Starlight and the Scientific Method

10 Aug
The Hubble Telescope (Image from Google Images)

The Hubble Telescope
(Image from Google Images)

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.


Posted by on August 10, 2013 in Big Bang Theory, naturalism


Tags: , , , , , , ,

2 responses to “Starlight and the Scientific Method

  1. Mark Meinecke

    September 18, 2013 at 14:30

    Could it be that since it may take billions of years for the light of those young, distant galaxies to reach the earth that in real time, those galaxies don’t exist anymore?

    • Eddie

      September 18, 2013 at 21:33

      Hello again, Mark, and once more thank you for reading my studies. We may have different perspectives here, Mark. I believe in a young universe, in the thousands of years, rather than billions. I’ve tried to believe in billions of years, but the Bible lost its direct sense for me when I did. I would rather defend a more literal Biblical view of the age of the universe than accept the common perspective and seek to defend the Biblical viewpoint from a metaphorical sense.

      The distant spiral galaxies point to a young universe. I believe they would lose their spiral appearance in a few hundred thousand years, so if the universe is billions of years old, the naturalists who defend this position have a problem. They reply to this problem with imagined undetectable matter, which they call ‘dark matter’. This matter is **needed** to salvage their worldview of billions of years, in that it would provide the gravity necessary to give the spiral galaxies their shape for billions of years. No one has seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted this ‘dark’ matter, but they claim it is there. They have to–or admit the universe is young. :-)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: