Sodium Vapour Lamp consists of a discharge tube made from a heat resistant glass, containing a small amount of metallic sodium, neon gas and two electrodes, Neon gas is added to start the discharge and to develop enough heat to vaporize the sodium. Because of law pressure inside the tube, a sufficiently long tube required to obtain more light. To reduce the overall dimension of the lamp, this tube is generally bent into U-shape.

The light produced by this lamp is yellowish which is produced at its optimum pressure of about 0.004mm of mercury. This pressure is obtained at a temperature of about 280

Last December (’05), physicists held the 23rd Solvay Conference in Brussels, Belgium. Amongst the many topics covered in the conference was the subject matter of string theory. This theory combines the apparently irreconcilable domains of quantum physics and relativity. David Gross a Nobel Laureate made some startling statements about the state of physics including: “We don’t know what we are talking about” whilst referring to string theory as well as “The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity.”

The Nobel Laureate is a heavyweight in this field having earned a prize for work on the strong nuclear force and he indicated that what is happening today is very similar to what happened at the 1911 Solvay meeting. Back then, radioactivity had recently been discovered and mass energy conservation was under assault because of its discovery. Quantum theory would be needed to solve these problems. Gross further commented that in 1911 “They were missing something absolutely fundamental,” as well as “we are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then.”

Coming from a scientist with establishment credentials this is a damning statement about the state of current theoretical models and most notably string theory. This theoretical model is a means by which physicists replace the more commonly known particles of particle physics with one dimensional objects which are known as strings. These bizarre objects were first detected in 1968 through the insight and work of Gabriele Veneziano who was trying to comprehend the strong nuclear force.

Whilst meditating on the strong nuclear force Veneziano detected a similarity between the Euler Beta Function, named for the famed mathematician Leonhard Euler, and the strong force. Applying the aforementioned Beta Function to the strong force he was able to validate a direct correlation between the two. Interestingly enough, no one knew why Euler’s Beta worked so well in mapping the strong nuclear force data. A proposed solution to this dilemma would follow a few years later.

Almost two years later (1970), the scientists Nambu, Nielsen and Susskind provided a mathematical description which described the physical phenomena of why Euler’s Beta served as a graphical outline for the strong nuclear force. By modeling the strong nuclear forces as one dimensional strings they were able to show why it all seemed to work so well. However, several troubling inconsistencies were immediately seen on the horizon. The new theory had attached to it many implications that were in direct violation of empirical analyses. In other words, routine experimentation did not back up the new theory.

Needless to say, physicists romantic fascination with string theory ended almost as fast as it had begun only to be resuscitated a few years later by another ‘discovery.’ The worker of the miraculous salvation of the sweet dreams of modern physicists was known as the graviton. This elementary particle allegedly communicates gravitational forces throughout the universe.

The graviton is of course a ‘hypothetical’ particle that appears in what are known as quantum gravity systems. Unfortunately, the graviton has never ever been detected; it is as previously indicated a ‘mythical’ particle that fills the mind of the theorist with dreams of golden Nobel Prizes and perhaps his or her name on the periodic table of elements.

But back to the historical record. In 1974, the scientists Schwarz, Scherk and Yoneya reexamined strings so that the textures or patterns of strings and their associated vibrational properties were connected to the aforementioned ‘graviton.’ As a result of these investigations was born what is now called ‘bosonic string theory’ which is the ‘in vogue’ version of this theory. Having both open and closed strings as well as many new important problems which gave rise to unforeseen instabilities.

These problematical instabilities leading to many new difficulties which render the previous thinking as confused as we were when we started this discussion. Of course this all started from undetectable gravitons which arise from other theories equally untenable and inexplicable and so on. Thus was born string theory which was hoped would provide a complete picture of the basic fundamental principles of the universe.

Scientists had believed that once the shortcomings of particle physics had been left behind by the adoption of the exotic string theory, that a grand unified theory of everything would be an easily ascertainable goal. However, what they could not anticipate is that the theory that they hoped would produce a theory of everything would leave them more confused and frustrated than they were before they departed from particle physics.

The end result of string theory is that we know less and less and are becoming more and more confused. Of course, the argument could be made that further investigations will yield more relevant data whereby we will tweak the model to an eventual perfecting of our understanding of it. Or perhaps ‘We don’t know what we are talking about.’

