Cosmology is a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure and space-time relationships of the universe. It is derived from two Greek words, cosmos meaning "universe" or "order," and logos meaning "word."
|“||Scientific cosmology examines the large-scale structure of the universe on the basis of observation made with optical, radio, infrared, ultraviolet, and x-ray telescopes. It analyzes those results on the basis of our understanding of physics, as tested in the laboratory and against data from the solar system.||”|
As technological advancements increase, more and more is being revealed about the cosmos. Each new observation raises more questions than answers. A creationist should be on the lookout for findings that challenge current theory, cause surprises or especially manifest statements like "back to the drawing board" or "rethink our theories". These sorts of challenges are appearing more often than ever. This situation should encourage creationists. Science is having a hard time explaining things from their standard models. Perhaps it is time to set-aside those models in favor of one with more explanatory power. When we can no longer explain what we see, and when math can no longer describe or predict the tsunami of unexpected observations, it truly is time to rethink.
- 1 Creation Cosmology
- 2 Historical Cosmology
- 3 Modern Cosmology
- 4 Considerations
- 5 Electric Universe
- 6 Cosmology News
- 7 References
- 8 External links
- 9 Books and Videos
- Main Article: Creation cosmology
To creationists this study encompasses not only the observable physical or natural world but also the metaphysical means by which God governs and sustains creation. Cosmology therefore deals with time and seeks to understand God's relationship with His creation, from the beginning to the end of time.
Time is in fact a very important factor when discussing cosmology, because God, in Genesis 1:14, describes the celestial bodies in terms of a giant clock. God intends for humans to use the heavenly bodies to mark the passing of time, so it is incumbent upon creationists to address this issue directly without giving assent to speculations that do not align with Scripture, more importantly to reject speculations that attempt to set-aside the Biblical model in terms of a much longer age of the universe, an age that gives credibility to other pseudo-scientific speculations (such as evolution) that require enormous amounts of time in order to be believable. After all, if we remove "long ages" from the discussion, evolution evaporates as does most of the standard cosmological model.
White Hole Cosmology
- Main Article: White hole cosmology
A white hole near the earth (or the center of the galaxy) at the beginning of the universe has been proposed to explain the existence of distant starlight in a young universe. This would cause, due to relativistic considerations, a change in apparent time. While this model is acceptable to those assuming a creationist paradigm, it has been attacked on anthropocentric grounds by secular science. Russell Humphreys, the author of this cosmology, has been criticized by those upset by his model.
Cosmic Center Model
Robert Gentry has also suggested an anthropocentric cosmology, based on a static universe with a shell of matter creating cavity energy in our region. His theory is sophisticated and appeals to a gravitational and relativistic redshift caused by vacuum gravity repulsion. His theory is explained in detail in several papers available at the Orion Foundation. Andrew Repp, a creationist, has posted a challenge to his cosmology in the Creation Society Research Quarterly. Gentry responds to this and other criticism in Big Bang Collapse  and other reports found on his Published Reports Page . Brian Pitts has also criticized Gentry's model.
- Main Article: Cosmological relativity
Dr. John Hartnett has developed a young Earth creation cosmology based on Dr. Moshe Carmeli's theory of Cosmological relativity. Like Russell Humphreys' white hole cosmology, Dr. Hartnett's model uses time dilation in a bounded universe. But this dilation results from a rapid expansion of space rather than the gravity of a white hole. Hartnett’s cosmology readily fits and explains the large scale structure of the universe without either dark mater or dark energy.
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention
- Main Article: Anisotropic synchrony convention
The convention by which any model is measured is a function of human selection, such as whether we choose to use English or Metric. Neither of these conventions is wrong or inaccurate, but are different ways of measuring. Synchrony conventions deal with simultaneity of light and time. The Einsteinian convention suggests that the speed of light is always constant. However, the one-way speed of light has never been measured. The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention presumes that the human observer is in a unique location. Light arriving from a distance source travels at a different speed than light traveling from a local source. Likewise the light reflecting off a surface may travel at a different speed than light arriving from an emitting source. This is because a reflection is not really a photon "bouncing" off a surface, but a photon being absorbed and re-emitted. Is the photon's speed therefore reset as a result of this re-emission?
