BIG BANG: IF the universe happened totally randomly......

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

"Essentially, the problem is that if the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, then the deeper we peer into the universe, the closer to the Big Bang that we should see. However, no matter how deep we peer into space, still we see no evidence of a Big Bang.
A quick google search showed me that even in 2012 we have been able to see 13.2 billion light years, which is see the equivalent of 13.2 billion years into the past. (We can probably see even farther now.)

However, since the Big Bang was supposed to occur only 13.7 billion years ago, then we should be looking at the early pre-formed universe. 

*We shouldn't see fully formed stars and planets. 

*However, instead we see stars and planets just like in our own galaxy. This is a serious problem for the Big Bang theory because we're looking at the "early universe" yet it doesn't appear very early at all. Thus, the Big Bang could not have happened.

Additionally, although this is in fact yet another issue (one that has been addressed before), if the universe happened totally randomly then there should be all kinds of different forms that we should see as we look out into space. It wouldn't be the same planets, stars, and galaxies in every direction. Instead it would be a vast array of different types of things. For example, in one direction we might see stars and galaxies but in another direction we might see exotic forms. However this is not the case, further disproving any Big Bang from ever happening." 

TechReader

BIG BANG: The Magnetic Monopole Problem for the "Big Bang"

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,... 

Romans 1:22

"A magnetic monopole is, in short, a particle which contains an electrical charge, creating a net "magnetic charge" within the

individual particle. 

If the Big Bang theory were true, it should be one of the most prevalent (common) particles in the universe. 

*However, instead it is the complete opposite - a magnetic monopole has never even been observed, not even once.

This is a serious problem because it means there is something entirely wrong with the Big Bang Theory, because the total and absolute lack of even a single observed magnetic monopole particle is a direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of the Big Bang theory." 

TechReader

BIG BANG: Flatness Problem of the "Big Bang"

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.  Isaiah 45:12

"Initial density of matter and energy in the universe is a very specific

critical value. Small deviations from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.

*If the universe started off slightly positively curved, it would be enormously positively curved today, *and the same holds for negative curvature. 

However, the curvature of matter and energy in regards to density remains very small so the probability that a Big Bang could have occurred to create the current universe is so astronomically slim that it is entirely improbable." 

TechReader

Pre-Adamite nonsense coming back via youtube preachers

What was thought to be a Flash-in-the-Pan short lived heresy of 2 to 3 hundred years ago---is again--through the internet--making a small come back among those who want their intellectual senses tantalized by what they think is something new and exciting....

"Arguments from Biblical scholars that find ways of reading ancient

near Eastern or evolutionary ideas into the text of Genesis are becoming popular amongst lay people and Christian apologists. .... theistic evolutionist Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) has used several of these arguments to try and refute “young earth creation” (Biblical creation). 

Based on the work of Old Testament scholars John Walton and Michael Heiser, Jones argues that Genesis 1 implies there were more people around than Adam and Eve (i.e., pre-Adamites) and that, therefore, in Genesis 2, which he believes is a sequel to Genesis 1,2 God elects Adam and Eve out of that group of people...

 

HERETIC Michael Jones looking for weak minded Christians
 in the dark corners of cyberspace

While this view may seem appealing to those who want to accommodate evolutionary thinking with the Bible, there are several problems with it:

Genesis 1 gives us a historical account of the creation of the world that teaches God created all things in six 24-hour days (For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.  Exodus 20:11). 

The flow of the creation account in Genesis 1 leads us to the

pinnacle of God’s creation on day six, when He creates man in His own image (Genesis 1:26–28).

 

Q: Do these verses suggest there were more than two people on earth at this point? 

A: No, since this is day six, mankind was the first couple (Adam and Eve). 

 

---In Genesis 1:26, “man” (ʾādām, is without the article, i.e., anarthrous) refers to mankind because, after using the singular “ʾādām,” it says “let them (plural) have dominion . . .” 

---Then in Genesis 1:27, “the man” (hāʾādām, with the article, i.e., arthrous) is used, 

--------which is followed by “ . . . in the image of God He created him (singular),” 

--------then “male and female, He created them (plural).” 

---Then in Adam’s genealogy, Genesis 5:1–5, it is always anarthrous “ʾādām.” In Genesis 5:1, “ʾādām” (twice) refers to the first man because it refers to “him.” 

---In Genesis 5:2, it refers to “male and female . . . them,” who were “called “ʾādām” when they were created. So “ʾādām” refers to both male and female, but they were the first two humans (Adam and Eve). 

---In Genesis 5:3–5, “ʾādām” clearly refers to the first man, Adam, who fathered Seth and had other sons and daughters. 

---The key to understanding 2:4 is in the opening Hebrew phrase tôlĕdōt (“This is the history of”), as it formulates the structure of the book of Genesis. A number of scholars recognize that here tôlĕdōt serves as a heading that introduces a new section of the narrative.  Interestingly, this is the only time the phrase tôlĕdōt occurs without a personal name, the reason being that “Adam had no human predecessors.”

---Like a craftsman who shapes his material, the LORD God “formed”(yāṣar) the man from the “dust” (ʿāpār) of the ground. The word “dust” is not a metaphor. It can only mean literal dust in the context of Genesis 2–3 because it is to dust that Adam will return due to his disobedience (Genesis 3:19; cf. Job 34:14-15). 

---After the formation of man from the dust of the ground, he is given human life when the LORD God breathes into him the breath of life (cf. Genesis 6:17, 7:15, 22), which is a clear indication of life and thereby the lifeless body became a living soul, a living being.

---Adam consists then of the material (dust) and immaterial (breath of life). 

---It was not until the LORD God breathed into Adam that he became a living creature (as Paul also indicates in 1 Corinthians 15:45: “the first man Adam became a living soul”)." 

AIG

EXO-PLANETS: A 3rd Scenario for (612533) 2002 XV93

 "A tiny icy object orbiting beyond Neptune has surprised astronomers by displaying an atmosphere that, according to current theories, should not exist.

The object, officially designated (612533) 2002 XV93, belongs to a class of distant bodies known as trans-Neptunian objects, located in

the Kuiper Belt beyond the orbit of Neptune. More specifically, it is classified as a plutino, sharing the same 2:3 orbital resonance with Neptune as Pluto. Measuring only about 310 miles across, it is far smaller than Pluto, making the discovery especially unexpected.

What makes the discovery especially puzzling is that previous observations by the James Webb Space Telescope found no evidence that 2002 XV93 possesses surface deposits of nitrogen, methane, or carbon monoxide ice, the same volatile materials that generate Pluto’s atmosphere when warmed by sunlight. Temperatures on the object, estimated between 40 and 50 degrees above absolute zero, are also far too low for water ice or carbon dioxide ice to vaporize naturally.

The research, published in Nature Astronomy, therefore presents scientists with a genuine mystery. 

Existing models struggle to explain how such a small, cold object could sustain even a temporary atmosphere under these extreme conditions.

Researchers currently propose two leading scenarios, although neither fully explains the observations.
The first possibility is that a relatively recent impact from a comet-

like object released gas into space, temporarily creating the observed atmosphere. This explanation comes with a major challenge. Because the object’s gravity is so weak, any gases escaping into space would disappear within roughly a thousand years. On astronomical timescales, that represents an incredibly brief period, implying astronomers would have observed the object during a remarkably fortunate moment.
The second hypothesis involves cryovolcanism, sometimes described as ice volcanism. Instead of molten rock, underground reservoirs of frozen volatile materials could occasionally erupt, replenishing the atmosphere from beneath the surface. Scientists do not yet know what internal energy source could power such activity on a body this small and cold, leaving the mechanism unresolved.

As the researchers explained,
“This discovery suggests that  the traditional idea that global dense atmospheres form only around larger planets must be revised,” said Arimatsu’s team in their research paper.
That statement reflects how significantly this observation could reshape current thinking about atmospheric formation in the outer Solar System." msn

*Allow me to add a 3rd "scenario" to the list for (612533) 2002 XV93: That is that it is young, only a few thousand years old, created as is, for a reason these men do not yet understand. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.... Hebrews 11:3

Those 7 Colors

"As God invented everything that enables a rainbow to exist, God obviously owns the rainbow.

You can break up white light into its rainbow of colors using a prism to disperse the light rays.

So the rainbow is actually a result of the properties of light (refraction and dispersion) that God created on day one of creation week, when he said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3).
He obviously created the entire electromagnetic spectrum, of which visible light is just a part.

Now our eyes are designed to see seven colors with specific wavelengths divided out of visible light—red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet.
Of course, there are many other visible colors made by mixing various combinations of these colors—such as pink, which can be made with the right mix of red and blue wavelengths. 

And if we consider all frequencies, there are as many colors (invisible to us) as the stars in the universe. 

But the true rainbow has seven colors. 

God invented the rainbow."

Ken Ham

The Holy Spirit at Creation

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  

Genesis 1:2

"Before God spoke a single word of creation, the Spirit of God was already there. The text places Him over the formless, dark, water-covered void before any creative act began. The Holy Spirit was

present at the very origin of all things, actively engaged before there was anything to engage with.
The word “moved” here in Hebrew is rachaph, a word that describes a bird hovering, brooding, watching over something with focused, protective care. The Spirit was hovering with intention, poised over what was formless and empty, ready for what God was about to do.
The Spirit’s character is revealed here: 

--He moves toward what is empty and disordered, not away from it. 

--He does not wait for conditions to improve before He shows up. 

--He was already there over the void.

He was at creation before anything existed, 

and He is with you before anything in your day unfolds." 

EC

Vision

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Psalm 139:14

"Biochemist Michael Behe has shown that even a ‘simple’ light-sensitive spot requires a dazzling array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function. He states:
"--When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10-12 sec] is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) 

--The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. 

--The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)--GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. 

--When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to ‘cut’ a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). 

--Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub." 

CMI

Your Faith: In God or Materialism?

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,...And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
Hebrews 11:3/Colossians 1:16,17

"Theoretical physicist and Nobellist Steven Weinberg said, “The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.” 

His quip was intended to take aim at God. Nevertheless, even atheists acknowledge the existence of many realities that cannot be directly observed—such as black holes, magnetism, gravitation, and wind.

--However, atheists agree that they are known from their effects. 

--We could say the same about God and His creative acts, and—for those of us who were not around to witness it—the Resurrection of Jesus. We cannot see such things today, but they have impacted the world in ways that are visible and measurable.

After all, if science can deal only with matter and energy, it can’t possibly show that other things can’t exist. Rather, this claimed requirement is a philosophical position called materialism, and there are substantial grounds for doubting it. 

‘Materialism’ in philosophy doesn’t mean striving for material goods, but the belief that matter (or mass/energy) is all there is.
Among the reasons for rejecting materialism are the compelling arguments that support the existence of an immaterial Creator of the universe. 

These include the design of living things, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and the evidence that it has a finite age, among other arguments." 

CMI