Posts Tagged ‘Scientists’

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 Mathematics

August 17th, 2009


The simplest conceivable form of life (e.g., bacteria) contains at least 600 protein  molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spacial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock – only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules * and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function? The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the “simplest” bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450 . Most scientists acknowledge that any probability less than 1 in 10 50 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this “impossibility” is taught as a “fact of science” to millions of school children each year.

* Editor’s Note: When going to the link on “protein molecules” be sure to scroll down about 1/5 of the way to a box titled “A Deeper Look”.

The above document is from In The Beginning, 7th Ed., p.14 as quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts higher than your thoughts.”   (Isaiah 55:9)


Dinosaur Soft Tissue

August 17th, 2009
T-Rex from

T-Rex from

Dinosaur Soft Tissues: They’re Real!
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer’s discoveries of soft blood vessels, proteins, various blood cells, and even DNA inside fossilized dinosaur bones have been met with extreme skepticism from the scientific community. It has been well established that such biological structures and molecules should not last beyond a few tens of thousands of years, and could not possibly survive millions of years. So why are they there?

Scientists have made multiple attempts to debunk Schweitzer’s findings. Over the last 15 years, alternate explanations for the soft dinosaur tissue include contamination in the field or in the lab, bacterial activity producing the illusion of blood vessel remains, and the possibility that protein signatures derived from the tissues are actually just statistical artifacts (i.e., distortions or data errors).

In an effort to answer these objections, Schweitzer’s team implemented sterile excavation procedures and had an independent third party analyze their results. They confirmed that the soft tissues could not have come from bacteria. Bacteria do not manufacture products in the shape of vertebrate blood vessels, nor can they produce the kind of collagen found in the dinosaur bones.

The issue has generated such fervor that John Asara of Harvard Medical School, who found clear collagen signatures in Schweitzer’s dinosaur tissues,1 placed his data on line so that anyone could access it. Researchers from Palo Alto reanalyzed the data and published their report on line in the Journal of Proteome Research.2 They verified that four of Asara’s original seven collagen sequences were clearly legitimate, using different statistical and bioinformatics techniques. So far, there is every indication that the dinosaur soft tissues—incredible as it seems—are real biological leftovers from their once-living hosts.

Three options present themselves for the presence of molecules and blood vessels in creatures that purportedly passed on eons ago. Perhaps the soft tissue is some kind of mistake—it isn’t really organic material. But the number of other possible substances it could be is dwindling. Or perhaps there is an entirely unknown natural process that could have preserved soft tissue for millions of years. But this is a special pleading argument, one with strong laboratory evidence against it. Third, perhaps the soft tissue, and therefore the sedimentary rock that encased it, are thousands—not millions—of years old.

Dinosaur soft tissue leaves the evolutionary paradigm, which must have millions of years in order to achieve even remote plausibility, between a rock and a hard place. However, these dinosaur blood cells and vessels fit perfectly into the biblical history of the world, which indicates that man and dinosaurs both were created on the same day in the relatively recent past.3

Asara, J. M. et al. 2007. Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry. Science. 316 (5822): 280-285.
Bern, M., B. S. Phinney, and D. Goldberg. 2009. Reanalysis of Tyrannosaurus rex Mass Spectra. Journal of Proteome Research. Published online July 15, 2009, accessed July 30, 2009.
Genesis 1:24-27.

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

This post was taken from the Institute For Creation Research

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:25)


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)