This convention was the universal convention of observation prior to the 1600s. It basically means that to human perception, things that are observed are happening now, not at the end of light-speed propagation delay as with the Einstein convention. Light from the Sun arrives at the same time it is emitted. Light from distant stars arrives at the same time it is emitted.
- Main Article: C-decay
A number of theorists suggest that the speed of light is continuously decaying and hence was far faster during creation than it is today. This would explain the age of the universe (and earth) due to radiometric dating, and also indicates that the doppler shift, the common method of dating far objects, is not caused by kinematic or relativistic redshift. This cosmology has the merit of explaining quantized redshift, which most present cosmologies fail to explain.
- Main Article: Geocentricity
Beginning with Aristotle, Western philosophers typically believed that the earth was the center of the cosmos. This idea, called geocentricity, followed naturally from the intuitive appreciation of the Earth as a fixed object and of the "natural places" of the elements (believed to be earth, water, air, and fire). Yet as astronomical observations became more sophisticated and precise, this system became less satisfactory. The moon, of course, describes a circular path around the earth. The sun could also be described as orbiting the earth, if one believed that the sun was made entirely of fire and had no appreciation of the sun's tremendous mass in relation to the mass of the earth (an insight that would probably have to wait for Sir Isaac Newton before enjoying wide appreciation). But the other planets do not move, in relation to the earth, with the regularity with which they move in relation to the sun. At least one of the planets (Mars) appears to stop and reverse direction in relation to the earth.
In the centuries following Aristotle, and Hipparchus, who developed the first technical geocentric model, scientists would make at least two attempts to solve the mathematical paradoxes before Nicolaus Copernicus would advocate discarding geocentricity entirely.
Claudius Ptolemy was the first astronomer to attempt to solve the problem. He began with the system of concentric spheres invented by Hipparchus and added several mathematical modifications to explain the peculiar irregular movements. In his system, the positional elements of each celestial body were:
- The eccentric, or the displacement of the center of the body's heavenly sphere from the earth itself.
- The epicycle, a smaller "circle upon a circle" centered on a point on the great sphere. The body involved moved on the epicycle, and the epicycle's center orbited the earth.
- The equant, or the displacement of the center of motion of the epicycle (above) from the geometric center of the heavenly body's sphere.
With this system, Ptolemy could predict the motions of the Moon, the planets Mercury and Venus, the Sun, and the planets Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn to the limits of the accuracy of astronomical observations of his day. But in the process he violated Aristotle's strict geocentrism and also violated Occam's razor. This was the primary reason why Ptolemy's contemporaries were not completely satisfied with his system, even before the telescope would destroy the Ptolemaic system's predictive value.
Tycho Brahe developed some of the first instruments that enabled astronomers to achieve previously unprecedented accuracy. He realized early that the Ptolemaic system simply could not predict the motions of the celestial bodies once those motions were known with the enhanced accuracy now achievable. Yet he was not willing, as Copernicus was, to discard the notion of the earth as the center of the universe. Doing so would violate Aristotelian physics, with its tremendous emphasis on the "natural place" of all things.
So Tycho compromised. In his system, the Earth remained at the center, with the Moon and Sun orbiting the earth and the fixed stars in a sphere centered at the earth. But the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the one comet then known, orbited the sun, not the earth.
To secular scientists, cosmology is the study of the origin, current state, and future of the cosmos. It applies astrophysical measurements and analysis to understand the history, structure, and constituent dynamics of our universe.
A large portion of assertions of today's secular cosmologists is based solely in mathematical calculations, much of it unrelated to observation. When discussing or reading content related to Cosmology, pay careful attention to the foundation of the assertions. Are they appealing solely to mathematics to explain a superficial observation, or combining other observations to explain it? For example:
- Comets have short lives. In order to explain why the Solar System still has comets, Jan Oort invented the Oort cloud. It has never been observed, measured nor validated, yet is spoken and written about as though real.
- String Theory is a major area of study in cosmology and many research labs. Neither strings nor their predicted effects have ever been observed.
- Black Holes have never been observed yet are a mainstay of cosmology. In fact, whenever a new cosmic anomaly appears, scientists are quick to invent a new kind of black hole to explain it. Practically every discussion on cosmology or advanced physics includes some reference to a black hole.
