You may recall that picture from last month when we posted Most Complete 3-D Map of the Local Universe. We didn’t realize it then, but that picture actually proves creationism.
You don’t believe it? Then you must read the latest article from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled New Sky Map Shows Big Bang Even More Unlikely. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Few questions hold more intrigue than that of how the universe began. Although the Bible provides a written account of this obviously miraculous event, some reject it and try to explain the origin of the universe without either miracles or miracle Maker.
What? Why do we suffer such blasphemers to live? Let’s read on:
But the evidence is against a naturalistic cause for the cosmos, and a newly unveiled 3-D map of the sky offers yet more signs of its supernatural source.
How exciting! We continue:
The most popular nature-only explanation of the origin of the universe is the Big Bang, which proposes that all space, time, and matter were once densely packed into a tiny volume. For some unknown reason, this nugget exploded, yielding elements in ever-expanding space that eventually self-organized into such structures as stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies.
The Big Bang is a “popular nature-only explanation.” Gotta love those ICR guys! Here’s more:
But the contradictions between this scenario and real observations are so numerous and severe that a supernatural origin for the universe is demanded.
Demanded! But what “contradictions” are they talking about? Let’s find out:
For example, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Big Bang beliefs violate this law by positing the appearance of matter from no prior material. The Big Bang also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics — which states that some orderliness is always lost when energy or matter are converted to other forms — by positing the creation of orderliness in the form of stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters, all with insufficient cause.
We’ll give them credit for mentioning the First Law, because creationists usually mention only the Second. But the Big Bang doesn’t say that the universe came from literally nothing, so the First Law isn’t a problem. As for their application of the Second Law … well, let’s just move along:
The closer that telescopes zoom in on the stars, the more obvious it is that they are out of step with Big Bang ideas. About 20 years ago, the first results from three-dimensional maps of sections of the sky showed unforeseen mega-structures. In stark contrast to the random and even distribution of stars that a Big Bang would have produced, galaxies are instead grouped into clusters and superstructures. And the galactic clusters, tendrils, and voids exhibited in the new 3-D map serve as a blatant reminder that this universe is not random.
Random — everything ought to be random. But it’s not! And let’s face it, dear reader, there’s no natural force that could cause matter to be attracted to other matter resulting in those observed structures. Therefore, Oogity Boogity! Another excerpt:
The new sky map [pictured above and discussed in our earlier post] also confirms that a Creator was needed. … Like prior star maps, this one shows huge, intricate structures in space that simply should not exist unless they were put there on purpose.
The map proves it! Now we’re at the end:
These supergalactic structures provide yet more evidence that the cosmos is not a product of nature, but of “he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”
Once again, we’re dazzled by the insights of the creation scientists at ICR.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
But does it “prove” geocentrism? If not, then it must be wrong. Tony Pagano says so.
(Tony has been posting off-and-on on Talk. Origins for ~15 years. TO is in only of its many offline perions, hence my frequency here)
Anyway, the Big Bang is another one of those areas where evolution-deniers comically disagree with each other. Here’s another.
So ICR has lots to talk about with Discoveroids, who have no problem with the Big Bang (it happened and it’s evidence of design). And with Tony Pagano too if they’re not strict geocentrists.
Oy Vay. First formatting, now typos. Bet you can’t wait ’til TO is back online either.
The ignorance of these DI and ICR people is only exceeded by their hutzpah. I have a friend with a Ph.D. is astrophysics and this just made her laugh her ass off. On the other hand maybe we have discovered a new weight loss technique.
“[H]e that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”
So the Lord pitched a tent? I like it.
The writers at ICR claim that they have noticed something than none of the thousands of actual physicists working around the world missed entirely… that the big bang violates the laws of thermodynamics.
The laws of thermodynamics are not in the bible, and are therefore the product of fallible man, so shame on ICR for touting them as though they have legitimacy. I think Ken the Ham should be all over their case, for compromising the bible with science.
They claim that the large scale structure of the universe was put there for a purpose, although strangely they fail to mention what that purpose was. I would love to hear that answer.
The clowns at AiG, DI, ICR, all think that science is done by press release and arm waving.
Back when ol’ Hambo took enough time away from his carnival barking to brag about the traffic (a pitiful amount, actually), I sent him a little e-mail to remind him that most likely a significant amount of his traffic was generated by people like me.
In my shop, which is a group of geophysicists and geologists, we go to AiG sometimes at lunch and have a group guffaw. The cartoonish and childish drivel that is generated by AiG and ICR, and even the Discovery Institute, is rich for laughs. Fools and knaves, all.
magpie61: “So the Lord pitched a tent?”
