Entropy and Open Systems
[continued]
If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that "open" system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will proceed to decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
To cite special cases (such as the seed, for which the genetic code and the conversion mechanism of photosynthesis are available) is futile, as far as "evolution" is concerned, since there is neither a directing program nor a conversion apparatus available to produce an imaginary evolutionary growth in complexity of the earth and its biosphere.
It is even more futile to refer to inorganic processes such as crystallization as evidence of evolution. Even Prigogine recognizes this:
"The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly-ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred."9
Thus the highly specialized conditions that enable crystals to form and plants and animals to grow have nothing whatever to do with evolution. These special conditions themselves (that is, the marvelous process of photosynthesis, the complex information programs in the living cell, even the electrochemical properties of the molecules in the crystal, etc.) could never arise by chance — their own complexity could never have been produced within the constraints imposed by the Second Law. But without these, the crystal would not form, and the seed would never grow.
But what is the information code that tells primeval random particles how to organize themselves into stars and planets, and what is the conversion mechanism that transforms amoebas into men? These are questions that are not answered by a specious reference to the earth as an open system! And until they are answered, the Second Law makes evolution appear quite impossible.
To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently very few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem and are trying to solve it. Prigogine has proposed an involved theory of "order through fluctuations" and "dissipative structures."10
But his examples are from inorganic systems and he acknowledges that there is a long way to go to explain how these become living systems by his theory.
"But let us have no illusions, our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms."11
Another recent writer who has partially recognized the seriousness of this problem is Charles J. Smith.
"The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. I would go further and include the problem of meaning and value."12
Whether rank-and-file evolutionists know it or not, this problem they have with entropy is thus "one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." It is more than a problem, in fact, it is a devastating denial of the evolution model itself. It will continue to be so until evolutionists can demonstrate that the vast imagined evolutionary continuum in space and time has both a program to guide it and an energy converter to empower it. Otherwise, the Second Law precludes it.
It is conceivable, though extremely unlikely that evolutionists may eventually formulate a plausible code and mechanism to explain how both entropy and evolution could co-exist. Even if they do, however, the evolution model will still not be as good as the creation model. At the most, such a suggestion would constitute a secondary modification of the basic evolution model. The latter could certainly never predict the Second Law.
The evolution model cannot yet even explain the Second Law, but the creation model predicts it! The creationist is not embarrassed or perplexed by entropy, since it is exactly what he expects. The creation model postulates a perfect creation of all things completed during the period of special creation in the beginning. From this model, the creationist naturally predicts limited horizontal changes within the created entities (e.g., variations within biologic kinds, enabling them to adapt to environmental changes). If "vertical" changes occur, however, from one level of order to another, they would have to go in the downward direction, toward lower order. The Creator, both omniscient and omnipotent, made all things perfect in the beginning. No process of evolutionary change could improve them, but deteriorative changes could disorder them.
Not only does the creation model predict the entropy principle, but the entropy principle directly points to creation. That is, if all things are now running down to disorder, they must originally have been in a state of high order. Since there is no naturalistic process which could produce such an initial condition, its cause must have been supernatural. The only adequate cause of the initial order and complexity of the universe must have been an omniscient Programmer, and the cause of its boundless power an omnipotent Energizer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, with its principle of increasing entropy, both repudiates the evolution model and strongly confirms the creation model.
The Institute for Creation Research
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Deja vu all over again.
There is, of course that Time & Space are folding in a multi dimensional mobious loop. Pahu's repeating postings seem to support this theory. He puts the same old pastings with no additional input, using the same old phrase that demonstrate that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
There is, of course that Time & Space are folding in a multi dimensional mobious loop. Pahu's repeating postings seem to support this theory. He puts the same old pastings with no additional input, using the same old phrase that demonstrate that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518250 wrote: Deja vu all over again.
There is, of course that Time & Space are folding in a multi dimensional mobious loop. Pahu's repeating postings seem to support this theory. He puts the same old pastings with no additional input, using the same old phrase that demonstrate that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
The 'Animal Connection' Points to Creation, not Evolution
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
What do the oldest European artworks and the domestication of animals have in common? A Penn State University paleoanthropologist suggested that they are evidence of a unique connection with animals that profoundly shaped the evolutionary development of early man. However, though her hypothesis provides an interesting spin on the evolutionary story, it ignores much of what the data actually reveal.
The presumed oldest artworks in Europe are ivory carvings depicting animals. Since artists have to think about and visualize an artwork before they make it, it's safe to assume that these artists had the same capacity for thought that modern sculptors have. But why did they choose animals as their subjects? In both a technical paper in Current Anthropology and the book The Animal Connection, Penn State's Pat Shipman hypothesized that humans (or human-like ancestors) who shared a more intimate connection with animals were able to obtain more meat, accelerating their evolutionary progress toward modern man.
In addition, their ability to use animals for work and sustenance--"tracking game, destroying rodents, protecting kin and goods, providing wool for warmth, moving humans and goods over long distances, and providing milk to human infants"1--tailored the "selective pressures" that supposedly formed humans.
According to a Penn State news release, Shipman even suggested that the "animal connection" with man led to the evolution of language. Supposedly, domesticated animals became so important that the need for accurate communication about how to manage them gradually turned ape-like grunts into symbolized abstract thoughts.
[continue]
There is, of course that Time & Space are folding in a multi dimensional mobious loop. Pahu's repeating postings seem to support this theory. He puts the same old pastings with no additional input, using the same old phrase that demonstrate that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
The 'Animal Connection' Points to Creation, not Evolution
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
What do the oldest European artworks and the domestication of animals have in common? A Penn State University paleoanthropologist suggested that they are evidence of a unique connection with animals that profoundly shaped the evolutionary development of early man. However, though her hypothesis provides an interesting spin on the evolutionary story, it ignores much of what the data actually reveal.
The presumed oldest artworks in Europe are ivory carvings depicting animals. Since artists have to think about and visualize an artwork before they make it, it's safe to assume that these artists had the same capacity for thought that modern sculptors have. But why did they choose animals as their subjects? In both a technical paper in Current Anthropology and the book The Animal Connection, Penn State's Pat Shipman hypothesized that humans (or human-like ancestors) who shared a more intimate connection with animals were able to obtain more meat, accelerating their evolutionary progress toward modern man.
In addition, their ability to use animals for work and sustenance--"tracking game, destroying rodents, protecting kin and goods, providing wool for warmth, moving humans and goods over long distances, and providing milk to human infants"1--tailored the "selective pressures" that supposedly formed humans.
According to a Penn State news release, Shipman even suggested that the "animal connection" with man led to the evolution of language. Supposedly, domesticated animals became so important that the need for accurate communication about how to manage them gradually turned ape-like grunts into symbolized abstract thoughts.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The 'Animal Connection' Points to Creation, not Evolution
[continued]
However, the available data regarding language, animal domestication, and early artwork are most easily interpreted within a creation, not an evolution, narrative.
If the first man was created in the image of God, complete with both the creativity of mind to make art and the appropriate biomechanisms to express that creativity,2 one would expect to find evidence of the sudden appearance of high-quality art. The examples of man's earliest artwork are extraordinarily accurate and fine pieces--obviously the products of people who were fully human. Where are the crude and clumsy artifacts formed by evolution's "pre-people"?