- Light Speed the one-way speed of light has never been observed. However each of the attempts to measure the one-way speed are daunted by the obvious such as the fact that all measurement equipment also operates at the speed of light and adulterates the results. The equipment itself may artificially clamp the results to the maximum speed of the equipment no differently than "flooring" an accelerator will only make a car go the speed available to its engine and power-train.
- Intrinsic Red Shift is the observed effect of high-red-shift objects in near-space locations, and starspots (larger versions of sunspots) both of which strongly suggest that red-shift is not a function of distance but an intrinsic quality of the object.
- Main Article: Big bang
The most widely accepted theory on the origin of the universe is called the Big Bang. It posits that all of the matter in the universe started as a point of infinite density and temperature known as a singularity. It is believed that approximately 13.7 billion years ago this singularity experienced a rapid inflation of matter that eventually evolved into stars, galaxies, and planets. The Big Bang was not an explosion in the conventional sense of the term, but an expansion of space and time. However, like an explosion, it was highly energetic and chaotic.
In II Peter 3:10 we read that at the end of the present age, the Lord will destroy the heavens and earth with a great noise (big bang) and fervent heat. The secularist has the right concept, just on the wrong end of the timeline.
The Big Bang is shunned by many secular physicists who think it attempts to answer the Biblical Genesis with "another creation myth". Mechanistically and logically speaking, it is nothing more than an escape device. Its proponents require the laws of physics to be different at the inception of the Big Bang, because if they were the same as they are today, no Big Bang is possible. It is an appeal to something that cannot be reproduced in laboratory experiments, and is in the deep past so cannot be observed, measured nor repeated. Accepting the Big Bang requires a leap of faith. In recent years, some unexplained anomalies, such as intrinsic red shift and the unexpectedly high speed of the outer edges of spinning galaxies, has called the Big Bang into question. The discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation ostensibly proved that the Big Bang is right, but too many additional anomalies have caused scientists to rethink whether what they have discovered is truly cosmic background radiation. The advent of Dark Energy and Dark Matter are once again rescue devices, appealing to what cannot be seen nor measured as a means to explain unexpected phenomena.
- Main Article: String theory
String theory is either "a theory in physics [under which] all elementary particles are manifestations of the vibrations of one-dimensional strings." or a "concept that all particles can be represented as strings or string-loops of incredibly minute length, oscillating at various frequencies." Such strings, the theory states, exist within ten or eleven dimensions of which six or seven are inconceivably minute structures attached to every point in our four-dimensional spacetime.
String theory is assumed to explain everything from relativity and quantum mechanics to the very existence of basic particles. It is now a main focus of physics. Although it is celebrated in the modern scientific establishment one can clearly tell that it deals more with origins science than with operational science. One of the most prominent followers and now sceptics of string theory is Lee Smolin, who in his book, The Trouble with Physics as Martin Gardner states in a review, now says that string theory is
|“||... only a set of curious conjectures in search of a theory. True, it has great explanatory power, but a viable theory must have more than that. It must make predictions which can be falsified or confirmed.||”|
A Biblical Cosmology must consider that the entire Creation is temporary and the primary priority is spiritual rather than physical. We would then expect some aspects of this spiritual priority to drive the physical architecture of the cosmos.
The Bible depicts the entire creation as having a singular purpose, the Glory of Jesus Christ Colossians 1:14-21
One way to regard the Creation is as a set of concentric spheres-within-spheres. These easily represent how we actually see the physical universe, such as an atom being a set of "spheres" or particles within a larger "sphere" of the electron cloud. Likewise the Earth and Moon as spheres are within the harness of the Sun, another sphere, which forms the Solar System, a heliosphere with a real spherical boundary (the heliopause). If we regard the Universe as a sphere with a center-of-mass, all observations in the heavens point to the Solar System as being near the center-of-mass for the visible universe (see quotes following).
The Earth however, holds a special place in the Universe as a penitentiary or prison for eternal spirits. We are told that within the Earth, beneath our feet are two primary chambers for spirits, one for the eternal spirits of dead humans and one for the eternal fallen angels who defiled the creation prior to the Great Flood. Each of these is a temporary holding area. This is primarily because the Earth will eventually be destroyed  and this prison will no longer be functional for eternal spirits. These chambers are called Sheol(Hell/Hades) and Destruction(Abaddon,Tartarus/Abyss)   
Abaddon is described as a "bottomless pit" deep in the Earth. A pit in the geometric center of the Earth would be essentially inescapable. There is no gravity (all gravity is zero there) and all walls are a ceiling (there is no bottom). In human terms, this is the only location where a bottomless pit can logically reside. The angels who fell before the Flood  are held there in chains.
