Astronomy and Cosmology: Where Are They Now?

Next month is going to be exciting because for the first time in man’s history, we are going to get some secular pictures from the space probe, “New Horizons” . Currently the probe is less than 30 million miles away and has already transmitted some historical pictures of Pluto.

“We can also see that every face of Pluto is different and that Pluto’s northern hemisphere displays substantial dark terrains, though both Pluto’s darkest and its brightest known terrain units are just south of, or on, its equator…”  

-says New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern.

This project without its planetary evolution conclusions is good science. The more probes that are out there, the better we learn what is going on in space. It’s exciting! Star formation on the other hand has been used to mislead the public. There is no doubt that Nature News along with Science Daily and certain Astronomers have committed fraud, perhaps but not exclusive to, for the reason of helping fund these types of projects.

Let’s begin by displaying the headlines:

The first one is from Nature News which is also found in Scientific American as well as in other publications.

“Astronomers Claim to Take First Glimpse of Primordial Stars”

In the Southern European Observatory where the discovery took place makes and even more profound statement in their science release.

“Best Observational Evidence of First Generation Stars in the Universe” 

Wow, it sounds as though a major discovery was made, this could be the hard evidence that certain scientists were looking for, but the question remains. Is it really? Let’s go back to Nature News again…

“Now astronomers think they may have spied a late-blooming cluster of such stars, in the brightest distant galaxy observed to date. The stars, seen as they were when the Universe was around 800 million years old, appear to be primordial in compositionbut also to have formed more recently than some second-generation stars.”

How can these Astronomers claim this discovery to be first generation of stars? ‘Appearing’ to be primordial in composition is not the same as being first generation! These stars are considered younger than second-generation of stars! Not only that, but these stars were discovered in a galaxy which has elements that according to their theory could only have formed well after the first generation of stars!

“That primordial stars should turn up in such a large and already-evolved galaxy presents a challenge to the group’s interpretation.” 

Indeed, but these Astronomers used the classic “fit the data into a theory technique” rather than let the data speak for itself. Here is how they answered the challenge which make stars younger than second generation into first generation…

“Sobral and colleagues suggest that the primordial stars may be late-developers, formed from a cloud of pristine and uncontaminated gas that was prevented from cooling and coalescing by the heat of strong radiation from earlier-blooming stars. “We think we’re seeing the last episode of Population III star formation,” he says.” 

This is a prime example on how some scientists (not all) are misleading the public with their so-called discoveries in Astronomy. There is no real evidence here that would make any logical person to conclude that these stars are first generation. None! The headlines are a bunch of lies!

Moving on to Cosmology…

“As is your habit, you are reading Science at breakfast (today’s treat: an omelet made with dodo eggs). But as soon as you finish this paragraph, a carnivorous wombat crashes through the door into your apartment and chomps angrily on your prehensile tail. Right … now” (No this isn’t Star Wars -emphasis mine).

“Ridiculous? Certainly—here. But it’s true somewhere in the universe, according to many scientists. An increasing number of mainstream physicists have espoused an almost unspeakably bizarre picture of the cosmos, one filled with mirror worlds and parallel universes, with doppelgängers and alternate histories. In many of these parallel universes—countless ones—an exact duplicate of you is doing exactly what you’re doing: reading this article in Science magazine. In others, you exist with subtle (and not-so- subtle) changes from your present-day life—you sport horns or speak in Latin or make a living by juggling hedgehogs at cocktail parties.”

This is a classic of opening your mind to fiction because it may be reality someday. Some of this is used in Hollywood. Bob Berman, wrote a very thought-provoking article in Astronomy magazine (July 2004, page 16) which I quoted some of it once before in 2012, it certainly applies to what is going on now with Cosmology. In fact, he gives a pretty good science lesson.

“The problem in cosmology is that facts are few and the imaginations of people who cook up theories are fertile. We have known for nearly seventy years that the cosmos is expanding. Every measurement made of galaxies showed that everything is moving away from everything else. The picture looked very much like what happens when a firecracker explodes, with material on the outside edge of the object that exploded moving the fastest and material to the inside moving less quickly.

