Creation Moment 11/7/2026 - Just "Popping" into existence?

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

"“Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could!” is a line from a popular musical; but it speaks to a profound question that is relevant

to some of the most complex phenomena that physicists continue to grapple with: 

Q: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Behind particles ‘popping into existence’ by quantum fluctuations lies a deeper challenge for cosmological evolution. 

Q: While particles may appear from energy, what explains the origin of energy, laws, and fields?

In dialogue with atheists or agnostics at university, when the topic of the universe’s origins came up in conversations, the ‘go-to’ explanation was always “quantum fluctuations.” 

Whether or not that atheist had a background in Physics, the appeal to “quantum fluctuations” has become a scapegoat answer thought to provide a satisfying explanation for a lack of belief that a Supreme Creator is necessary for the creation of the world.

In one of the most recent attempts at examining one of the mechanisms popularly referenced to answer this question, Arinjoy De and colleagues used a programmable trapped-ion quantum computer to simulate a phenomenon known as string breaking (simply put, a process where energy stored between particles is converted into new particles) – or as described in ScienceDaily, it is a process

“…in which two connected building blocks of matter are pulled apart until so much energy accumulates that new particles can effectively “pop into existence” when the connection breaks.”

In their simulation, De et al’s team created a controllable quantum system consisting of 13 trapped ions and investigated how energy stored in a simulated “string” connecting charges could lead to the formation of additional charge pairs. Their experiments revealed evidence of a previously unrecognized mechanism of string breaking and demonstrated how quantum simulators are becoming powerful tools for studying how matter behaves and may help scientists explore ideas about the early universe.

For one, 

the experiment did not create matter from absolute nothingness.

 

---Instead, the system already contained trapped ions, laser beams, stored energy, quantum fields, a carefully engineered Hamiltonian (the mathematical rule that describes the total energy of a system and how that system changes over time) and scientists directing and

controlling every aspect of the experiment. 

In fact, quoting from the ScienceDaily article, the authors described “precise” and “controlled” conditions to view this phenomenon. In their words:
“Quantum simulators are especially useful for this kind of work because researchers can precisely control them and program them to imitate physical processes that occur at atomic and subatomic scales… “Working at the intersection of quantum simulation and high-energy physics is incredibly exciting,” said Arinjoy De, first author on the paper, former PhD student in Monroe’s lab and now production machine lead at QuEra Computing. “By simulating quark confinement and string-breaking phenomena in a controlled lab environment, we’re opening up new pathways for experimental investigations into the behavior of matter at its most fundamental level.””

*Far from sounding like proof for undirected naturalistic origins of matter, the precisions required to even view one particle appearing from existing energy seems to require much intentionality and pre-designed conditions! 

Q: If scientists must carefully design and control every aspect of a quantum simulator to reproduce these phenomena, how did the extraordinarily precise conditions required for such particle-forming processes arise in the universe itself?" 

CEH

Creation Moment 8/29/2026 - The cosmological constant problem

And He is before all things, 

and by Him all things consist. 

Colossians 1:17

"A constant is a value that is added to make equations fit reality as determined by physical measurements. An example is the gravitational constant, which is 6.67430(15)×10−11 denoted by the capital letter G in the formula F = [G x (m1m2/r2)]. 

When the calculations are completed, the formula correctly produces the value of force (F) no matter what the value of the two masses and the distance between them.

The cosmological constant problem in this case refers to the substantial disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density (the small value of the cosmological constant) and the much larger value indicated by quantum field theory. 

*The problem is that the calculated energy in a vacuum that contributes to the cosmological constant is calculated to be between 50 and as much as 120 orders of magnitude greater than what is

actually observed.

To solve the problem, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Professor Steven Weinberg proposed what Chown calls “a desperate explanation.” Specifically, he proposed that the value of the cosmological constant is different in different parts of the Universe. In most regions, the cosmological constant is so large that “it blasts matter apart, preventing it from forming galaxies and stars. We find ourselves in a region where the cosmological constant is small enough to permit the existence of stars because” it must be smaller for the reason that we have galaxies and stars in our part of the universe. Therefore, it must be different in our corner of the universe.

This is similar to claiming that the speed of light in a vacuum is different in different parts of the universe. In some areas it is 186,282 miles per second and in other areas, say, it is 896,367 miles per second. The cosmologists’ response to the cosmological constants problem is a similar escape strategy:

"Since few people are happy with Weinberg’s solution, the cosmological problem represents the biggest discrepancy between a prediction and an observation in the history of physics. The previous biggest concern was how an electron can orbit in an atom before spiraling into its nucleus. Theory predicted that atoms should collapse in a split-second, yet atoms are known to have persisted for the age of the Universe…. The discrepancy was resolved in the 1920s by a revolutionary new theory: quantum theory."

Chown concludes that

".....resolving the cosmological constant problem will require a revolution in physics. Specifically, a theory that unites quantum theory (the theory of the very small) with Einstein’s theory of gravity (the theory of the very big). Such a theory, dubbed quantum gravity, has so far proved elusive."

Modern Big Bang cosmology, in contrast to claims such as Stephen Hawking in his book Brief Answers to the Big Questions, admits that the orthodox view of the Big Bang is in big trouble. Hawking, although committed to Big Bang cosmology, advocates a very different mechanism, called ‘string theory’." 

CEH

Creation Moment 8/26/2026 - Refuting Everettian quantum theory

Core Principles

Everettian quantum theory, also called the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) or relative-state interpretation, is a framework for quantum mechanics proposed by Hugh Everett III in 1957. It rejects the idea of wavefunction collapse and instead asserts that the universal wave function evolves strictly unitarily according to the Schrödinger equation, applying equally to all systems — including observers and measurement devices.
Universality – Quantum mechanics applies to the entire universe as

a closed system, with no privileged “external” observe.
Strict Unitarity – No collapse postulate; the state vector evolves deterministically via the Schrödinger equation.
Multiplicity – Every possible outcome of a quantum measurement is realized in a separate, dynamically independent branch of reality.
Branching and Decoherence
When a measurement occurs, the global state becomes entangled between the system, apparatus, and observer:
|s1⟩⊗|φ0⟩→c1|s1⟩⊗|φ1⟩+c2|s2⟩⊗|φ2⟩
Here, |φi⟩ are pointer states of the apparatus, each correlated with a distinct outcome.

"The reasons why this is so are worth understanding, because they go much deeper than the usual objections, and they’re grounded definitively in a result known as Haag’s theorem, first proved by Rudolf Haag in 1955, a connection that the usual criticisms of Everettian quantum theory never mention.

In the Everettian interpretation, the quantum wavefunction never collapses but rather branches endlessly into parallel histories. Marletto makes her case in favor of this approach on the strength of one claimed virtue, universality. Quantum theory, she opines,

“doesn’t come with a label saying here I cannot be applied.” In other words, if you take the formalism at face value and apply it to everything, starting with the subatomic realm and on up through observers like us to the universe as a whole, and you reject the artificial addition of collapse postulates or hidden variables of any kind that end or supplement the continuous dynamics, then you arrive at the many-worlds version of quantum mechanics as the pure essence of the theory. 

Observers get treated “democratically, all in the same way as qubits.” It is, she states, “the interpretation with the least amount of problems.” This praise is fainter than it sounds, rather like commending a ship as the one with the fewest catastrophic leaks.

The mathematics of quantum theory does not wear its ontology on its sleeve. The claim, based on its mathematics, that every branch of the wavefunction is a real material universe containing a real material copy of you simply does not follow. It is an extravagant metaphysical gloss on the formalism that postulates an innumerable proliferation of unobservable worlds to avoid the conclusion that measurement outcomes are in any way special.

Marletto herself is aware of the extravagance and recoils from it. When pressed by Kuhn on the issue of an endlessly dividing reality, she demurs, insisting that this “sci-fi” version of MWI is a misunderstanding and that no universes are multiplied, no particles are created, and no conservation laws are violated. Rather, “it’s simply that the state changes” through the entanglement of systems.

This response is fair game since it is the going position among sophisticated Everettians who, following David Wallace, treat worlds as emergent patterns within the one evolving quantum state, real in

the way tigers and hurricanes are real emergent patterns in the world. But the analogy conceals the difficulty rather than resolving it. Tigers and hurricanes are patterns within an already actual world, whereas branches are supposed to be worlds. An emergent pattern inherits its actuality from the arena in which it emerges, and in the Everettian case the actuality of the branch is the very thing in question. If what MWI refers to as “branching” is really nothing more than an entanglement structure developing within a single quantum state, then the question of how a branch is actually a world constituting a concrete reality with you in it has not been answered; it has been dropped from the picture entirely.

You can’t have it both ways. Either the branches are, in fact, substantial parallel realities and the ontological inflation is real, or they’re merely bookkeeping structures in a mathematical object and you’re keeping the label “many worlds” while jettisoning the worlds.

In fact, if you are a theist, it is natural to read it in terms of divine omniscience, that is, as exhaustive conceptual knowledge of every history that could be experienced, of which one history, ours, is actual. The mathematical elegance and parsimony the Everettians so desire are preserved in this reading, but the quantum multiverse is not.

What needs attention here is what these phenomena actually show. Superpositions yield interference effects that no single component could produce by itself, which means the phenomenon cannot be dismissed as a mere indicator of epistemic ignorance. But it is also the case that in the experimental manipulation of superposed states we stand outside the superposition observing it, so in these cases, at least, its components are demonstrably real without being co-actual parallel realities in which different versions of ourselves observe different things. Nothing in the physics compels their promotion to concrete worlds elsewhere, either.
Examined through a quantum lens, physical objects cast modal shadows. The quantum wavefunction maps this possibility structure, decoherence traces its path into the single stable history of our experience, and the choice we are presented with is not whether the structure is real, but where it resides. The Everettian finds a place for it by actualizing all of it at a heavy price that we are about to evaluate; the theist houses it in the mind of God, and pays nothing but recognition of the One “in whom we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

Let’s start with the branching process itself. Consistent with the mathematics of waves, the quantum state can be decomposed into a sum of component waves in infinitely many different ways, each way defining a set of “worlds” that is wholly dependent on the choice of its components. For example, decompose the wavefunction one way and Schrödinger’s cat bifurcates into a living-cat branch and a dead-cat branch; but decompose it differently in an equally legitimate mathematical way, and the branches are exotic superpositions that have no classical description at all. Mathematics is no guide here.

The situation regarding quantum probabilities is even worse. To illustrate this, suppose that a quantum event has two outcomes with

probabilities of one-third and two-thirds. 

Q: If MWI is correct, then both outcomes occur, so what sense can be made of the assertion that their probabilities are unequal? 

Q: In fact, if everything that can happen quantum-mechanically does happen, in what sense is anything improbable at all?

The currently favored patch for this problem is due to David Deutsch and David Wallace. What they do is reinterpret the quantum probabilities as betting odds that a rational agent should adopt with respect to his branching future. This is a clever proposal, but there are compelling reasons to think it ultimately fails. As David Baker has argued, there is a vicious circularity in the repair. The branches must exist before the bets are placed, but these branches are created by decoherence, and the decoherence required has already helped itself to the probabilities the decision-theoretic analysis was supposed to supply.

Finally, let’s not forget the matter of persons. Marletto’s suggestion that MWI treats observers “democratically as qubits” sounds enticingly egalitarian until one asks “What happens to me?” at a branching event. Aside from our earlier point that in the experimental manipulation of superposed states we stand outside the superposition observing it, so its components are not co-actual parallel realities in which different versions of ourselves observe different things, the fact remains that the first-person perspective each of us occupies is an unassailable datum before we do any physics at all. It is not the sort of thing that can be partitioned. Furthermore, if the branching structure contains continuers of you making incompatible decisions, so that choices that you make are unmade by you elsewhere, then moral responsibility, which requires you (and not quantum dynamics) to be the actualizing source of the choice that is made, is left without a basis.

When we are dealing with finitely many degrees of freedom in ordinary quantum mechanics, the classic Stone-von Neumann theorem guarantees that, under standard regularity assumptions, the theory has essentially one Hilbert space representation in which it functions. Different formulations amount to nothing more than different notations that represent the same physics. When we move to quantum field theory (QFT), however, fields have infinitely many degrees of freedom — roughly, one for each point of space — and the guarantee of a unique representation collapses. There are infinitely many mathematically legitimate representations and they are inequivalent in the sense that the vacuum state from which the representation is built is not even a state in any other representation.

The fact remains, however, that this success is purchased by quietly setting aside premises that cannot hold exactly in the interacting

relativistic theory, and even after seventy years of effort, no nontrivial interacting QFT describing our four-dimensional world has ever been rigorously constructed. In fact, for the simplest candidate, approached through its standard lattice formulation, the mathematicians Aizenman and Duminil-Copin showed in 2021 that the exact interacting theory does not exist at all: take the continuum limit and the interaction completely disappears.

Now, consider the many-worlds picture: the Everettian asks us to be face-value realists about the “universal wavefunction,” the quantum state of life, the universe, and everything. In this picture, the state of everything must be a state of quantum fields. But Haag’s theorem tells us that no unique, dynamics-inde. At bottom, nature behaves in ways we can count on, but it does so for no discernible physical reason.
This is no mere gap awaiting some clever equation to close it. If we follow the two explanatory demands — the first being the existence of experiencers, and the second being the existence of a ground for their experiences — to their logical and ontological conclusion, declining, with the tradition of sufficient reason, to treat this structure as a brute fact, we arrive at the inversion of materialism. The possibility structures of this world reside in a Mind, and the actual world of our experience is that Mind’s communication of one unified history to the finite minds who share it. pendent arena exists for there to be such a state." 

