Big Bang Hubble Contradiction

Big Bang scientists are wrestling with “serious” contradictory estimates for the size of the Hubble constant—one of the most important numbers in cosmology.1,2 The Hubble constant, indicated by the symbol H0, is important because it’s thought to give the current expansion rate of the universe. It indicates the speed at which galaxies are apparently receding from one another. This apparent speed increases with increasing distance and is expressed in units of speed per distance (kilometers per second, per megaparsec, or km/sec per Mpc).

At a recent meeting of the American Astronomical Society, astrophysicist and Nobel laureate Adam Reiss discussed how estimates of the Hubble constant, derived from brightness measurements of a special class of supernova, contradicted estimates obtained from a Big Bang interpretation of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

This is just the latest of many serious problems with the Big Bang model. Tweet: This is just the latest of many serious problems with the Big Bang model.

Big Bang Hubble Contradiction: http://www.icr.org/article/10450/

@icrscience

Estimates of H0 obtained from supernova data tend to be around 73 km/sec per Mpc, but estimates obtained by analyzing patterns in the CMBR yield estimates of around 67 km/sec per Mpc.This discrepancy is not new; ICR reported on it almost two years ago.Big Bang scientists had hoped that improved measurements would remove this discrepancy, but that has not been the case. Now the discrepancy seems even more likely to be real.

Of the two methods used to estimate H0, the one employing the CMBR is most problematic; secular scientists assume that the CMBR is an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the Big Bang, and then they find the values for a series of parameters that give the overall best fit to this interpretation of the data. Obviously, if the Big Bang is wrong, then the parameters were forced to fit an erroneous model, and the estimate for H0 is meaningless.

The supernova method is more direct, but even it includes subtle assumptions which may or may not be correct.4For instance, respected cosmologist George Ellis pointed out that the apparent acceleration of the universe’s expansion rate could actually be the result of non-uniform distributions of matter and energy.It is of interest to note that Adam Reiss received his Nobel Prize for “discovering” an accelerating universe, which, according to Ellis, could be the result of a misinterpretation of the data!

This is just the latest of many serious problems with the Big Bang model.6-9 Yet Big Bang proponents never seem to be fazed by them. Instead, they optimistically propose ad hoc laws of physics to explain the discrepancies—even though there is no observational evidence for these laws. Physics students can only imagine how much easier their assigned problems would be if they were free to invoke, as do secular cosmologists, new laws of physics whenever it suits them!

The Big Bang model cannot be correct because it contradicts at multiple points the eyewitness account of the universe’s creation given to us by the Creator Himself, who never lies, and who never makes mistakes. Tweet: The Big Bang model cannot be correct, because it contradicts at multiple points the eyewitness account of the universe’s creation given to us by the Creator Himself, who never lies, and who never makes mistakes.

http://www.icr.org/article/10450/

@icrscience

The fact that the scientific case for the Big Bang is in tatters should not be surprising. The Big Bang model cannot be correct because it contradicts at multiple points the eyewitness account of the universe’s creation given to us by the Creator Himself, who never lies, and who never makes mistakes.

By Institute Creation Research.

Later,

Pat.

Tithes and Offerings

“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” (Malachi 3:10)

Today there is much talk of financial security. The biblical formula in today’s verse, given to Israel but applied to all, begins with a scathing indictment. “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings” (v. 8). What a terrible thing, to rob God. The result of their thievery, in God’s eyes: “Ye are cursed with a curse” (v. 9) such that their financial state was much worse than it would have been had they been obedient. This teaching and promise have not been rescinded (Luke 6:38; 1 Corinthians 16:2; etc.).

God’s charge to us as given in today’s verse is in three steps. First, we are told to obey; i.e., “bring ye.” This cannot be considered an option. Secondly, God proposes a test. “Prove me,” He says, give and see if He lives up to His promises. Thirdly, trust His promise to meet our needs.

Note that His promise is also threefold. It abundantly covers present needs, for He promises to “pour you out a blessing” unmeasurable in quality or quantity. Likewise, it covers the threat of future loss. “And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field” (v. 11). Most precious is His promise to reward obedience and trust with a special relationship: “All nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land” (v. 12).

Thus, we see that with less than 100 percent of our income at our disposal, we will have greater financial security than if we had kept it all to ourselves, thereby robbing God. JDM

Later,
Pat.