Creation Moment 6/19/2021 - The Corner Evolutionary Cosmology is Backed Into

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: Psalm 2:4

"According to Mainline Science, Nothing Evolved into Everything!
Science fails to get around the greatest problem in evolution.

 

The only empirical evidence that the universe came from nothing is

the well-documented finding that the universe is expanding. If the expansion event is reversed, it brings us back to the primordial egg that started it all. The conundrum then is, where did the primordial egg come from? The solution accepted by many leading cosmologists is, it came from nothing. Thus the reasoning is that nothing ultimately created everything.

 

The most serious problem is this explanation violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says matter can neither be created or destroyed. This absolute law, the best affirmed law in science, acknowledges that matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes. Einstein’s equation E=mc² modifies this law to state that the total amount of energy and matter in the universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to the other.

 

Furthermore, the law states that the universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of matter+energy in existence has always been the same throughout all of history. The forms that matter and energy take, however, are constantly changing.

---To postulate that nothing created everything, one must somehow get around this first law of thermodynamics. 

---One must also conclude that somehow, not only matter popped into existence, but space, time, and energy did as well. 

---Concurrently, the four natural forces believed by mainstream physics to hold matter together, namely gravity, electromagnetism (electricity and magnetism), the strong and weak nuclear forces, must also somehow pop into existence. All of these eight realities must first exist for the universe to exist.

 .....materialists solve these problems by ignoring them or obfuscating. Professor Chown, in answer to “Why is there something rather than nothing?” explained: “In the beginning, according to the standard picture of cosmology, was the ‘inflationary vacuum.’ It had a super-high energy density and repulsive gravity, causing it to expand.”

Obvious questions in response to this claim include 

Q: where did the super-high energy density come from? 

Q: what is an inflationary vacuum? By definition, a vacuum is space devoid of matter, from the Latin adjective vacuus for “vacant” or “void.” Thus, an inflationary vacuum is an oxymoron, a figure of speech containing two words that contradict each other, like being alone together, or giant shrimp. 

---Likewise, repulsive gravity or antigravity, defined as a hypothetical force opposing gravity, has been sought for eons but never found. This last concept is also explained by the plasma cosmology notion that claims gravity is not a fundamental force but is actually an electromagnetic phenomena which, of course, can be either an attractive force or repulsive force. This idea is also problematic. 

 

Chown continues: “This vacuum was unpredictable. At random locations, it decayed.” 

Q: How can space devoid of matter decay? 

Chown continues, speculating that the “tremendous energy [which popped into existence] of the inflationary vacuum had to go somewhere. [Why didn’t it just remain energy?] And it went into creating matter and heating it to a blisteringly high temperature into creating big bangs. Our universe is merely one such Big Bang bubble in the ever-expanding inflationary vacuum.” 

 

The conundrum that has to be asked is, “

Q: How can a vacuum create energy? 

Q: And what evidence exists to assume that many Big Bangs existed that have created multi-universes? 

The idea has never been proved, and indeed cannot be proved. One of several reasons the multiverse cannot be proved is because the universe includes, by definition, everything that exists, including the universe-generating system, whatever it is.

The main reason the multiverse concept was developed is because the known universe is fine-tuned to an improbably high degree to support life. If many universes with different parameters exist, it is consequently more likely that one of them evolved to support life. 

Furthermore, Chown speculates, the entire process could have started “with a mass equivalent to a bag of sugar.” My issues with this statement include 

Q:Where did the bag-of-sugar mass come from? 

Q: How do we get a universe with 100 billion galaxies, each with 100-million stars, as postulated by cosmologists, from a mass the size of a bag of sugar? 

What we need is a universe, not a mass the size of a bag of sugar!

 

One of the leading cosmologists of our generation, Lawrence Krauss, produced a 202-page book defending “a universe from nothing.” Krauss, referring to his materialism (a belief common among scientists) says that science tells us “a universe without purpose or guidance may seem … to make life itself meaningless.” Krauss responded by saying “one person’s dream is another person’s nightmare.” He adds that “it does not really matter either way, and what we would like for the universe is irrelevant.” 

Of course, for most people it is very relevant because a universe created from nothing, in contrast to a universe created by intelligence, has profound implications for life. The afterword to Krauss’s book by Richard Dawkins promotes the idea of a universe from nothing as being, at least to him, invigorating, adding the universe will eventually

flatten into a nothingness that mirrors its beginning. Not only will there be no cosmologists to look out on the universe, there will be nothing for them to see even if they could. Nothing at all. Not even atoms. Nothing.

This is the atheists’ worldview. Bleak, without an enduring purpose or ultimate meaning." CEH