According to Genesis, man was made with a purpose--to rule over the animals and "subdue" (or organize) the natural environment, including its creatures.3 Thus, early evidence for animal domestication is expected. In fact, Genesis offers verification of early animal domestication, since one of the first man's sons "was a keeper of sheep."4
And rather than having to rely on "just-so" stories about how language somehow "emerged," it is more logical to conclude that since the core features of language had to all be present at once for any language to exist, they could not possibly be the result of any simple force of nature and must instead be the result of deliberate design.5
Expertly carved ivory art, cleverly managed animals, and fully adept language--which are all evidenced among man's earliest historical relics and documents--strongly testify to man having been fully man right from the start.
The Institute for Creation Research
[continued]
However, the available data regarding language, animal domestication, and early artwork are most easily interpreted within a creation, not an evolution, narrative.
If the first man was created in the image of God, complete with both the creativity of mind to make art and the appropriate biomechanisms to express that creativity,2 one would expect to find evidence of the sudden appearance of high-quality art. The examples of man's earliest artwork are extraordinarily accurate and fine pieces--obviously the products of people who were fully human. Where are the crude and clumsy artifacts formed by evolution's "pre-people"?
According to Genesis, man was made with a purpose--to rule over the animals and "subdue" (or organize) the natural environment, including its creatures.3 Thus, early evidence for animal domestication is expected. In fact, Genesis offers verification of early animal domestication, since one of the first man's sons "was a keeper of sheep."4
And rather than having to rely on "just-so" stories about how language somehow "emerged," it is more logical to conclude that since the core features of language had to all be present at once for any language to exist, they could not possibly be the result of any simple force of nature and must instead be the result of deliberate design.5
Expertly carved ivory art, cleverly managed animals, and fully adept language--which are all evidenced among man's earliest historical relics and documents--strongly testify to man having been fully man right from the start.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Yawn - Same old, same old.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518273 wrote: Yawn - Same old, same old.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Stone Blades Cut Back Evolutionary Dates
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Evolutionary anthropologists once thought that stone knives were developed in the late Stone Age, around 40,000 years ago. That figure was later revised to 200,000, around the Middle Stone Age, when stone blades were discovered in lower strata.
Now stone blades have been found in Kenyan rock layers dated at about 500,000 years old according to evolutionary estimates.1 Thus, the original claim that “40,000 years ago, man made his first stone implements†was off by over 92 percent, suggesting that evolutionary depictions of human history are unreliable.
The news of 500,000-year-old knives may be frustrating to evolutionary anthropologists, who had already faced difficulty adjusting history to accommodate the supposedly 200,000 and 300,000-year-old stone knives found in recent decades.2 An attempt was made to reconcile those data to the old historical framework by reasoning that since modern man only emerged from an ape-like ancestor some 200,000 years ago, pre-modern (almost-man) creatures who lived over 380,000 years ago must have been able to make knives, even though they were quite ape-like in other respects.
But these newly-discovered knives predate even “pre-modern†man’s imagined ability to make such tools. A difference of about 160,000 years is significant enough that it cannot easily be ignored. Another major alteration is needed to accommodate the new data.
Although puzzling to evolutionary scientists, evidence such as these stone knives fits perfectly with the biblical record, which teaches that mankind was created fully human from the beginning, without any “ape-man†ancestors. In fact, ape-kind and mankind are described as being created as distinct kinds (Genesis 1:25), thus ruling out that “kind†of evolution.
Removing the restriction of long-age assumptions, the stone knives were most likely made somewhere on the order of several thousand years ago, at least since the time of the Tower of Babel, circa 2200 B.C. The forced dispersion of peoples from the Middle East outward across the rest of the world, as described in Genesis 11, caused migrating families to start from scratch, eking out an existence with stone knives and cave dwellings for a time. The volcanic deposits that sandwiched the newly-discovered African blades could well be remnants of post-Flood volcanic activity, marks of a time when earth’s crust was less stable, still settling down from the great, year-long upheaval of Noah’s Flood. This historical picture, unlike the standard evolutionary one, is based on eyewitness accounts, not on unfounded and ever-changing presuppositions.
In describing the “human ancestors†who made the Kenyan blades, the journal Science stated that “these toolmakers were capable of more sophisticated behavior than previously thought.â€1 Of course they were. They were fully-created human beings!
The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Stone Blades Cut Back Evolutionary Dates
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Evolutionary anthropologists once thought that stone knives were developed in the late Stone Age, around 40,000 years ago. That figure was later revised to 200,000, around the Middle Stone Age, when stone blades were discovered in lower strata.
Now stone blades have been found in Kenyan rock layers dated at about 500,000 years old according to evolutionary estimates.1 Thus, the original claim that “40,000 years ago, man made his first stone implements†was off by over 92 percent, suggesting that evolutionary depictions of human history are unreliable.
The news of 500,000-year-old knives may be frustrating to evolutionary anthropologists, who had already faced difficulty adjusting history to accommodate the supposedly 200,000 and 300,000-year-old stone knives found in recent decades.2 An attempt was made to reconcile those data to the old historical framework by reasoning that since modern man only emerged from an ape-like ancestor some 200,000 years ago, pre-modern (almost-man) creatures who lived over 380,000 years ago must have been able to make knives, even though they were quite ape-like in other respects.
But these newly-discovered knives predate even “pre-modern†man’s imagined ability to make such tools. A difference of about 160,000 years is significant enough that it cannot easily be ignored. Another major alteration is needed to accommodate the new data.
Although puzzling to evolutionary scientists, evidence such as these stone knives fits perfectly with the biblical record, which teaches that mankind was created fully human from the beginning, without any “ape-man†ancestors. In fact, ape-kind and mankind are described as being created as distinct kinds (Genesis 1:25), thus ruling out that “kind†of evolution.
Removing the restriction of long-age assumptions, the stone knives were most likely made somewhere on the order of several thousand years ago, at least since the time of the Tower of Babel, circa 2200 B.C. The forced dispersion of peoples from the Middle East outward across the rest of the world, as described in Genesis 11, caused migrating families to start from scratch, eking out an existence with stone knives and cave dwellings for a time. The volcanic deposits that sandwiched the newly-discovered African blades could well be remnants of post-Flood volcanic activity, marks of a time when earth’s crust was less stable, still settling down from the great, year-long upheaval of Noah’s Flood. This historical picture, unlike the standard evolutionary one, is based on eyewitness accounts, not on unfounded and ever-changing presuppositions.
In describing the “human ancestors†who made the Kenyan blades, the journal Science stated that “these toolmakers were capable of more sophisticated behavior than previously thought.â€1 Of course they were. They were fully-created human beings!
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The First Cell 2
There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins (b).
b . “The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown, matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination.†Lewis Thomas, foreword to The Incredible Machine, editor Robert M. Pool (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Book Service, 1986), p.7.
“No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides.†Kenyon, p.A-20.
“If we can indeed come to understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be able to construct one—only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely dares to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless.†George Wald, “The Origin of Life,†p.45.
Experts in this field hardly ever discuss publicly how the first cell could have evolved. However, the world’s leading evolutionists know this problem exists. For example, on 27 July 1979, Luther D. Sunderland taped an interview with Dr. David Raup, Dean of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. This interview was later transcribed and authenticated by both parties. Sunderland told Raup, “Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum (Natural History)] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American Museum of Natural History] could give me any explanation of the origination of the first cell.†Dr. Raup replied, “I can’t either.â€
“However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.†David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp.406–407.