Sheol's primary prison is Gehenna, the place of Torment. It is not, however the final place of destruction. We are introduced to the Lake of Fire  where all wicked spirits, human and angelic will be ultimately cast.
However, Jesus said  that no man had yet ascended up to heaven. Until the time of Crucifixion, the dead believers could not enter heaven as they had not yet been redeemed by Christ. Where were these believers kept? The Jewish view holds that Adam would guard the gates of Gehenna  so that no faithful spirit would enter there, but instead be directed to another place of comfort. Later the Jews adopted the view that Abraham would do this, as spoken of by Christ in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man , and Lazarus goes to the place called "Abraham's Bosom". This is a place of comfort in Sheol for all those who died before Christ's crucifixion. Upon his Crucifixion, Christ descended to Abraham's Bosom(in Sheol) to preach to these same spirits, presumably that he is the Messiah they hoped for and that their redemption is before them. Interestingly, when Christ was resurrected, graves opened and long-dead saints came to life  This is indicative of Christ having removed them from Sheol and into resurrection for ascension to heaven.
To map Sheol in physical Earth terms may be speculative, but if the Abyss is a pit surrounded by a spherical shell, this would be the foundation for the next level of Sheol above it, Gehenna. As Sheol is depicted as a single "chamber" this invites speculation as to Gehenna being the floor and Abraham's Bosom being the ceiling, both of which are separated by the "Great Gulf" (Greek megas-chasma or mega-chasm) mentioned in Luke 16. A mega-chasm is appropriate terminology for a spherical chasm of this magnitude. So as the rich-man looked up to see Lazarus, Abraham would be able to interact with him. This configuration would allow people on each side of the mega-chasm to see each other. We also note that angels carry Lazarus to his resting place in Abraham's Bosom, but the rich man opens his eyes in Gehenna. A final speculation is that the place of comfort is only accessible if carried there by angels. Who carries the rich man to his location? If we accept that angels are unnecessary, then the rich man's soul basically falls from its location on the Earth's surface into the depths of Sheol.
The next spherical level is the Earth's surface, where the living inhabit and where some spirits dwell, including Satan. The final sphere is the edge of the universe itself.
God says he has placed water above the heavens . The entire creation was made out of water so if the water above the highest heaven constitutes a massive shell, this means the universe itself has a center of gravity. Theorists like Hawking and others declare that the Universe is unbounded and has no center of mass, but they do this to define a convention, as a matter of personal choice, not as a matter of scientific observation.
These images fully depict Earth as a prison both on the surface among the living, and beneath in Sheol and the Abyss. Humans are born in prison, as prisoners to prisoner-parents. The prison-nature of Earth is fully realized when each person understands that the only way to fully escape the prison is with an undeserved Pardon. The humans cannot earn their-way-out.
God claims to have stretched the heavens as a curtain, or fabric and that we are naturally in a privileged location in the universe. William Lane Craig has produced a video about the fine-tuning of the universe we live in, where if even one of the primary physical constants is off by the tiniest fraction, life is not even possible.
Our universe is neither homogeneous nor uniform. The 2DF Galaxy Redshift Survey reveals 200k galaxies in 2-degree slices above and below the plane of the galaxy. Sloan Digital Sky Survey first measured galactic structures over a billion light-years across - mapped 200k galaxies in 6 % of the sky. Now more than 600k have been mapped  and they still align to this tiniest percentage of the sky.
Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe... But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs... Such a favored position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity
Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing the effects of spatial curvature
Relativity contributes to the basic proposition that geometry of space is determined by the contents of space. To this principle has been added another proposition, formulated in various ways and called by various names, but equivalent, in a sense, to the statement that all observers, regardless of location, will see the same general picture of the universe. The second principle is a sheer assumption,. It seems plausible and it appeals strongly to our sense of proportion. Nevertheless, it leads to a remarkable consequence, for it demands that, if we see the [galaxies] all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favored location in the universe, no centre, no boundary, all must see the universe alike 
...I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas... It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in and ordinary galaxy, that our place is the universe is extraordinary.... To avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity 
I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. ...we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.