Theoretical cosmologists spend much of their time perfecting what is now known as the ‘Big Bang’ theory. This concept originates from ideas percolating in the minds of scientists, theologians and astronomers down through the ages. However, much of what they consider as proof for the ‘Big Bang’ is dependent upon uncontrolled experimentation that is molded to meet their expectations.

Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. This ancient description of the creation of the universe found in the Book of Genesis may be accurate after all. The big bang theory describes the beginning of the universe as having been precipitated from an infinitesimally small point. In this small volume, all matter and energy was concentrated until its contents exploded in either a smooth expansion or an incredibly violent energetic explosion that formed the planets, stars and galaxies. Originally this theory had competition from what is called the ’steady state’ theory whereby the universe is forever expanding and new matter and energy is created spontaneously within the space left by the receding galaxies. However, empirical observations have directed astronomers and scientists into the acceptance of the big bang model. But how did we get to this point in our understanding?

In the early part of the twentieth century the American astronomer Vesto Slipher and the German Carl Wirtz made some important astronomical discoveries. Using spectral analysis, Slipher deciphered the mixtures of gases contained in planetary atmospheres as well as nebulae. What distinguishes his findings is the discovery that most if not all galaxies outside of our own demonstrate what is called a ‘Red Shift.’ This shift is simply a change in the wavelength of the light emitted by those objects under investigation towards a longer wavelength. Wirtz similarly catalogued many red shifts of the nebulae which he chose to study. But it was still to early for them to realize the full potential meaning of their observations. That would wait until Einstein’s General Relativity would be interpreted by other scientists through further mathematical analysis.

His contemporaries demonstrated to Einstein that his new Theory of General Relativity published in 1916 was not compatible with a ’static’ universe of space time. The theory predicted an expanding or collapsing universe but not a fixed cosmos. Because he personally believed the universe to be an invariable space time continuum, Einstein engaged in a degree of scientific legerdemain. To correct what he perceived to be as ‘flaws’ in his theory he added the contrivance of a cosmological constant known as lambda to force the static universe into reality. Einstein’s view of perfection in an unchanging space time continuum had led him down a blind alley as much as Aristotle’s concept of perfection had brought that great philosopher into the error of believing in a static Earth at the center of the universe.

But even with the addition of the cosmological constant lambda, the universe was still found to be unstable and this whole affair would later be viewed by Einstein as his “greatest blunder.” His cosmological acrobatics behind him, Einstein yielded the stage to others for a clearer understanding of his own theory. It fell to Alexander Alexandrovich Friedmann to consider the consequences of General Relativity without the constant lambda interfering with his study of these relationships. In doing so, the Russian mathematician and cosmologist derived the solution which predicts an ever expanding cosmological structure (1922), a prediction which was disagreeable with Einstein’s concept of universal perfection. A couple of years later, Friedmann published his findings in “About the Possibility of a World with Constant Negative Curvature of Space.” But the entire hypothetical construct still lacked a complete verbalization mathematically and theoretically.

Enter the Reverend Father Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest from Belgium. Rev. Fr. Lemaitre provided the equations necessary to formulate the basis of Big Bang theory in his work entitled “Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom.” He postulated that the universe began as a primordial atom of infinitesimal volume and enormous mass energy as well as space and time and everything else comprising the future universe. At some point the universe began with the explosion of this super atom. Lemaitre published his theoretical ideas between the years 1927 and 1933 and speculated that the movement of the nebulae demonstrated the validity of the explosion of his cosmic super atom. Unfortunately, he also wrongly believed that cosmic rays might be an after effect of the super atom’s big bang. These are now known to be generated not from a universal conflagration but from galactic sources unrelated to the big bang.

However, the new theory still lacked a major source of observational support. This would be provided by Edwin Hubble’s observations of the redshift of galaxies. Taking up where Slipher and Wirtz left off, Hubble employed a novel technique to discern the properties of the galactic movements. By choosing to observe stars that are known as Cepheid Variables he could more accurately make measurements. Cepheids are a type of star that brighten and darken and lighten back up in regular periods of time that are well known. Cepheids that have identical cycle times of brightening darkening and brightening again also have identical or nearly identical luminosity. Thus, if one compares the length of the cycle to the amount of light apparent to the observer it is possible to accurately prepare an estimate of the distance to the cepheid.

