Archive for the ‘Physics’ category


May 1st, 2010

The Sky Is Falling Again
Um, never mind. On March 12, 1998, on the front page of The New York Times, a headline read: “Asteroid Is Expected to Make a Pass Close to Earth in 2028.” Brian G. Marsden, director of the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, predicted that on October 26, 2028, an asteroid about a mile in diameter would come within 30,000 miles of Earth. That’s within spitting distance, spacewise, which evoked comparisons to the asteroid that crashed on the Yucatàn peninsula 65 million years ago, allegedly wiping out all the dinosaurs. “When you first discover a comet, or any kind of body, you start measuring its position,” notes Robert Park. “From that you extract its trajectory. The more measurements you make, the more accurate your trajectory gets.” Marsden issued his warnings based on very early trajectory measurements. Now he anticipates the asteroid will pass Earth at a safe distance of 600,000 miles.

Nuclear Winter of Our Discontent
In 1983, astronomer Carl Sagan coauthored an article in Science that shook the world: “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions” warned that nuclear war could send a giant cloud of dust into the atmosphere that would cover the globe, blocking sunlight and invoking a climatic change similar to that which might have ended the existence of dinosaurs. Skeptical atmospheric scientists argued that Sagan’s model ignored a variety of factors, including the fact that the dust would have to reach the highest levels of the atmosphere not to be dissipated by rainfall. In a 1990 article in Science, Sagan and his original coauthors admitted that their initial temperature estimates were wrong. They concluded that an all-out nuclear war could reduce average temperatures at most by 36 degrees Fahrenheit in northern climes. The chilling effect, in other words, would be more of a nuclear autumn.

Piltdown Chicken
The finding was initially trumpeted as the missing link that proved birds evolved from dinosaurs. In 1999 a fossil smuggled out of China allegedly showing a dinosaur with birdlike plumage was displayed triumphantly at the National Geographic Society and written up in the society’s November magazine. Paleontologists were abuzz. Unfortunately, like the hominid skull with an ape jaw discovered in the Piltdown quarries of England in 1912, the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. The fossil apparently was the flight of fancy of a Chinese farmer who had rigged together bird bits and a meat-eater’s tail.

The “Archaeoraptor” fake

In 1999, a supposed ‘missing link’ fossil of an apparently feathered dinosaur named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis“, found in Liaoning Province, northeastern China, turned out to be a forgery. Comparing the photograph of the specimen with another find, Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing came to the conclusion that it was composed of two portions of different fossil animals. His claim made National Geographic review their research and they too came to the same conclusion.[7] The bottom portion of the “Archaeoraptor” composite came from a legitimate feathered dromaeosaurid now known as Microraptor, and the upper portion from a previously-known primitive bird called Yanornis.

Editor’s note: I know that nonsense is spelled wrong. I hyphenated it for effect.  Recently “global warming” has come to light as a complete hoax (post coming). Hoaxes, frauds and half-truths have been around since the fall of man from grace in the Garden of Eden. Today (the last 200 years), evil men diligently work towards enslaving you to take your money, your freedom and if possible your soul. You have a choice, either follow the truth or sell yourself into bondage.

This blog will continue to expose pseudo science. Make sure that you scrutinize all science that is contrary to GOD’s WORD. Take off your (if you are wearing them) evolutionary glasses and look at look at true science through GOD’s WORD and you will never be lead astray by hucksters who try to minimize GOD’s WORD which rightfully proclaims that HE created everything seen and unseen. The science says that there can be no other explanation. See Romans 1:20-23 if you are looking for an excuse.


Universe Is Closer to the End Than Expected

February 10th, 2010

Study Shows the Universe Is Closer to the End Than Expected

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Every known system degenerates. Metal rusts, food rots, and flowers wither. Even something as large as the universe will eventually run down. How much usable and still-ordered energy remains in the universe?

Australian researchers have generated a new estimate, one that includes the energy-destroying effects of “supermassive black holes.” Their computations indicate that the universe is perhaps 30 times more run down than similar estimates published just last year.

After adding in “the contributions of black holes 100 times larger than those considered in previous budgets,” co-authors Chas Egan and Charles Lineweaver reported in the Astrophysical Journal that the universe is at least an order of magnitude more run down than secular astronomers once thought.1

The largest contributor by far to universal entropy (a measure of usable energy) is generated by supermassive black holes, according to the published study. Evidence of these, as well as the smaller “stellar” black holes, has been found mostly in galactic cores. Black holes rapidly randomize ordered forms of energy and matter, turning them into heat that then dissipates.

Though some of the assumptions used in the Egan and Lineweaver study rely on aspects of Big Bang cosmology, a large portion of the computed entropy was derived from temperature and volume measurements or estimates. A host of other observations has demolished the Big Bang theory,2 but the very fact that the universe is slowing down is both counter to evolutionary assumptions and supportive of biblical creation.

