Science Disproves Evolution

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:13 pm

Up until erroneous statements 10 & 11 I would agree with you (or at least the source of the pasting, seeing as you have no mind of your own). The chemical elements of all life are nothing more than a collection of other chemicals found elsewhere on the planet, be they in other life forms or not. The primary difference between life & non-life is usually that of electrical stimulus - another reaction widely found amongst the Universe - nothing supernatural about it.

In your eyes of superstition you simply prefer to take the lazy way out & attribute all answers to some make-believe God, rather than using the brain that has evolved so much to investigate & learn the real answers.

It has been proved that life began from a chance combination of Ameno Acids forming the basic forms of DNA aeons ago. This evidence consists of a gradual chain of fossil records, from the simplest of single cells beings to those of more advnced life forms such as Dinosaurs, Birds & eventually Mammals - although I know you & your master, Dolt Brown, prefer to deny the existence of this as evidence, claiming all these fossils were created as individual species in the blink of an eye about 6000 years ago, and that there is no time scale to demonstrate, as they are just an inconvenience to the Theory of Fantasology.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:09 pm

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:20 pm

FourPart;1474044 wrote: Up until erroneous statements 10 & 11 I would agree with you (or at least the source of the pasting, seeing as you have no mind of your own).

It might interest you to know I assembled that information myself.

It is encouraging that you accept all the statements except 10 & 11 since #7 states; "Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural."

The chemical elements of all life are nothing more than a collection of other chemicals found elsewhere on the planet, be they in other life forms or not. The primary difference between life & non-life is usually that of electrical stimulus - another reaction widely found amongst the Universe - nothing supernatural about it.

Those chemical elements are arranged in such a way as to make life possible. Explain how those chemical elements managed to come to life.

In your eyes of superstition you simply prefer to take the lazy way out & attribute all answers to some make-believe God, rather than using the brain that has evolved so much to investigate & learn the real answers.

Why do you say God is make-believe after admitting He exists. Where do you suppose that brain came from?

[continue]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:24 pm

[continued]

If life is the result of natural processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts—including what you are thinking now—would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of irrational causes. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance or natural processes. By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution. “Science itself makes no sense if the scientific mind is itself no more than the product of irrational material forces.

A related subject is the flexibility and redundancy of the human brain, which evolution or natural selection would not produce. For example, every year brain surgeons successfully remove up to half of a person’s brain. The remaining half gradually takes over functions of the removed half. Also, brain functions are often regained after portions of the brain are accidently destroyed. Had humans evolved, such accidents would have been fatal before these amazing capabilities developed. Darwin was puzzled by the phenomenal capability of the brain.

[continue]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:25 pm

[continued]

Thoughts are not physical, although they use physical things, such as the brain, oxygen, electrons, and sensory inputs. The mind thinks, but the brain, like a powerful computer, can’t really “think. Nor can any physical substance. Albert Einstein put his finger on this profound issue:

"I am convinced that ... the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all—when viewed logically—the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. ... we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf—logically unbridgeable—which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions."

C. S. Lewis put it in another way:

"If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees."

So Who or what provided humans (and to a much lesser extent animals) with the ability and freedom to think? It certainly wasn’t dead matter, chance, evolution, or time.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 42. The Validity of Thought

It has been proved that life began from a chance combination of Ameno Acids forming the basic forms of DNA aeons ago. This evidence consists of a gradual chain of fossil records, from the simplest of single cells beings to those of more advnced life forms such as Dinosaurs, Birds & eventually Mammals - although I know you & your master, Dolt Brown, prefer to deny the existence of this as evidence, claiming all these fossils were created as individual species in the blink of an eye about 6000 years ago, and that there is no time scale to demonstrate, as they are just an inconvenience to the Theory of Fantasology.

Where is the evidence supporting your assertions?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:33 pm

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:54 pm

Pahu;1474048 wrote: It might interest you to know I assembled that information myself.

It is encouraging that you accept all the statements except 10 & 11 since #7 states; "Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural."