MindMatters

Creation Moment 8/7/2026 - Magical inflation

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools... 

Romans 1:22

"Big Bang theorists have tried to use a magical effect called "inflation" to solve several of the obvious problems, including the Horizon Problem and the Flatness Problem.
The problem is, Inflation states that after the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe traveled faster than the speed of light. But Einstein's General Law of Relativity proves that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

Inflation can effectively be called a "magical" effect because it does not hold any basis in science. Theorists made up this magical effect which says, essentially, that in some magical way everything travelled exponentially faster than the speed of light to get where it is after the supposed "Big Bang" .

In order for inflation to even begin to be a solution, all matter after the big bang would have to travel 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times faster than the speed of light. That is 1,650 zeros, or 101,649. There isn't a name for this number, but for some perspective, there are only 1089 total particles in the entire observable universe.

Obviously, Inflation is impossible, because it violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. You can't use a false solution to answer problems." TechReader

Creation Moment 8/6/2026 - The "dark" in "dark matter" and "dark energy"

I have seen the foolish taking root. Job 5:3

"Dark Matter and Dark Energy have never been proven, or observed in any way whatsoever, yet the Big Bang theory depends on the existence of such potentially mythological substances. 

Not only that, but in order for the Big Bang theory to even be valid, dark matter and dark energy would have to be the most abundant things in the universe.
The "dark" in "dark matter" and "dark energy" doesn't mean color. It means, "unknown". 

In other words, the proponents of the Big Bang theory couldn't figure out how it could possibly happen so they said, let's make up some fictional matter and energy that "made it happen".
It's kind of like me saying I am the most powerful person in the universe. My power is everywhere and can do everything! You just can't see my power but it's there! And then someone with common sense saying, pfft whatever man, yeah right." TechReader

Creation Moment 8/5/2026 - Lack of universal galactic uniformity

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 

Genesis 1:1

"Lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory.

This is because how the universe presently exists, galaxies are spread out in an uneven fashion, clumped together at certain points with big gaps and walls. 

However, due to the supposed age of 13.7 billion years, the universe has not yet had time for such walls and voids to form.

For a Big Bang to have occurred, galaxies would be perfectly evenly spread out. Thus, the lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory." TechReader

Creation Moment 8/4/2026 - IF the universe happened totally randomly......

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

"Essentially, the problem is that if the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, then the deeper we peer into the universe, the closer to the Big Bang that we should see. However, no matter how deep we peer into space, still we see no evidence of a Big Bang.
A quick google search showed me that even in 2012 we have been able to see 13.2 billion light years, which is see the equivalent of 13.2 billion years into the past. (We can probably see even farther now.)

However, since the Big Bang was supposed to occur only 13.7 billion years ago, then we should be looking at the early pre-formed universe. 

*We shouldn't see fully formed stars and planets. 

*However, instead we see stars and planets just like in our own galaxy. This is a serious problem for the Big Bang theory because we're looking at the "early universe" yet it doesn't appear very early at all. Thus, the Big Bang could not have happened.

Additionally, although this is in fact yet another issue (one that has been addressed before), if the universe happened totally randomly then there should be all kinds of different forms that we should see as we look out into space. It wouldn't be the same planets, stars, and galaxies in every direction. Instead it would be a vast array of different types of things. For example, in one direction we might see stars and galaxies but in another direction we might see exotic forms. However this is not the case, further disproving any Big Bang from ever happening." TechReader

Creation Moment 8/3/2026 - The Magnetic Monopole Problem for the "Big Bang"

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,... 

Romans 1:22

"A magnetic monopole is, in short, a particle which contains an electrical charge, creating a net "magnetic charge" within the

individual particle. 

If the Big Bang theory were true, it should be one of the most prevalent (common) particles in the universe. 

*However, instead it is the complete opposite - a magnetic monopole has never even been observed, not even once.

This is a serious problem because it means there is something entirely wrong with the Big Bang Theory, because the total and absolute lack of even a single observed magnetic monopole particle is a direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of the Big Bang theory." TechReader

Creation Moment 8/2/2026 - Flatness Problem of the "Big Bang"

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. 

Isaiah 45:12

"Initial density of matter and energy in the universe is a very specific

critical value. Small deviations from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.

*If the universe started off slightly positively curved, it would be enormously positively curved today, *and the same holds for negative curvature. 

However, the curvature of matter and energy in regards to density remains very small so the probability that a Big Bang could have occurred to create the current universe is so astronomically slim that it is entirely improbable." TechReader

Creation Moment 8/1/2026 - Cracks of the "Big Bang" theory

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 

Genesis 1:1

"Does dark energy really exist? Our work identifies cracks in the foundations of today’s cosmological model (The Conversation, 21 July 2026). The author of this article, Subir Sarkar, is an emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University. Perhaps being emeritus gives him more liberty to open his mouth without fear of losing his job.