“Every time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts, though I must confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating that I never seem to stick to my resolve.†Crick, p.153.
This fascination explains why the “origin of life†topic frequently arises—despite so much evidence showing that it cannot happen by natural processes. Speculations abound.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways
Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, virtually miraculous, events have happened for each of millions of species (a)?
All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal, if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system (b).
a. This delicate chemical balance, upon which life depends, was explained to me by biologist Terrence R. Mondy.
b. Behe, pp.77–97.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1518413 wrote:
Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways
Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, virtually miraculous, events have happened for each of millions of species (a)?
All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal, if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system (b).
a. This delicate chemical balance, upon which life depends, was explained to me by biologist Terrence R. Mondy.
b. Behe, pp.77–97.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
I presume that is the same Behe who was debunked in the Dover Court where it was officially determined that Intelligent Design is NOT Science, but Religious in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways
Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, virtually miraculous, events have happened for each of millions of species (a)?
All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal, if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system (b).
a. This delicate chemical balance, upon which life depends, was explained to me by biologist Terrence R. Mondy.
b. Behe, pp.77–97.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
I presume that is the same Behe who was debunked in the Dover Court where it was officially determined that Intelligent Design is NOT Science, but Religious in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518429 wrote: I presume that is the same Behe who was debunked in the Dover Court where it was officially determined that Intelligent Design is NOT Science, but Religious in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
He was not debunked. Here is what he has to say:
Behe Responds to Dover Intelligent Design Opinion
Jonathan Witt
Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe testified as an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board intelligent design trial in 2005. Judge Jones issued a ruling against the school board and in so doing asserted that intelligent design was not based on science. Dr. Behe disagrees, and here we publish his direct response to many claims of the Court.
Dr. Behe writes:
“The Court's reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; the incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and straw man arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed arguments for design.
“All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories.â€
Behe's response is here.
Also, in this extended essay, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer shows why intelligent design is sound science, demonstrating that Darwinism and Design are methodologically equivalent.
- See more at:
-
- http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/be ... YeakU.dpuf
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
He was not debunked. Here is what he has to say:
Behe Responds to Dover Intelligent Design Opinion
Jonathan Witt
Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe testified as an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board intelligent design trial in 2005. Judge Jones issued a ruling against the school board and in so doing asserted that intelligent design was not based on science. Dr. Behe disagrees, and here we publish his direct response to many claims of the Court.
Dr. Behe writes:
“The Court's reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; the incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and straw man arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed arguments for design.
“All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories.â€
Behe's response is here.
Also, in this extended essay, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer shows why intelligent design is sound science, demonstrating that Darwinism and Design are methodologically equivalent.
- See more at:
-
- http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/be ... YeakU.dpuf
-
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Court's official ruling was that Creationism is Religious in nature & NOT Science. Plain & simple.
His assertions have no Scientific backing & cannot, therefore be classed as Scientific, as Science demands that the backing comes first. He could not meet these criteria & even admitted as much.
His assertions have no Scientific backing & cannot, therefore be classed as Scientific, as Science demands that the backing comes first. He could not meet these criteria & even admitted as much.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518463 wrote: The Court's official ruling was that Creationism is Religious in nature & NOT Science. Plain & simple.
His assertions have no Scientific backing & cannot, therefore be classed as Scientific, as Science demands that the backing comes first. He could not meet these criteria & even admitted as much.
That was the judge's unscientific opinion. As Behe said: “All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication.
His assertions have no Scientific backing & cannot, therefore be classed as Scientific, as Science demands that the backing comes first. He could not meet these criteria & even admitted as much.
That was the judge's unscientific opinion. As Behe said: “All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1518465 wrote: That was the judge's unscientific opinion. As Behe said: “All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication.
Despite the hype from your lot, there is nothing scientific about "Creationism"
Despite the hype from your lot, there is nothing scientific about "Creationism"
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1518466 wrote: Despite the hype from your lot, there is nothing scientific about "Creationism"
Wrong! The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Zircon: Earth's Oldest Crystal?
by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Most people are familiar with man-made, diamond-like cubic zirconia (zirconium dioxide), but zirconium silicate, a less well-known form of zirconium, also exists in crystalline form. Called zircon for short, this mineral is found all over Earth's crust. Dr. John W. Valley and his team recently published an article in Nature Geoscience discussing two surface samples from their continuing analysis of a detrital zircon—one derived from a weathered rock—found in Australia.1,2 BBC News cited it as the "oldest scrap of Earth crust."3 Is this conclusion accurate?
The study authors assumed that all the mineral grains from their source rock formation, like zircons, were four billion years or older, corresponding to a Hadean "age" of Earth's supposed history.1,4 Two surface samples exposed the core of the zircons for the first time, and the researchers submitted them to a battery of sophisticated analyses.5 The unstated and subtle objective of their article seems to have aimed at widening the time window for random processes to generate the basic molecules of life out of non-living matter—though that actually only hinders evolutionary hypotheses by giving those key molecules more time to randomize.6
In secular circles the age of the earth is believed to be around 4.54 billion years. It is assumed so frequently that a majority of people generally regard it as a scientific fact—in a sense it's become a form of dogma—much like the earth was once assumed to sit at the center of the solar system. This concept of "deep time" is firmly based on the uniformitarian view of nature, i.e., that decay rates for radioisotopes have always been as they appear today. But recent laboratory experiments have demonstrated this assumption to be incorrect under certain conditions.7,8
Also, the observed helium leak rate from certain zircons embedded in biotite rock samples refutes their billion-year age assignment, instead showing that billions of years' worth of uranium decay at today's rates actually occurred very quickly.9 It should be noted here that there are ways to accelerate radioisotope decay.7
Investigators used the U-Th-Pb isochron radioisotope analysis method to date the zircon.1 However, this method is cleverly constructed to try to avoid the problem of not knowing the initial concentrations of both the parent and daughter isotopes used to infer the age of igneous rocks.
Using this method means the team assumed that the rock from which the samples were taken was a completely closed system from its formation to the present—an unreasonable assumption for metamorphosed sandstone that has most probably undergone torturous upheavals and vast temperature changes over time.
Why did the researchers not look for shorter-lived radioisotopes such as iron 60 (60Fe), nickel 59 (59Ni), manganese 53 (53Mn), krypton 81 (81Kr), calcium 41 (41Ca), carbon 14 (14C), or even yttrium 88 (88Y), which would have produced significantly younger age estimates?
The extensive analyses performed by this research group produced some outstanding 3-D profiles of lead (Pb) and yttrium (Y) within the zircon crystal, but the data obtained from the Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) analysis required the use of a uranium-lead (U-Pb) standard assumed to be billions of years old.1,10 This step was necessary because the ion-forming process during the initial stage of the SIMS analysis is still poorly understood.11
Despite all these caveats on the analysis, the researchers reported the zircon's age as factual, ignoring the unknowns and assumptions involved in both the data and the process.1 Does their crystal deserve to be called the "oldest scrap of Earth crust"? It may be the oldest yet examined, but it is apparently much younger than the study authors claim, which would infer that the Earth-moon system is also much younger than the 4.5 x 109 years commonly assumed by secular evolutionists.
The Institute for Creation Research
Wrong! The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Zircon: Earth's Oldest Crystal?
by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Most people are familiar with man-made, diamond-like cubic zirconia (zirconium dioxide), but zirconium silicate, a less well-known form of zirconium, also exists in crystalline form. Called zircon for short, this mineral is found all over Earth's crust. Dr. John W. Valley and his team recently published an article in Nature Geoscience discussing two surface samples from their continuing analysis of a detrital zircon—one derived from a weathered rock—found in Australia.1,2 BBC News cited it as the "oldest scrap of Earth crust."3 Is this conclusion accurate?
The study authors assumed that all the mineral grains from their source rock formation, like zircons, were four billion years or older, corresponding to a Hadean "age" of Earth's supposed history.1,4 Two surface samples exposed the core of the zircons for the first time, and the researchers submitted them to a battery of sophisticated analyses.5 The unstated and subtle objective of their article seems to have aimed at widening the time window for random processes to generate the basic molecules of life out of non-living matter—though that actually only hinders evolutionary hypotheses by giving those key molecules more time to randomize.6
In secular circles the age of the earth is believed to be around 4.54 billion years. It is assumed so frequently that a majority of people generally regard it as a scientific fact—in a sense it's become a form of dogma—much like the earth was once assumed to sit at the center of the solar system. This concept of "deep time" is firmly based on the uniformitarian view of nature, i.e., that decay rates for radioisotopes have always been as they appear today. But recent laboratory experiments have demonstrated this assumption to be incorrect under certain conditions.7,8
Also, the observed helium leak rate from certain zircons embedded in biotite rock samples refutes their billion-year age assignment, instead showing that billions of years' worth of uranium decay at today's rates actually occurred very quickly.9 It should be noted here that there are ways to accelerate radioisotope decay.7
Investigators used the U-Th-Pb isochron radioisotope analysis method to date the zircon.1 However, this method is cleverly constructed to try to avoid the problem of not knowing the initial concentrations of both the parent and daughter isotopes used to infer the age of igneous rocks.
Using this method means the team assumed that the rock from which the samples were taken was a completely closed system from its formation to the present—an unreasonable assumption for metamorphosed sandstone that has most probably undergone torturous upheavals and vast temperature changes over time.
Why did the researchers not look for shorter-lived radioisotopes such as iron 60 (60Fe), nickel 59 (59Ni), manganese 53 (53Mn), krypton 81 (81Kr), calcium 41 (41Ca), carbon 14 (14C), or even yttrium 88 (88Y), which would have produced significantly younger age estimates?
The extensive analyses performed by this research group produced some outstanding 3-D profiles of lead (Pb) and yttrium (Y) within the zircon crystal, but the data obtained from the Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) analysis required the use of a uranium-lead (U-Pb) standard assumed to be billions of years old.1,10 This step was necessary because the ion-forming process during the initial stage of the SIMS analysis is still poorly understood.11
Despite all these caveats on the analysis, the researchers reported the zircon's age as factual, ignoring the unknowns and assumptions involved in both the data and the process.1 Does their crystal deserve to be called the "oldest scrap of Earth crust"? It may be the oldest yet examined, but it is apparently much younger than the study authors claim, which would infer that the Earth-moon system is also much younger than the 4.5 x 109 years commonly assumed by secular evolutionists.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
More young earther-techie babble.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1518467 wrote: Wrong! The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Zircon: Earth's Oldest Crystal?
by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Most people are familiar with man-made, diamond-like cubic zirconia (zirconium dioxide), but zirconium silicate, a less well-known form of zirconium, also exists in crystalline form. Called zircon for short, this mineral is found all over Earth's crust. Dr. John W. Valley and his team recently published an article in Nature Geoscience discussing two surface samples from their continuing analysis of a detrital zircon—one derived from a weathered rock—found in Australia.1,2 BBC News cited it as the "oldest scrap of Earth crust."3 Is this conclusion accurate?
The study authors assumed that all the mineral grains from their source rock formation, like zircons, were four billion years or older, corresponding to a Hadean "age" of Earth's supposed history.1,4 Two surface samples exposed the core of the zircons for the first time, and the researchers submitted them to a battery of sophisticated analyses.5 The unstated and subtle objective of their article seems to have aimed at widening the time window for random processes to generate the basic molecules of life out of non-living matter—though that actually only hinders evolutionary hypotheses by giving those key molecules more time to randomize.6
In secular circles the age of the earth is believed to be around 4.54 billion years. It is assumed so frequently that a majority of people generally regard it as a scientific fact—in a sense it's become a form of dogma—much like the earth was once assumed to sit at the center of the solar system. This concept of "deep time" is firmly based on the uniformitarian view of nature, i.e., that decay rates for radioisotopes have always been as they appear today. But recent laboratory experiments have demonstrated this assumption to be incorrect under certain conditions.7,8
Also, the observed helium leak rate from certain zircons embedded in biotite rock samples refutes their billion-year age assignment, instead showing that billions of years' worth of uranium decay at today's rates actually occurred very quickly.9 It should be noted here that there are ways to accelerate radioisotope decay.7
Investigators used the U-Th-Pb isochron radioisotope analysis method to date the zircon.1 However, this method is cleverly constructed to try to avoid the problem of not knowing the initial concentrations of both the parent and daughter isotopes used to infer the age of igneous rocks.
Using this method means the team assumed that the rock from which the samples were taken was a completely closed system from its formation to the present—an unreasonable assumption for metamorphosed sandstone that has most probably undergone torturous upheavals and vast temperature changes over time.
Why did the researchers not look for shorter-lived radioisotopes such as iron 60 (60Fe), nickel 59 (59Ni), manganese 53 (53Mn), krypton 81 (81Kr), calcium 41 (41Ca), carbon 14 (14C), or even yttrium 88 (88Y), which would have produced significantly younger age estimates?
The extensive analyses performed by this research group produced some outstanding 3-D profiles of lead (Pb) and yttrium (Y) within the zircon crystal, but the data obtained from the Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) analysis required the use of a uranium-lead (U-Pb) standard assumed to be billions of years old.1,10 This step was necessary because the ion-forming process during the initial stage of the SIMS analysis is still poorly understood.11
Despite all these caveats on the analysis, the researchers reported the zircon's age as factual, ignoring the unknowns and assumptions involved in both the data and the process.1 Does their crystal deserve to be called the "oldest scrap of Earth crust"? It may be the oldest yet examined, but it is apparently much younger than the study authors claim, which would infer that the Earth-moon system is also much younger than the 4.5 x 109 years commonly assumed by secular evolutionists.
The Institute for Creation Research
Now compare that twaddle with the ACTUAL data...
They ran 6 different age test on it & only 1 differed from the others - with that one indicating quite a bit older.
As for Helium Leakage - that is known to be higher when heat is applied, as opposed to samples that are more commonly found deep within granite. The sample in question was said to have been found on the crust & believed to have been affected by super heated meteorites. This, therefore would not be inconsistent with the original evidence. Note ORIGINAL evidence. As with all Science, the evidence comes FIRST. With Creationism the notion comes first then you desperately try to find ways that might support it, whilst ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zir ... Nature.pdf
Zircon: Earth's Oldest Crystal?
by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Most people are familiar with man-made, diamond-like cubic zirconia (zirconium dioxide), but zirconium silicate, a less well-known form of zirconium, also exists in crystalline form. Called zircon for short, this mineral is found all over Earth's crust. Dr. John W. Valley and his team recently published an article in Nature Geoscience discussing two surface samples from their continuing analysis of a detrital zircon—one derived from a weathered rock—found in Australia.1,2 BBC News cited it as the "oldest scrap of Earth crust."3 Is this conclusion accurate?