From these, the assumption of homogeneity cannot be supported. They show not only concentric but circular structures centered on our galaxy - and in these maps the galaxy density appears to oscillate (increase and decrease) with distance, hence the circular structures. So galaxies are preferentially found at certain discrete distances, like great spherical shells, evenly spaced about 100 million light years apart. Not a coincidence but the result of deliberate design. 
Where are we now?
The most recent survey of physicists has led to an embarrassing revelation. Physics, which is supposed to be the bedrock of the sciences and immersed in the predictable, the verifiable, the actionable, is basically all-over-the-map.
Considering how often the scientific community changes its mind on basic physics and biology, (several times per year it seems), is it any wonder that the average John Q. Public onlooker places little stock in what they say? Sure, it's fodder for science fiction, but what does quantum<fill in the blank> have to do with their daily lives? It seems that science has set up the most expensive projects for answers to the least-asked questions. Once they find something, they deliver it to the press but it strangely sounds like "we're still looking for it."
Practically every new discovery in the cosmos requires more than just a refinement of understanding, but an overhaul of theory.
NASA's Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) recently mapped the first all-sky view of the heliosphere and discovered a bright ribbon separating the maps. This has stunned the scientists.
This is a shocking new result...We had no idea this ribbon existed--or what has created it. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised
This observation creates two dilemmas. The first is when they realized that the Sun's magnetic field lines do not stop at the edge of the heliosphere, but continue into space. The second is that the ribbon is consistently perpendicular to the magnetic field lines.
That cannot be a coincidence. We're missing some fundamental aspect of the interaction between the heliosphere and the rest of the galaxy. Theorists are working like crazy to figure this out.
When scanning the giant Snake Nebula using the Smithsonian Sub-millimeter Array telescope (SMA), new stars were discovered forming regularly spaced along a chain within an irregular cylinder. They are in the infrared spectrum and impossible to see without specialized equipment and approaches. These were all "coming online" as a group rather than the random/intermittent process suggested by the standard model. Moreover, it was presumed that high-mass stars had to be over 100 times larger than the Sun, yet in this observation they are significantly smaller, some 8-to-25 times the size of the Sun. These discoveries are noted by the team as "surprising".
High-mass stars form in villages...It's a family affair.
Scientists have always presumed (the standard model) that stars form through accretion of dust through gravitational attraction. This model has never been observed, and many objections to it have never been resolved, not the least of which is that gas and dust do not accrete or concentrate in space in the manner required by the standard model. This new observation completely defies the standard model in that gravitation is clearly not required, that stars begin to heat and form very early in their lifecycle, and are forming as a group along a chain, with a bipolar outflows on each protostar, as though connecting them like pearls on a string. We will await their conclusions as to redshift, because this faster protostar development tends to validate assumptions that redshift is intrinsic and not related to distance.
A theory growing in popularity among scientists is one that largely sets aside both Einstein and Newton in favor of another model altogether. This theory proposes that the cosmos is filled with electrical energy and that all behavior from galactic rotation to star and planet formation, even cometary observations all easily fall within its parameters. They don't rely on mathematics or computer models, but seek explanations of observations first, with math to follow rather than being a driving force. This theory has enormous predictive and explanatory power. A few of the Electric Universe views follow:
- The Universe is filled with electrical activity, from ions moving at relativistic speeds to plasma currents that span the heavens for hundreds-of-thousands of light years
- In terms of abundant electrically-charged particles, space is not an empty void as purported by a gravity-centric model
- Gravity is rejected as the primary binding force of the universe
- Electromagnetism, a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times more powerful than gravity, is promoted as the primary force that binds the universe together
- Dark Matter and Dark Energy don't exist, as there is no need to use them as a rescue device for gravity
- Rejects black holes, dark matter, strings (per string theory) and Einsteinian relativity
- There is no way to know how old the universe is, or how old the Solar System is
- Massive electrical circuits move all over the cosmos, appearing as twisted-pair Birkeland Currents moving in "dark mode" but occassionally appearing in glow-mode and arc-mode
- Stars form when these currents pinch (z-pinch) forming a structure like the Ant Nebula and Bug Nebula, although most cases of this are not as visibly energetic
