by Brian Thomas, M.S.

Who would try to determine the number and size of a creature’s teeth if all that was known about that creature was its footprint? This flavor of reasoning typifies anti-creation cosmology. After sprinkling a dash of data taken from telescopes into a giant cauldron of evolutionary assumptions, secular cosmologists serve bowlfuls of what to them tastes like the real history of the universe, but in reality, they’re serving up a conjured chronicle. The recent headline of an “explosion of galaxy formation” that supposedly illuminated the “early universe” illustrates this cosmological feast of folly.1

The University of California’s Berkeley news center said, “Extremely bright, active galaxies formed and fully illuminated the universe by the time it was 750 million years old, or about 13 billion years ago, according to Oliver Zahn.”1 Berkeley’s Zahn was lead author of a report published in The Astrophysical Journal.2 Zahn and his team fitted data from the South Pole Telescope into a Big Bang history, but none of them were present to witness the supposed series of events that they so confidently described.

Researchers took for granted that “the universe was born in the Big Bang.”1 Ignoring the difficulties of how it could have occurred, the origin of the material and space that exploded, or how mostly matter instead of equal parts of matter and antimatter resulted, the epoch that supposedly followed the initial blast was one in which matter was so hot that protons could not hold on to electrons. This was called “ionization.” Afterward, ignoring fatal difficulties of outward gas pressure and outward magnetic pressure, atoms supposedly cooled and coalesced to form galaxies and stars.3 Next, hot temperatures in galaxies and quasars reionized the gas. The UC Berkeley research focused on determining when this assumed “epoch of reionization” started and stopped.2….

Continue Reading on