There’s only one model taken seriously by the astronomical community: the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) theory, which includes a 

--Big Bang from nothing (nobody understands why), 

--inflation (whatever that is), 

--lots of dark matter (nobody knows what that is either), 

--with matter emerging from energy and rapidly accelerating outward because of dark energy (another completely unknown phenomenon).

From that beginning, everything evolved, and here we are. This has been Scientific Truth that must be learned in school because anything else is, well, religious. And we must not allow a Divine Foot in the door.

But there’s a problem. Observations do not fit this picture. Dr Sarkar leads off with one: the Nobel-prize winning “discovery” of dark energy. It may not exist.
The accelerating expansion of the universe is thought to be due to negative pressure, an unusual property of dark energy that allows it to overcome the attractive force of gravity. 

Yet the exact nature of dark energy remains a puzzle. 

It cannot be explained by our best theory for the fundamental building blocks of the universe – known as the standard model of particle physics.

Translated, this means that the mysterious unknown stuff (which they tell us makes up 70% of the universe) has unusual properties. Ah, science! But wait; the stuff has no explanation, and may not even exist. That’s proof that it is unusual, isn’t it? But it has to exist: the ΛCDM Big Bang needs it!

"However, it [dark energy] is an integral part of another theory, devised to explain how the large-scale universe came to be. This is the standard model of cosmology, also called the lambda cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model."

Dr Sarkar points out numerous “cracks in the foundations” of the accepted model. Among them:
1. The basis of belief in dark energy relies on Type Ia supernovae, which could have been misinterpreted.
2. If the local universe takes part in Bulk Flow (a streaming motion in our neighborhood), the interpretations of supernovae brightness could be skewed.
3. If supernovae brightness depend on their age, the universe could be decelerating, not accelerating! (Give back that Nobel prize money, please.)
4. The Hubble tension remains a serious inconsistency with age and distance assumptions.
5. Temperature differences in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and measurements of the Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) may need reinterpretation.
6. Prior support for the ΛCDM Big Bang model may be the result of confirmation bias:

"...the ΛCDM model has come under increasing scrutiny as new data has emerged. A conference hosted by the UK’s Royal Society debated emerging cracks in the standard cosmological model. It has been noted that the model’s past successes may partly be due to “confirmation bias” – the unconscious tendency to favor information that supports our existing beliefs while giving less attention to information that challenges them."

7. Even worse, the Cosmological Principle is under threat. The leading solution to Einstein’s equations of general relativity, the FLRW (Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker) framework, depends on the Cosmological Principle, that the universe is uniform and isotropic in all directions.

"However, our recent study found evidence to falsify the FLRW framework, presenting results showing that the universe is asymmetric, or lopsided. We believe this presents a fundamental challenge to dark energy by undermining the very basis for standard analyses of cosmological data."

*This means that the very basis of everything we have been told about Big Bang cosmology could be wrong. The observations contradict the Cosmological Principle, says Dr Sarkar. 

Q: So where does this leave modern cosmology? “

A: f these findings are confirmed, they could signal a paradigm shift in cosmology." CEH

Creation Moment 7/7/2026 - How about the Ultimate "meta-law"?

"Throw a pebble into a lake and it, obligingly, sinks. Smash particles together and they fall apart in certain patterns. Flick a switch and let
there be light. Reality, for all its glory and cosmic drama, seems to operate in a consistent, predictable fashion.
Many previous attempts to explain how these laws arose have foundered because they ended up introducing deeper “meta-laws” (Meta-laws are laws that govern other laws, much as ordinary laws govern facts and events. In the philosophy of science, they are proposed as a way to account for certain principles that constrain or explain the structure of laws themselves,) along the way." NewScience
*How about the Ultimate "meta-law"?
*For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,...And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
Colossians 1:16,17

Creation Moment 7/1/2026 - Quantum Mechanics has destroyed Classical Materialism

Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? Psalm 94:8

"Writer Graham Phillips takes aim at many universes theory, the lazy materialist’s dodge for getting away from the reality of the fine-tuning of the universe for life: There are countless universes out there with different variables and ours just happens to be one that enables life.

In “The Mind at the End of the Universe,” Phillips responds,

"If you restrict yourself to materialist theories, well, maybe. But is it taking materialism too far if it forces you to invent hordes of other unobservable universes to solve a problem in ours? I wonder if, like

solipsism, the multiverse theory is a tad distasteful for the same reason—it can’t be empirically verified or falsified.