The study authors assumed that all the mineral grains from their source rock formation, like zircons, were four billion years or older, corresponding to a Hadean "age" of Earth's supposed history.1,4 Two surface samples exposed the core of the zircons for the first time, and the researchers submitted them to a battery of sophisticated analyses.5 The unstated and subtle objective of their article seems to have aimed at widening the time window for random processes to generate the basic molecules of life out of non-living matter—though that actually only hinders evolutionary hypotheses by giving those key molecules more time to randomize.6
In secular circles the age of the earth is believed to be around 4.54 billion years. It is assumed so frequently that a majority of people generally regard it as a scientific fact—in a sense it's become a form of dogma—much like the earth was once assumed to sit at the center of the solar system. This concept of "deep time" is firmly based on the uniformitarian view of nature, i.e., that decay rates for radioisotopes have always been as they appear today. But recent laboratory experiments have demonstrated this assumption to be incorrect under certain conditions.7,8
Also, the observed helium leak rate from certain zircons embedded in biotite rock samples refutes their billion-year age assignment, instead showing that billions of years' worth of uranium decay at today's rates actually occurred very quickly.9 It should be noted here that there are ways to accelerate radioisotope decay.7
Investigators used the U-Th-Pb isochron radioisotope analysis method to date the zircon.1 However, this method is cleverly constructed to try to avoid the problem of not knowing the initial concentrations of both the parent and daughter isotopes used to infer the age of igneous rocks.
Using this method means the team assumed that the rock from which the samples were taken was a completely closed system from its formation to the present—an unreasonable assumption for metamorphosed sandstone that has most probably undergone torturous upheavals and vast temperature changes over time.
Why did the researchers not look for shorter-lived radioisotopes such as iron 60 (60Fe), nickel 59 (59Ni), manganese 53 (53Mn), krypton 81 (81Kr), calcium 41 (41Ca), carbon 14 (14C), or even yttrium 88 (88Y), which would have produced significantly younger age estimates?
The extensive analyses performed by this research group produced some outstanding 3-D profiles of lead (Pb) and yttrium (Y) within the zircon crystal, but the data obtained from the Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) analysis required the use of a uranium-lead (U-Pb) standard assumed to be billions of years old.1,10 This step was necessary because the ion-forming process during the initial stage of the SIMS analysis is still poorly understood.11
Despite all these caveats on the analysis, the researchers reported the zircon's age as factual, ignoring the unknowns and assumptions involved in both the data and the process.1 Does their crystal deserve to be called the "oldest scrap of Earth crust"? It may be the oldest yet examined, but it is apparently much younger than the study authors claim, which would infer that the Earth-moon system is also much younger than the 4.5 x 109 years commonly assumed by secular evolutionists.
The Institute for Creation Research
Now compare that twaddle with the ACTUAL data...
They ran 6 different age test on it & only 1 differed from the others - with that one indicating quite a bit older.
As for Helium Leakage - that is known to be higher when heat is applied, as opposed to samples that are more commonly found deep within granite. The sample in question was said to have been found on the crust & believed to have been affected by super heated meteorites. This, therefore would not be inconsistent with the original evidence. Note ORIGINAL evidence. As with all Science, the evidence comes FIRST. With Creationism the notion comes first then you desperately try to find ways that might support it, whilst ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zir ... Nature.pdf
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1518470 wrote: More young earther-techie babble.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
A Tale of Two Hourglasses
BY D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH.D.
In your kitchen you start a three-minute egg timer and a 60-minute hourglass simultaneously and then leave. You return a short while later to find the hourglass fully discharged but not the egg timer! Something must be wrong with at least one of the two timers.
The RATE project1 has discovered several striking examples of such contradictions in radioactive dating methods. In the Thousands . . . Not Billions seminars2 publicizing the remarkable RATE results, I have used a picture of two hourglasses to illustrate one pair of contradictory clocks. They use uranium, lead, and helium changing within a common mineral. I'd like to take this opportunity to explain the hourglass illustration more fully, because it clarifies some very encouraging scientific evidence that supports the Biblical timescale of Earth history -- six thousand years, not billions of years.
Radioactive crystals make and lose helium
To understand the two hourglasses, you need to know what goes on in tiny radioactive zircon crystals, common in granitic rock. As a zircon crystal begins to form in cooling magma (molten rock), it absorbs uranium atoms from the magma. It rejects atoms of lead.3 After a zircon is fully formed and the magma cools some more, a crystal of black mica called biotite forms around it. Other minerals, such as quartz and feldspar, crystallize around the biotite to complete the rock.
The nuclei of the uranium atoms (embedded throughout the zircon) decay through a series of intermediate elements to eventually become nuclei of lead. Many of the intermediate nuclei emit alpha particles, which are nuclei of helium atoms. For the zircon size we are considering, many of the fast-moving alpha particles slow to a stop within the zircon. Then they gather two electrons apiece from the surrounding crystal and become helium atoms. Thus a uranium 238 atom produces eight helium atoms as it becomes a lead 206 atom.
Helium atoms are lightweight, fast-moving, and do not stick chemically to other atoms. They wriggle between the atoms of a material and spread themselves as far apart as possible. This process of diffusion (spreading), theoretically well-understood for over a century, makes helium leak rapidly out of most materials.
The nuclear decay hourglass
The conventional way to date zircons uses the nuclear decay of uranium to lead. Because the zircons have almost zero lead to begin with, essentially all the lead 206 atoms in a zircon today must have come from decay of uranium 238. Assuming the laboratory-measured decay rate remained the same throughout time, geoscientists can then calculate how long the decay would have to have been occurring to account for the present amounts of uranium and lead in the crystal. For the zircons we studied (from several miles underground), that time was 1.5 billion (± 20 million) years.
An hourglass illustrates this dating method. The red sand in the top represents uranium 238 atoms in a zircon. From our knowledge that zircons have no lead initially, we know that at the start all the sand was in the top of the hourglass. The green sand in the bottom represents lead 206 in the zircon. Red sand falling through the neck changes color to green, representing the nuclear transformation of uranium to lead. The neck of the hourglass controls the rate. If the neck has never changed size, then the rate at which sand presently falls, combined with the amounts in the top and the bottom, would tell us how long the process has been going on.
The helium leak hourglass
A report that some zircons deep underground had retained much of their helium4 gave me an idea for a new way to measure the age of zircons -- helium leak dating. The number of lead atoms in a zircon crystal (plus knowing its size relative to the range of alpha particles) tells us how many helium atoms the nuclear decay originally formed in the crystal. The zircons in the report, plus more of the same size that we obtained from the same site, had retained significant fractions (different at each different temperature at the site) of the original helium deposited. Therefore we knew how much helium had leaked from the crystals. We also found about the same amount as had leaked out was still present in the surrounding mineral, biotite.
At that time, we did not know the rate at which helium leaks from zircons. If we had known, we could have calculated how long it had been leaking. Roughly speaking, we could divide the amount of helium atoms lost from the zircon by the loss rate to get the age of the zircon.
A second hourglass illustrates this method. The golden sand in the top represents helium atoms still in a zircon. The golden sand in the bottom represents the helium that has leaked from the zircon to the biotite. The neck of this second hourglass represents the leak rate of helium from zircon.