“The term “big bang” or “inflation” was at least partially rooted in this observation. Temperature measurements of intergalactic space supported the theory by being exactly what they should be if the cosmos was infinitely hot and cooled during the expansion of the cosmos. What banged or who banged it was not knowable, and that is where all the theories came from. It is interesting that the Bible agrees with the observation of the expanding universe. Numerous passages in the Bible describe the cosmos as an expanding entity. “God who created the heavens and stretched them out” appears in one way or another over and over in scripture (see Isaiah 42:5; 40:22; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Job 9:8; 37:18; Psalm 104:2; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; Zechariah 12:1).”  

“Many atheists had a problem with the “big bang” concept because it suggested a beginning, and if there was a beginning there had to be a cause which suggested a causer. To get around this problem, it was recognized that since gravity seemed to be a property of mass, everything in the cosmos was attracting everything else, and that meant that eventually gravity would stop the expansion of the universe and pull everything back to a central point. The fact of gravitational attraction seemed sure and the fact that things were coasting from the initial process seemed unquestionable. One could theorize that whatever caused the big bang could happen over and over. This theory was called the oscillating universe theory, and was heavily promoted by leading atheists.”

“There were lots of scientific problems with the oscillating universe theory. Only mass would be affected by gravity and much of the energy in the cosmos was in the form of light which would not be gravitationally susceptible. It also seemed that some objects on the outer edge of the expansion were traveling so fast that they would never be significantly affected by gravity. In spite of these and other problems, the oscillating universe theory was in textbooks and even used by Carl Sagan in his famous Cosmos series in which he compared it to the Hindu concept of reincarnation.”

“In the late 1990s another observation was made by astronomers that totally disrupted this whole picture. It was discovered that the cosmos was not slowing down in its expansion as gravitational effects would have been expected to do, but that the cosmos was actually accelerating in its expansion. This observation has been confirmed by several different methods and is now considered to be a fact. The problem is that the fact that the cosmos is accelerating in its expansion is at odds with everything we can do in the laboratory.”

“What does a good scientist do when confronted with such an astounding fact? The answer should be to propose explanations that are testable and for which experiments can be conducted to see whether or not the proposal is consistent with scientific experiments. The problem with today’s public speakers on this subject is that proposals are being made that have no possible way of being tested, and each pronouncement is made with such pomp and flair that the average reader assumes that not only has the theory been tested, but it has been successful on every point.”

“One proposal has been that 70% of the universe must be made of an antigravity force called dark energy (* which has been adjusted since this article has been written to 95% of the universe. * -emphasis mine). No one knew what it was or how it could exist, but the concept has appeared in hundreds of magazines and newspapers that we have seen. Recently we have seen statements that the dark energy loses its power over time, so eventually the acceleration will stop and the universe will collapse as the oscillating universe theory suggested. There is no evidence of this, and no way of testing it.”

“Some periodicals have said that Einstein’s cosmological constant is what is causing the acceleration of the cosmos. This is a constant that Einstein threw into his equations to make them fit his opinions about the cosmos–an act that he later called his greatest blunder. The problem is that no one has any idea what the constant would represent or be caused by. Now it is fashionable to refer to the “Big Rip.” This is a theory that says that eventually everything will explode–even atoms. Another theory is called “string theory” which assumes that there are eleven spacial dimensions and then suggests that membranes from these other dimensions sometimes touch each other explosively creating things like our universe.”

“Suddenly, we’re imbedded in a frothy quantum foam of unlimited possibilities. It’s a free-for-all where each solemnly presented theory is soon changed or rebutted.. Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking.”

New proposals about dark matter come out all the time, New Scientist actually asked a valid question, “How long can we keep looking for dark matter?” 

“WE HAVE been aware of the need for dark matter since the 1930s. Without this stuff, we can’t make sense of the rotation of galactic clusters, or how galaxies formed in the first place. And yet, to date, we have found nothing. Even CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, our best and by far most expensive tool for finding it, has so far drawn a blank. How much longer can we keep looking?”

