NEW CREATION MINISTRIES
IN THE BEGINNING… GOD OR DIRT?
NEW CREATION MINISTRIES
IN THE BEGINNING… GOD OR DIRT?
Origin of the Universe
Astronomy & Cosmology…
QUESTION: Does Astronomy & Physics contradict the biblical record of creation?
ANSWER:
The picture which is projected by the popular media gives the general public the impression that the physical sciences are incompatible with the bible. However, most people are not informed that over 10,000 professional scientists world wide believe that the objective facts support the Genesis creation account just as it stands. Many of these scientists conduct research in the leading edge of technology and work right along side with those who are evolutionary oriented.
As you listen to the reports of current discoveries, The most common news heard in these sciences are the phrases which echo “unexpected discovery”, “inconsistent results”, “the data doesn’t fit”. This theme is referring to the repeated failure of modern sophisticated technology to verify any naturalistic origins for the universe. In fact, multiple recent observations retrieved from space probes and the Hubble Space Telescope invariably contradict the expectations of evolutionary theory.
This book will enable many people of diverse educational backgrounds to understand creation.
Image courtesy: NSSDC/Nasa
There exists two basic reasons for the consistent flow of this self contradictory data:
1: The naturalistic mechanism of the big bang is adverse to the established laws of physics and thermodynamics, to begin with. Therefore, it is understandable why many observations and measurements are incongruent.
2: If any theory is substantially incorrect, then the expected deductive predictions simply will not materialize. Could this be why the nuts and bolts of the evolutionary model of the universe just don’t seem to fit together?
On the other hand, it is not difficult to interpret the universe which we observe from the perspective of an initial, highly ordered, relatively recent creation which has been subject to the universally acknowledged principle of Entropy. Starting from this viewpoint, most observations are compatible with the Genesis creation account.
Question: What about the Origin of the Solar System?
ANSWER:
Ironically, no objective insight has surfaced regarding the origin of our solar system. We are no closer to a satisfactory answer even though thousands of detailed images and a plethora of remote sensing data has been relayed back to the Earth by our multi billion dollar space exploration programs. The fact is that much of the data are consistent with a young solar system which defies naturalistic explanations. Yet multitudes of teachers and professors are still teaching outdated theories which do not incorporate the most current technological findings.
Students are not told that precise measurements and detailed images of comets by the HST have shown that the periodic comets can not be greater than 10,000 years old. These findings are countered by arbitrary speculation of the existence of a shell of cometary material beyond the solar system. The so called “Oort ” cloud is devoid of any real scientific merit.
The heat energy emissions of Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, and Venus are much greater than expected from the solar radiation received. It has been calculated that the source of this excess heat is not caused by internal nuclear or chemical processes. The most plausible explanation is that these planets are relatively young and simply have not cooled off yet. This conclusion is further supported by the actual observation of volcanic activity on one of the small planetary satellites.
If the sun, planets and their 63 known satellites had evolved from the same material they should exhibit compositional similarities. In addition, if they had had formed from a common process the mechanics of their motions such as spatial orientation, rotation, revolution and angular momentum should reveal some measure of unifying correspondence. Yet after several decades of intensive planetary exploration all the predicted naturalistic expectations have been falsified.
A few of these anomalies are cited herein:
- Angular momentum of sun and planets are obviously inconsistent
- Composition of planets do not correspond to the sun or possibly to each other
- Inclined orbits of satellites
- Retrograde & opposing satellite orbits
- Backward rotation of three of the planets
- Origin of the moon
Question: What about the Origin of the Universe?
ANSWER:
What about the Big Bang?? Most people are not told by the media that this theory has been plagued with its inability to explain the observable astronomical data of the universe. Only exaggerated hypothetical speculation has sustained this theory because it is not consistent with the known laws of physics which otherwise contradict it, if not completely falsify it.
Some scientists continue to hold on to the presence of the Cosmic Background Radiation in support of the big bang; possibly because no other acceptable alternative has been conceived. However, regardless of the exaggerated recent reports of “ripples” measured within the CBR, this phenomenon does not appear to represent the remnant of an initial big bang. The uniformity of the CBR would not permit matter to gravitate into concentrations which we see as galaxy clusters or stars.
The second law of thermodynamics is universally recognized because no exception to this fundamental principle has ever surfaced. As a consequence, the initial state of the universe was more organized and complex than its present state. Any big bang proponent must completely ignore this law by side stepping the entire issue.
The known laws of physics preclude the formation of stars by gravitational attraction and the rotation of galaxies from an explosion. Evolutionists attempt to fix this discrepancy by speculating that the universe must have about ten times more mass than is observed. Like the missing links of the fossil record, the missing mass of the universe has been sought for decades but has never turned up. The missing mass is still missing!
The theory of stellar evolution is tenuous at best. Some stars do not fit the proposed sequence. In addition, no evidence exists to document the birth of any star. Many star deaths have been noted as supernovas. This is in perfect accordance with the entropy of the universe. However astronomers base much of the theory of star evolution on a phenomenon that has never been observed.