In this manner, Hubble had found that the nebulae or galaxies exhibited a galactic red shift; in other words, that galaxies were receding away from ours at a speed which is correlated directly with the distance between our vantage point and the galaxy being studied. The further away the galaxies were the faster they appeared to be going in moving away from us. The results of these investigations is now known as Hubble’s Law. Essentially, this law states that universe is in an ever expanding mode whereby the intergalactic distances continue to grow without bound into infinity. Hubble’s Law depends upon the shifting of the wavelength of light and after having been delineated in 1929 has been subsequently proven over and over again. Further, Hubble’s constant has been recalculated to a more ‘perfect’ value and retains a great probability of being ‘recomputed’ in the future based upon new observations.

Thus, it should be clear to the reader that our scientists have a fateful habit of introducing their preconceived notions of beauty into their models. From Aristotle’s static Earth to Einstein’s greatest blunder, the constant which forces a static universe, we proceed only from the wisdom of our weak minds. The more things change the more things stay the same. Man’s hubris knows no limits in our attempts to understand things without the wisdom to comprehend its underlying meaning. Humble we are not. We are making the same mistakes we always have. Back to the future. To be continued…

Young earth creationists commonly point to the fossil record in order to support their position. In one instance, the article “The Fossil Record: Becoming More Random All the Time” by John Woodmorappe, has some very good points to it (Footnote 1). Read it if you like, (its a long one), but you don’t have to much farther than the abstract to see problems. Actually, some are problems, and some are deceptions.

The abstract states that “The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata.” Of course it is…this has been the “reality” all along. His wording makes it sound as if the geologist has been up to some deceit…but this is not the case. He goes on to claim, “as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing.” Welcome to the world of science! This is nothing new. As new discoveries are made, the timelines that we thought species were living is extended. So what! He states that stratigraphic-range extension is not the exception but the rule. OF course it is, by its very nature it HAS to be. You are not going to “shorten” ranges…the only way to go is to extend them. It has always been this way, and always will be this way. It in no way makes dating through the use of fossils invalid.

Does it make “it easier for the Genesis Flood to explain an increasingly-random fossil record” as the author claims? Yes, if it were “increasingly random,” but it is not. Because you increase the range of an organism’s lifespan on earth does not prove more “randomization.” He states further down, when expressing questions from evolutionists, “why a layer of rock containing trilobites is never found to contain dinosaurs,” and vice-versa. Great point…if we are to suddenly find a trilobite in a dinosaur layer…great, they lived longer than expected. If we find a trilobite with a human fossil, then great. It has no implications for young or old earth creationism.

The author is trying to establish credible proof for a completely random fossil record. A completely random fossil record should have been created from the Flood, if you follow the model proposed by young-earth scientists. What is meant by “random?” If the fossil record was random, we should have humans, and dinosaurs, and trilobites all together…but we don’t. In fact, look at the Grand Canyon…you would expect many fossils in the rocks at the bottom, but starting from the bottom, you have to go thousands of feet up the rock strata before you even get to any vertebrate fossils. Why are they not lower down? By the flood model, while these thousands of feet of strata were laid down, all the vertebrates were busy “treading water” for months, until they finally died and sank? Not only is this not possible, it is not supported in the fossil record. The fossil record shows increasingly complex organisms, as you go upward (or, younger) in the geologic column, which is exactly what you would expect in an old earth.

Boundary Fossils

Many points on the geologic time scale were made with the use of boundary fossils. This is a means of dating a rock, albeit not precisely, by using the range that an organism existed as a boundary. In other words, for instance, the Cretaceous period ended 65 million years ago. You could use a dinosaur fossil in a rock layer, and state with certainty that the rock is older than 65 million years.

Yes, boundary fossils are used to create imaginary timelines, so that earth history can be better understood. Does finding a boundary fossil outside their previously-believed range invalidate the timeline…no, it just increases that organism’s life range. So what if new timelines are made. That’s just science reacting to a change of the “evidence” in the rock record. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it a reliable method that considers all the evidence fairly, and reaches a logical, reliable conclusion? Yes.

What’s So Hard to Understand?

That’s what we call science…something familiar to a scientist, but for some unknown reason it is a hard concept to grasp for a young-earth scientist. When new discoveries are made, theories change, textbooks re-written, research articles published. It is a great process.

Why do young-earth scientists like to disavow scientific methods? Mud-slinging, mis-statements, and controversies over ages which are taken out of context are all the weapons that a young-earth scientist has left, because they can’t prove a young earth from science.

