Articles and Links to Articles Which Discuss
the Origin of the Universe
|Contradiction beween rotation signatures and ages of globular clusters: an indicator of relative youth?
By Jake Hiebert
This article is from the Journal of Creation 36(2):12-14, August 2022
Posted on WordExplain September 8, 2023
Astronomers have noted that stars in the cores of 11 Milky Way Globular
Clusters were orbiting a preferred axis of rotation. They had already
detected rotational signatures in the outer regions of some well known
globular clusters. They were surprised to find rotational signatures in
the central parts of these clusters.
This means that there is an apparent
contradiction between these central rotation signatures and the
presumed ages of these globular clusters. If these globular clusters
are as old as astronomers say they are, they should have lost this
"ubiquitous and strong rotation." The rotational core should have
collapsed by now. But the rotation persists. Conclusion: Perhaps these
clusters are not as old as the astronomers have made them out to be?
|The Framework hypothesis, missionary societies and the Gospel: Should Christians promote the Framework hypothesis?
By Russell Grigg. First published on Creation.com on 8 October, 2019. Re-featured on homepage: 2 September 2023.
Abstract posted on WordExplain.com on Saturday, September 2, 2023
The Framework hypothesis does not correlate well with the Six Days of
Creation revealed in Genesis 1. The 10 Commandments are fatal for the
Framework view, because they assume literal days, not vast periods of
time. The record of the early days of earth's history is a historical
record based on eyewitness accounts or on God's own eyewitness account
of what happened. The Big Bang and Evolution are both events that
were never observed by humans. They are based largely on human
conjecture. Therefore they lack scientific credibility. Conclusion:
"It is impossible to harmonize two mutually exclusive doctrines [of
Creation and Evolution] by combining them, as Framework theorists try
to do. Evolution over billions of years denies God's Word, undermines
the Gospel, and is the reason why two-thirds of youth raised in
Christian homes reject Christianity .... So to answer the question
posed by the subtitle of this article, Should Christians promote the
Framework hypothesis? Absolutely and unequivocally NO."
|Water Near Edge of Universe Bolsters Creation Cosmology. By Brian Thomas, PH.D. August 3, 2011.
Linked in WordExplain October 6, 2022
|Abstract: "A tremendous cloud of
water envelops a quasar in distant space, according to new reports.
Where did the water come from? A straightforward understanding of the
biblical account of creation provides a possible answer ...." The
writer links this discovery to the statement in Genesis 1:6 in which
God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let
it divide the waters from the waters."
|Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang? by Jake Hebert, PhD. May 31, 2018.
Linked in WordExplain September 13, 2022.
|Abstract – quoting the article's "highlights":
(1) Secular scientists use three main arguments to defend the Big Bang:
the apparent expansion of the universe; the percent abundances of
hydrogen and helium, and the cosmic microwave background. (2) The Big
Bang model has often been wrong in its predictions. (3) Inflation
theory was developed to explain some of the Big Bang's biggest
problems, but inflation is very difficult to defend. (4) Despite its
popularity and longevity, the Big Bang model remains weak.
|Dark Matter Doesn't Exist: Cosmology's collective delusion. By Pavel Kroupa. July 12, 2022
Linked in WordExplain July 16, 2022.
|Abstract quotes that of the article: The current cosmological model only works by postulating the existence
of dark matter – a substance that has never been detected, but that is
supposed to constitute approximately 25% of all the universe. But a
simple test suggests that dark matter does not in fact exist. If it
did, we would expect lighter galaxies orbiting heavier ones to be
slowed down by dark matter particles, but we detect no such slow-down.
(Emphasis mine.) A host of other observational tests support the conclusion: dark matter
is not there. The implications of this are nothing short of a revision
of Einstein’s theory of gravitation. Why the scientific community is in
denial about the falsification of the dark matter model is a question
that requires both a sociological and philosophical explanation, argues
|Dark matter: our review suggests it's time to ditch it in favour of a new theory of gravity. By Indranil Banik. Published in The Conversation July 7, 2022. Linked in WordExplain July 8, 2022
|Abstract, quoting the
first two paragraphs: "We can model the motions of planets in the Solar
System quite accurately using Newton's laws of physics. But in the
early 1970's, scientists noted that this didn't work for disc galaxies
– stars at their outer edges, far from the gravitational force of all
the matter at the centre – were moving much faster than Newton's theory
"This made physicists propose that an
invisible substance called "dark matter" was providing extra
gravitational pull, causing the stars to speed up – a theory that's
become hugely popular. However, in a recent review my colleagues and I
suggest that observations across a vast range of scales are much better
explained in an alternative theory of gravity proposed by Israeli
physicist Mordehai Milgrom in 1982 called Milgromian dynamics or Mond –
requiring no invisible matter."
|Dark Matter and the Standard Model of particle physics – a search in the 'Dark'. By John G. Hartnett. Published 28 September, 2014.
