THE AGE OF SELF: PRIDEFUL

Posted on by

Where is the world according to God’s timetable? The world is now largely rejecting God by suppressing the witness of God’s creation. Paul says God’s eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world and yet the world’s universities and schools teach the world came into existence by a Big Bang and evolved over billions of years. What nonsense: chaos and random chance produced this beautiful world with people who have the intelligence to create the internet, AI, robotics, etc. The following Scripture reveals what is ahead for those people who reject and rebel against God.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” Romans 1:8-32
Make sure you circulate this great presentation by Martyn Isles now CEO of Answers in Genesis.

MORE ON THE BIG BANG – Is the Big Bang really scientific?

Posted on by

Creationist scientists argue that the atheists’ claim that our universe arose from a random ‘explosion’ is absurd. For example, the rate of expansion would have needed to be just right, as even a tiny deviation from the required rate would have been catastrophic. If just a little faster, particles would have simply flown away from each other, never coming together to form stars and planets. If just a little slower, gravity would have pulled everything back together resulting in a violent ‘great crunch’, with no planets and no life. According to Nobel prize-winner, Professor Steven Weinberg, the number determining the required expansion rate (known as the ‘cosmological constant’) would have had to be just to right to within 120 decimal places.10

How realistic is it to believe that an ‘explosion’ just happened to produce an expansion rate this critical?

The expansion rate, however, is just one of many factors that would have had to be ‘fined-tuned’ for the big bang to have produced a universe like ours in which life could exist. For example, unless the masses of the particles that make up atoms, the forces that hold atoms together, and the force of gravity all had the right values, the big bang would have produced a lifeless universe. Creation scientists argue that a process that is this critical could not have occurred by chance.

Conclusion

Christians need not be intimidated into accepting secular accounts of origins. Big bang theory only appears to be scientific because people are exposed only to the evidence that appears to support it. At the same time, nothing is said about its major scientific problems. Big bang theory contradicts the account of creation in Genesis, and Bible-believing creationists should reject it on the authority of God’s word.

Extract from an article by Dominic Statham entitled “Is the Big Bang really scientific?” http://www.creation.com

References and notes

  1. Technically, CMBR is said to date from the 379,000 years after the big bang when atoms were formed. Previously, the energetic nuclei and electrons, as charged particles, would scatter any radiation, but when they combined to form neutral atoms, the universe became transparent to the radiation. Return to text.
  2. Horgan, J., Physicist slams cosmic theory he helped conceive, Scientific American, 1 December 2014; blogs.scientificamerican.com. Return to text.
  3. Burbidge, G. and Hoyle, F., The origin of helium and other light elements, The Astrophysical Journal 509:L1–L3, 10 December 1998. Return to text.
  4. Burbidge, G., The case against primordial nucleosynthesis, in: Hill, V., François, P. and Primas, F., eds, From Lithium to Uranium: Elemental tracers of early cosmic evolution, IAU Symposium Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 228, Paris, May 23–27, 2005; adsabs.harvard.edu. Return to text.
  5. That is, measurements of ordinary matter density. See wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html. Return to text.
  6. Hartnett, J., Dark Matter and the Standard Model of particle physics—a search in the ‘Dark’, 28 September 2014. Return to text.
  7. Hartnett, J., Is ‘dark matter’ the ‘unknown god’? Creation 37(2):22–24, April 2015. Return to text.
  8. More precisely, because the wavelength of the light is now longer, it has ‘shifted’ towards the red end of the spectrum. Note that this does not necessarily cause a particular star to ‘look red’. Return to text.
  9. Professor Halton Arp, however, noted that there are many exceptions to this rule, which are difficult for advocates of big bang theory to explain. See Hartnett, J., Big-bang-defying giant of astronomy passes away, 31 December 2013. Return to text.
  10. Weinberg, S., Facing Up: Science and its cultural adversaries, Harvard University Press, USA, pp. 80–81, 2001. Return to text.
  11. Lewis, F.G. and Barnes, L.A., A Fortunate Universe: Life in a finely tuned cosmos, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2016. Return to text.
  12. See also Statham, D., A naturalist’s nightmare [review of Ref. 11], J. Creation 32(1):48–52, April 2018. Return to text.

WHY RADIOMETRIC DATING GIVES AGES OF MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS

Posted on by

A young age for ‘ancient’ granites

When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for the Institute for Creation Research), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for a definitive answer to the puzzle of why radiometric dating consistently gives ages of millions and billions of years.

picture – Linear accelerator used in radiometric dating.

Others had tried to find an answer in geological processes—e.g. the pattern was caused by the way the magma was emplaced or how it crystallized. This is indeed the answer in some cases.2,3 But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that in other cases there were many independent lines of evidence that suggested that huge amounts of radioactive decay had indeed taken place. (These include the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos and fission track dating.) It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes alone could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be an answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.

From the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place. So it was clear that the assumption of a constant, slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.

There is now powerful confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper,4 though technical, can be summarized as follows:

  • When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas, which readily escapes from rock.
  • Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
  • By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)
  • However, there is a significant proportion of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is, at first glance, surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.
  • Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert on helium diffusion from minerals to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5,680 (± 2,000) years.
  • The paper looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to wriggle out of these powerful implications, but there seems to be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the results were seriously flawed.

The Bible clearly tells us that God created a mature universe: Adam was a man, not a baby, the trees and plants mature and on day six Adam could see all of the stars in heaven. God tells us that He stretched out the heavens at creation on day four. The Cosmos could only have been created by a being outside of His creation with miraculous powers.