The author claims, “Creationists, including myself, have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession.” Have they been accepted by the scientific community…NO, because there are no facts to back them up from the geologic record. They are only accepted within the small community of young-earth scientists, and their devoted followers. They say the world scoffs at them, because the Bible says they will be persecuted for holding to their faith…no, that’s not true. The world scoffs because they hold to an unprovable, unbelievable theory based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Bible and science.

The God of the Bible is real, and yes, the earth is old. God’s creation testifies to this. The Bible says, “speak to the earth, and it will teach thee” (Job 12:8). Let’s all listen to what the earth has to say.

Conclusion

The author assumes that the fossil record is becoming more random, and will eventually prove the flood. Unfortunately for him, this is far from the truth. Randomness will never be proved. In fact, the rock record has already disproved it.

Footnote 1: “The Fossil Record: Becoming More Random All the Time” (answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v14n1_fossil-rec.asp)

One of the most important telescopes in the history of astronomy, the Hubble telescope has allowed observers to peer farther into space than any previous telescope. By moving outside and above the atmosphere of the earth, the Hubble telescope has been able to observe visual data much more clearly than a terrestrial telescope, and it has been able to see much farther into the ultraviolet and infrared spectrums as well, since these spectra are largely absorbed by the earth’s atmosphere. Thus, by moving the observing platform into open space, the Hubble telescope has given a much clearer view of the universe, allowing scientists to peer even deeper into space.

The Hubble telescope is named for Edwin Hubble, the astronomer who originally determined that the universe is expanding. This discovery, one of the foundations of modern astronomy and cosmology, made Hubble an excellent choice for the honor of having this telescope named for him.

The concept for the Hubble telescope was originally the idea of Lyman Spitzer back in 1946. He clearly saw that earth-based telescopes were inherently limited in their ability to see into the heavens, since dust, clouds, and even turbulence in the atmosphere interfered with telescopes’ clarity. Which meant that the best way to get a clear image from a telescope was with a telescope that was in orbit around the earth.

After some success with the smaller Orbiting Astronomical Observatory, the plan for a large scale telescope was born. There were some fits and starts however, mostly due to budget constraints, and the project did not really take off until the 1970’s and funding was not approved until 1978. Then, with funding in place, plans were made to launch the Hubble telescope in 1983. However, due to various delays, it was not actually launched until 1990.

After a few early problems, the Hubble telescope finally started sending back clear images. And those images were well worth the effort. The Hubble telescope was able to achieve a sharpness and resolution that was unimaginable with a standard, earth-bound telescope; crisp images that not only showed new detail in known areas of space, but also peered deeper into space than ever before. And with these new images, astronomers have been able to discover new and exciting information about our universe.

However, it is not only astronomers who have been amazed at the images that the Hubble telescope has produced. In fact, the images from Hubble are delights to view all on their own. From the clearly defined galaxies, to pictures of nebulae, to the Apollo 15 landing site, Hubble has been as exciting for the public as it has been for scientists.

As the Hubble telescope ages, its future is uncertain. Corrective software has allowed earth-based telescopes to pick up much of the information previously possible only with a space-based telescope. And as NASA retools itself to follow its mandate to take a man to Mars, money that would be spent on maintenance of the Hubble is being spent elsewhere. However, before the Hubble telescope enters the atmosphere sometime in 2010, it will provide a remarkable window into the universe and all that is in it.

Scientists say evidence is mounting “that creating healthy animals through cloning is More difficult than they had expected.” So began a front-page story in the New York Times (Marching 25), highlighting the frustrations of animal cloners, and the chance that person cloning whitethorn prove technically inconceivable. Those worried about the ethics of individual cloning have greeted this as good news, a sign that the slippery slope is leveling come out of the closet. Unfortunately, the new obstacles English hawthorn prove less than insurmountable in the hanker tally–and in bioengineering, the yearn running often proves surprisingly short. For those whose doubts about ergonomics ar expressed by the philosopher Leon Kass as “the wisdom of repugnance,” it is no meter to relax: The slope Crataegus laevigata soon steepen once Thomas More. In cloning, a cellular cell nucleus from the grownup to be cloned is injected into an testis from which the karyon has been removed.

As it turns , the environment of the unfertilized testicle, hijacked for cloning purposes, is able-bodied to “reprogram” big nuclei, returning their DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID to a naive, pseudo-embryonic state. As the orchis develops, it follows the familial blueprint of the full-grown from which the core was derived, essentially producing an identical twin of that individual. But at that place problems. When Ian Ian Wilmut and his co-workers produced the cloned sheep Doll, they caught about biologists unawares because it was thinking out of the question to clone a mammal. Frogs had been cloned Sir Thomas More than twenty-five years ago, but many biologists cerebration that a phenomenon termed “imprinting” would prevent mammalian cloning. Imprinting confers “memory” on a developing cell, helping to distinguish fully grown skin cells, for instance, from heart, liver, and blood cells.