A big one. And it was the DI, not the Lord who pitched it. And we “Darwinists” help them prop it up when we ought to be tearing it down. DI and ICR may both have drivel, but it’s mutually contradictory drivel. What % of the public knows that?
In stark contrast to the random and even distribution of stars
Random distribution is almost never even, and even distribution is rarely the result of randomness. Add probabliity and statistics 101 to the list of courses these guys need to take.
You know, had that map shown a perfectly smooth universe, the ID(iots) would have said that proves creationism, because only God could have made it so even over such a vast distance. Heads we win, tails you lose!
“For example, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Big Bang beliefs violate this law by positing the appearance of matter from no prior material. The Big Bang also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics — which states that some orderliness is always lost when energy or matter are converted to other forms — by positing the creation of orderliness in the form of stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters, all with insufficient cause.”
Creationists like to start their thermodynamics arguments with statements about the universality of the 1st & 2nd Law. In this they are perfectly correct, the Laws, when applied to sufficiently large (actually quite small) quantities of matter, are universal and mathematically precise. Indeed, they are so universal and precise that any sloppiness in their application will lead to grossly erroneous conclusions. The exact wording of the Laws must be followed exactly using the precise mathematical meanings intended by their authors.
We can say that, for a Process in an Isolated System:
1) the change in Energy is equal to zero
2) the change in Entropy is greater than, or equal to, zero
We need to use precise definitions of the words: Process, Isolated, System, Energy, and Entropy. (A special corner of Hell is reserved for those who get their definitions from 19th C sources but give the words modern interpretations or who use definitions from fields other that thermodynamics.)
Let us try to apply the Laws to the whole Universe (using the modern cosmological meaning of Universe). Note that the Laws each express a mathematical relationship. We will need to carry out certain operations in preparation before performing any calculations. These are purely pen and paper operations, we are not going to disrupt the normal running of the Universe.
Firstly we need a System; that is going to be the Universe. Imagine the Universe drawn on a piece of paper. Now we need to draw a Boundary around the System to divide it from its Surroundings. The Surroundings of a System are a very important aspect of thermodynamics but need not concern us here because we are dealing with an Isolated System. An Isolated System is one with a boundary that is rigid (so that no Work can be transferred across it) a perfect thermal insulator; and is impervious to matter, electric fields, magnetic fields, and gravitational fields. Now draw an imaginary line having such properties around the Universe.
We are immediately faced a problem. We cannot draw a line that will not eventually be crossed by electromagnetic and gravitational fields and by the expanding Universe itself. The Universe is not an Isolated System.
Now consider the Process. A thermodynamic Process involves the System changing from one thermodynamic State to another thermodynamic State. Obviously, in the case of the Process called The Big Bang (not that it is either big or a bang) the 2nd State can be at any time after The Big Bang. Imagine a time of your choosing being written on the paper.
Now, we have another problem: the 1st State. How do we write down a time BEFORE The Big Bang? What is the thermodynamic State of the Universe before time has begun?
Thus we have two absolutely universal and immutable Laws (as far as we know) yet we are unable to apply them to the Universe as a whole. We have not begun to examine the creationists argument – that collapses even before we start.
Very nice, Alan, and if you were dealing with rational people (excluding creationists and people who comment here, including me!) you would be correct. Ten Quatloos.
However, in the creationist mind, such as it is, only two things count:
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics is a LAW.
2. The Theory of Evolution is a THEORY.
Case. Closed.
Mmmm, so who says the law of thermodynamics even EXISTED in the first few pico seconds of the Big Bang? For heavens sake, at that instant and the very few instances after the big bang not event the atom or electron EXISTED. The very laws of nature only came about in those few milliseconds (actually much smaller but hey…). People, were talking a big bang here, not a atom bomb or even a supernova or something, no were talking REALY, rrreeallly, big (small at first it would seem, but briefly so
). In fact turn your brain inside out, bang it to a pulp with big hammer and pour it back into your scull through your ears and you probably have a better chance at understanding just how BIG, the big is in the Big Bang. I’m no physicist or theologian, all I’m saying is that we as humans are just not quite capable of fully comprehending the universe in it’s entirety. We make estimations and models, hypothesis and theories all the time. We creep closer to the truth, but in all honesty our knowledge of everything will never reach perfection and THAT is a grand thing, it gives us cause to stand in awe at the pure magnificence of it all, whether its all purely just science or created by god makes no difference to me, its just plain and simply…. beautiful.