The universe is not making sense for those who believe in non-design. This usually happens when a theory is not true. Does the article answer its own question? No! Rather, it looks for remedies to find dark matter. This is the problem. It is true, it would be hard to pin point an exact time frame but looking more than 80 years with very expensive tools, I would say it is time to move on. There are so many other things in science which requires work that may turn out to be fruitful. I can’t wait till next month! Pluto, here we come! :)

DNA disagrees With Evolutionary Anthropology

Those of us who sat in a public school were taught about evolution. From a biology class to a history class, we all heard the story which includes Neanderthal man. Based on a belief of survival of the fittest, a story about an extinct human species that was believed to be a close relative of modern humans. Creationists believe they are the same species, a group of ancient people. Evolutionists have tried to explain their disappearance by suggesting Neanderthals had a very low-level of intelligence, spoke in grunts, lived in caves most of the time not doing a whole lot, and as a result, not enough for them to survive which is why they say modern humans came along.

As evidence began to surface, this story about Neanderthals which was made up, was not true…Here is one admission from science daily…

“The evidence for cognitive inferiority is simply not there,” said Villa, a curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History. “What we are saying is that the conventional view of Neanderthals is not true.”

“Villa and Roebroeks scrutinized nearly a dozen common explanations for Neanderthal extinction that rely largely on the notion that the Neanderthals were inferior to anatomically modern humans. These include the hypotheses that Neanderthals did not use complex, symbolic communication; that they were less efficient hunters who had inferior weapons; and that they had a narrow diet that put them at a competitive disadvantage to anatomically modern humans, who ate a broad range of things.”

So now they had to readjust their story and came up with a new idea on why Neanderthals disappeared.

“Neanderthals likely interbred and that the resulting male children may have had reduced fertility.”

This conclusion comes with the belief that Neanderthals and modern humans only interbred in the middle east. However, the biggest enemy of their story has been DNA. More DNA has been sequenced. This time from a jawbone which came from a cave in Romania. The reaction to the results was a classic when it comes to falsifications in evolution such as we see in science daily

“Svante Paabo from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology who led the study. “I could hardly believe it when we first saw the results.” 

In live science

“The large spans of Neanderthal-like segments in Oase 1’s genome indicate that one of his human ancestors interbred with a Neanderthal less than 200 years before he lived.”

This is more confirmation that Neanderthals and modern humans are the same species! Also, to suggest organic material like DNA which degrades rather quickly is going to last that long (40,000 years or more) requires more faith than believing in God! The organic material (DNA) is only a few thousand years old. We don’t need to fund research that makes up stories which has been wrong time and time again. The funding could have gone to fighting cancer or developing new technologies rather than creating fictional stories! Evolution hurts science, rarely do they think outside the box. Creation on the other hand, keeps science moving forward!

Why Does Soft Tissue Exist In Fossils?

Prior to 2005, no evolutionary scientist was looking for soft tissue in fossils, it was widely believed it was impossible for it to exist after millions of years due to the fact that soft tissue decays quite rapidly. When soft tissue was accidentally discovered in a fossil of T-Rex, it created controversy among evolutionary scientists but since then the soft tissue discovered in T-Rex was confirmed thus ending controversy and beginning the search for more soft tissue in fossils. And as a result, many more fossils have been discovered with its original soft tissue along with developing improved methods which was unheard of nor was it even remotely considered prior to 2005.

Not only are evolutionists improving the methods for their search for soft tissue in fossils which is great, but also have been focused on explaining how the impossible happened. There have been some very weak explanations, but this latest one is a classic. Remember in the previous post when it was stated that when a fundamental in evolution is falsified, that falsification is added to the theory (becomes a prediction) even though it’s the opposite of what the theory had predicted in the first place, thus preserving the fundamental. This of course doesn’t usually happen in other areas in science, mainly in evolution or other related topics that has to do with some sort of evolution.

Bacteria along with the soft contents as you may or may not know is the main reason why soft tissue breaks down easier as it decays rapidly. Now we have some scientists claiming bacteria is responsible for preserving soft tissue! I kid you not, they are actually claiming this.