Experiments in mice suggested that imprinting permanently altered the DESOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID, making it unimaginable to derive a feasible embryo from an grown core group. changed all that. Still, the cloning of mammals is a precarious enterprise. himself acknowledged that cloning was ineffective and fraught with grotesque loser, and he strongly advised against trying to clone world. Even the just about experienced researchers to generate executable clones only 2 to 5 percent of the metre. The failures appear to stem from the imprinting phenomenon, which had been discounted post-: the hereditary absolution conferred by the ball turns to be at best, and memories persist in the of cloned embryos, interfering with their development.

This point was made by MIT developmental biologist Rudolf Jaenisch during testimony earlier a House subcommittee on Master of Architecture 28, and in a forceful article he co-authored with , “Don’t Clone Humans!” (Science, MArch 28). As Jaenisch and others stressed ahead Congress, the high unsuccessful person rate in animal cloning should make somebody cloning unthinkable. The proponents of cloning, a motley crew of UFO cultists and fringe physicians, argue that they volition succeed in human race where experts have failed in animals. Their position is, of course, untenable.

For now, soul cloning testament probably end up prohibited. However, in that location is a danger in arguing against cloning on technical grounds alone: Once the procedure is perfected, it implicitly becomes ethically permissible.

Chemistry is generally divided into two broad branches: organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry. Other types of chemistry include physical chemistry, biochemistry, and analytical chemistry, with each field branching off into several specific subfields. Here’s a brief description of the most common branches of chemistry.

Organic Chemistry

Organic Chemistry has to do with the study of compounds that contain carbon (and sometimes hydrogen). Even though carbon is only the fourteenth most common element on the planet, it produces the greatest number of different compounds on Earth. Not surprisingly then, much of the study of chemistry involves organic chemistry.

The most studied groups of organic compounds are those that contain nitrogen. These organic compounds are important because they are often linked to the amino group. When the amino group combines with the carboxyl group, amino acids are born. Amino acids are important because they are as the building blocks of proteins.

Inorganic Chemistry

Inorganic chemistry involves the study the properties and reactions of compounds that do not contain carbon and which are not organic. Inorganic chemistry studies all non-living matter, such as minerals found in the Earth’s crust. There are many branches of inorganic chemistry, including geochemistry, nuclear science, coordination chemistry, and bioinorganic chemistry.

There is much overlap between organic and inorganic chemistry. For instance, organometallic chemistry studies the use of compounds that are capable of creating a covalent bond between carbon and metal.

Physical Chemistry

As its name implies, physical chemistry has to do with the physical properties of materials. Physical properties that are studied may include the electrical and magnetic behavior of materials, as well as their interaction with electromagnetic fields.

There are several subcategories of physical chemistry. These include thermochemistry, electrochemistry, and chemical kinetics. Thermochemistry studies the changes of entropy and energy that naturally occur during chemical reactions. Electrochemistry is concerned with the study of interconversions of electric and chemical energy of matter, as well as the effects of electricity on chemical changes. Chemical kinetics involves the study of chemical reactions. Specifically, chemical kinetics studies the equilibrium it reached between products and their reactants.

Biochemistry

Biochemistry is a branch of chemistry concerned with the composition and changes of living matter. Biochemists commonly focus on the physical properties and structures of biological molecules. Common biological molecules include carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids. Biochemistry is sometimes referred to as physiological chemistry and biological chemistry. Biophysics, molecular biology, and cell biology are research fields closely related to biochemistry.

Analytical Chemistry

Unlike the other main types of chemistry, analytical chemistry doesn’t deal specifically with specific elements. Analytical chemistry is concerned mainly with the various techniques and laboratory methods used to determine the composition of materials. Qualitative and quantitative analysis are the two most basic methods used in analytical chemistry. Qualitative analysis has to do with identifying all the atoms and molecules in a sample of matter, with attention paid to trace elements. Quantitative analysis also involves determining the atomical and molecular structure of matter, but includes also measuring the exact weight of each chemical constituent.

Heralding a new age in the cosmos, Norwegian Kristian Birkeland predicted that the universe likely consisted of an exotic component that would later be called dark matter. His comments about this subject matter appeared in a description of the Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition (1902-1903). Birkeland’s ideas about the Expedition were published in the fateful year of 1913 which would see the rise of the socialist Federal Reserve System and the Income Tax in the United States of America, two key components of the communist manifesto. Evolutionary processes were in motion throughout all fields of endeavor. Economics, politics, science and the hearts and minds of men and women were in the balance whilst relativism not truth held sway over the modern imagination. Cosmology would suffer from the same ‘evolutionary’ mindset and Birkeland wrote as much:

“We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in “empty” space.”

In this fashion, Birkeland predicted that because of the ‘evolutions’ present within the cosmos most of the matter in the universe must be found in ‘empty’ space rather than that which is observable in stellar objects. It is currently believed that only four percent of the universe is of this ordinary visible stellar type. Further, about a quarter of the universe is made up of the ubiquitous dark matter with the rest of the cosmos being filled with the even more bizarre dark energy. It was Fritz Zwicky, a swiss astrophysicist working for Caltech, who would further the concept of dark matter through the aegis of the Virial Theorem.

This mathematical relation is a formula which bounds the energy of a set of particles. In another dark year in the steady evolution to slavery since 1933 saw the removal of gold from the accounts of american citizenry, Zwicky used the Virial Theorem in an attempt to ascertain the validity of the dark matter hypothesis. He focussed his attention on the Coma galactic cluster and his analysis provided prima facie confirmation for the existence of dark matter. By evaluating the amount of movement of those galaxies at the periphery of the cluster he was able to approximately surmise the aggregate of all the matter therein.

He was astonished to learn that this sum total of mass is different from a separately computed estimate. This other value was obtained by analyzing the sum total of galaxies and the brightness of the Coma cluster. Juxtaposing this value with the periphery computation he observed that there was a discrepancy of at a minimum four hundredfold. Since the galaxies were insufficiently massive to cause the computed orbital velocities there must be some other mechanism to explain this phenomena. This conundrum became in the scientific lexicon the missing mass problem. Zwicky had established the need for the existence of an invisible source of mass hitherto unknown which must provide the necessary gravitational effect for the cluster.

Thus, it is a fact of the current state of cosmology that the greatest set of evidence for dark matter comes from this galactic gravitational data. Scientists have even made galactic curves describing the rotational properties of stars versus the distance from the galactic center. When the gravitational data is plotted it can be shown that only a small portion of the observed speeds are explicable by classical computations. In other words, there is a scarcity of visible mass in the observed galaxies to attribute the sum total of gravitational effects to visibly observable stars planets and galaxies. Thus, the simplest way to explain this galactic mystery of insufficient mass is to hypothesize a non-detectable type of mass known as dark matter which can be the cause for the gravitational effects.

As more and more data is collected on these and other aspects of the universe, formulae and cosmological postulates are generated describing the results so obtained. Fulfilling the requirements of the aforementioned aspects leads some scientists to propose several different types of dark matter. The four main types of dark matter are called 1- baryonic dark matter; 2- warm dark matter; 3- cold dark matter and 4- hot dark matter. Dark matter ranges from the known to the predicted, from black holes to brown dwarfs to the massive compact halo objects (MACHOs), the neutrino, axions, WIMPS or weakly interacting massive particles and the esoteric neutralino. However, there is an alternative explanation for the gravitational effects which originally created the dark matter concept.

If an incomplete understanding of gravitation is factored into the picture, then it can be asserted that the dark matter interpretation is incorrect because some other cause is generating these phenomena. Several different contending theories have been developed to describe the observed galactic data. In particular, one of the main competing explanations is given by scalar tensor theories which try to combine the teachings of quantum mechanics with gravity. Amplifying these ideas leads to a variety of exotic ideas which challenge our most fundamental notions of physics and astronomy. Other concepts go even further and have been the subject of interest for astronomers like Dr. Riccardo Scarpa since these allow for a cosmology without the inclusion of the enigmatic dark matter.

Dr. Scarpa works at the European Southern Observatory in Santiago Chile using the Very Large Telescope Array at Paranal. With all of his experience in this field, it is interesting to note some of his most recent comments on the superfluous dark matter:

“Dark matter is the craziest idea we’ve ever had in astronomy. It can appear when you need it, it can do what you like, be distributed in any way you like. It is the fairy tale of astronomy.”