Alternatively, could dropping the unassailable fidelity to materialism—the belief that the universe consists of nothing other than physical fields, energy, and particles—lead to a more intellectually satisfying solution to the finetuning problem?"

He contrasts Susskind’s approach with that of Princeton’s John Archibald Wheeler (1911–2008). Wheeler saw that quantum mechanics (QM), the science of the behavior of subatomic particles, challenged the materialist universe:
"Wheeler came to this conclusion after wrestling with the discoveries of quantum physics. In particular, it was one of the theory’s most brain-bending revelations that forced his hand: that the world out there doesn’t seem to fully exist until it’s observed. Or until it’s measured, to use the term physicists prefer. For instance, particles, which are the building blocks of everything, don’t have a position until they’re pinned down by observation. They are neither here nor there.

The before-measurement world is only kind of there, partially existing, as a vast array of possibilities, but not an actuality. As after it’s observed, the potentialities crystallize into the reality we know."

What all this points to is the way quantum mechanics has destroyed classical materialism. It has left thinkers, who could once celebrate the certainty of science, searching in many new directions for ways to unite our various understandings of the universe. Materialism isn’t so much dying out these days as breaking up." 

Denyse O’Leary

Creation Moment 6/7/2026 - "Science" tangled into it's pretzel of "logic"

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools... 

Romans 1:20

"The universe evolves like a life form (Timothy Jackson, iai News, 11 May, 2026). The subtitle is as provocative as the title: “The laws of physics are not fixed, they are evolving.” This is not an isolated speculation.

Biologist Timothy Jackson makes the move explicit in this article, extending Darwinian logic beyond biology and into the structure of reality itself.

“Darwin’s central insight… was to show how such order might emerge, via natural selection—a principle which can explain, but never predict, the patterns that make up the world.”

This claim serves to mark a cataclysmic shift in the structure of scientific explanation that has been progressively unfolding for many years. Prediction is yielding to retrospective storytelling. Fixed laws

are giving way to emergent patterns. Stability is no longer assumed as the foundation of the universe; it is being treated as a ‘contingent achievement of an historical, evolutionary process.’
To understand how radical this shift is, we have to consider the ancient hierarchy that has governed Western thought for millennia:
For the past two centuries, science has been slowly but steadily sliding from the first row to the second. We are witnessing a transition where becoming takes precedence over being.

This scientific shift closely parallels the absolute idealism of GWF Hegel (1770-1831). In Hegel’s philosophy, reality is not a static arrangement of fixed substances governed by external laws; it is a self-developing process whose intelligibility emerges only through its own unfolding.

Today’s scientists do not invoke Hegel, but they are trapped in his logic. If intelligibility is no longer grounded in fixed, transcendent law, the burden of explanation shifts entirely. The issue is no longer how stable laws govern change, but how stability, law, and meaning can emerge out of a chaotic, mindless flux.
Under this view, what are traditionally considered “invariants” – the constants of nature, the structural rules – are reinterpreted as derivative.

Q: Once you grant that biological stability is just a temporary byproduct of process, the logic presses outward toward the cosmos. If the apparent invariants of biology are products of history, why should the invariants of physics be exempt?
The traditional Western picture of a law-governed universe is dissolving before our eyes. Order is no longer the unchanging framework within which change occurs; order is the temporary outcome of change.
*Science appears to be approaching a fork in the road:

Path A: Admit that the intelligibility encountered in nature reflects a source of intelligence beyond nature.
Path B: Insist that intelligibility is not grounded beyond the system, but is identical with the unfolding process itself, so that law, order, and meaning are understood as the self-articulation of a fundamentally immanent reality.

What began as an attempt to explain the laws of nature thus returns us to an ancient problem: whether reality is grounded in being or in becoming. By forcing the laws of physics to evolve, modern science has not escaped this question; it has only rediscovered it in a more acute form." 

CEH

Creation Moment 5/20/2026 - More "secrets in the natural world.... beyond our imagination"

And though I ...and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; ... and have not LOVE, I am nothing. 

1 Corinthians 13:2

"The system under observation portrays a sequence of changes and energy transformations that cannot be attributed to among the existing mathematical frameworks in physics. 

Scientists observed that the elements in this configuration do not give

up kinetic energy to the surrounding environment and this aspects go against various fundamental principles. The absence of friction or resistance implies an efficiency previously believed to be impossible in a natural system theoretically.

On a subatomic scale, the system seems to violate the classical laws of quantum entanglement and probability distribution governing small scale particles. Viewers discovered that single units of the system are in a fixed state whether they are observed or perturbed by the magnetic fields.