Predictions, experiments, and results
Not knowing the leak rate, we reversed the calculation. We (essentially) divided the amount lost at each temperature by the Biblical age of the earth, 6,000 years. That gave us a prediction of what later experiments would show the loss rates to be if the Biblical age were correct. For contrast, we also calculated what the loss rates would be if the uranium-lead age of 1.5 billion years were correct. In 2000 we published both models.5
Then in 2001, we commissioned (through an intermediary who kept us anonymous) one of the world's best experimenters in this field to measure the leak rates of our particular zircons at various temperatures. Not being a creationist, he was not familiar with our prediction. Not being in touch with the experiment, we had no control over its outcome. This was an ideal way to get unbiased data.
When we plotted the results, they fell right on the 6000 year prediction! The statistical error bars of both data and prediction meshed neatly, with the central points of each almost overlapping each other. This remarkable line-up of experiment and theory would be unlikely to occur by chance. That gives us confidence that we have understood the helium hourglass correctly. In contrast, the data were more than 100,000 times higher than the 1.5 billion year model, enormously further away than statistical error would allow.
Then (essentially) we divided the observed helium losses by the measured leak rates to get a reading from the helium hourglass: 6000 (± 2000) years.
Which hourglass is right?
The helium leak hourglass says 6000 years. The uranium-lead hourglass says 1.5 billion years. This disagreement is far beyond the statistical error bounds. At least one of the hourglasses must be wrong.
Could the helium hourglass be that far wrong? My chapter of the RATE "results" book shows it is very unlikely.6 For example, temperature can change helium diffusion (leak) rates. But to retain the observed amount of helium, these zircons would have had to have been as cold as dry ice (-78°C, -108°F) for most of the alleged eons. Such low temperatures would be impossible at the depth from which our zircons came. For a second example, large changes in the physical laws governing diffusion are also very unlikely, because the same laws also govern biochemistry. It is difficult to imagine such changes not destroying all living things on the earth.
On the other hand, changes in the physical laws governing the nucleus of the atom would not greatly affect things outside the nucleus, such as the outer electrons of the atom, chemistry, or life. RATE's hypothesis has been that during several short episodes in Earth history (for example, the Genesis Flood). God changed nuclear forces in order to greatly accelerate nuclear decay, particularly for nuclei that now decay very slowly. I have discussed7 many Scriptures suggesting that God did exactly that.
Accelerated nuclear decay would mean that there was a valve on the neck of the uranium-lead hourglass. Most of its sand would fall to the bottom during short episodes when the valve was wide open. Such an acceleration would collapse the billions of years down to the 6000 years of the Bible.
Resources worth studying
Of course, the details are more complex than the above outline for the general public. Technical readers may want to study various technical resources,8-10 where we discuss problems such as excess radiogenic heat. Answers to skeptics are online.11 Many layman's resources12-14 can help you use these results to deflate the myth of billions of years.
The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
A Tale of Two Hourglasses
BY D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH.D.
In your kitchen you start a three-minute egg timer and a 60-minute hourglass simultaneously and then leave. You return a short while later to find the hourglass fully discharged but not the egg timer! Something must be wrong with at least one of the two timers.
The RATE project1 has discovered several striking examples of such contradictions in radioactive dating methods. In the Thousands . . . Not Billions seminars2 publicizing the remarkable RATE results, I have used a picture of two hourglasses to illustrate one pair of contradictory clocks. They use uranium, lead, and helium changing within a common mineral. I'd like to take this opportunity to explain the hourglass illustration more fully, because it clarifies some very encouraging scientific evidence that supports the Biblical timescale of Earth history -- six thousand years, not billions of years.
Radioactive crystals make and lose helium
To understand the two hourglasses, you need to know what goes on in tiny radioactive zircon crystals, common in granitic rock. As a zircon crystal begins to form in cooling magma (molten rock), it absorbs uranium atoms from the magma. It rejects atoms of lead.3 After a zircon is fully formed and the magma cools some more, a crystal of black mica called biotite forms around it. Other minerals, such as quartz and feldspar, crystallize around the biotite to complete the rock.
The nuclei of the uranium atoms (embedded throughout the zircon) decay through a series of intermediate elements to eventually become nuclei of lead. Many of the intermediate nuclei emit alpha particles, which are nuclei of helium atoms. For the zircon size we are considering, many of the fast-moving alpha particles slow to a stop within the zircon. Then they gather two electrons apiece from the surrounding crystal and become helium atoms. Thus a uranium 238 atom produces eight helium atoms as it becomes a lead 206 atom.
Helium atoms are lightweight, fast-moving, and do not stick chemically to other atoms. They wriggle between the atoms of a material and spread themselves as far apart as possible. This process of diffusion (spreading), theoretically well-understood for over a century, makes helium leak rapidly out of most materials.
The nuclear decay hourglass
The conventional way to date zircons uses the nuclear decay of uranium to lead. Because the zircons have almost zero lead to begin with, essentially all the lead 206 atoms in a zircon today must have come from decay of uranium 238. Assuming the laboratory-measured decay rate remained the same throughout time, geoscientists can then calculate how long the decay would have to have been occurring to account for the present amounts of uranium and lead in the crystal. For the zircons we studied (from several miles underground), that time was 1.5 billion (± 20 million) years.
An hourglass illustrates this dating method. The red sand in the top represents uranium 238 atoms in a zircon. From our knowledge that zircons have no lead initially, we know that at the start all the sand was in the top of the hourglass. The green sand in the bottom represents lead 206 in the zircon. Red sand falling through the neck changes color to green, representing the nuclear transformation of uranium to lead. The neck of the hourglass controls the rate. If the neck has never changed size, then the rate at which sand presently falls, combined with the amounts in the top and the bottom, would tell us how long the process has been going on.
The helium leak hourglass
A report that some zircons deep underground had retained much of their helium4 gave me an idea for a new way to measure the age of zircons -- helium leak dating. The number of lead atoms in a zircon crystal (plus knowing its size relative to the range of alpha particles) tells us how many helium atoms the nuclear decay originally formed in the crystal. The zircons in the report, plus more of the same size that we obtained from the same site, had retained significant fractions (different at each different temperature at the site) of the original helium deposited. Therefore we knew how much helium had leaked from the crystals. We also found about the same amount as had leaked out was still present in the surrounding mineral, biotite.
At that time, we did not know the rate at which helium leaks from zircons. If we had known, we could have calculated how long it had been leaking. Roughly speaking, we could divide the amount of helium atoms lost from the zircon by the loss rate to get the age of the zircon.
A second hourglass illustrates this method. The golden sand in the top represents helium atoms still in a zircon. The golden sand in the bottom represents the helium that has leaked from the zircon to the biotite. The neck of this second hourglass represents the leak rate of helium from zircon.
Predictions, experiments, and results
Not knowing the leak rate, we reversed the calculation. We (essentially) divided the amount lost at each temperature by the Biblical age of the earth, 6,000 years. That gave us a prediction of what later experiments would show the loss rates to be if the Biblical age were correct. For contrast, we also calculated what the loss rates would be if the uranium-lead age of 1.5 billion years were correct. In 2000 we published both models.5
Then in 2001, we commissioned (through an intermediary who kept us anonymous) one of the world's best experimenters in this field to measure the leak rates of our particular zircons at various temperatures. Not being a creationist, he was not familiar with our prediction. Not being in touch with the experiment, we had no control over its outcome. This was an ideal way to get unbiased data.