In view of these comments one should ask if another scientific idea might be on the verge of collapsing. Indeed, astronomers are routinely using these other theoretical principles on a daily basis in infrared observatories around the world. Thus, it is very likely that we are simply wrong about all of this dark matter. It is within all probability that the only dark matter that we will ever find is that ignorant dark matter between our ears.

Young-earth creationists have a problem. According to their creation model, all the fossil-bearing rock layers in the world need to be created during the Flood of Noah. Fossils, in ancient rock layers, imply that death occurred before the Fall of man, which is contrary to their interpretation of Scripture.

The most visible rock layers in the world are those in the Grand Canyon. For many years young-earth creation scientists have invested a lot of time and research into the Grand Canyon. They believe that if they can find a model to explain the canyon rocks, then their followers will probably accept the rest of the earth’s rocks as young.

Coconino Sandstone

One of the problems that the young earth model encounters in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone. I’ve already discussed this in another article, so let me only summarize here. Geologists have stated that this formation of 315-foot thick sandstone was created by a desert environment, and is a deposition of wind-deposited sand dunes.

The problem for the young earth creationist is that this rock layer is topped by two other fossil-bearing marine rock layers, the Toroweap Limestone and the Kaibab Limestone. This presents a problem to the young-earth model because if the sandstone originated by wind, then obviously it could not have been produced by Noah’s Flood. The young-earth scientist would have to explain how the water receded, then the sandstone formed, then the water came back and deposited the other layers. However, in the Biblical Flood account, the waters rose, then fell. There were no cyclic water levels, nor was there a massive amount of time during the flood for a desert environment to create a 315-foot thick rock layer. The desert formation of this sandstone would disprove its formation during the Flood, and would disprove the young age of the earth.

Several young-earth scientists have attempted to explain this away, claiming that this sandstone was created underwater, and thus is not a desert sandstone. I dispute this theory because their model does not have the necessary forces to create the Coconino Sandstone (for more on this, see Coconino Sandstone). However, that is not the purpose of this article.

Other sandstones which are desert in origin will also disprove the young age of the earth. Therefore, the young-earth scientist must discredit every desert sandstone in the world. If one desert sandstone exists with a fossil-bearing ocean-deposited layer on top, it discredits the entire young earth flood model, and proves the old age of the earth.

Let’s look at other desert-origin sandstones. I will continually add to this article as I read through the research and discover other sandstones.

Navajo Sandstone

I’ll start with the Navajo Sandstone. This sandstone is most evident in the tall cliffs of Zion Canyon National Park in Utah. The thickness of this formation varies from 1,600 to 2,200 feet. It is evident from the excellent cross-bedding in this formation and other features that this is created from a desert environment. Below the Navajo there are thousands of feet of rock layers, including the layers of the Grand Canyon. Again, please note…all the layers of the Grand Canyon are below the Navajo.

Looking at the rocks above the Navajo, the problem for the young-earth scientist gets even more complicated.. Looking at the Navajo at Arches National Park, there are at least 1,500 feet of rock layers above the Navajo at this location alone. The first is the Entrada Sandstone, which consists of three units, the Moab and Slick Rock members, (which are themselves desert dune sandstones), and the Dewey Bridge Member, which is about 200 feet of marine deposits. Above this is the thin Summerville Formation, siltstone from a lake/lagoon environment. Then comes the most serious problem for the young earth model…the Morrison Formation. This formation has yielded thousands of dinosaur fossils, supposedly killed during Noah’s Flood. Above the Morrison are the Dakota Sandstone (beach environment) and the Mancoa Shale (shallow marine).

In fact, all the dinosaur fossils are far above the Grand Canyon sediments. The young earth model says the Flood killed most of the dinosaurs1…and according to their model, all the layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited during the Flood2. That is over 1 mile of sediment. The first dinosaur fossils appear in the Chinle formation, which is two formations above the Grand Canyon layers.

How did these dinosaurs survive the deposition phase of the flood, which deposited over 8,000 feet of sediment before we see the first dinosaur fossil? Young earth explanations (see sources below) fail to offer a valid explanation of this problem…they make absolutely no sense out of the solid facts of the rock layers.

Given the young earth model, the flood waters must have created all these layers. However, you can’t have Flood-deposited rocks of the Grand Canyon, topped stratigraphically by a desert sandstone, the Navajo, to the north of the Canyon, and then covered by more sea-deposited layers. None of these layers above the Grand Canyon, including the layers above the Navajo, can be accounted for by the young-earth model.