Quite right. I missed that one of the erroneous statements hiding in the middle. I'm gald to see you acknowledge it as such.

Those chemical elements are arranged in such a way as to make life possible. Explain how those chemical elements managed to come to life.

According to your logic no chemical reaction can possibly take place by chance. Even the simple formation of a molecule of water by a spark compounding an atom of Hydrogen & 2 of Oxygen.

Why do you say God is make-believe after admitting He exists. Where do you suppose that brain came from?

Why keep asking the same old questions when you refise to accept the answers? It evolved over time from the primordial slime.

When Darwin first conceived the notion of evolution based on his observances he, too, found it difficult to believe, but as a scientist he could see that there could be no other solution to the evidence. To state that Darwin didn't understand the brain is hardly evidence of anything. Just because Isaac Newton discovered Gravity, would he be expected to understand the concept of Quantum Physics? This is the very nature of learning. instead of accepting that everything is ordained by some Fantasy Being it is the nature of Humans to ask questions & to seek the truth, regardless of Dogma. As a result our levels of understanding have vastly increased. Remember, Scientists were once outlawed, tortured & murdered by the Church for Blasphemy for daring to question anything. Medical Research & Dissection was illegal because it was contrary to God's Holy Plan. Yet without these men & women who dared to think for themselves & to look beyond Superstition you wouldn't be benefiting from the Medical Science that we have today, nor would you be enjoying the luxury of publishing your twaddle here, as we'd still be living in caves, chucking rocks at each other & dropping prostrate at every lightning strike, so as to appease God's anger.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:19 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:55 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:58 pm

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:12 am

Where do you suppose that brain came from?

FourPart;1474054 wrote: It evolved over time from the primordial slime.

Where is the evidence supporting your assertion?

Remember, Scientists were once outlawed, tortured & murdered by the Church for Blasphemy for daring to question anything. Medical Research & Dissection was illegal because it was contrary to God's Holy Plan. Yet without these men & women who dared to think for themselves & to look beyond Superstition you wouldn't be benefiting from the Medical Science that we have today, nor would you be enjoying the luxury of publishing your twaddle here, as we'd still be living in caves, chucking rocks at each other & dropping prostrate at every lightning strike, so as to appease God's anger.

It is true that the Catholic Church departed from Christianity during the Middle Ages interfering with research because of their unChristian superstitions. God's people, Jews and Christians, never lived in caves, chucking rocks at each other and dropping prostrate at every lightning strike, so as to appease God's anger. Others, perhaps, but not Judaeo/Christians. You are sadly misinformed on this point.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:46 am

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:55 am

Pahu;1474043 wrote: Give us at least one example of hard evidence to support evolution.

Give us at least one example showing us there is no God. Here is an example proving God exists:

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind. ...

1, and 8 are true. 9 is probably true.

The rest are presumptions.

2. The Universe had a beginning. Why do you think this must be so? Only man believes there must be a beginning to everything.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe. Even assuming that #2 is true, what do you base this? Since energy and matter are indestructible, there must always have been energy and matter, therefore, there was something before what we know of as the universe.

After that, 4-7 completely fall apart. Same with 8 and above.

We know life exists. The rest is speculation based on assumptions.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:59 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:06 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:20 am

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:46 am

LarsMac;1474075 wrote: 1, and 8 are true. 9 is probably true.

The rest are presumptions.

2. The Universe had a beginning. Why do you think this must be so? Only man believes there must be a beginning to everything.

The reason we believe there must be a beginning to everything is because that is what we observe.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe. Even assuming that #2 is true, what do you base this? Since energy and matter are indestructible, there must always have been energy and matter, therefore, there was something before what we know of as the universe.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

After that, 4-7 completely fall apart. Same with 8 and above.

We know life exists. The rest is speculation based on assumptions.

