Ability to Comment Coming Soon

Ref: reasons.org/have-real-god-particles-been-found-part-1-4
"It is also the simplest explanation for the missing small-scale structures of
the universe, that is, the apparent paucity of dwarf and sub-dwarf galaxies
in the universe.(6)"

Ref: physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=44419
"The Yan and Windhorst team started from the objects that are seen, and
then carefully estimated the fraction of fainter galaxies that are not seen,
even in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. They found that the number of dwarf
galaxies rapidly increases at fainter levels in the HUDF. [...] Yan and
Windhorst conclude that this steep increase of the faint dwarf galaxy
population collectively generates enough ultraviolet light to finish re-ionizing
the universe by redshift 6, even if the amount of heavier elements was similar
to that of present-day galaxies."

Dr. Rosse's work is filled with inaccuracies and is in desperate need of editorial
and/or peer review, perhaps in a comment forum. Once the public comment period
is closed the finishing touches can be added.

In some cases the science changes very rapidly (the only thing predictable about the Hubble constant was that it was consistently changing for awhile; until multi-sensor and observation platform ladder analysis began to mature). Older articles need periodical review to incorporate generally accepted new findings.

This happens in bleeding edge science.

Otherwise his work tracks the generally accepted models (as I understand them) very
well.

Is this blog ever coming back?

At what point did the war in heaven and the subsequent fall of Lucifer occur? It seems as though He has been here on earth since Genesis. I heard a theory once that believed after God created the heavens and the earth there was a long time period before "Let there be light". So the theory held that there was a creation, possibly even a type of human along side other creatures etc..., and that as a result of the fierce war in heaven, creation was ruined. Maybe at some point Lucifer was in charge of the earth before the rebellion. "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north"Isaiah 14:13. This seems to support that he was on earth and wanted to ascend his throne above the clouds...stars etc... This theory believes that Genesis was a re-creation. It says that "Let there be light" means that God once created the light, it was extinguished, and then God said let it be again. This is why a lot of bibles have a footnote under the verse that says "The earth was void and without form" and the footnote says- "Possibly: became void and without form" I realize the scripture in Isaiah is actually talking about the king of Babylon but it is also supposed to be a parallel of Lucifer's fall which makes it seem the fall happened after Adam and Eve were created. What does "Reasons to Believe" say about this view point?

I came across something very interesting. Did any ever do a scriptural study of the Greek work "kosmos," as there are many many cases in the New Testament I just discovered where the translators have translated the Greek word "kosmos" into "world." Did any know this? It can change the meaning of a great many passages. And a number of them make a great deal more sense when considering it. And a number of them are frequently quoted passages. It might be the term is translated in other ways likewise. But I am going to do a little more word study on it to see. And by just glancing a great many times the Greek term "kosmos" is being translated "world" when maybe that is not at all what was being said. When Satan took Jesus up to a high mountain for example and showed Him the kingdoms of this world it does not say that there (Matthew 4:8). It says "kosmos." It might be saying the devil was showing Him the kingdom of Satan's principalities or a thing of that nature. Very interesting whatever. The presumptions about the universe colored the translators ideas it looks like. I was reading from the King James, but have a habit of checking the Greek and Hebrew regardless the translation I am reviewing and caught what had been done. Very interesting.

faith is no longer faith when their is evidence. faith is blind belief and ts no longer blind when you have reason to believe. the scripture is not evidence but statements that it happened and evidence shows it happened. the book alone proofs nothing as to all other religion claims untill proven. untill then it remains faith and blind belief not above but like all others.

I have been teaching science in the public schools for thirty years. Am I wrong to tell my students that the second law of thermodynamics militates against the notion that something as dizzyingly complex as a cell could self assemble, no matter how much time is allotted? I ask students to reflect on what happens in their rooms at home if energy is not systematically and intelligently expended to maintain and or create order. I ask them to realize that the tendency toward randomness is crucial, vital, when considered as an engine for diffusion in all its various forms. But am I wrong to point to it as an argument against a naturalist view of the origin of life?