When this system is perceived biologically, it disregards the normal evolutionary mechanisms and cell metabolic limit that normally occurs in organic life. The building can be highly organized without the need of having a traditional source of nutrients and without apparently disposing the waste products of the metabolic process. This has made some biologists wonder whether the system is not an entirely different line of physical existence or not.

The most outrageous of the discovery is how the system forms and accumulates internal power without any visible source of fuel or any external input. It has been measured that the energy of the system is constant at a long time scale, which appears in violation of the law of entropy. This implies that there might be a self-sustaining cycle of operation which works on much different logic than we are aware of in generation of power.

The physical composition of the system comprises of materials that are not supposed to logically exist in any stable form in the present atmospheric condition. Analysis reveals a molecular structure, which is extraordinarily flexible as well as virtually indestructible, withstanding very high pressure as well as heat, which would normally result in a complex meltdown. This structural resilience indicates a manufacturing or natural formation process that makes use of unknown methods of chemical bonding.

The observation period data logs show that the internal clock of the system is not operating at the same rate as the surrounding world. Time is perceived to stretch in the immediate adjacency of the system, and generates a calculated delay in timing synchrony with external lab apparatus. This time warp gives a clue to a regionalized alteration of gravity or space-time that is so far, unattainable by science in an experimental setup.

The scientists found that the different systems are synchronizing their activities without radio waves or bursts of light over distances in real-time. This has been achieved through an instant synchronization thereby implying a non-local approach of data transfer, which happens faster than light speed. This ability is too good to be true as far as general relativity is concerned and leads to novel theories of universal connectivity.

Although the system itself seems chaotic to the naked eye, it has

been demonstrated through sophisticated computer simulation that a highly hidden mathematical sequence repeats exactly with spooky accuracy. This pattern is not corresponding to Fibonacci spiral or any other standard geometric patterns of growth prevalent in the natural world. Rather, it has a multi-dimensional logic which must be beautifully mapped out by entirely new branches of mathematics.

Should we ever be lucky enough to recreate the mechanics of this strange discovery, we could easily be setting in a new age of efficiency in all human infrastructure. 

The discovery, at least in the meantime, is a modest reminder of the fact that there are still secrets in the natural world which are beyond our imagination." 

qatarmoments

Creation Moment 5/16/2026 - Faster than the Speed of Light?

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not LOVE, I am nothing. 

1 Corinthians 13:2

"The speed of light, measured at 299,792,458 meters per second, is widely considered the ultimate cosmic limit. According to physics, this boundary applies strictly to anything carrying mass or information. In other words, particles and signals are constrained by this rule, but phenomena without mass or informational content exist outside this restriction.

Darkness is often misunderstood as a physical entity, when in reality it is simply the absence of light, meaning it contains no photons, mass, or data. Because of this, it does not follow the same limitations as matter or energy, opening the possibility that it can behave in ways that seem to exceed known physical boundaries.

Instead of attempting to measure darkness directly, researchers focused on what are known as dark points within light waves. 

These are tiny regions where the wave’s amplitude drops to zero, effectively creating pockets of complete darkness embedded within a field of light, making them ideal for observation and analysis.

These dark points are also referred to as optical singularities, areas where the properties of light become undefined or extreme. Scientists have long theorized that these singularities could move at speeds exceeding that of light, particularly during moments when they appear or disappear within a wave.

The behavior of these singularities can be compared to vortices in a flowing river, where certain points move differently from the overall current. In a similar way, dark points can travel through a light wave at speeds that outpace the wave itself, creating what is described as superluminal motion.

By analyzing these slowed-down light waves, researchers confirmed that dark points can indeed move faster than light itself. This does not involve physical objects breaking the speed limit, but rather patterns within waves exhibiting motion that exceeds it under specific conditions."
msn

Creation Moment 5/7/2026 - Universal Temperature Law Reveals Life’s Divine Engineering

But now thus saith the LORD that created thee,... Isaiah 43:1

"Q: What if every living creature—from coral reefs and cold-water fish to mountain flowers and desert reptiles—followed the same hidden temperature rule? 

Scientists at Trinity College Dublin recently reported that all life seems to follow a single pattern called the universal thermal

performance curve. This curve shows how living things react as temperatures rise and fall. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that as the environment warms, performance improves up to a limit—then quickly drops when proteins and cell membranes start to fail. Many researchers viewed this as proof of nature’s self-organizing order. But when studied closely, it points to something deeper: life’s built-in precision and the clear mark of design.

Every living cell depends on chemical reactions powered by enzymes—tiny molecular machines that fold and move with perfect timing. These enzymes make reactions happen billions of times faster than they would on their own, but they work only within a narrow temperature range. Across thousands of species, the study found the same pattern: steady improvement, a sharp peak, and then a fast decline. 