When we plotted the results, they fell right on the 6000 year prediction! The statistical error bars of both data and prediction meshed neatly, with the central points of each almost overlapping each other. This remarkable line-up of experiment and theory would be unlikely to occur by chance. That gives us confidence that we have understood the helium hourglass correctly. In contrast, the data were more than 100,000 times higher than the 1.5 billion year model, enormously further away than statistical error would allow.
Then (essentially) we divided the observed helium losses by the measured leak rates to get a reading from the helium hourglass: 6000 (± 2000) years.
Which hourglass is right?
The helium leak hourglass says 6000 years. The uranium-lead hourglass says 1.5 billion years. This disagreement is far beyond the statistical error bounds. At least one of the hourglasses must be wrong.
Could the helium hourglass be that far wrong? My chapter of the RATE "results" book shows it is very unlikely.6 For example, temperature can change helium diffusion (leak) rates. But to retain the observed amount of helium, these zircons would have had to have been as cold as dry ice (-78°C, -108°F) for most of the alleged eons. Such low temperatures would be impossible at the depth from which our zircons came. For a second example, large changes in the physical laws governing diffusion are also very unlikely, because the same laws also govern biochemistry. It is difficult to imagine such changes not destroying all living things on the earth.
On the other hand, changes in the physical laws governing the nucleus of the atom would not greatly affect things outside the nucleus, such as the outer electrons of the atom, chemistry, or life. RATE's hypothesis has been that during several short episodes in Earth history (for example, the Genesis Flood). God changed nuclear forces in order to greatly accelerate nuclear decay, particularly for nuclei that now decay very slowly. I have discussed7 many Scriptures suggesting that God did exactly that.
Accelerated nuclear decay would mean that there was a valve on the neck of the uranium-lead hourglass. Most of its sand would fall to the bottom during short episodes when the valve was wide open. Such an acceleration would collapse the billions of years down to the 6000 years of the Bible.
Resources worth studying
Of course, the details are more complex than the above outline for the general public. Technical readers may want to study various technical resources,8-10 where we discuss problems such as excess radiogenic heat. Answers to skeptics are online.11 Many layman's resources12-14 can help you use these results to deflate the myth of billions of years.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518473 wrote: Now compare that twaddle with the ACTUAL data...
They ran 6 different age test on it & only 1 differed from the others - with that one indicating quite a bit older.
As for Helium Leakage - that is known to be higher when heat is applied, as opposed to samples that are more commonly found deep within granite. The sample in question was said to have been found on the crust & believed to have been affected by super heated meteorites. This, therefore would not be inconsistent with the original evidence. Note ORIGINAL evidence. As with all Science, the evidence comes FIRST. With Creationism the notion comes first then you desperately try to find ways that might support it, whilst ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zir ... Nature.pdf
Actually that is the way evolution works. Creation uses the scientific method. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Evidence for a Young World
BY D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH.D.
Spiral galaxy NGC 1232 in constellation Eridanus. Photo: European Southern Observatory
Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2
2. Too few supernova remnants.
Crab Nebula
Photo: Courtesy of NASA
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
Electrical resistance in the earth's core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth's magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.
The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16
8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
Radio Halo, Photo: Courtesy of Mark Armitage
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24
10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions[ of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31
14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.31
The Institute for Creation Research
They ran 6 different age test on it & only 1 differed from the others - with that one indicating quite a bit older.
As for Helium Leakage - that is known to be higher when heat is applied, as opposed to samples that are more commonly found deep within granite. The sample in question was said to have been found on the crust & believed to have been affected by super heated meteorites. This, therefore would not be inconsistent with the original evidence. Note ORIGINAL evidence. As with all Science, the evidence comes FIRST. With Creationism the notion comes first then you desperately try to find ways that might support it, whilst ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zir ... Nature.pdf
Actually that is the way evolution works. Creation uses the scientific method. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Evidence for a Young World
BY D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH.D.
Spiral galaxy NGC 1232 in constellation Eridanus. Photo: European Southern Observatory
Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2
2. Too few supernova remnants.
Crab Nebula
Photo: Courtesy of NASA
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
Electrical resistance in the earth's core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth's magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.
The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16
8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
Radio Halo, Photo: Courtesy of Mark Armitage
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24
10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions[ of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31
14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.31
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Genetic Distances 1
Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured.
Proteins. “Genetic distances†can be calculated by taking a specific protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of evolution (a).
An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein. For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms (all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the rattlesnake was man (b). Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions (c).
a. Dr. Colin Patterson—Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History)—gave a talk on 5 November 1981 to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History. He compared the amino acid sequences in several proteins of different animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, have been taught in classrooms for decades. Patterson explained to a stunned audience that this new information contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, “The theory makes a prediction; we’ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.†Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he admitted “evolution was a faith,†he was “duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way,†and “evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics .†“Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory,†Audio Tape Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication. For other statements from Patterson’s presentation see: Tom Bethell, “Agnostic Evolutionists,†Harper’s Magazine, February 1985, pp.49–61.
“... it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ...†Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,†Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.280.
“It appears that the neo-darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm took shape….One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature.†Ibid., p.282.
“Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.†Trisha Gura, “Bones, Molecules ... or Both?†Nature, Vol. 406, 20 July 2000, p.230.
b. Robert Bayne Brown, Abstracts: 31st International Science and Engineering Fair (Washington D.C.: Science Service, 1980), p.113.
Ginny Gray, “Student Project ‘Rattles’ Science Fair Judges,†Issues and Answers, December 1980, p.3.
While the rattlesnake’s cytochrome c was most similar to man’s, man’s cytochrome c was most similar to that of the rhesus monkey. (If this seems like a contradiction, consider that City B could be the closest city to City A, but City C might be the closest city to City A.)
c. “As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.†Colin Patterson et al., p.179.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1518483 wrote: Actually that is the way evolution works. Creation uses the scientific method. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
At least you acknowledge that Evolution is based on Evidence, which is the point I was making.
Creationism has no Scientific background whatsoever. Everything is based on the premise of the existence of a God. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, therefore everything else falls flat on its face, as far as Scientific Disciplines are concerned.
The remainder of your paste is also total codswallop. It makes claims about what Evolutionists say about how old Galaxies are & how they are formed etc. That is a totally different Science whatsoever. That is Cosmology or Astrophysics. Evolution refers to ongoing changes in Biological matters in things that already exist. Contrary to your idiotic paste, it has nothing to do with the formation of Galaxies.
Why do you keep pasting from works of fiction that argue against Evolution without apparently even having a basic understanding of what area of Science Evolution relates to?
At least you acknowledge that Evolution is based on Evidence, which is the point I was making.
Creationism has no Scientific background whatsoever. Everything is based on the premise of the existence of a God. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, therefore everything else falls flat on its face, as far as Scientific Disciplines are concerned.
The remainder of your paste is also total codswallop. It makes claims about what Evolutionists say about how old Galaxies are & how they are formed etc. That is a totally different Science whatsoever. That is Cosmology or Astrophysics. Evolution refers to ongoing changes in Biological matters in things that already exist. Contrary to your idiotic paste, it has nothing to do with the formation of Galaxies.
