Is Creation Scientist Dr Russell Humphreys Todays Einstein
Albert Einstein dramatically changed Cosmology with his theories of relativity. Dr Russell Humphreys certainly seems in line to duplicate that feat, even though the secular scientific community has been very reticent to credit him for his revolutionary ideas.

In 1984, Humphreys published a paper predicting the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune. Subsequently, the Voyager mission measured these planets fields, and Humphreys predictions were confirmed, whilst secular sciences predictions were not. The only problem that the secular world had with Humphreys work was that it was based on the Bible and his young earth beliefs, including the idea that water formed the building blocks of the planets.

To calculate the magnetic moment of a planet at creation, we must know the original material. In the previous article I presented Scriptural evidence that God originally created the Earth as a sphere of pure water. One of the Scriptures is the last part of 2 Peter 3:5 (NASB): ". . . and the earth was formed out of water and by water." Shortly after that, God must have transformed much of the water into other matter, such as iron, silicon, minerals, and rock.

I know of no explicit Scripture which says that God created the heavenly bodies in the same way He did the Earth. But there is a hint, perhaps. The Hebrew word translated "heavens" in Genesis 1 consists of two other Hebrew words which mean "there, waters."5 Let us assume that God created the Sun, Moon, and planets as water, which He then transformed.

Now, two articles in the March 14th issue of Science are discussing recent discovery of evidence for water around the star AA Tauri. The cosmologists of course, are still operating on many existing assumptions about the structure of the universe, but are quite excited about the possibilities of water being a principle component of planet formation.

Later, in 1994, Humphreys published his ideas of White Hole Cosmology, where he discarded two antitheistic assumptions of current cosmology, that the universe isotropic, unbounded and homogeneous (AKA, the Cosmological Principle). This new cosmology used Einsteinian relativity to show how the earth could be young whilst the universe could still be 'old'.

Now, scientist George Elis has released a paper in the March 13th edition of Nature showing how the problem of missing mass in the universe (currently explained by the unobserved pseudoscientific 'dark energy' concept), vanishes if you discard the Cosmological Principle. Yet another instance where Humphreys is well ahead of the secular scientists who seem hamstrung by antitheistic assumptions. George Elis has this to say about the Cosmological Principle

That assumption is consistent with observations, but it is not a direct consequence of them. It is the favoured solution both because it is the simplest and because it rests on a cherished cosmological assumption. This is the ‘copernican principle’: that the characteristics of the Universe in our neighbourhood are not special in any way, but are typical of the whole.

This idea of us not being 'special in any way' is because the alternative would support the notion of creation, and caused Hubble, on noting the red shifts seemed to indicate we were at the center of the universe, to say "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe...This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome....the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs....such a favored position is intolerable" (The Observational Approach to Cosmology, pp. 50-55, 1937).

Science was built on the Christian worldview, but now atheistic assumptions are commonplace, degrading the progress of science. Some day in the future, it is quite possible that Russell Humphreys ideas will become 'mainstream'. Unfortunately, many many years later than they should have been.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Thursday, March 20, 2008 3 comments

 
Global Warming News & Inconsistency
A global warming scaremonger scientist converts to skepticism after a colleague finds an error in an 80 year old equation, whilst other scientists turn up their nose and with the completely unscientific comment that

Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Science should never be beyond question, it only faith that makes such comments. Especially considering how uncertain most of climate science really is.

In other thoughts, man made global warming skeptics and global warming has been said to be worse than nazi's and the holocaust. Hansen, probably the most prominent scientist in the global warming debate said that

If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains -- no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.

So more coal-fired power plants is the same as death trains...then why aren't we invading China to stop them from committing this great moral evil. China is creating more coal-fired power plants every year than the rest of the world combined. If this is such a great evil, why are we not stopping it? After all, it is supposedly affecting all of us, and thus our own people will be on those trains....Why is our focus on the western world crippling itself, when this will surely mean that China will be able to kill us all with CO2 with impunity?

We've heard people say that a democratic government is not enough to stop climate change problems, and that our government should take drastic action to reduce carbon emissions by up to 90% or even 100% due to the dire moral nature of the destruction that will be wrought. Yet not one of these prophets of global warming doom has mentioned how they intend to stop other sovereign nature from killing us all with global warming CO2 emissions...
- posted by Alan Grey @ Tuesday, March 11, 2008 0 comments

 
Israel in Gaza - Does this look familiar?

Via Israellycool comes this photo from the AFP with the caption "Tiny victim : A Palestinian medical worker rushes a baby into the hospital in Gaza City. (AFP/Said Khatib)"

That looked very familiar to me, quite a staged looking shot. For instance, why is he holding an injured child like that, and where is he passing the child to?...check out similar pictures that were staged for by Hezbollah in Lebanon back in 2006...



Check out other photos the AFP has posted here, and compare them again to the shots from Lebanon.

What do you think?
- posted by Alan Grey @ Sunday, March 02, 2008 0 comments

 
Newsflash - Bible inspires less violence than Koran
Hard to believe I know, but a Dutch public broadcaster has had to dump a show that was meant to document the moral equivalance between the Bible and the Koran after failing to find enough examples of Biblically inspired violence. From Hot Air.

After extensive research, linking Bible quotations with real political events and acts of violence however produced an insufficient basis for a thorough journalistic production.”

- posted by Alan Grey @ Sunday, March 02, 2008 0 comments

 
NYT Lets the Global Warming Cat out of the Bag
With the last 12 months giving everyone an incredible display of global cooling the New York Times, in it's attempts to keep on the man made global warming band wagon, actually lets slip that something is very wrong with all the global warming scare mongering.

If anything else is afoot — like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures — an array of scientists who have staked out differing positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to pinpoint whether such a new force is at work.

Let me restate that. Scientists from all sides of the debate agree that there are many other factors that affect global climate, but have no way to tell which factors are currently affecting said climate.

It's basic science that you need to be able to rule out other possible causes [variables]. In experimentation, they run multiple experiments modifying the desired variable, whilst keeping the other variables constant in order to rule out the other variables. Yet, here we have it, in climate science, where the debate is meant to be over and the science is meant to be solid, that a host of other possible causes are not only possible, yet so poorly understood and unable to be ruled out.

The shallow confidence shown by the warming scaremongers is clearly a scam.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Sunday, March 02, 2008 0 comments