Assumptions Used For Universe Points More Towards Creationism

Science does indeed change as we grow more in knowledge, it’s something Christians can get excited about but generally not for materialist predictions.

The Bible says, the creation of the earth and universe is decreasing rather than increasing, Isaiah 51:6, “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.”

All known systems eventually degenerates in one way or another this also applies to the Universe. However, this is not what evolutionary assumptions predict. Last month, a new study calculated some new figures…

“We considered all contributions to the entropy of the observable universe: stars, star light, the cosmic microwave background. We even made an estimate of the entropy of dark matter. But it’s the entropy of super-massive black holes that dominates the entropy of the universe.”

“When we used the new data on the number and size of super-massive black holes, we found that the entropy of the observable universe is about 30 times larger than previous calculations,” said Mr Egan.”

Granted, this type of data is far from perfect because it relies on certain aspects like Big Bang cosmology which has been shown to be falsified. For example, cosmologists predicted that there is a distribution of matter throughout the universe that would be homogeneous.  This is known as the Cosmological Principle. According to this, we were suppose to observe an even amount of distribution of galaxies no matter which direction we looked.

But as we got an improved look into outer space we noticed that there are massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. This is far from being smooth and even as previously predicted by big bang theorists, we exist in a very “clumpy” universe!

Rather than coming up with a new theory, big bang theorists came up with another hypothesis known as “cold dark matter” to explain why big bang predictions have failed, but this hypothesis had it’s own problems as well where observations falsified it..

Temperature and volume measurements or estimates were also used in the study conducted by Chas Egan and Charles Lineweaver. But even with relying on false assumptions, the calculation came out to be a 30 percent decrease than what was published last year. The new data points to creationism where the Universe is in a degenerating mode…

This is not good for those who believe in evolutionary thinking which states that order has spontaneously increased. Could more future estimates show a universe degenerating even more than previously predicted by materialists who rely on the big bang theory? The answer is yes and it would validate the Bible once again…

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Assumptions Used For Universe Points More Towards Creationism

  1. Michael: “But as we got an improved look into outer space we noticed that there are massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. This is far from being smooth and even as previously predicted by big bang theorists, we exist in a very “clumpy” universe!”

    You are lucky: I actually work on superclusters and voids, and while these are pretty large, the observable universe is still much, much larger. What is interesting about the scale of superclusters and voids, around 20 Mpc or so, is that this is the transitions scale from clumpiness to homogeneity: in other words, at scales larger than 20 Mpc or so, the universe is very homogeneous, below that it is clumpy.

    So the cosmological principle is still very, very valid, and so is the ‘Big Bang’ theory (a lousy name, by the way).

  2. Readers should note another irony in Michael’s post—one which shows up in many of his attempts to sneer at science.

    Michael trumpets new data from astronomy as evidence for creationism.

    These data, as Michael explicitly notes, depend for their validity upon the Big-Bang theory of origin of the universe.

    Creationism denies the Big-Bang theory—again, as Michael points out in this post.

    So… Michael’s evidence for creationism depends upon the validity of a theory which creationism says has been falsified.

    .

    Really deep, Michael. Please do not help your children with their science homework.

  3. Eelco: “the ‘Big Bang’ theory (a lousy name, by the way).”

    We must remember that this name originated, not from the proponents of the theory, but from its original detractors. It was intended to be derisive.

    ==Soc Puppette

  4. @Soc Puppette:
    Indeed, Fred Hoyle came up with the ‘Big’ (‘Bang’ had already been used before by others). But it is still odd that none of the proponents managed to come up with a better name !
    Perhaps it sounds too good …

  5. We could call it the “inflation theory.” Except that no one likes inflation, either….

    PS: I am now attempting to read Neal Stepheson’s novel “Anathem.” You’ll need a lengthy plane ride, because it’s 932 pages of small print. The novel portrays a world 3,000 years in the future—in the future of a world whose past is similar to ours, but not exactly. The chief character is a member of a monastery. But these monasteries practice logic, mathematics, and cosmography. The plot revolves around the discovery of an alien spaceship that may have appeared from a parallel universe. (You’ll have to learn a number of words in the two languages that the characters speak—Orth and Fluccish. Orth itself has several dialects—Proto, Old, Praxic, and New.)

  6. @Soc Puppette:
    ‘Inflation theory’ is only a part of ‘Big Bang’ cosmology … the bit at the beginning, just after a possible singularity (if there was one: a cyclic universe has some appeal to me), but only during the exponential expansion.
    I quite like the idea of inflation, but there are too many flavours going around still. Not a settled issue at all! Which is part of the appeal, as the bit after inflation is now fairly well understood.