Original article posted on Creation.com.
Reposted on WordExplain on June 12, 2022
|Abstract: "The Standard Model of particle physics (SM) has been very successful at
describing the elementary particles and the forces that bind them
together. However, the Standard Model presents some significant
problems for big bang theorists. This is because the SM does not
contain any Dark-Matter particles, and the neutrinos in it are
described as exactly massless. Which means that in its present form, it
is in clear contradiction with the big bang model as required by
"But note what this worldview [of materialism] leads to, the invention of new particles
(axions, sterile neutrinos and other forms of Dark Matter), and new
forms of energy (Dark Energy that drives the supposed acceleration of
the expansion of the universe). None of these are found in laboratory
experiments. Yet this is not a small correction, but these new forms
allegedly comprise as much as 96% of the mass-energy content of the
universe. This is so bizarre, it is hard to believe that anyone
believes it—such is the commitment to materialism...."
"As it stands now, though, the most successful theory known to physics,
the Standard Model of particle physics, contains no Dark-Matter
particles, but big bang cosmology demands them. Therefore, because of
this prior commitment to materialism, the Standard Model ‘must’ be
changed, else it will remain a stark reminder of the failure of the
standard big bang model."
This abstract quotes excerpts from the article, retaining its emphasis.
|The Singularity – a 'Dark' beginning. By John G. Hartnett. Published 15 July, 2014.
Original article posted on Creation.com.
Reposted on WordExplain on June 12, 2022
|Abstract: "Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?" ... "Don’t be taken in by the technical bluff and bluster of the big bang
proponents. It is not science in the usual repeatable laboratory
experimental sense and it is very weak as one can never be certain
one’s model actually describes reality. This is story-telling at its
This abstract quotes excerpts from the article, including the original byline and a portion near its conclusion.
|Galactic Conjunction. Original article found in SciTechDaily.
Originally posted Jan. 2, 2022.
Posted on WordExplain Jan. 3, 2022
Cosmologists can make accurate predictions about distances from the
amount of light emanating from stars and galaxies. But the standard
cosmological model keeps falling short of the actual measurements. This
is a source of consternation to astronomers.
|Dark Matter Search Keeps Coming Up Empty
By Jake Hebert, Ph.D.
Posted by Institute for Creation Research on April 9, 2020
Posted on WordExplain Nov. 24, 2021
|Abstract: A recent study has ruled out a possible candidate for dark matter, the
mysterious invisible “stuff” said to comprise 85% of the matter in our
universe. The Big Bang model needs dark matter for a number of reasons.
So, this is bad news for the Big Bang model. (This abstract quotes the first paragraph of the article.)
Starlight, Time, and the New Physics
John G. Hartnett, Ph. D.
A presentation to the International Conference on Creationism
Posted on WordExplain November 12, 2021
Abstract: A novel solution to the creationist light-travel-time problem is presented. The concept requires new
physics—Carmeli’s cosmological relativity. But that physics has been successfully shown to apply to
the large-scale structure of the universe. In order for the new physics and Einstein’s physics to apply
over their respective domains it is required that the universe underwent enormous expansion that
produced massive time dilation on earth, at the center of the physical universe, at some point in the
past. This assertion is justified by observational evidence and it is postulated that the time dilation
occurred during the Creation week, on Day 4, resulting from the expansion of the fabric of space as
God created the galaxies of the cosmos. (This abstract was copied verbatim from the document online.)
Maybe 'dark matter' doesn't exist after all, new research suggests.
By Tom Metcalfe
January 6, 2021
Posted on WordExplain November 10, 2021
|Abstract: "In research published
in November in the Astrophysical Journal, the scientists report
tiny discrepancies in the orbital speeds of distant stars that they
think reveals a faint gravitational effect – and one that could put an
end to the prevailing ideas of dark matter."
Editor's Note: It
is impossible for me to decipher the technical jargon of
astrophysicists / cosmologists. I do not know if what Metcalfe
describes is accurate or not. However, it seems abhorrent to me for
astrophysicists to assume the existence of cold dark matter that is
invisible to detection in the electro-magnetic spectrum. I strongly
suspect that if they would admit their anti-supernatural bias and
assume the existence of a Creator God who hurled the existing galaxies
and super-clusters into motion a scant 6,000 years ago, all their
problems would be solved without having to resort to dark matter and
dark energy. Regardless, I applaud Metcalfe for being open-minded
enough to resist the prevailing counterintuitive paradigm (JTB).
Stars just don't form naturally – 'dark matter' the 'god of the gaps' is needed.
By John G. Hartnett. Published 1 September, 2015
Posted on WordExplain October 8, 2021. Revised November 10, 2021
Abstract: " ‘Dark matter’ is an essential ingredient to form stars naturally given
only standard known physics. ‘Dark matter’ is a hypothetical exotic
form of matter, unknown to laboratory physics, which does not interact
with or emit light in any way, hence it is invisible to all forms of
detection within the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio-waves to
gamma radiation. ‘Dark matter’ itself, therefore, is outside of
standard known physics. It is made-up stuff that has been given one
special property, which is that it gravitates, that is, unlike normal
matter, it is a source of gravity only." (This is the first paragraph of the article.)
must invent unknown stuff—dark matter—with the right properties—the
unknown ‘god of the gaps’—to get stars to form naturalistically.
Without it, it just can’t happen!
But why invent this unknown stuff? There are various areas in astrophysics
and cosmology where dark matter is invoked to solve some problem. But
more fundamentally why invent a ‘god’ to overcome established laws of
physics to explain star formation? Is it because if they don’t
astronomers will have to admit that materialism fails and that there is
more to the Universe than hydrogen, helium, some heavier elements,
magnetic fields, radiation and the laws of physics? (This is the conclusion of the article.)
Does observational evidence indicate the universe is expanding? - part 1: The case for time dilation.
By John Harnett, Journal of Creation, December, 2011). Posted on WordExplain August 2, 2020
Abstract: The best evidence in support of an expanding universe consists of type 1a supernova observations. "However,
to choose the candidate supernovae, the standard concordance
model is used. And yet those same observations can be made to fit a
static universe without the time dilation factor necessary to the BB
universe. In this case the main line of evidence in support of the big
bang is the (1+z) time dilation factor, but if that is due to a
selection effect, then there is no definitive evidence for an expansion
as required. This paper has highlighted the lack of the necessary time
dilation that should be present in an expanding universe. Part II of
this paper details evidence against expansion." Neither quasar
luminosity variations nor GRB (gamma ray bursts) support time dilation,
a necessary component of an expanding universe. Moreover Scriptures
used by some Creation Scientists to imply an expanding universe do not demand an expanding universe.
observational evidence indicate the universe is expanding?—part 2: the
case against expansion.
By John Hartnett, Journal of Creation, December, 2011). Posted on WordExplain August 2, 2020
Abstract: "Evidence is presented against cosmological expansion that involves both
the angular size and surface brightness of galaxies as a function of
redshift...." "Taking together all the evidences presented here in parts 1 and 2 (see
table 1), in my opinion, it is impossible to conclude either way
whether the universe is expanding or static. The evidence is equivocal.
It would seem that cosmology is far from a precision science, and there
is still a lot more work that needs to be done to resolve the
apparently contradictory evidence."
Dark matter and a cosmological constant in a creationist cosmology? By John Hartnett. This article appeared in Journal of Creation 19(1):82-87, April, 2005. Posted on WordExplain June 1, 2021
|Abstract: The cosmological general relativity of Carmeli can explain the
expansion of the accelerating universe without the need to resort to
dark matter. By making a reasonable assumption about the dependence of
matter density on redshift, it is shown that dark matter can be
eliminated completely from the universe.... The modified field
equations used by Carmeli describe a universe that would be expected
from a reading of the Bible.
|Origins: Distant Starlight in a Young Universe. A video by Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist. Posted on Origins June 8, 2017. Posted on WordExplain Feb. 10, 2022.
Distant Starlight – The Anistropic Synchrony Convention,
a web-based article, also by Jason Lisle. Published on Answers in
Genesis on Jan. 1, 2010. Posted on WordExplain Feb. 10, 2022.
How long does it take light to reach the earth? The reading of Genesis
1:14-19 provides the answer: Light from all the stars and galaxies
reached the earth instantly.
(Scripture quotation taken
Updated September 25, 2023