Here is what science magazine says…

“The overwhelming majority of organisms will never fossilize. Preservation of an animal’s anatomy in rocks is a rare event requiring a strict set of geologic and chemical conditions. Fossilized soft tissues like skin or muscle are even rarer, as they decay very quickly beyond recognition before mineralization occurs. It would be tempting to assume that microbes—the great mediators of rot and recycling—would be a natural enemy to high-quality fossils, but [Philip] Donoghue’s time spent watching shrimp waste away seems to hint at exactly the opposite.”

The team of researchers were using brine shrimp in their experiment. As expected, the bacteria rendered the soft tissue unrecognizable but in a low oxygen environment the team rationalized, the gut would be the most ideal place where the best preservation would occur.

“The researchers also point out that animals with true “through-guts”—ones that contain both a mouth and an anus—are much more likely to leave behind high-quality fossils than animals like corals and jellyfish, which eat and excrete through the same hole and are home to far fewer bacteria. The evolution of the anus appears to have given rise to a more complex microbiome and, thus, that “definitely increases your chances” of leaving behind an exceptional fossil, Donoghue says.”  

It is assumed that these particular researchers who are considered experts know their fossils such as jellyfish fossils (their bodies are soft) which have been discovered in huge amounts, something that this team says has less chance to be preserved. Remember T-Rex back in 2005? Soft tissues were not discovered in T-Rex’s gut, rather it was red blood cells and osteocytes, discovered in T-Rex’s bone! Again, it is assumed that these researchers are aware of that too. Here is a kicker, Ediacaran fauna (older than the Cambrian explosion) don’t even have guts yet its soft tissue have been discovered all over the world! There are other examples of soft tissue that were not from the gut or mouth of the animal. It is certain that these researchers in particular are aware of these facts as well but is in sell mode with their research.

As a result, it renders the explanation useless!  So why are researchers discovering soft tissue in fossils? The answer is quite simple, the fossils are not millions of years old, only thousands which makes perfect sense with rapid decay. This is also direct proof that the earth is not four billion years old nor are these fossils many millions of years old. Fossils once considered the best piece of evidence for evolution is now actually one of the worst while their explanations are getting weaker.

Is Antibiotic Resistance Proof of Evolution?

Remember when you were in high school or perhaps you are currently in high school as we speak where you have learned about antibiotic resistance? The teacher would allude to this being evolution in action. Certainly in debates this is often time alluded to as evidence for evolution.

In the medical field, antibiotic resistance in some areas have baffled some doctors because the bacteria would respond so quickly, sometimes within the first year or so. Was this evolution and is evolution moving more quickly than previously thought?

Creationists have debated for years that bacteria already have resistance built-in their systems, something has been also admitted by evolutionists…

 “One of the most common evidences used in textbooks to support evolution is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. However, the marvelous ability of bacteria to survive against antibiotics does not support the idea of progressiveevolution at all. Public school textbooks claim that bacteria’s sophisticated capacity to change—which appears to be built into their systems—supports the claim that molecules can change into completely different kinds of creatures, like mosquitoes, mushrooms, and men—despite the fact that these changes require the addition of completely different kinds of genetic information.”

The textbook authors recognize that the resistance is already present in the bacterial population (Fig. 15.5) and then claim that selection for resistant bacteria in a population is direct evidence for evolution. Selecting for something that is already present does not provide support for the information-gaining change required for evolution. Students are left with a confused understanding of evolution and are expected to equate observed changes in bacteria with the conversion of one kind into another.” –Answers in Genesis, May 2007 and January 2009. 

In 2012, antibiotic resistance was confirmed again as a ancient trait because it was discovered in bacteria from an isolated cave in New Mexico, many feet underground.

“A growing body of evidence implicates environmental organisms as reservoirs of these resistance genes; however, the role of anthropogenic use of antibiotics in the emergence of these genes is controversial. (*because it goes against what has been taught as evidence for evolution – *emphasis mine) We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. … This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard-wired in the microbial pangenome.”

