Many scientists have concluded that, because light travels about 186,000 miles per second, and light from distant galaxies would take millions of years to travel to Earth that it is a foregone conclusion that the universe is billions of years old. The math proves it; doesn’t’ it? Perhaps this is why the science of the naturalist is a little sloppy at this point. If the math proves it, it must be so.
The fact is, as I have been showing in the past few blogs, there are very good reasons to believe the universe is quite young—in the thousands of years, not billions as is popularly supposed by the naturalist’s worldview. If these indicators correctly point to a young universe, then the math concerning distant starlight taking millions of years to reach Earth is wrong. So, how would this prospect fare using the scientific method?
|Scientific Method Formula||Scientific Method in Practice||Second Hypothesis|
|1. Observe the data under consideration||…Observe the cosmos||Observe the cosmos|
|2. Propose a hypothesis||…to understand the age of the universe, they postulate the Big Bang theory, because if there is no God there is no cause for the universe. Calculating distant starlight speeds will prove the universe is billions of years old.||…to understand the age of the universe, they retain the Big Bang theory as their model for the creation of the universe, but add the hypothetical “dark matter” which cannot be seen or tested, but, if there, it will hold the outer arms of the spiral galaxies in shape.|
|3. Conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis.||…Hubble Telescope reveals that even the most distant starlight shows galaxies are spiral in shape. This is unexpected and shouldn’t be so in a universe billions of years old||Hubble Telescope reveals the most distant starlight shows galaxies are spiral in shape.|
|4. Analyze the result and determine if the hypothesis is correct or incorrect||Distant spiral galaxies point to young galaxies, the starlight information must be only thousands of years old. The hypothesis is incorrect.||Distant spiral galaxies are held together by the added gravitational pull provided by the hypothesized dark matter.Problem “solved”!!!|
|5. If necessary, return to step #2 and begin again.||…Begin again at top of third column—“Second Hypothesis”.|
The naturalists have fudged their experiment! They presented a hypothesis, but when the data received in the Hubble experiment didn’t support their hypothesis, they added another hypothesis to fortify the failed hypothesis in the second column. The results in block #4 of column #3 naturally shows the original hypothesis is now correct, but is anyone surprised? If your checkbook says you have $500 in your account, but the Bank says you have only $100, do you think they’ll believe you that you actually have an invisible $400 in your account? If you do, then you have more faith in your ability of persuasion that I do.
Nevertheless, this is exactly what the naturalist claims is so in the universe. The spiral galaxies are kept in shape via the hypothetical dark matter which, together with their later hypothesized dark energy, must mathematically comprise 96% of our universe! No experiment has ever proved the existence of this hypothetical data. It can’t be seen or detected, but the naturalist wants everyone to believe it is there!
This reasoning is circular. They tell us that distant starlight is billions of years old, because it IS billions of years old! No experiment has been conducted to prove their case. They have gone from step #2 to step #4 in the scientific method above. Step #3 is not permitted to affect steps 2 or 4—the dice are loaded! Their theories require the universe to be billions of years old. The observable experiments show otherwise. Yet, rather than admit failure, they adjust the data in the hypothesis in such a manner that the result is a foregone conclusion.