Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.
27 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?
Job 38:1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?Inductive Fallacies)
"Inductive reasoning consists of inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole.
For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.
All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.
No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true."
Stephen's Guide to logical fallacies (Stephen Downes University of Alberta) www.onegoodmove.org
So much of what we conclude about our universe is purely conjecture. Our telescopes still only show us so much and the rest is purely conjecture. How can we have any certainty that the universe is exactly as we have stated it? If we have not seen it, should we believe it? The secularists pride themselves on no faith. And yet here they find themselves living on more faith than any else.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
The speed of light slows down.
/ March 12, 2010, 1:41 PM
Has Speed Of Light Slowed Down?
A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years. If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.
"That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff," Davies told Reuters. "But of course it doesn't mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it's in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones."
Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the Aug. 8 edition of scientific journal Nature.
The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth.
Davies said fundamentally Webb's observations meant that the structure of atoms emitting quasar light was slightly but ever so significantly different to the structure of atoms in humans. The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge, or the speed of light, had changed.
"But two of the cherished laws of the universe are the law that electron charge shall not change and that the speed of light shall not change, so whichever way you look at it we're in trouble," Davies said.
To establish which of the two constants might not be that constant after all, Davies' team resorted to the study of black holes, mysterious astronomical bodies that suck in stars and other galactic features.
They also applied another dogma of physics, the second law of of thermodynamics, which Davies summarises as "you can't get something for nothing." After considering that a change in the electron charge over time would violate the sacrosanct second law of thermodynamics, they concluded that the only option was to challenge the constancy of the speed of light.
More study of quasar light is needed in order to validate Webb's observations, and to back up the proposal that light speed may vary, a theory Davies stresses represents only the first chink in the armour of the theory of relativity.
In the meantime, the implications are as unclear as the unexplored depths of the universe themselves.
"When one of the cornerstones of physics collapses, it's not obvious what you hang onto and what you discard," Davies said."If what we're seeing is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear." It could be that the possible change in light speed will only matter in the study of the large scale structure of the universe, its origins and evolution.
For example, varying light speed could explain why two distant and causally unconnected parts of the universe can be so similar even if, according to conventional thought, there has not been enough time for light or other forces to pass between them.
It may only matter when scientists are studying effects over billions of years or billions of light years. Or there may be startling implications that could change not only the way cosmologists view the universe but also its potential for human exploitation."For example there's a cherished law that says nothing can go faster than light and that follows from the theory of relativity," Davies said. The accepted speed of light is 300,000 km (186,300 miles) per second."Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off," Davies said.
REUTERS
Job 386 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
"Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists
5-27-4
Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world. "
This is part of an open letter from secular scientists who have serious doubts about "big bang" cosmology. They are secular and do not hold to creationism (they argue for an older plasma theory) nevertheless, these scientist foresee the inherent problems with big bang cosmology and are not convinced by it.
Here are their signatures..
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
Earthtech.org
www.earthtech.orghttp://www.earthtech.org/">www.earthtech.org >
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273">http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273>
http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdfhttp://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf">http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf>
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)
Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
So it is not just fundamentalist christians who nottice problems with the Big bang theory. Now there are true facts within the "big bang" cosmology and these facts contradict naturalism and atheism. The problem is that "science" (meaning evolutionary naturalist positivists) if consistent leads to atheism and naturalism.
So then the cosmology breaks it's proponents philosophy down regardless.
Job 38: 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Big bang and the cosmological argument of God.
One fact that the big bang theory has cntributed to the discussion of Creation verses evolution is that there has to be a starting point to the universe. This favors theism of ver naturalism and pantheism which involve an infinite regress.
Conceding a "Big bang" cosmology philosopher William Lane Craig uses the Kalaam Cosmological argument to demonstrate this principle.
1. Everything which begins to exist, has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
We know from Evidence of the Red shift that the universe moves. In fact, we see movement throughout the universe in many ways. So considering the law of cause and effect. The universe is an effect which has a cause. modern academia has accepted a starting point for the universe and even plasma cosmology eventually allows for a starting point. So our universe has to have a cause, or a First cause for everymaterial thing we know of.
Now this is the end of the line for scientific law. Because scientific law is all that we can observe. This then defeats the Worldview of naturalism. Because the universe is not created from natural laws of science.
In fact time breaks down as well.
"In addition, Einstein's general relativity which has much experimental support shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space, an insight first pointed out by Augustine. Since God by definition is the creator of the whole universe. He is the creator of time. Therefore he doesn't have a cause." Jonathon Sarfati
Psalm 8
3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Anthropic Principle
"Why is it that conditions were just right for your survival? Cosmologists often apply this question to life on Earth with the Goldilocks principle, which ponders why Earth is "just right" for life. The anthropic principle tackles an even greater question: Why is the universe itself just right for life?