- The Solar wind accelerates as it departs from the Sun, owing to being caught up in the electric current that drives the Sun
- Stars behave as anode transistors, a regulated output of the current feeding them, which is why they are so stable
- The Sun's heliopause, as are cometary comas, are the result of charge-separation, a double-layer sheath
- The 22-year solar cycles are actually a side-effect of the twisted-pair Birkeland currents that fuel the Sun, and their presumed rotation rate is once every 22 years
- The Sun is 15 million degrees at the center, yet it is 20 million degrees in the corona, a whole solar diameter away from the Sun (its hottest point is not even a part of the solar body)
- Coronal mass ejections have characteristics of magnetic/electrical behavior that are not easily explained by the standard model
- Sunspots are the result of current flow between the Sun's torus ring and the Sun's surface. When seen in higher spectrums, the Sun is surrounded at its equator by a torus, and sunspots do not appear outside of the upper-lower boundary of the torus
- Super-nova explosions are cases of electrical overload causing a star to explode
- Supernova remnants reveal rings of plasma dotted with toroids of a predictable count and size (as observeed in laboratory experiments with plasma discharges) (see Supernova 1987A)
- Supernova remains (see Crab Nebula) reveal rings of plasma and plasma jets ejecting matter sometimes for many light-years in a single direction
- Galactic motion is harnessed by electromagnetic forces, not gravity, which explains why the galactic edges can move very fast without disruption of the stars therein (the electromagnetic force is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity)
- Many circular structures on earth are the result of electrical discharge from the heavens, twisted-pair Birkeland currents that "drilled" a crater rather than formed it by impact. Such structures are exemplified with "striking symmetry" and have a conical-shaped mound in the crater's center. The Chixulub "crater" in Mexico carries these and many other characteristics of an electrically-powered "drill" and contains in its center the undisturbed fossils of creatures that an "impact" supposedly destroyed, and no evidence of vast geologic compression or tsunamis surround the "crater" as would be expected by a high impact.
The Electric Universe theory seems to form an alignment with creationism, so is tempting to embrace. However, there is no affinity for creationism among its proponents. They often align with observations that dovetail with creationist predictions, but seem to have an underpinning philosophy that is atheistic. The reader is cautioned to be circumspect and wise about how such observations align with the creation model without wholesale endorsement of these theories and perhaps even their underpinning assertions about origins that may (or may not) include a personal Creator. For example, their web sites include a paper containing a scathing critique of Darwinism from a secular scientist. While the critique is accurate and compelling, this scientist later proposes that DNA came from a giant, ancient machine (about the size of a planet) that has gone about the universe, impersonally seeding it with life forms.
By such statements, creationists should learn to sift the observations from the philosophies and treat them with the same separation as proclamations made by evolutionary proponents. Observation-first and interpretation-second allows the creationist to separate the observations from bias of the evolutionist, and likewise the Electric Universe secularist. Many of the observations and interpretations of the Electric Universe align with creationism, but many others do not.
The creationist will also find a comraderie among the Electric Universe proponents in the vein of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The EU proponents make the same assertions, challenges and complaints to the mainstream establishment scientific community as are common among creationists. To wit: the mainstream is close-minded, is not willing to regard evidence over mathematics, sticks to stodgy outdated models even in light of new evidence, is scathingly critical of anyone who questions the mainstream dogma, even to the point of blacklisting the challengers etc. These are common experiences for EU proponents and creationists both, but are coming at the mainstream from different angles entirely. It is not uncommon for anti-creationist atheists to point to the EU and say "it's creationist". They are simply compelled to correlate "anything they disagree with" with creationism. On the other hand, the creationist must walk circumspectly with the EU and not be drawn into secondary agendas.
- Speck of Interstellar Dust Obscures Glimpse of Big Bang A new analysis has confirmed that the BICEP signal was mostly, if not all, stardust, and that there is no convincing evidence of inflation. New York Times. January. 30, 2015.
- Star Trek-like invisible shield found thousands of miles above Earth Shield blocks so-called "killer electrons," which whip around the planet at near-light speed and have been known to threaten astronauts, fry satellites and degrade space systems during intense solar storms. Phys Org, November 26, 2014.
- Cosmic Case of Missing Stars Baffles Scientists A massive population of stars is missing, and scientists are stumped as to where it could be. Live Science, November 24, 2014.