The rest is based on observed facts.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:01 pm

Pahu;1474081 wrote:

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

First law of Physics - "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another". Usually the end result of converted energy is that of heat, but even then heat converts to light, which provides energy to photo sensitive cells, such as plants, for instance, which store it as chemical energy in the form of sugars & calories, etc. It is NOT, as you claim, gradually being used up - or does your Mighty Lord Dolt Brown also dispute the elemental law of the Conservation of Energy. After all, you've already demonstrated that he doesn't know the difference between an atom and a molecule by the pasting of his own words.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:57 pm

FourPart;1474100 wrote: First law of Physics - "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another". Usually the end result of converted energy is that of heat, but even then heat converts to light, which provides energy to photo sensitive cells, such as plants, for instance, which store it as chemical energy in the form of sugars & calories, etc. It is NOT, as you claim, gradually being used up - or does your Mighty Lord Dolt Brown also dispute the elemental law of the Conservation of Energy. After all, you've already demonstrated that he doesn't know the difference between an atom and a molecule by the pasting of his own words.

Before the universe existed there was nothing, including energy.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:21 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:28 pm

Pahu;1474105 wrote: Before the universe existed there was nothing, including energy.You were there?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:47 pm

Originally Posted by Pahu

Before the universe existed there was nothing, including energy.

Ahso!;1474114 wrote: You were there?

No, but it is not necessary to be there to know that before the universe existed there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must have been supernatural.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:05 pm

Ahso!;1474114 wrote: You were there?
First there was nothing - and then there was Brown, who proves it, as that is exactly what his ramblings add up to - Nothing!

Brown. The all seeing expert who...

Doesn't know the difference between an atom & a molecule

Chooses to re-write the Conservation of Energy laws.

Denies the existence of any fossils over 6000 years old.

Believes that every species on earth could fit onto one little boat for over a month, without the carnivores feeding on all the others.

Chooses to deny existence of the continental shift, despite it being something has been recorded for centuries & continues to be observed as an ongoing thing.

Decides to make up his own alternative to the Continental Shift in a desperate attempt to find something that might come anywhere near close to supporting his fantasies.

States his invented ideals as 'facts' with no hard evidence, other than the testimony of the organisation which he established.

Accredits anything he can't explain to a 'God' creature, despite evidence to the contrary, claiming the 'supernatural' to be 'evidence'.

Then there is his menial, who is unable to think for himself & has to resort to interminally pasting the same old repeated codswallop. He asks a question, then when given an answer chooses to ignore it & keeps asking the same questions, apparently in the vain hope that eventually he will hear something that supports the ravings of his Lord & Master, the Almighty Dolt Brown.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:50 pm

Pahu;1474119 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu

Before the universe existed there was nothing, including energy.You were there?

No, but it is not necessary to be there to know that before the universe existed there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must have been supernatural.So simply because it's beyond your comprehension, your presuppositions, and outside the realm of your religious dogma it can't be accurate? Yet, you want people to believe that some entity which had no beginning poofed it all into existence out of nothing? Is self-contradiction habitual for you in all subjects, or is it confined to religion and science only?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:05 pm

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:28 pm

Pahu;1474081 wrote: The reason we believe there must be a beginning to everything is because that is what we observe.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

The rest is based on observed facts.

Energy is not lost. Were ever did you get THAT idea.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:26 am

LarsMac;1474138 wrote: Energy is not lost. Were ever did you get THAT idea.
He got it from His Lord & Master, the Almighty Dolt Brown. If He says so then it HAS to be true, as He has the power to change all the Laws of Physics at His command. After all, didn't you know - Dolt Brown is GOD.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:15 am

Ahso!;1474133 wrote: Yet, you want people to believe that some entity which had no beginning poofed it all into existence out of nothing?

That is the only explanation that makes any logical sense. Atheists and evolutionist have no evidence to support their position and instead of looking for rational answers they spend their time ridiculing creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while they agree with evolutionists who maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything. Isn’t that absurd and pathetic? And they continue to deny the evidence for God's existence.

Instead of endless philosophical discussions to prove a point, doesn’t observation and experiment become the final arbitrator of truth? The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins. How do we test the hypothesis of evolution? We don't have the luxury of having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory. So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in the same boat: no absolute way to objectively test their assertions. There are no human eyewitnesses. Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with the facts of science for consistency. Notice too, that good hypotheses are falsifiable. Now consider the theory of evolution; how can it be proved false? What fraction of the theory of evolution is open to invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle? The approach seems to be, "look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!" Is this science or something else?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:21 am

LarsMac;1474138 wrote: Energy is not lost. Were ever did you get THAT idea.

I never said that. What I did say was before the universe existed there was nothing, including energy, which came into existence along with the universe from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:37 am

Pahu;1474158 wrote: That is the only explanation that makes any logical sense. Atheists and evolutionist have no evidence to support their position and instead of looking for rational answers they spend their time ridiculing creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while they agree with evolutionists who maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything. Isn’t that absurd and pathetic? And they continue to deny the evidence for God's existence.

Instead of endless philosophical discussions to prove a point, doesn’t observation and experiment become the final arbitrator of truth? The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins. How do we test the hypothesis of evolution? We don't have the luxury of having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory. So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in the same boat: no absolute way to objectively test their assertions. There are no human eyewitnesses. Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with the facts of science for consistency. Notice too, that good hypotheses are falsifiable. Now consider the theory of evolution; how can it be proved false? What fraction of the theory of evolution is open to invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle? The approach seems to be, "look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!" Is this science or something else?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:40 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:49 am

What does Cosmology and the Big Bang have to do with Evolution, Pahu?

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 7:04 am

Pahu;1474159 wrote: I never said that. What I did say was before the universe existed there was nothing, including energy, which came into existence along with the universe from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

Ah, but you did: Right here in post 1369

Pahu;1474081 wrote: The reason we believe there must be a beginning to everything is because that is what we observe.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. ...

The rest is based on observed facts.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:02 am

Pahu;1474158 wrote: That is the only explanation that makes any logical sense.Logic? Really? Explain the logic of an entity that has no beginning and no end, and that poofs things into existence; creates life only to torture and destroy it because the life it created doesn't obey it even though it was made in its image; that created a ridiculous explanation for everything and what doesn't make sense gets an "god works in mysterious ways" explanation. I could go on forever, but all this has been argued with you ad nauseam by people much more well versed on science than anyone on this forum and you continue the same lame objections for the sake of arguing.Pahu;1474158 wrote: Atheists and evolutionist have no evidence to support their position and instead of looking for rational answers they spend their time ridiculing creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while they agree with evolutionists who maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything. Isn’t that absurd and pathetic? And they continue to deny the evidence for God's existence.Okay, that explains your lack of rationality - you're angry at those evil evolutionists and atheists and you're scared that they might be right. There's nothing to be angry or scared at, Pahu; there's no god that's going to hit you with a lightening bolt (present company acknowledged) or disease that first time you verbally admit that there is no god. I know, I've been there - and I'm still here. Relax.

Pahu;1474158 wrote: Instead of endless philosophical discussions to prove a point, doesn’t observation and experiment become the final arbitrator of truth? The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins.We do what mature people do; we admit we don't know everything and we continue to have open eyes and an open mind as to what might be revealed. Pahu;1474158 wrote: How do we test the hypothesis of evolution?Here is a major flaw in your argument. We don't test the hypothesis of Evolution, we allow it to either prove itself by what we observe or die. We investigate what we uncover and we OBSERVE whether or not it fits the theory; if it does we're confidant to move forward and if the findings don't fit the theory, we scrap the theory. To date nothing has been uncovered that refutes the theory of Evolution, regardless of the sophistry others throw at it. Pahu;1474158 wrote: We don't have the luxury of having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory.We don't need one, we have generations to come. Again, a mature person understands that they may not be privy to all knowledge and all the answers NOW. We accept what we can know. Your problem is that you need all the answers NOW and so you turn to a source (the bible) that offers that, regardless of how absurd it is.Pahu;1474158 wrote: So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in the same boat: no absolute way to objectively test their assertions.That's flat wrong; it leaves immature people who need all the answers NOW in a hissy-fit. Evolutionists know better. Pahu;1474158 wrote: There are no human eyewitnesses. Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with the facts of science for consistency. Notice too, that good hypotheses are falsifiable. Now consider the theory of evolution; how can it be proved false? What fraction of the theory of evolution is open to invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle? The approach seems to be, "look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!" Is this science or something else?This part is just pure nonsense and not worth my time. If Evolution is inaccurate it will fall apart on it's own, just like the existence of god has.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:25 am

Ahso!;1474164 wrote: What does Cosmology and the Big Bang have to do with Evolution, Pahu?

The definition of evolution is:

1 the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

2 the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

Cosmology falls under the second definition. The definition of cosmology is:

1. the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.

2. an account or theory of the origin of the universe.

The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,a was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.

Redshift. The redshift of starlight is interpreted as a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws. Furthermore, these galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating. [See “Dark Thoughts on page 34.]

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. [See "Connected Galaxies" and Galaxy Clusters on page 43.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.d Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.e Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.f

Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.h

Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.i Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB.j [See pages 431–433.]

Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.k Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)l and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older starsm contradict the big bang theory.

A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none have been found.n

Two Lithium Problems. The total amount of lithium seen in and outside our galaxy is only a third of what the big bang theory predicts.o Also, “old stars contain one-quarter to one-half as much lithium-7 (made of three protons and four neutrons) as theory predicts and contain 1,000 times more lithium-6 (three protons and three neutrons) than expected [by the big bang theory].p

Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies or quasars at such great distances, but they are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies on page 420.] Nor should a big bang produce rotating bodiesq such as galaxies and galaxy clusters. Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.r

For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.s (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of this antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.t

Also, if a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape the trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg that existed before a big bang?x

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.y All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.z

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 56. Big Bang?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:47 am

Originally Posted by Pahu:

I never said that. What I did say was before the universe existed there was nothing, including energy, which came into existence along with the universe from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

LarsMac;1474166 wrote: Ah, but you did: Right here in post 1369

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. ...

I was referring to entropy. Here is the definition:

1 Physics a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.(Symbol: S)

2 lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

The subject of that post was the universe cannot be infinitely old and therefor had a beginning before which there was nothing, from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:06 am

I'm having trouble getting my entire post to take so I'm going to break it up into two posts.

Pahu;1474171 wrote: The definition of evolution is:

1 the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

2 the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

Cosmology falls under the second definition. There you go with your sophistry again, Pahu. You expose yourself, your nonexistent god and your phony religion for exactly that. You intentionally conflate Evolution and The Big Bang even though they are two totally different theories. Here's the Google definition you cited in it's entirety:

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:17 am

The system won't allow me to post it so here is the linkPahu;1474171 wrote: The definition of evolution is:

1 the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

2 the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

Cosmology falls under the second definition. https://www.google.com/search?client=ub ... 8&oe=utf-8

Note in the definition where the first definition is dedicated to Darwin and Evolution and the second is a more general use of the word. Evolution and The big Bang are two completely different theories that stand on their own. You, in your quest to be right conflate the two hoping in deperation that if one fails they both will. That's so childish.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:24 am

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:57 am

Pahu;1474173 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

I never said that. What I did say was before the universe existed there was nothing, including energy, which came into existence along with the universe from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

I was referring to entropy. Here is the definition:

1 Physics a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.(Symbol: S)

2 lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

The subject of that post was the universe cannot be infinitely old and therefor had a beginning before which there was nothing, from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.

Firstly, entropy relates to a closed system.

Does the universe look closed to you?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:48 pm

Pahu;1474159 wrote: I never said that. What I did say was before the universe existed there was nothing, including energy, which came into existence along with the universe from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

quote

/kwÉ™ÊŠt/

verb

1.

to recite a quotation (from a book, play, poem, etc), esp as a means of illustrating or supporting a statement
(Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com)

So, "You never said that". It's a direct quote from your own post. How can you have the face to say that you never said it? You have claimed time & time again that energy would all be used up, and now deny ever having said it. Not only are you irrational, but you are inconsistent.