For instance, when you compare the electromagnetic force to gravity, we find that electromagnetism is 39 times stronger, according to physicist and author Victor J. Stenger. And that's handy because if the two powers were more evenly matched, stars wouldn't burn long enough for life to develop on an orbiting planet. Scientists refer to this as an anthropic coincidence, or a coincidence related to mankind's very existence.
Here's another example that Stenger reminds us of: A vacuum in the universe is a lot less dense than we previously thought (139 times less dense, in fact). That's significant because if the original higher estimates had been correct, the universe would have blown apart eons ago.
So if certain conditions in our universe were just a little off, life would have never evolved. Just how is it that we're so fortunate? Of all possible universes, why did ours turn out like it did?
In 1974, astronomer Brandon Carter tackled this quandary by introducing the anthropic principle. Carter hypothesized that anthropic coincidences are part of the universe's very structure and that chance has nothing to do with it. He proposed two variants:
- Weak anthropic principle: This response to anthropic coincidence may sound like a slice of common sense. Simply put, Carter pointed out that if our universe weren't hospitable to life, then we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. As such, there's no sense in asking why.
- Strong anthropic principle: In this version, Carter draws on the notion of the Copernican Principle, which states that there's nothing special or privileged about Earth or humanity. He states that since we live in a universe capable of supporting life, then only life-supporting universes are possible.
There but for fortune, this universe might not have permitted the evolution of intelligent life, so the anthropic principle is a scientific attempt to address the question "Why?""
What is the anthropic principle?
by Robert Lamb www.howstuffworks.com
Problems with the "Big Bang cosmology"
a. ANTIMATTER
"Who's hidden all the antimatter?
Why is there a matter universe?
Our best theories for the origin of the Universe estimate it began 13.7 billion years ago as an infinitely hot and infinitely dense ball of energy. In those first instants of time, the universe expanded and cooled. All the particles we observe today, and the interactions between them, condensed into existence in those early seconds and minutes.
A view along a section of the 27km long LHC tunnel and collider If this Big Bang theory is right, antimatter and matter should have been created in equal amounts. Each matter particle should have an antiparticle. This poses an obvious problem, as matter and antimatter annihilate on contact, so you'd expect the universe to just be energy. Or equal parts matter and antimatter, not touching. But it isn't. Somehow, some tiny asymmetry between matter and antimatter allowed matter to get the upper hand, leading to the matter universe we're in.
Getting to the bottom of this mystery is a deep problem in physics. It just doesn't add up, which usually means we've made a wrong turn somewhere - but where?"
Large hadron Collider www.lhc.ac.uk
http://www.lhc.ac.uk/">www.lhc.ac.uk
/>
© 2013 Science and Technology Facilities Council - All Rights Reserved
B. DARK MATTER
"The simple Big Bang theory is, however, not without its potential problems, and some aspects require further investigation and explanation. One such problem is the rather unfortunate fact that about 85-85% of the matter which is predicted to exist in the universe appears to be invisible or otherwise unaccounted for!
The evenness of the cosmic microwave background radiation (the afterglow of the initial Big Bang) suggests that the matter emitted from the Big Bang should have been spread around very smoothly. But we know that the universe is in fact clumpy, with clusters of galaxies and great voids of empty space in between. Actually, in 1992, NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite did discover some variations or ripples in the brightness of the afterglow, which probably resulted from a period about 450,000 years after the Big Bang, when some parts of the universe became just a few thousandths of a per cent denser than others. These barely noticeable clumps of matter grew to become bigger clumps due to the cumulative effects of gravity, and the denser regions (the “seeds” of structure) became ever denser over time, leading to the great clusters of galaxies we see today.
However, the modelling of this theory revealed that the 13.7 billion years which has elapsed since the Big Bang is actually nowhere near long enough for the huge structures of today’s universe to have developed, by the gradual process of gravity and increasing density, out of the tiny imperfections and clumps indicated by the COBE satellite. This could only have happened if there was, and/or is, much more matter in the universe than our current estimates of the matter tied up in visible stars. This has led to speculation about so-called "dark matter", an unknown substance which emits no light, heat, radio waves, nor any other kind of radiation (thus making extremely hard to detect)." www.physicsoftheuniverse.comhttp://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/">www.physicsoftheuniverse.com>
B. stars "The truth is we do not understand star formation at a fundamental level." Abraham Loeb Harvard's Center for Astro physics
"But in the absence of direct observation of a star’s actual formation, astronomers must rely on theoretical physics, which blend observable processes with assumptions. Physicist Donald DeYoung explained in 1996, “Given unlimited time, might a star naturally form in space? Theoretically, the answer is a qualified ‘yes.’”2 However, the qualifications are so stringent that stars ought to be rare in the universe, and the first star should never have formed.