This kind of order does not look random. 

It reveals a shared plan seen throughout all living things.

At the microscopic level, this pattern depends on balanced teamwork between enzymes, membranes, and energy systems. For example, fish that live in icy water keep their cell membranes flexible with special fats, while desert plants protect proteins with natural chemical shields. Even with such differences, the overall pattern stays the same. Each organism was designed with built-in safeguards that keep its systems stable and prevent damage when conditions change. Even the smallest bacterium follows this same plan—working within limits that reveal coordination, purpose, and control. Together, these patterns across all life forms point to an underlying design filled with wisdom and intent.

When the same feature appears in very different creatures—like the same temperature curve seen in both microbes and mammals—it points to one intelligent Designer using consistent engineering methods throughout creation. These design limits also act like

guardrails, keeping systems from breaking down. The Trinity researchers called them “shackles of evolution,” but engineers would see them as safety systems built in to protect stability and balance.

This idea of built-in limits fits the creation model, where living things were made to adapt only within certain boundaries, not to evolve beyond them. Humanity itself reflects the imago Dei—the image of the Creator’s order and wisdom, which can also be seen throughout biology. The same God who gave people the ability to think and create also designed every cell to balance complexity with control.

In every pattern and measurement, science continues to uncover planning and purpose far beyond human skill. These discoveries inspire wonder more than debate, showing that the reliability of creation points back to the reliability of its Maker. As scientists find more “laws of life,” they reveal the structure that holds creation together. The order seen in biology is not an accident—it is sustained by thoughtful design. Every curve, boundary, and limit reflects a Creator who made life to thrive within His perfect plan—stable, strong, and beautifully made." 

ICR

Creation Moment 4/25/2026 - Question for Physics

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools....
Romans 1:22

"Increasingly, we are being told that the things physics studies are not real.

Time is not real.

Particles are not real.

Space itself is not real.

Q: What, then, are physicists studying?

Two recent New Scientist articles, taken together, show just how deep the problem has become.
One asks why matter has mass.
The other declares that matter doesn’t exist.

We’re solving the fundamental mystery of how reality is glued together (New Scientist, 6 April 2026). Michael Brooks teases that

new mathematical tools are starting to help scientists understand “the force that binds the heart of atoms” — the strong nuclear force, one of four fundamental forces in physics.
This report on the strong nuclear force begins with a striking admission:

“As you read this, every atom in your body is desperately trying to tear itself apart … If atoms obeyed only electricity and magnetism, the universe would have been a brief, bright firework. Instead, something else intervenes, a force so strong it makes electromagnetism look feeble … keeping the building blocks of atoms glued together.”

And then the problem:

“The equations that describe it look disarmingly simple, yet follow them through and something puzzling happens: a theory built from weightless ingredients somehow produces particles that are unmistakably heavy.”

This is the Yang–Mills mass gap problem, one of the most important unsolved questions in physics. The theory describes quarks and gluons that are, in themselves, massless. Yet the particles they form, protons and neutrons, account for nearly all the mass in the visible universe.

No space, no time, no particles: A radical vision of quantum reality (New Scientist, 27 October 2025). In this article, Vlatko Vedral suggests that we can solve fundamental problems of physics by replacing particles with mathematics.
If the first paper struggles to explain why things have mass, the second questions whether “things” exist at all.
In a sweeping reinterpretation of quantum theory that frees us from the observer-collapsing the wave-function paradox,we are told:

“It’s not just observers that don’t exist – there are no particles either.

Space and time don’t exist at all.”

What remains is not matter in Vedral’s world, but mathematics. Reality is recast as “q-numbers,” abstract elements in quantum equations. Particles, space, time, even observers are reduced to convenient labels.

The motivation is familiar. Quantum theory has long struggled with the role of the observer, the collapse of the wavefunction, and the paradoxes of entanglement. Rather than resolve these tensions within a realist framework, this proposal discards the framework itself in favor of “pure” mathematics.

Lest the irony escape us, it is worth stating plainly. If mathematics determines what is real, then the direction of explanation has been reversed.
What began as a method for describing the physical world now defines what is allowed to exist.

Only Two Paths Remain

One path is some form of idealism. Reality is ultimately mathematical, relational, or mental. The physical world becomes derivative, a projection of underlying abstract structure. Vedral’s proposal fits squarely here, whether or not he, or the many others

flirting with these ideas, embrace the label.

The other path is that reality is grounded in a source beyond itself, one capable of giving rise to both the mathematical order and the material structures we observe.
This path does not end inquiry. It makes sense of it." 

CEH