  7. PS: thanks for the book recommendation !
    I do have lots of long plane rides to go this year …

  8. Michael: “The Bible says, the creation of the earth and universe is decreasing rather than increasing, Isaiah 51:6, [quote omitted]”

    Creationists are noted for their prowess at quote mining. They seem able to take almost anything out of context in a way that seems to demonstrate their point, while remaining oblivious to any portion that vitiates or contradicts it.

    Where do they come by this talent? The Bible! Creationists are able to quote the Bible for any purpose by selectively omitting, combining, and rephrasing Bible verses.

    My personal favorite is this story. In the late 19thC, a popular women’s hairstyle was the “top knot.” Many prelates believed the top knot was the work of the Devil. One Sunday, a preacher announced from the pulpit that the sermon for the following Sunday would be based upon the Bible text “Top knot come down.

    Sure enough, the next sermon quoted Mathew 24:17: “Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:….”

  9. Although Michael does not use the exact words, he is obviously using the tired old argument that evolution (or at least the Theory of Evolution, which really does not have much to do with black holes and stuff, but oh well) violates the second law of thermodynamics (SLoT).

    One mistake (among many) that Michael makes is that he assumes that the SLoT applies equally to Earth as it does to the Universe. What Michael doesn’t realize is that the Earth is NOT in an “isolated sysem” in which there is no energy going in or out. There’s this thing called the “Sun”, Michael. Thanks to the constant flow of energy from the Sun to Earth, plants are able to grow, our oceans stay liquidy, temperature differences create wind, etc.

    Michael, if everything is supposed to be degenerating, how the heck is it that a tiny acorn can grow into a big tree here on Earth? How is it that something as complex as a human being come from the meeting of a sperm and an egg? Shouldn’t they degenerate to mush instead? Or is God intervening to increase and maintain the orderliness of our bodies until we reach maturity, at which point He lets the SLoT take over?

  10. Today we witnessed a birth.

    A humpback whale was lying on thr surface, close in to shore, for 15 minutes or so this morning. Suddenly, a 6-foot long calf was hurled into the air.

    Mother throws the newborn calf completely out of the water to induce its first breath. Whereas most land mammals are born head first, with only the occaional breech birth, all fully aquatic mammals are breech births—so that the calf maintains umbilical oxygen for as long as possible. (There is even a fossil partly-aquatic whale ancestor that used breech birth.)

    We haven’t seen them since this morning. Mother keeps busy producing up to 600 liters (about 150 gallons) of milk per day per calf. That would keep anyone busy. Mother doesn’t get much to eat for herself. Although tropical lands are lush and arctic lands barren, oceans are just the reverse. Whales migrate to the tropics for birthing to escape the predators of the richer arctic waters.

    Stay tuned.

  11. Michael: “All known systems eventually degenerates in one way or another this also applies to the Universe. However, this is not what evolutionary assumptions predict.”

    Michael: “The new data points to creationism where the Universe is in a degenerating mode…”

    Sorry, Michael. This is exactly what scientific cosmological theories predict. The news is merely that the amount of “degeneration” is more than previously thought. So Michael suffers yet another failure of reading comprehension, and ends up arguing for the other side.

    Michael: “This is not good for those who believe in evolutionary thinking which states that order has spontaneously increased. ”

    Sorry again, Michael. See above. Standard cosmological theories predict that total order continually decreases. In fact, the big current mystery is why the order of the universe was so high at its formation. You got it exactly backward.

    Something else that creationists do—trot out evidence that actually argues for their opponents’ position. Reason #736 why people laugh at creationists.

  12. Monimonika: “Although Michael does not use the exact words, he is obviously using the tired old argument that evolution …. violates the second law of thermodynamics (SLoT).”

    In fact, a biology researcher,irked at the creationist SLoT argument, calculated how much negative entropy is required for evolution. The result—about 320kcal/year. This is about one trillionth of the amount available from the Sun.

  13. Eelco” “do you remember where you found this ?”

    Don’t I wish! I didn’t write it down at the time, and have forgotten since. Most likely from a short news blurb in Science about 2-4 years ago. (The exact number was 322 kcal/yr—not that the precision matters.).

  14. Monimonika, thank you—or as we say in the Islands, mahalo nui loa—for the citation to the Styer paper. Especially since I got the time scale wrong on the entropy. Embarrassing.

    I don’t have access here to the full text, but will try to get it upon returning to the frozen mainland. (All too soon, alas.)

    .

    The whale we saw giving birth may have been the same one who brings a new calf here every year for the past few years. The locals can recognize individuals by their tail markings. We are fortunate that humpbacks prefer shallow water for birthing—probably to escape danger from predators, such as large motorboats.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s