As for light from objects moving away from the centre of the universe (the focal point of the Big Bang), just as with sound it leaves a trail of photons behind it. With a supersonic plane you can't hear it coming, but you can hear it once it's past. The same is true of light.

As for matter radiating heat - wrong. It issues radiant energy. Heat cannot pass through a vaccuum. We get heat from the sun as that radiant energy is converted into heat here on earth - or is your theory that the source of all our heat is from the mass of the earth itself & would remain so without the benefit of the sun?

Once again, hard evidence is presented to support evolution, and once again you deny the existence of the evidence & insist on the "Supernatural" as being the "Only" possible solution. In other words, if the obvious truth proves something you don't like, make up another answer, no matter how ridiculous it may be or how stupid it makes you look.

You claim that you God created everything. If this is so then He would have given you a pair of eyes & the cognitive abilities to see & recognise the evidence in front of you. Surely to ignore - nay, deny - its existence is, surely, an insult to the gifts He has bestowed you with.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:12 am

Planetary Rings

Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune (a). [See Figure 24.] Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved (b).

Figure 24: Planetary Rings. The rings of Saturn, Uranus, and Jupiter (left to right) are forming today and steadily breaking up. Rings are not composed of debris remaining after planets evolved.

Actually, rings do not relate to a planet’s origin. Planetary rings form when material is expelled from a moon or asteroid passing near a giant planet. The material could be expelled by a volcano, a geyser, tidal effects, or the impact of a comet or meteorite (c). Debris that escapes a moon because of its weak gravity and a giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished (or young), they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years (d). Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.

a. William K. Hartmann, Moons and Planets, 3rd edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993), p.143.

b. Similar faulty logic claims that, because we see comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, the solar system must have evolved.

c. “Geysers on Enceladus replenish the E ring. Richard A. Kerr, “At Last, a Supportive Parent for Saturn’s Youngest Ring, Science, Vol.309, 9 September 2005, p.1660.

“Saturn’s moons are bombarded by comets or micro-meteoroids. Those collisions knock off ice particles and send them into orbit around Saturn, forming rings. Ron Cowen, “Ring Shots, Science News, Vol.170, 21 October 2006, p.263.

This has also been observed for Jupiter’s rings. Jupiter has a few moons large enough to be hit frequently by meteoroids or comets, small enough to have little gravity so the debris can escape the moon, and close enough to Jupiter that tidal effects can spread the moon’s debris into rings. [See Ron Cowen, “Mooning Over the Dust Rings of Jupiter, Science News, Vol.154, 12September 1998, pp.182–183. See also Gretchen Vogel, “Tiny Moon Source of Jupiter’s Ring, Science, Vol.281, 25 September 1998, p.1951.]

d. “Yet nonstop erosion poses a difficult problem for the very existence of Saturn’s opaque rings—the expected bombardment rate would pulverize the entire system in only 10,000 years! Most of this material is merely redeposited elsewhere in the rings, but even if only a tiny fraction is truly lost (as ionized vapor, for example), it becomes a real trick to maintain the rings since the formation of the solar system [as imagined by evolutionists]. Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Ringed Planets: Still Mysterious—II, Sky & Telescope, Vol.69, January 1985, p.22.

Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Saturn: Jewel of the Solar System, The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp.12–15.

Also, water in Saturn’s rings is rapidly ionized and transported along magnetic lines to certain latitudes on Saturn. The Hubble Space Telescope has detected this water concentration in Saturn’s atmosphere. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Slow Leak Seen in Saturn’s Rings, Science, Vol.274, 29 November 1996, p.1468.]

Richard A. Simpson and Ellis D. Miner, “Uranus: Beneath That Bland Exterior, The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp.16–18.

“Saturn’s rings (as well as the recently discovered ring system around Uranus) are unstable, therefore recent formations. S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky, “Comets and the Cosmogony of the Solar System, Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, editor A. H. Delsemme (Toledo, Ohio: The University of Toledo, 1977), p.473.