Moreover there was research conducted recently which uncovered a tribe of humans known as Yanomami people who live in a remote region of Venezuela. These people haven’t been in contact with the outside world, yet…it was discovered that these people have bacteria that already had antibiotic resistance genes—including the ability to fight synthetic antibiotics!

In Science Magazine

“The medical team’s interviews with these Yanomami villagers found they were never given drugs or exposed to food or water with antibiotics. Instead, Dantas suggests that the Yanomami gut bacteria have evolved an armory of methods to fight a wide range of toxins that threaten them—just as our ancestors and other primates have done to fight dangerous microbes. For example, the Yanomami bacteria may already have encountered toxins that occur naturally in their environment that are similar in molecular structure to modern antibiotics, but have yet to be discovered by scientists. Or, gut bacteria in humans have evolved a generalized mechanism for detecting certain features shared by all antibiotics—including the synthetic ones designed by scientists—and so can mount a defense against new threats.”

The discovery is troubling because it suggests that “antibiotic resistance is ancient, diverse, and astonishingly widespread in nature—including within our own bodies,” says anthropologist Christina Warinner of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, who is not a co-author. “Such findings and their implications explain why antibiotic resistance was so quick to develop after the introduction of therapeutic antibiotics, and why we today should be very concerned about the proper use and management of antibiotics in both clinical and agricultural contexts.”

This may explain why bacteria reacts so quickly and undermines a basic premise about evolution. One thing to note however, bacteria is not all bad, in fact we couldn’t exist without most bacteria. While it benefits us, it benefits them as well. This was no discovery for evolution but increased knowledge on how bacteria works…:)

A Tribute To The MESSENGER Spacecraft

After thousands of orbits over a course of ten years, the Messenger Spacecraft is coming to an end, it’s scheduled to crash on April 30, 2015. It was an amazing leap of data (10 terabytes) of the planet, among its data was finding new discoveries and solving a mystery. The last mission being Mariner 10, was conducted in 1974 and it raised many questions while making some nice discoveries.

One of the biggest surprises was the discovery of hollows that ranged in various sizes…

Mercury

“Early in its primary orbital mission, MESSENGER discovered thousands of peculiar depressions at a variety of longitudes and latitudes, ranging in size from tens of meters to several kilometers across and tens of meters deep.”

“These features, given the name ‘hollows,’ were a major surprise, because while we had been thinking of Mercury as a relic—a planet that wasn’t really changing anymorehollows appear to be younger than the planet’s freshest impact craters. This finding suggests that Mercury is a planet whose surface is still evolving,” says MESSENGER Participating Scientist David Blewett, a geologist at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL).”

How does Mercury get its dark color? Messenger has discovered that since the planet is so close to the sun, that it gets hit quite often from objects in space like comets. The high-speed impacts create amorphous carbon with the darkness of pencil lead (graphite) and soot. Now this interesting if scientists can calculate how much soot is present on Mercury after supposedly 4.5 billion years. Brown University estimated that between 3 and 6 percent carbon after billions of years. Perhaps send another spacecraft to measure it and study the young craters and more. Most likely it wouldn’t match up with the planet being assumed at 4.5 billion years old.

Also, Mercury was considered non-active because of that assumed age, but Messenger has discovered quite the contrary.

MESSENGER Ten years have gone by very quickly, and Messenger will be missed, it was a great effort to build this spacecraft and have it complete its mission over a course of ten years. We look forward to July 14, when the probe “New Horizons” flies by Pluto while gathering data about this dwarf planet and its moons. Based on previous missions, there are going to be surprises that doesn’t fit into its assumed old age. Rather, Pluto is going to have some young features. New Horizons just recently took its first image of Pluto!  This will be exciting…:)

Every New Solution Breeds New Problems

When it comes to theorizing origins in an evolution framework, it’s on going project which never gets resolved. And every time a new solution is added to fix old ones, it is always treated like a major break through in the mainstream media. But it reality, their new solutions breed new problems. Take the moon for example, last time we heard the mystery of the moon had been solved and gave us a whole bunch of speculation which was layered with a whole bunch of jargon to prove it, this year we hear the new view has fixed the one. Confusing isn’t it?

In Astrobiology Magazine, the new theory goes like this…

“For almost 30 years, planetary scientists have been quite happy with this explanation–with one major exception. Although this scenario makes sense when you look at the size of the moon and the physics of its orbit around Earth, things start to break down a little when you compare their isotopic compositions–the geological equivalent of a DNA “fingerprint.” Specifically, Earth and the moon are too much alike.”

“The expectation has long been that the moon should carry the isotopic “fingerprint” of the foreign body, which scientists have named Theia. Because Theia came from elsewhere in the solar system, it probably had a much different isotopic fingerprint than early Earth.

“Now, a team of scientists at the University of Maryland has generated a new isotopic fingerprint of the moon that could provide the missing piece of the puzzle. By zeroing in on an isotope of Tungsten present in both the moon and Earth, the UMD team is the first to reconcile the accepted model of the moon’s formation with the unexpectedly similar isotopic fingerprints of both bodies. The results suggest that the impact of Theia into early Earth was so violent, the resulting debris cloud mixed thoroughly before settling down and forming the moon.”

Questions: What are the ramifications of the Earth being so violent? How long will this model last before another is invented? All this is based on speculation because nobody saw the moon supposedly evolve. The Bible is the only witness for that. So do you call the ever-changing speculation science? Space exploration is science, we can and have learned a great deal from it. This is when you can build unmanned spaceship to explore planets and moons in our solar system and it’s not uncommon for direct evidence to falsify popular theories of evolutionary scientists. It will be fun once an unmanned spacecraft reaches Pluto! Because that will reveal a lot of direct science. So why are countries like the United States spending millions on speculation rather than focusing on direct science? Why are we not focusing more on space exploration rather than materialistic origins that goes around in circles?

Let’s bring more science into our theories rather than using massive amounts of speculation that does science no good.

Mercury and Moon Display Their Youth

Evolutionary scientists some of which hate the use being described as “evolutionary” believe our solar system is 4.5 billion years old, and thus interpret the data within this framework, such as predicting eruptions occurring on Mercury 3.5 billion years ago. However, new discoveries from the Messenger spacecraft flying by Mercury have found compelling evidence of recent eruptions.

“The presence of explosive volcanism on Mercury is a little bit surprising,” says Laura Kerber from JPL

Even more surprising is the fact that Mercury’s activities are similar to those on the Moon as stated here from an email to Astrobiology Magazine.

“Both Mercury and the Moon are a lot smaller than the Earth, and so will have cooled more than Earth since their formation. For that reason, a lot of models would not predict volcanism within the last two billion years..” 

But what is even more surprising, that defies billions of years old, water was discovered on Mercury! No suggestion of life forms on Mercury in its supposed distance past, but a shocker for those who believe that the solar system is very old!

In the BBC

“This result was a little surprising, because sharp boundaries indicate that the volatile deposits at Mercury’s poles are geologically young,” said Dr Chabot.

She added: “One of the big questions we’ve been grappling with is ‘When did Mercury’s water ice deposits show up?’ Are they billions of years old, or were they emplaced only recently?

Understanding the age of these deposits has implications for understanding the delivery of water to all the terrestrial planets, including Earth.”

Overall, the images indicate that Mercury’s polar deposits either were delivered to the planet recently or are regularly restored at the surface through an ongoing process.

Since creation scientists as well as creationists like myself in general believe the solar system is young and not billion of years old, it’s is reasonable to conclude, there is a youthful process going on in Mercury. But one could suspect, a creation of stories about some sort of space delivery like some sort of unique asteroid which could never be observed nor confirmed that would explain such a youthful appearance to maintain its supposed old age.

They really have their work cut out for them this time in trying to create such a story in order to explain away Mercury’s youthful details so it can fit into their old age framework…

“It’s really hard to understand how an ocean could survive for billions of years inside something as small as Mimas.”  -New Scientist

It would make a lot more sense and more scientific without the need to try and fit the data into a particular framework where it doesn’t belong if they cease with the billions of years explanation!