eye lenses and discovered they were the first ever known to be made of the hard mineral aragonite.2 Chiton shells are also made primarily of aragonite, but the use of this material in an eye lens turns out to be an elegant solution to the problem of forming quality images in either air or water.

“The mineral bends the incoming rays in two directions and creates a double image,” according to ScienceNOW.1 The researchers suspect that the chiton capitalizes on the two angles, or “refractive indices,” of transmitted light to form an image in either environment. The study authors wrote, “We propose that one of the two refractive indices of the birefringent chiton lens places a focused image on the retina in air, whereas the other does so in water.”2 The use of aragonite for a lens material could potentially be copied by optical engineers for many applications.

“The adaptation makes sense, as chitons live in intertidal zones and spend time above and below the water line,” ScienceNOW reported.1 But who is to say that the chiton eye was the result of random “adaptation” and not intentional design?

Chiton eye specifications include the thickness, size, and placement of aragonite lenses on the chiton’s shell—coordinated with internal light-detecting soft tissues like membranes and specified proteins. All these are needed just to detect a raw light signal. Therefore, these eyes have such incredibly ingenious engineering that the burden of proof lies with the one who insists that chiton eye specifications are natural “adaptations” rather than intelligently specified designs. – More here

Lying About Loch Fossils: Mainstream Science Cult Lies Again

April 14, 2011 1 comment

Post link: http://lochfossils.tk

More sickening propaganda and greed come from the Mainstream Science Cult news source Sciencedaily:

Loch Fossils Show Life Harnessed Sun and Sex Early on [because the greedy cultists said so]

ScienceDaily (Apr. 14, 2011) — Remote lochs along the west coast of Scotland are turning up new evidence about the origins of life on land [because the greedy cultists said so].

A team of scientists from the University of Sheffield, the University of Oxford and Boston College [grant money grubbers], who are exploring rocks around Loch Torridon, have discovered the remarkably preserved remains [evidence of a 6,500 Earth, not “billions and billions of years old”] of organisms that once lived on the bottom of ancient lake beds as long as a billion (1,000 million) years ago [because the greedy cultists said so].

These fossils illuminate a key moment in the history of evolution when life made the —-> leap <—- [weasel word] from tiny, simple bacterial [because the greedy cultists said so, show the evidence, liars] (prokaryote) [oh look they used a “science” word kids and morons, so they must be smart n’ wise n trustworthy, they must know what they’re talking about!, not those dummy wummy fundie Kwistins] cells towards larger, more complex (eukaryotic) [more complex means it must have evolved from less because the greedy cultists said so: it’s logical fallacy to make such a claim] cells which would make photosynthesis and sexual reproduction possible [because the greedy cultists said so]. The findings are reported in the journal Nature.

Some of these ancient fossils are so finely ornamented, and so large and complex, that they are evidence for a surprisingly early start for the emergence of complex eukaryote cells on land [HUH?! SO THE EARLIER YOU FIND A COMPLEX ORGANISM THE “MORE RIGHTER WE ARE YOU FUNDIES!” HUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!???????????!?!?!?!!? NO SUPER MORON LIARS: THAT’S MORE EVIDENCE THAT BIBLE, GOD’S WORD IS RIGHT, NO YOUR LIE THAT EARLIER = MORE SIMPLE.] The researchers believe that it was from complex cells such as these that green algae and green land plants — everything from lettuce to larch trees — were able to evolve and colonise the land [Sure the cultists do. Just like Mormons don’t doubt their religion when their leaders have them shun learning anything outside of their religion that shows it to be false]. – Source

Well, so much for the “skeptics'” claims that ancient bacteria can’t survive after millions of years, let alone a million. This article didn’t even mention how “skeptics” can’t believe or are “skeptical” that it’s possible for life or even DNA to last that long (yes: it is really unlikely if Earth was billions of years old, let alone a million or millions, right, Mainstream Science Cult and supporters?) I wonder why it’s not mentioned? Could it be because it would make Mainstreamers and their Skeptic sect look anti-scientific, because it would kill the excitement of the story, because it would make it look like Skeptics, which many Mainstreamers claim to be, like hinderers of science, or because it might provoke thought outside of the tiny mental box they try to trap everyone in? Because it might get the thoughtless to lift up their blinders and peek at the things in the light, and try to make out what they are seeing clearly? Can’t have that can we cultists? Thinking for yourself is a sin to cultists.