Evidence From Creation Scientists!

Here is the most amazing evidence for the desert, wind-formed Navajo Sandstone. Creation scientists themselves admit it! I don’t know if they are aware of this or not. I’ve done a review of the cornerstone book of young-earth proof of Noah’s Flood and the Grand Canyon (located at the Answers In Creation website) . The book is called Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. It is published by the Institute for Creation Research. This book was put together by 14 of the pre-eminent young-earth creation scientists in the world.

On page 32 of this book, they are making a case for the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon. They claim it was deposited not in a dry, desert environment, but in a water environment. Figure 3.10 shows a plot of grain sizes for the Coconino, two modern water environments, and a “Desert Sand Dune.” Through this plot, it is shown that the desert dune plots out to a straight line, whereas the Coconino, and the water environment sands, plot out as jagged, irregular lines. This is used as proof that the Coconino is not a desert sandstone.

The amazing thing is the source of the “Desert Sand Dune” grain size plots. The first paragraph in the right column, first sentence, gives the source as footnote number 44. If you turn to this footnote, the source of the desert sand grain size plot is “Stratigraphic Analysis of the Navajo Sandstone,” published in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology! That’s right! These creation scientists are using the desert-created Navajo Sandstone to argue against the Coconino as being desert in origin.

However, the Navajo is overlaid with many fossil bearing rock layers, including the Morrison Formation, with thousands of dinosaurs killed during the Flood of Noah. This can’t be! We now have proof, from young-earth creation scientists themselves, that the Navajo Sandstone formed as a dry, desert sandstone, right in the middle of Noah’s Flood!!!! Without meaning to, they have proved the old age of the earth!

Conclusion

The Coconino and Navajo are only two desert-created sandstones. No doubt the desert formations in China and Mongolia would also disprove the young age of the earth. I will post others here, as I have time to research them. Unfortunately for the young-earth creationist, it only takes one example of desert sandstone to disprove the young age of the earth. As you can see, the earth is old, just like the geologists have told us, and just as God’s creation testifies.

1 Oard, Michael, The Extinction of the Dinosaurs. (.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tj_v11n2.asp)

2 Austin, Steven (ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, 1995

Understanding the scientific method and how to follow it is critical to building a good reputation in the technical community. In regards to science fairs, as a student progresses in grade levels the judges are going to demand more and more focus on using the scientific method.

Here is my seven step description of the scientific method.

1. Define the question 2. Gather information and resources 3. Form hypothesis 4. Perform experiment and collect data 5. Analyze data 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses 7. Publish results

In science fair competitions, if you can show that you are following the scientific method, you are well on your way to impressing the judges.

Basically, start out by defining your question and topic. After that, form a hypothesis and perform your experiments. Step 6 is where you use that data to make any new hypotheses or theories about your science topic. If you want, you can take that new hypothesis you just developed and start again from step 3, then move your way back to 6. Follow this cycle as much as you want. The more focused your information and experiments the better.

Would you like an example to clarify how to use the scientific method?

Imagine you are doing your project on “Hot water” and we are going to follow the scientific method steps.

1. Define your question.

How about something silly, like “Will boiling water burn a person’s hand?”

2. Find lots of information about hot water and learn everything you can about it.

3. Now form a hypothesis based on your research. Our hypothesis is, “A person will not suffer any burns due to contact with boiling water.” Hopefully you are smart enough to know this isn’t true, but let’s pretend we aren’t just for the sake of the example.

4. Now we do perform our experiements. In real life we know we will burn ourselves with boiling water, and we should never touch it! But, suppose the experimenter has no idea. They run tests to see if contact with boiling water burns a person. BAD IDEA!

5. Now look at your data. Probably everyone in the experiments burned their skin during the tests. Looks like boiling water does cause burns! DUH!

6. Interpret the data. Hmm…our hypothesis was completely wrong. Our experiments showed that boiling water can cause burns.

7. Publish your results. I certainly hope you never make a project just like this, but here’s your chance to show the world what happens when you touch boiling water!

Keep in mind, don’t change your hypothesis because your final data did not agree with it. You don’t get more credit for having a correct hypothesis. You get credit for following the scientific method and coming to a correct conclusion based on your data.

Don’t forget to include possible reasons for experimental error.

If you follow these steps your project or experiment will make sense to anyone who views it and you have a good chance of succeeding!