Lineweaver said in an Australian National University press release, “Contrary to common opinion, the maintenance of all the complicated structures we see around us―galaxies, stars, hurricanes and kangaroos―have the net effect of increasing the disorder and entropy of the universe.”3 The longstanding scientific observation of continually decreasing order in all systems contradicts the evolutionary doctrine that order has spontaneously increased.4 But evolution’s simple-to-complex story has been so uncritically accepted that it isn’t surprising that the science of entropy, which calls that story into question, is not as well known.

Since the universe is currently unwinding through natural processes, it stands to reason that at some point it was intentionally “wound up” by something outside of the universe. This corresponds well with the Bible’s assertion that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”5

In fact, the culmination of the heavens wearing down was mentioned in the book of Isaiah, to whom God said, “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.”6

Egan and Lineweaver suggested that future research could use their new numbers to recalculate how much time the universe has left. But failing to consider revelation from the God of creation must lead to confusion over the ultimate questions of origin and destiny. Whereas evolutionary scientists can be sure that the universe is running down—though unsure about when it started or how it will end—God states that “all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll,”7 “and the stars shall fall from heaven,”8 so that He can establish “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”9 This present universal economy will be supernaturally restructured long before it fizzles out.


1.   Egan, C. A., and C. H. Lineweaver. A Larger Estimate of the Entropy of the Universe. Astrophysical Journal. 710 (2): 1825-1834.

2.   Gish, D. 1991. The Big Bang Theory Collapses. Acts & Facts. 20 (6).

3.   Astronomers: The end is nigher than we expected. Australian National University press release, January 25, 2010.

4.   Morris, H. 1985. Does Entropy Contradict Evolution? Acts & Facts. 14 (3).

5.   Genesis 1:1.

6.   Isaiah 51:6.

7.   Isaiah 34:4.

8.  Matthew 24:29. 2

9.   Peter 3:13.

Image credit: NASA

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

Article posted on February 9, 2010 in the Science Update published by ICR

Evidence From Astronomy

December 25th, 2009


Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the sun. Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational interactions than they are to be pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together. Similar difficulties relate to a moon forming from particles orbiting a planet.

Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. Growing a planet by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because a spin imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling. Yet all planets spin, some much more than others.

The more we explore and understand our solar system, the more reasons we have to acknowledge that it did not evolve, but was created.

The above document was taken from In the Beginning, 7th Ed., p.22 and quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. (Psalm 33:6 NASV)


Evidence From Creation Foundation

September 27th, 2009

Bible Many Christians consider creation irrelevant. They believe it makes no difference whether God used creation or evolution to create mankind and the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. Atheists have a much better understanding of the importance of this issue, as shown by the following quote from American Atheist Magazine, 2/78, p. 19,30:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will [always] fight to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary…Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. [You will] take away the meaning of his death…If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!”

Logic allows no other alternatives. If God used evolution to create us, then we came from some sort of apelike creature. Therefore Adam and Eve must be a myth. Where is the Fall of man? At what point did the apes (ruled by instinct) rebel against their creator? Why do we need a Savior if we were created from apes and are just doing what comes natural to us? The Bible calls Jesus the “second Adam.” Was the first Adam a man or an apelike creature? What does that make Christ? Did God create the current world (with all of its problems and suffering), or is this fallen state a result of man’s rebellion? Acceptance of evolution is a poison which will destroy true Christianity. The evidence for this can be seen in the decline of the evangelical belief in Europe as the acceptance of evolution has increased.

The above document was written by Bruce Malone and quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:47 NKJV)

…just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin… (Romans 5:12 NKJV)


Evidence From The Worldwide Flood

September 13th, 2009


Hundreds of giant fossils have been discovered over the years. These include ten-foot turtles, dragonflies with a two foot wingspan, and 50-foot-long crocodiles. Could the size of these creatures be the result of long lives and/or a more protective atmosphere? It is interesting to note that some reptiles today never stop growing, but continue to get larger as long as they live. The large size for prehistoric (i.e., pre-flood) reptiles, including dinosaurs, probably indicates very long lives. Even today, scientists do not fully understand what causes us to age and die. Given more ideal conditions and fewer genetic problems before the Flood, it is not hard to believe that pre-flood man could have lived 10 times longer than modern man.

Most likely the cause of the longer life expectancy before the flood was fewer genetic problems. Contrary to what evolutionists would have us believe, with every passing century the number of mistakes and problems on our genes increases. There is also an intriguing possibility that the original earth was protected by a water-canopy above the atmosphere. This protective canopy would have shielded living things from the harmful radiation which shortens life. This may help account for both early man’s long life span and larger animals. Josephus (a Jewish historian in 100 A.D.) records that the historians from nine other nations report people living up to 1,000 years old before the great Flood.

The above was quoted from Myths and Miracles, p.76 TJ Journal, 8(2):138-141, 1994 as depicted in A Closer Look At The Evidence by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. (Genesis 5:5)


Evidence From Astronomy

September 12th, 2009


There are more than 1022 stars in the universe, but each one is unique. No two stars have exactly the same properties. This may sound like guesswork, since we have analyzed very few stars in detail; but the conclusion is a certainty. A star has so many variables that the probability of two identical stars is essentially zero. These variables include the total number of atoms, the exact composition of elements, its size, and its temperature. Some stars show obvious color and brightness differences. Others require spectroscopic study to detect each star’s particular identity or fingerprint.