See Endnote 157.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:36 am

So all of this recent stuff you an Mr Brown have come up with reminds me of a saying I once heard.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bull$#!T"

One of the more interesting points to be made recently by planetary studies is that we are just beginning to really learn about planets. And the first thing we have learned is that most of what we thought we knew of the last few hundreds years was all wrong. Our understanding of cosmology has just begun. So trying to tell people about how conventional wisdom in cosmology was wrong is only going to impress people who know nothing about it in the first place.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:10 pm

LarsMac;1474275 wrote: So all of this recent stuff you an Mr Brown have come up with reminds me of a saying I once heard.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bull$#!T"

One of the more interesting points to be made recently by planetary studies is that we are just beginning to really learn about planets. And the first thing we have learned is that most of what we thought we knew of the last few hundreds years was all wrong. Our understanding of cosmology has just begun. So trying to tell people about how conventional wisdom in cosmology was wrong is only going to impress people who know nothing about it in the first place.

No - everyone else in the scientific world are, as yet, uncertain of the reason, or the source of Saturn's rings. There are a few possible theories, but nothing has been claimed to be a certainty. Dolt Brown, however, being the Omnipotent Almighty One that he is knows everything that all the other experts around the world have, as yet failed to discover, and in the process, once again put his crazy theories forward as 'facts', claiming that everyone else is saying that such & such a thing is so, and that they are wrong, when in actual fact they have made no such claims at all & true to what science is all about accept the only known fact of "We Do Not Know". Dolt Brown, on the other hand DOES know. He's the leading Universal Expert, as his subserviant, Pahu, will attest to.

What you don't realise, of course, is that all those tiny rocks, as they appear from this distance, are, in fact, flying fluffy pink elephants.

There is, however a Religious reference to the origin of the Rings Of Saturn, which must, by following Pahu's previous logic MUST be the truth....

According to an unconfirmed 19th-century source,[9][10] in the late 17th century the Vatican librarian Leo Allatius wrote an unpublished[11] treatise entitled De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba (A Discussion of the Foreskin of Our Lord Jesus Christ), claiming that the Holy Prepuce ascended, like Jesus himself, and was transformed into the rings of Saturn.
(Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Holy Prepuce - The rings of Saturn are the Holy Foreskin of...

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:43 pm

You're not going to quit your sophistic posting, are you, Pahu? You're going to continue to make a mockery of your god and your religion by arguing deceptively. This is what I meant in a previous post when I said you misrepresent Evolution and then argue with your own misrepresentation.

Too bad for you that you're so buried and lost in delusion.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:57 pm

No, He is not going to stop. He probably could not even tell you what he thinks he is going to accomplish by reposting Brown's drivel, but he will not stop.

On a side, note, a niece who lives in Oklahoma says she has heard that Oklahoma is thinking about making Brown's book part of their High School Science curriculum.

Doesn't THAT ruffle your feathers?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:11 pm

I was just reading this Blog, and guess who I was reminded of.

unreasonable people - Jim Wright

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:24 pm

Ahso!;1474296 wrote: You're not going to quit your sophistic posting, are you, Pahu? You're going to continue to make a mockery of your god and your religion by arguing deceptively. This is what I meant in a previous post when I said you misrepresent Evolution and then argue with your own misrepresentation.

Too bad for you that you're so buried and lost in delusion.

What delusion?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:26 pm

LarsMac;1474299 wrote: No, He is not going to stop. He probably could not even tell you what he thinks he is going to accomplish by reposting Brown's drivel, but he will not stop.

On a side, note, a niece who lives in Oklahoma says she has heard that Oklahoma is thinking about making Brown's book part of their High School Science curriculum.

Doesn't THAT ruffle your feathers?

That would only ruffle the feathers of those who are so blinded by their preconceptions that they are unable to appreciate the truth.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:32 pm

Pahu;1474303 wrote: What delusion?Too bad you can't step outside yourself and see what everyone else sees. If you do grow up one day you'll have all this embarrassment all over the internet to look upon and be totally ashamed of. OTOH, that day may never come - too bad for you, that you'll never be able to appreciate the answer to your question. You poor soul.