"Repulsion between gas particles—especially when they are hot—is much greater at close range than the attraction between them due to gravity. So, a tremendous outside force is required to compress the gas particles, overcoming their thermal repulsion, in order for them to form a star."
"Does a Distant Galaxy Show Star Formation?" by Brian Thomas, M.S. www.icr.org
http://www.icr.org/">www.icr.org
/>
C. Galaxies formations and alternative star and galaxy formations.
"There shouldn't be Galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are." "The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has been one of the thorniest in Cosmology. By all rights they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientist." Dr, James Trefill professor of physics George Mason University Virginia
D. light years and time relativity
"Russell Humphreys, an American physicist and creationist author, proposed in 1994 that the Earth is located near the center of a finite and bounded universe and that the entire universe expanded out of a "white hole" (the reverse of a black hole). He invokes relativistic time dilation to explain how billions of years elapsed in the distant universe while only a few days or weeks passed on Earth. Light from distant galaxies billions of light years away reaches Earth for a relatively short history of less than 10,000 years. Humphreys also claimed that his model explains cosmological redshifts and the cosmic microwave background radiation12.
Humphreys' proposal grows out of the addition of three assumptions to Einstein's equations:34
1. The universe has expanded from a previously denser state
2. The universe is bounded in space
3. The earth is located at or near the center of the universe(5)"
starightforward.wikidot.com white hole cosmologye.
E. Comets
"If you've seen one comet, have you seen them all? Not according to new NASA research.
Scientists believe they may one day be able to travel through time by looking more closely at the dust swirling with a comet as it hurdles through our galaxy. The research also indicates that theories of how comets were formed may need to be revised.
Comets are lumps of ice, gas, rock, and dust - frozen relics from the birth of our solar system - that orbit the Sun. Scientists now believe comets could have formed at different times during the evolution of the solar nebula, and may reveal their age by the structure of the dust they carry."
TIME TRAVEL THROUGH A TRAIL OF COMET DUST Bill steigerwald goddard Space Flight center nasa.gov
F. the moon "Many moon models have been proposed for the formation of the moon, but no one has succeeded in showing the formation satisfactorily." Shigaro Ida, Robert M. Canup and Glen R. Stewart, "Lunar accretion from an impact-generated disk," Nature, 389 (sept.25,1997);353.
G. The sun
"Evidence now supports astronomers’ belief that the sun’s power comes from the fusion of hydrogen into helium deep in the sun’s core, but there is a huge problem. As the hydrogen fuses, it should change the composition of the sun’s core, gradually increasing the sun’s temperature. If true, this means that the earth was colder in the past. In fact, the earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, when life supposedly evolved.
The rate of nuclear fusion depends upon the temperature. As the sun’s core temperatures increase, the sun’s energy output should also increase, causing the sun to brighten over time. Calculations show that the sun would brighten by 25% after 3.5 billion years. This means that an early sun would have been fainter, warming the earth 31°F (17°C) less than it does today. That’s below freezing!
But evolutionists acknowledge that there is no evidence of this in the geologic record. They even call this problem the faint young sun paradox. While this isn’t a problem over many thousands of years, it is a problem if the world is billions of years old." Dr. Danny Faulkner
ShareThis#4 Faint Sun Paradox10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young EarthSeptember 11, 2012 ANSWERS(magazine)
H. The electro magnetic field of the earth
"In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per centuryhttp://www.blogger.com/null" name="f1">1http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young#r1">1> (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than todayhttp://www.blogger.com/null" name="f2">2http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young#r2">2>). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,http://www.blogger.com/null" name="f3">3http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young#r3">3> proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side">http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young#origin">side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that.
"The decaying current model is obviously incompatible with the billions of years needed by evolutionists. So their preferred model is a self-sustaining dynamo (electric generator). The earth’s rotation and convection is supposed to circulate the molten nickel/iron of the outer core. Positive and negative charges in this liquid metal are supposed to circulate unevenly, producing an electric current, thus generating the magnetic field. But scientists have not produced a workable model despite half a century of research, and there are many problems."
"The physicist Dr Russell Humphreys believed that Dr Barnes had the right idea, and he also accepted that the reversals were real. He modified Barnes’ model to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection—hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.5,6 Now, as discussed in Creation 19(3), 1997, Dr John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of tectonic plates was a cause of the Genesis Flood (see online version). Dr Humphreys says these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.7 This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern—rather, the total field energy would decay even faster (see graph above)."
The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young
by Jonathan Sarfati creation.com
The Heavens Declare the Glory of God!