Big Bang from nothing does not explain the complex ordered universe that is so evident, it is certainly not good science.

Taken from an article by Dr. Carl Weiland “Radiometric dating breakthroughs” http://www.creation.com

4. Humphreys, D. et al., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay, icr.org, 16 October 2003. Return to text.

YOUNG EARTH AND DISTANT STARLIGHT (PART 3)

Posted on by

3. Everyone believes in miracles!

Those who demand a naturalistic explanation (no miracles allowed!) for distant starlight from Christians don’t seem to realize that the standard ‘big bang’ secular view of origins entails miracles—but without a miracle worker! The problem is that the distribution of the background radiation in the universe is fairly uniform, but there has not been enough time for radiation (at the speed of light) to disperse over such a large universe. This is called the ‘horizon problem’. It is really the big bang’s very own ‘light time-travel’ problem. To ‘explain’ this, cosmologists invoked a period of super-fast expansion of the universe—much faster than the speed of light—for a brief time just after the ‘bang’. This was dubbed ‘inflation’. What started it, how it could proceed, and what stopped it are all mysteries. These are in effect naturalistic miracles, with no sufficient cause or explanation.2 They are used to prop up a theory that would not work without them.

So, it is not that miracles are not allowed in explaining origins. Ironically, they are only disallowed when it comes to biblical creation, which the Bible says is miraculous!

Bible-believing Christians are ‘streets ahead’ of secularists here because we have an all-powerful God who is able to do things beyond our ken.

Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. The Lord lifts up the humble; he casts the wicked to the ground. (Psalm 147:5–6)

God calls us to humbly submit to Him and His Word.

.

SCIENTISTS EXPLAIN LIFE IN A FINELY TUNED UNIVERSE

Posted on by

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”  Romans 1:18-20 

Image result

The book, A Fortunate Universe – Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos is full of helpful information for those seeking to understand the extent to which our universe in finely tuned for life. The authors are well qualified to write on the subject. Geraint Lewis is Professor of Astrophysics at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy and Luke Barnes has a Ph.D. in astronomy from Cambridge University in the UK.

At the atomic level, the level of fine tuning is phenomenal, both concerning the mass of the various particles and the four fundamental forces at play: gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Lewis and Barnes conclude “Playing these forces off against one-another has a drastic effect on the universe , with an almost imperceptible region of stability”.

In the penultimate chapter the authors deal comprehensively with objections to the view that fine-tuning is a reality, and demonstrate that these carry little weight. Interestingly, they comment:

“The fine-tuning of the Universe for life is unique in our experience for the strength of the opinions expressed … Even those who don’t think fine tuning means anything simply must enthusiastically explain, in great detail, exactly why it doesn’t mean anything.”

Barnes takes the view that the fine tuning is not accidental but purposeful. To him the universe “contains good things like free moral agents and all that they can do and learn and appreciate” These he feels reflect the intent of a creator (pp. 347-348). On his blog, he has been very critical of atheists such as Victor Stenger, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Carrier.

Lewis is more sceptical and argues that the presence of evil and suffering makes God’s existence unlikely: “I would expect a morally perfect being to create a morally perfect universe” (p. 346). He sees a multiverse as a more probable explanation for fine tuning. “Ours is but one of a vast sea of universes each with differing laws of physics and properties of matter, set at their birth through some cosmic role of dice …” Lewis is obviously not aware of Biblical history. God did make a morally perfect universe in fact He made a perfect universe. It was mans sin that resulted in God cursing the earth introducing death and suffering. Fortunately, our loving Creator has provided atonement for our sin, in His death on the Cross. Eternal life in a new heaven and earth is available to all who will repent of their sin and acknowledge Jesus as their Saviour and Lord. Also, realistically, multiverse thinking can have no place in science. Apart from being unobservable (and therefore untestable) it logically leads to the view that no data set should be regarded as evidence for anything. In a multiverse it could always occur by chance!

In conclusion; a life-sustaining universe requires a number of fundamental physical constants to be very precisely determined, and creationists rightly view this is evidence of intelligent design.

In addition, the big bang could not produce a life-sustaining universe unless many additional characteristics were exquisitely fine-tuned. This is so improbable that, to any reasonable mind, such a naturalistic explanation must be seen to be utterly, utterly implausible.

Taken from an extensive book review by Dominic Statham C.M.I.

 

BIG BANG MODEL OF COSMOS IS ABSURD

Posted on by
Secular scientists claim that our universe formed itself in a big bang event about 13.8 billion years ago. They say that the big bang is a valid scientific theory, well-supported by the evidence.
These claims are false. Not only is there abundant scientific evidence against the big bang, but the model also contradicts itself, and has absurd implications.

30-9-619_14

In this third DVD in the series, engineer and former atheist Spike Psarris explores the origin of the universe. Did it form in a Big Bang event billions of years ago? Or are the heavens consistent with the biblical account of creation instead?

Using spectacular graphics and brilliant photographs of God’s magnificent heavens, Spike demonstrates why the Big Bang fails scientifically. You’ll not only learn about the abundant scientific evidence against the Big Bang, but see why the model contradicts itself and has absurd implications. Spike makes difficult concepts easy to grasp, including redshifts, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the multiverse, and more. Plus, you’ll gain a deeper understanding of dark matter, dark energy, inflation theory, and the bizarre concept of a ‘Boltzmann brain’—all of which threaten the Big Bang’s status as a scientific theory.

https://austore.creation.com/astronomy-vol-3-our-created-universe-dvd?utm_sour  Watch the five minute preview

An objective evaluation of the evidence does not support a self-creation of the cosmos. Instead, “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).