So, let’s get this lesson clear kids and morons: According to the Mainstreamers, the “earlier” a life form existed, the more simple, but if it’s complex [contradiction], the Darwin Cult of Mainstreamers are still right, cuz its just means like got complex suddenly, and the “earlier” a complex form of life is found, the more sudden it happened, and the later a simpler life form is found, it must not have evolved, or come from something simpler, because complex things only get more complex, never simpler, just like this circular reasoning.”

Anti-Christians and Mainstream Science Cult: Please stop teaching kids and morons bad logic, please stop wasting time and money by promoting lies with your time and the money God allows you to have and use. Please, it’s sickening, and inviting pain and death when you keep stealing, provoking, lying and hiding the truth and wrecking lives and wasting everyone’s time.

Categories: creation science, creationism, Mainstream Science Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Study Shows the Universe Is Closer to the End Than Expected

February 18, 2010 Leave a comment

Study Shows the Universe Is Closer to the End Than Expected

by Brian Thomas, M.S.

Every known system degenerates. Metal rusts, food rots, and flowers wither. Even something as large as the universe will eventually run down. How much usable and still-ordered energy remains in the universe?

Australian researchers have generated a new estimate, one that includes the energy-destroying effects of “supermassive black holes.” Their computations indicate that the universe is perhaps 30 times more run down than similar estimates published just last year.

After adding in “the contributions of black holes 100 times larger than those considered in previous budgets,” co-authors Chas Egan and Charles Lineweaver reported in the Astrophysical Journal that the universe is at least an order of magnitude more run down than secular astronomers once thought.1

The largest contributor by far to universal entropy (a measure of usable energy) is generated by supermassive black holes, according to the published study. Evidence of these, as well as the smaller “stellar” black holes, has been found mostly in galactic cores. Black holes rapidly randomize ordered forms of energy and matter, turning them into heat that then dissipates.

Though some of the assumptions used in the Egan and Lineweaver study rely on aspects of Big Bang cosmology, a large portion of the computed entropy was derived from temperature and volume measurements or estimates. A host of other observations has demolished the Big Bang theory,2 but the very fact that the universe is slowing down is both counter to evolutionary assumptions and supportive of biblical creation.

Lineweaver said in an Australian National University press release, “Contrary to common opinion, the maintenance of all the complicated structures we see around us―galaxies, stars, hurricanes and kangaroos―have the net effect of increasing the disorder and entropy of the universe.”3 The longstanding scientific observation of continually decreasing order in all systems contradicts the evolutionary doctrine that order has spontaneously increased.4 But evolution’s simple-to-complex story has been so uncritically accepted that it isn’t surprising that the science of entropy, which calls that story into question, is not as well known.

Since the universe is currently unwinding through natural processes, it stands to reason that at some point it was intentionally “wound up” by something outside of the universe. This corresponds well with the Bible’s assertion that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”5

In fact, the culmination of the heavens wearing down was mentioned in the book of Isaiah, to whom God said, “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.”6

Egan and Lineweaver suggested that future research could use their new numbers to recalculate how much time the universe has left. But failing to consider revelation from the God of creation must lead to confusion over the ultimate questions of origin and destiny. Whereas evolutionary scientists can be sure that the universe is running down—though unsure about when it started or how it will end—God states that “all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll,”7 “and the stars shall fall from heaven,”8 so that He can establish “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”9 This present universal economy will be supernaturally restructured long before it fizzles out.

References

1. Egan, C. A., and C. H. Lineweaver. A Larger Estimate of the Entropy of the Universe. Astrophysical Journal. 710 (2): 1825-1834.
2. Gish, D. 1991. The Big Bang Theory Collapses. Acts & Facts. 20 (6).
3. Astronomers: The end is nigher than we expected. Australian National University press release, January 25, 2010.
4. Morris, H. 1985. Does Entropy Contradict Evolution? Acts & Facts. 14 (3).
5. Genesis 1:1.
6. Isaiah 51:6.
7. Isaiah 34:4.
8. Matthew 24:29.
9. 2 Peter 3:13.

Source.