The Bible states in I Corinthians 15:41 that “star differs from star in splendor.” How could ancient man have known this? It is only logical to conclude that the Creator of the stars chose to tell man to include this in the Bible. In Psalm 147:4 the Bible also says that God “determines the number of stars and calls each by name.” Truly God’s abilities have no limit.

The above document is from Astronomy and the Bible, p.56-57 as quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. (1 Corinthians 15:41)

Evidence from Astronomy

August 18th, 2009


Evolutionists have no adequate explanation for why, if our solar system evolved, the planets do not all spin in the same direction. Most planets rotate in the same direction [prograde orbit] as their orbits; but Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards. In the nebula model of solar system evolution, the 72 [170] (see note below)  known moons should orbit planets in the same direction.  Instead, at least eight moons have backward orbits [retrograde orbit]. The planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions!

These types of undisputed observations contradict the current theories of how the solar system evolved. They are, however, exactly what an all-powerful Creator, who wanted to reveal His hand in creation, would place in the universe for our enjoyment.
What grand diversity we see exhibited by our Creator!

The above article was taken from In the Beginning, 7th Ed., p.21 as written in A Closer Look At The Evidence by Richard & Tina Kleiss

Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven. Can his forces be numbered?…

(Job 25:2-3)

EDITOR’S NOTE: I suspect the 72 moons were calculated from old information. My links point out that there are 170 moons as of this posting. This number is accurate as of March 2009 but I expect it to continue to change as time goes on.  Whatever the actual number is, I find the quantity to be irrelevant within the context of this article which concentrates on the rotational directions of moons around our planets within our solar system. 



July 30th, 2009


Evolutionary scientists believe that matter spewed from exploding stars was used to form planets. They teach that the solar system and the sun formed from this great cloud of compacting gas. Yet they have no undisputed explanation for why Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury do not have the same high percentage of hydrogen and helium as our sun and the rest of the visible universe. Less than 1% of these planets are composed of hydrogen and helium.

How could this be, given the current prevalent theory that our solar system is the result of a condensing  cloud of hydrogen gas? How could 99.86% of the mass within our solar system (our sun) be made of hydrogen and helium, while the four planets closest to the sun are composed almost entirely of heavier elements?

Something is seriously wrong with the theory of solar system evolution, which is being taught to our children as if it were a fact.

The above was taken from In The Beginning, 7th Ed., p.19 as quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence, by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

Praise Him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were created.  (Psalm 148:4-5)



July 27th, 2009


Have you considered. . . .

We could not breathe without the moon! Day in and day out earth’s moon causes the ocean tides. The moon’s gravity pulls upon the water as it orbits the earth resulting in the water bulging, and we experience high tides while some parts have low tides. As the earth rotates, the moon causes two high tides and two low tides every 24 hours. When these high tides wash up on shore. they drag back into the ocean anything in its path, including impurities. These impurities are then eaten by microbes deep within the oceans. The high tides are actually cleaning our shorelines! What if there was no moon? Our oceans would not have [sufficient]  tides resulting in stagnant and stinking oceans. Sea life would die, ocean plant life would also die. Much of earth’s oxygen comes from plants in the ocean. If sea plants died, we would not have sufficient oxygen for life. Our very breath is dependent on lunar tides!

. . . stop and consider God’s wonders. (Job 37:14)

Our Creator has given us an unusually large moon with enough gravity to pull on the ocean waters. He provides everything we need! Count your blessings.

This post was taken from The Twin Cities Creation Science Association Creation Bulletin Vol. 35, No. 3 as written by Julie Von Vett who is available to speak (651) 464-4361


July 25th, 2009


It is false to say that you cannot be a true scientist if you believe in creation. The very founders of the scientific methods and the scientists who developed some of the most important foundational principles of modern science were primarily creationists. Creationists find themselves in the company of great men of science such as Robert Boyle, George Washington Carver, Michael Faraday, John Ambrose Fleming, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, Carolus Linneaus, Matthew Maury, Joseph Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Samuel F.B. Morse, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, William Ramsay and Leonardo da Vinci. Many scientists, such as Carolus Linnaeus, George Washington Carver and Matthew Maury, claim to have received their inspirational ideas directly from the Bible. There are also many creation scientists today who are top in their fields. Their, belief in creation and a young earth has not proven to be a hindrance, but actually an asset to their scientific endeavors.

The discoveries of these great men of science are a testament to their belief in the Creator of a designed universe. Their Confidence to pursue scientific discoveries was and continues to be a natural outcome of their belief that discovering how the world works is possible because the universe is the product of an intelligent and all-powerful Designer of order.

The above was taken from Men of Science, Men of God, p. 1-3 as quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence, by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. (Psalm 119: 130)