- Bad News for the Big Bang: Secular Scientists Claim Universe Shouldn’t Exist Nearly two years after the highly-publicized discovery of the elusive ‘God Particle,’ scientists have determined that the current Big Bang model cannot account for the existence of the universe. Christian News Network, June 24, 2014.
- Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble Premature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe Nature, June 3, 2014.
- Universe is Not Expanding After All, Scientists Say New evidence was based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies by a team of astrophysicists Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. Sci-News.com, May 23, 2014.
- Has Cosmic Inflation Been Discovered? Claims of a major breakthrough about the big bang are swirling in the news: is it inflation, or inflating the evidence? Creation Evolution Headlines, March 17, 2014.
- Nancy Murphey and George F. R. Ellis, On the Morality of the Universe: Theology, Cosmology and Ethics (Fortress Press, 1996), pg. 39
- Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe Robert V. Gentry. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4 (December 2004)
- Published Reports by Earth Science Associates
- God and Cosmos by John Byl. p17-18
- "Ptolemaic System." The Galileo Project, Rice University, Houston, Texas. Accessed April 15, 2008.
- The six planets named are the only planets that the ancients knew; later astronomers would discover Uranus and Neptune and the dwarf planets Ceres, Pluto, and Eris.
- "Tycho Brahe." The Galileo Project, Rice University, Houston, Texas. Accessed April 15, 2008.
- "Entry for String Theory," Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. Accessed April 15, 2008.
- "New String-Theory Notion Redefines the Big Bang." <Physorg.com>, March 31, 2006. Accessed April 15, 2008.
- Gardner, Martin. "M is for messy." The New Criterion, 25:90, April 2007. Accessed April 15, 2008.
- Proverbs 15:24
- Isaiah 14:9
- Mark 13:31
- 2 Peter 3:10-12
- Proverbs 15:11
- Proverbs 27:20
- Job 26:6
- Revelation 9:11
- 2 Peter 2:4
- Jude 1:6
- 1 Peter 3:18-20
- Revelation 19:20
- John 3:13
- Luke 16:19-31
- 1 Peter 3:18-20
- 53&version=NIV Matthew 27:52 53
- Psalm 148:4
- Genesis 1:1-3
- Psalm 140:1
- Isaiah 40:22
- Hubble E. "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", The Clarendon Press, Oxford pp 50-59, 1937
- Hubble E. "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", The Clarendon Press, Oxford pp 59, 1937
- Hubble E. "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", The Clarendon Press, Oxford pp 54, 1937
- Feynman, R.P. Moringo, F.B. and Wagner, W.G., Feynman Lectures On Gravitation, Penguin Books, London, p. 166 1999
- Gibbs, W.W., Profile: George F.R. Ellis; thinking globally, acting universally, Scientific American, 273(4):28-29, 1995
- J. Hartnett, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Chapter 5 (all) - Creation Book Publishers, September 2007, Second Edition November 2010
- Dave McComas, IBEX principal investigator of the Southwest Research Institute
- Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
- The Angular Size of the Moon and Other Planetary Satellites: An Argument For Design by Danny Faulkner, Creation Research Society Quarterly 35(1) June 1998.
- Astronomical Problems Oard, M.J., 1995. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 9(1):5–6
- Astronomy FAQ by Answers in Genesis
- Astrophysical Science from In the Beginning by Walter Brown
- Comets and the Age of the Solar System by Danny Faulkner, Journal of Creation 11(3):264–273, December 1997.
- The Current State of Creation Astronomy by Danny Faulkner (4th International Conference on Creationism, 1998)
- Extrasolar planets suggest our solar system is unique and young by Rod Bernitt, Journal of Creation 17(1):11–13, April 2003.
- Toward a Creationist Astronomy by Danny Faulkner, Creation Research Society Quarterly 28(3) December 1991.
- The young faint sun paradox and the age of the solar system by Danny Faulkner
- Unhidden by Don Richardson, Xulon Press, 2009, 228 pages. ISBN:978-1607912453
Books and Videos
- Astronomy and the Bible book by Don DeYoung
- The Astronomy Book book by Jonathan Henry
- Creation Astronomy video by Jason Lisle
- Taking Back Astronomy book by Jason Lisle
- Creation Astronomy book by Jill Whitlock, Felice Gerwitz
- Universe by Design book by Danny Faulkner
- The Privileged Planet By Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards