The Horizon Problem in Cosmology

Taken from CMI ministries…Very interesting article!

The cosmic microwave radiation indicates that space is the same temperature everywhere, to within 1 part in 100,000)1. However, the initial conditions of the big bang would have produced wide fluctuations in temperatures between different regions. So to produce the observed temperature uniformity, there must have been a common influence, i.e. all parts of space must have once been in thermal equilibrium.

The fastest way for regions to come into equilibrium would be for electromagnetic radiation to carry heat from one region to another. However, some of these regions are too distant for light to have traversed between them, even in the assumed time since the alleged big bang. The finite speed of light is a ‘horizon’ which can’t be crossed, hence the term ‘horizon problem’. Even when the CMB was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, it already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than this horizon.

One of the commonest attacks on the YEC model by old-earthers such as [progressive creationist Hugh] Ross is that light would supposedly not have had enough time to reach earth from distant stars. But the horizon problem is the big bangers’ own ‘light travel problem’. How can old earthers so freely criticize YEC on the very problem that they have not yet solved from their own perspective?

As an ad hoc solution to the horizon problem, Alan Guth (b. 1947) proposed in 1980 that the universe once underwent a period of very rapid growth, called ‘inflation’.4 Guth, then a particle physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California, proposed that 10–35  seconds after the big bang, the universe expanded by a factor of 1025  in 10–30 seconds. 25 orders of magnitude is mind-boggling―it is like going from smaller than a pea to the size of our galaxy. But Guth’s proposal starts with the universe tinier than a subatomic particle. So the different regions of space were so close that they could come to the same temperature before inflation occurred.

It’s important to note that it’s space itself that is expanding, so it doesn’t violate relativity, which prohibits only mass/energy from moving through space faster than light. But, despite that, now it seems that even this may have its own horizon problem. So some physicists have proposed that the speed of light was much faster in the past, which would allow the ‘horizon’ to be much further away and thus accommodate the universe’s thermal equilibrium.

This is ironic, because creationists have been disparaged for suggesting the speed of light may have been faster in the past, with accusations that they don’t understand relativity. Apparently, it is now acceptable to promote a ‘scientific heresy’ if used to support evolutionary scenarios;6,7 and for that matter, to explain fine structure constant changes.

It’s also notable that Guth’s original hypothesis was proven false, and modern inflationary cosmologies have since modified his original proposal. Also, there is no satisfactory physical mechanism for starting inflation, as opposed to playing with mathematical equations. Nor is there a mechanism for halting the inflation, which is known as the ‘graceful exit problem’.

Intelligent Design Tries To Distant Itself From Creationism

Intelligent Design proponents spend a great deal of time trying to separate itself from religion, and creationism in particular…Dave Scott who frequently writes  blogs in Uncomon Decent writes…

“ID doesn’t try to find material evidence for and explanations of things like a global flood, a young earth, the parting of the Red Sea, people turning into pillars of salt, or any of that stuff.”

I like to know which creation scientist does Dave think is looking for scientific evidence for people turning into “pillars of salt.” As far as I know, there are none in the mainstream who are trying to find such a discovery using science. Dave Scott is trying so hard to separate ID from creationism, that he goes out of his way, to insult them which is just as bad as militant Darwinists who do the same thing.

It’s true that ID doesn’t try to find material evidence for a flood, and how old the earth is, generally they get their information from ones who they fight with in other areas, evolutionists. IDers for the most part agree with evolutionists on these issues.

Now Casey Luskin who is one of the leading proponents of ID, and I have of course written about him before in a previous post, states in his podcast on 12/29/2008…

“ID theorists argue design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arises by intelligent cause.”

What we find  in this particular podcast is basically making a case for ID as being a valid non-religious scientific proposal. Casey Luskin goes on to discuss about how ID scientists compare “intelligent agents” and the study of their behavior when they design things whose origin is unknown.

This might be a little confusing for some Christians who believe in just one Creator, and it’s a huge distinction between creationism and ID. Instead of natural selection which an unthinking process that supposedly chooses a wide range of possibilities of favorable traits, an “intelligent agent” supposedly accomplishes this task. In creationism, God doesn’t select favorable traits with such options of possibilities presented to Him.

Macro evolution is viewed as having an intelligent cause. ID says naturalism cannot create new information which is correct. So then they claim “intelligent agents” are able to create new and specified information in order to create such things as different species.

Macro evolution in any form, intelligent or not, is rejected by biblical creationism. Only small changes within the species kind which we see is an acceptable  conclusion which confirms the Bible.

Many from the evolutionist side have attacked intelligent design for being creationism. This is because creationism was ruled against the law to teach in public schools so they try and discredit it that way…

But they are right about one thing, ID has it’s own problems with origins because it has no history neither does it look for any explanation regarding the origin of it’s so called “design agents.” This is why they rather not go that far because it’s goes outside the limitations of science. There is no way they can prove or disprove the intelligent cause, similar to that of a multi-universe hypothesis which is not testable either.

In conclusion, their fight with Darwinists some IDers like Dave Scott go out of their way to distant intelligent design from creationism as a way to try and prove it’s scientific. It’s not a good way to go about it. But he is right, ID doesn’t come from creationism, it resembles more of evolution than creationism except for the cause being intelligent, but still what they believe as an intelligent agent is not God.

The Great Neglect: Studying Orphan Genes

Similarities between genomes has been so important for evolutionary science, it’s focus has been unreal through the years. On the other hand, evolutionary scientists paid little attention to “Orphan Genes” which present major problems for evolution because these genes have no evolutionary homology or kinship to genes from other lineages.

How do evolutionists explain animals who acquire these orphan genes? Where did they come from? They begin by sounding like creationists but instead of a brilliant designer, it’s the “genus” unthinking process which they claim is fine tuning the genes. Not surprising, skipping the origin part using phrases like “origins are often obscure” and “have most likely originated within the class.”

One asks again, where did these particular unique genes come from? Science Daily could only hope it would lead to a better understanding of evolution. In reality, they have no idea, but it even they make it sound miraculous in it’s emergence …Looking at the science paper, they claim…

“Our data indicate that novel genes may play a role in the creation of novel morphological features, thus representing one way how evolution works at the genus level.  Appearance of novel genes may reflect evolutionary processes that allow animals to adapt in the best way to changing environmental conditions and new habitats.”

“The data provide experimental support for the hypothesis that novel genes are involved in specific ecological adaptations that change over time and that such genes serve as the raw material for microevolutionary divergence…PLoS Biology

How common are orphan genes? With little study done on these particular genes, they found bacterial genomes have an abundance of these genes without homologs. Science Daily claims…

“However, every group of animals also possesses a small proportion of genes which are, in contrary, extremely variable among closely related species or even unique. For example, a gene may be present in one species or animal group, but not in any other.”

Evolution relies so heavily on genes passing on to one species to the next, but unique genes found in one animal and not in any other animal. Do you know what that means? Think! It’s showing evidence for the creationist model which states animals have limited variations within it’s own kind. Maybe this is one of the reasons why evolutionary scientists have had little interest in studying orphan genes through the years!

Discover Magazine Tackles A Physics Problem

As creationists we believe God finely tuned the universe in a very precise manner. Of course evolutionary proponents object and dismiss this concept. But new science discoveries has forced evolutionists to address the issue. In another words, come up with an alternative hypothesis which does lead to a creator…

In Discover Magazine 2008 December issue states the following…

“Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet…. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.”

“Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.”

In one of my first posts in this particular blog, I discussed how science was limited in scope when it comes to the supernatural and therefore could not disprove such an existence. In it was in response to an Atheist physicist who also believes in multiverse.

It took evolutionists up until the 1960s to admit the Universe had a beginning. This is also when the big bang hypothesis became mainstream in evolutionary circles. The hypothesis always created problems as far as origin is concern. Because how could naturalism create something out of nothing that creates material for the big bang then used in the big bang.

Out of nothing comes nothing, is an old saying. Then came along discoveries of precise fine tuning of the universe which creates difficulties with various theories. So instead of admitting there is a creator, it’s supposedly other universes which are responsible. But one asks, where did those universes come from? Is evolutionary science going back to the old ways of believing the universe is infinite or eternal, but has expanded it to other universes?

Various universes is nothing more than telling a story while making some hot dogs over a camp fire to solve a problem of reality. It’s true there can be an explanation for everything, but it doesn’t necessarily make it factual.

Evolution Performing Miracles of Life in the Ice?

Chemical Evolution (the proposal of non-living chemicals evolving into living chemicals) was first purposed by Prof. Gerald Kerkut. In 1978, Scientific American devoted a whole issue on this very subject of chemical evolution. J.B.S Haldane, a biochemist proposed that no oxygen was required for life in evolving non-living chemical to a living one.

While there is much speculation in this area, there are also prizes, like a million dollar reward for anyone who can come up with a plausible naturalistic solution for the origin of the genetic code. The Origin of Live Foundation Inc has offered up such a prize. Thus far, no scientific paper has provided plausible mechanism for natural purpose algorithm-wiring. DNA is highly advanced, it has 3 codes for one code of protein. The conversation requires transcription and translation in a very precise manner. One error can be catastrophic.

Anyway, a scientist in Spain by the name of Julyan Cartwright, who studies ice strutures at such places as the Andalusian Institute for Earth Sciences of the Spanish Research Council. He has made a proposal that claims, life could have arisen from ice. Science Daily reports of new research focused on this proposal…

“The latest quick freezing techniques coupled with sophisticated scanning electron microscopy techniques, are allowing physicists to create ice films in cold conditions similar to outer space and observe the detailed molecular organisation, yielding clues to fundamental questions including possibly the origin of life.”

These films of ice are described like shapes of artwork, in some case resemble animals…Julyan Cartwright claims that “It is clear that biology does use physics, indeed how could it not do? So we shouldn’t be surprised to see that sometimes biological structures clearly make use of simple physical principles.”

What Julyan Cartwright is saying, doesn’t sound like a random accident does it? Well some may argue naturalism stumbled upon the usage of physics (like nature really knows what physics is and how to use it). It sounds more like physics is the operating system of a computer and nature needs to copy the information to it’s hard drive in order for it to carry out various functions. Physics the designer? No way! God is the designer who created such a finely tuned and precise Universe.

Now who ever said shapes of ice do not prove miracles of life could have come from ice, is right. And details of this research hasn’t provided any reason that would be plausible on why scientists need to melt, and re-melt ice in a 100 different ways in order to find some answers for the origin of life.

This is what you call faith in assumptions, not scientific research. I mean really, Is this scientific study or is this high tech artwork being performed by man (shaping the ice and then admiring it’s features) or are they really trying to find answers for the origin of life?

Some Debate Whether or Not Titan Could Have Harbored Life

Evolutionists are started to debate a proposal. Could have one of Saturn’s moons host life? Recently, space observations has shown a small presence of electricity in Titan’s atmosphere according to National Geographic

It’s widely believed in evolutionist circles, that lightening was the main cause for creating a chemical reaction that produced the origin of life on earth. The is a problem however with Titan harboring life according to evolutionary scientists, the weather! It’s -350 degrees below zero! Even NASA’s McKay said that Saturn’s moon Titan, the best contender for life in our solar system, is just too cold for life to exist.

But a new study argues it’s still possible for the electricity on Titan to help create life…

“Faint signs of a natural electric field in Titan’s thick cloud cover that are similar to the energy radiated by lightning on Earth. Lightning is thought to have sparked the chemical reactions that led to the origin of life on our planet….Jeffrey Bada, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, believes the process that allowed lightning to spark life on Earth is universal and could happen in many environments—including on Titan.

Confirmation earlier this year of Titan’s hydrocarbon lakes makes the Saturnian moon the first place other than Earth where open bodies of liquid have been found. Hydrocarbons are organic molecules, and the fact that they exist in large quantities on Titan suggests that life could take root there under the right conditions.”

Evolutionary scientists from the 1950’s to this day, have been testing what I call the “Frankenstein” proposal for the origins of life. Sparking and sparking and more sparking dead chemicals in order to produce life has never happened in the lab, let alone in real life. One of the reasons is, Amino acid molecules that form proteins and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature.

Before I conclude my latest posting, I would like to mention these important facts, Titan according to the evolutionary model should be dormant after billions of years of cooling off and being so far away from the sun. The moon has very complex geologic processes going on, such as having volcanic activity which produces methane on the moon’s surface.

Also, this methane is being depleted over time which wouldn’t be around if the moon was billions of years old. It’s the same reason why space observations have shown there were no thick deposits of hydrocarbon precipitates found on Titan, but only water-ice geology…The new observations of Titan confirm the creationist model.

Militant Athesist Richard Dawkins Makes An Astonishing Admission

A man who is well known for fighting against the existence of God, donated 9,000 dollars for a bus sign that says; “probably no God,” and who has written books in promoting his viewpoint like “The God Delusion” has made an astonishing admission. During a second debate with John Lennox at Oxford’s Natural History Museum. Dawkins states as recorded in The Spectator

“A serious case could be made for a deistic God.” Below was the first debate between these two men on six major issues in Dawkin’s book “The God Delusion.”

Getting back to the admission from the latest debate, which was surprising to say the least. It was no doubt a blow to his fan base and other admirers of his like PZ Meyers. Militant atheists generally don’t want to believe there could be a serious case for God. But rather they look down at most theists (while admiring the few who endorse evolution).

Militant atheists tend to believe that Christians are insane for making a case involving the existence of God and His creation. Most likely damage control by atheists will be used claiming that the phrase meant only “could” which wouldn’t mean there is serious case.

Sadly, his opponent  John Lennox did not follow up on that statement in the debate, he let Dawkins off the hook…

“Instead, Dawkins was able to move the debate onto a specific attack on Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus, which is a very different argument and obscured the central point of contention – the claim that science had buried God.

The fact that Dawkins now appears to be so reluctant publicly to defend his own position on his own territory of scientific rationalism – and indeed, even to have shifted his ground – is a tribute above all to the man he was debating once again on Tuesday evening.” The Spectator.

Origins has been the most problematic hypothesis in evolution. If naturalism is correct then it caused events by accident, which means something can be created out of nothing. Defying the laws of physics is basically considered “magic” by militant atheists.

However, since it has to do with evolution being able to have a beginning because without a beginning the hypothesis of naturalism would be impossible. So the likes of Richard Dawkins and others accept the idea or are sometimes open to other ideas such as another gap where non-humans created our universe as stated below to a reporter…

“Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet.

Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?”

Same problem if you believe in alien life forms being responsible for creating our solar system or earth. The alleged aliens have origins too, so where did they come from? Richard Dawkins knows fully well something cannot be created out of nothing and his rebellious nature to deny God, and His authority he submits himself to storytelling (such as alien life forms which haven’t been proven) with no viable scientific answers.