Why do you keep pasting from works of fiction that argue against Evolution without apparently even having a basic understanding of what area of Science Evolution relates to?
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518540 wrote: At least you acknowledge that Evolution is based on Evidence, which is the point I was making.
Creationism has no Scientific background whatsoever. Everything is based on the premise of the existence of a God. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, therefore everything else falls flat on its face, as far as Scientific Disciplines are concerned.
Where did I acknowledge Evolution is based on Evidence? I have never seen any. Creation is solidly based on scientific evidence, which I have been demonstrating. Here is evidence for God's existence:
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
The remainder of your paste is also total codswallop. It makes claims about what Evolutionists say about how old Galaxies are & how they are formed etc. That is a totally different Science whatsoever. That is Cosmology or Astrophysics. Evolution refers to ongoing changes in Biological matters in things that already exist. Contrary to your idiotic paste, it has nothing to do with the formation of Galaxies.
Why do you keep pasting from works of fiction that argue against Evolution without apparently even having a basic understanding of what area of Science Evolution relates to?
One 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.
Another is: 2 the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
The first definition is biological. The second can refer to astronomy. Both are used by evolutionists and are the result of imagination.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Do Ice Cores Disprove Recent Creation?
by Brian Thomas, M.S., and Jake Hebert, Ph.D.
Glaciologists drill and extract cylindrical cores from high-latitude ice sheets and use different techniques to estimate the cores’ age at certain depths. Bible skeptics, like recent debater Bill Nye,1 claim these ice cores contain hundreds of thousands of annual layers, far too many for the Bible’s short timescale. However, two “dating details†negate this challenge.
The first dating detail exposes circular reasoning, which occurs when one assumes a particular outcome in arguing for that same outcome. In the Greenland ice sheet, clear seasonal layers are found only in the upper parts of the cores, but in central Antarctica less snowfall and blowing snow prevent clear seasonal layering. Because ice layers become less distinct at greater depths, simply discerning deeper layers becomes more difficult. Thus, researchers usually “date†ice cores with theoretical models called “glacial flow modelsâ€â€”and these models assume evolutionary time.2,3 Not surprisingly, they yield vast ages.4
Counting layers sounds straightforward, but circular reasoning even shows up here. For example, secular scientists dated the Greenland GISP2 ice core by counting what they presumed were annual patterns of, among other features, dust, volcanics, isotopes, and ions in the ice. They assigned an “age†of about 85,000 years to the 2,800-meter depth back in 1994. However, other scientists produced a “SPECMAP†timescale based on the idea that seafloor sediments were deposited slowly and gradually for many thousands of years. Their SPECMAP predicted that the GISP2 ice should have been 25,000 years older at that 2,800-meter depth. Workers then re-counted dust layers and conveniently found the “missing†25,000 supposed years.5 Secular expectations guided their age-dating procedures in a tight circle that excluded the biblical record.
The second dating detail questions whether or not each layer represents a year. A single large storm can deposit multiple layers that might look like annual layers, and multiple dust layers may also be deposited within a single year.6 No modern scientist watched the ice sheets form, so it’s possible that storms or phases within a storm, not whole winters, deposited many of them. This would have been especially true during the post-Flood Ice Age, a time of numerous storms and volcanic eruptions.7
Ironically, the hundreds of thousands of supposedly annual layers are far too few for old-earth expectations. For instance, secular scientists expected the bottom of the GISP2 core to be more than 200,000 years old.8 Yet, even after their convenient re-count of the bottom part of the core, they could only find about 110,000 supposed “annual†layers. Thus, even after forcing the data into old-earth assumptions, they still didn’t find enough layers to fit their expectation of many hundreds of thousands of years.9
These two important details derail the ice-core argument for an old earth: layers are not necessarily annual, and researchers employ circular reasoning to adjust counts to fit the vast ages they expect. The volcanism during the Flood year would have warmed ocean water enough for increased evaporation and precipitation to rapidly build the ice sheets.7 A post-Flood ice age best explains the origin of today’s ice sheets.
The Institute for Creation Research
Creationism has no Scientific background whatsoever. Everything is based on the premise of the existence of a God. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, therefore everything else falls flat on its face, as far as Scientific Disciplines are concerned.
Where did I acknowledge Evolution is based on Evidence? I have never seen any. Creation is solidly based on scientific evidence, which I have been demonstrating. Here is evidence for God's existence:
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
The remainder of your paste is also total codswallop. It makes claims about what Evolutionists say about how old Galaxies are & how they are formed etc. That is a totally different Science whatsoever. That is Cosmology or Astrophysics. Evolution refers to ongoing changes in Biological matters in things that already exist. Contrary to your idiotic paste, it has nothing to do with the formation of Galaxies.
Why do you keep pasting from works of fiction that argue against Evolution without apparently even having a basic understanding of what area of Science Evolution relates to?
One 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.
Another is: 2 the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
The first definition is biological. The second can refer to astronomy. Both are used by evolutionists and are the result of imagination.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Do Ice Cores Disprove Recent Creation?
by Brian Thomas, M.S., and Jake Hebert, Ph.D.
Glaciologists drill and extract cylindrical cores from high-latitude ice sheets and use different techniques to estimate the cores’ age at certain depths. Bible skeptics, like recent debater Bill Nye,1 claim these ice cores contain hundreds of thousands of annual layers, far too many for the Bible’s short timescale. However, two “dating details†negate this challenge.
The first dating detail exposes circular reasoning, which occurs when one assumes a particular outcome in arguing for that same outcome. In the Greenland ice sheet, clear seasonal layers are found only in the upper parts of the cores, but in central Antarctica less snowfall and blowing snow prevent clear seasonal layering. Because ice layers become less distinct at greater depths, simply discerning deeper layers becomes more difficult. Thus, researchers usually “date†ice cores with theoretical models called “glacial flow modelsâ€â€”and these models assume evolutionary time.2,3 Not surprisingly, they yield vast ages.4
Counting layers sounds straightforward, but circular reasoning even shows up here. For example, secular scientists dated the Greenland GISP2 ice core by counting what they presumed were annual patterns of, among other features, dust, volcanics, isotopes, and ions in the ice. They assigned an “age†of about 85,000 years to the 2,800-meter depth back in 1994. However, other scientists produced a “SPECMAP†timescale based on the idea that seafloor sediments were deposited slowly and gradually for many thousands of years. Their SPECMAP predicted that the GISP2 ice should have been 25,000 years older at that 2,800-meter depth. Workers then re-counted dust layers and conveniently found the “missing†25,000 supposed years.5 Secular expectations guided their age-dating procedures in a tight circle that excluded the biblical record.
The second dating detail questions whether or not each layer represents a year. A single large storm can deposit multiple layers that might look like annual layers, and multiple dust layers may also be deposited within a single year.6 No modern scientist watched the ice sheets form, so it’s possible that storms or phases within a storm, not whole winters, deposited many of them. This would have been especially true during the post-Flood Ice Age, a time of numerous storms and volcanic eruptions.7
Ironically, the hundreds of thousands of supposedly annual layers are far too few for old-earth expectations. For instance, secular scientists expected the bottom of the GISP2 core to be more than 200,000 years old.8 Yet, even after their convenient re-count of the bottom part of the core, they could only find about 110,000 supposed “annual†layers. Thus, even after forcing the data into old-earth assumptions, they still didn’t find enough layers to fit their expectation of many hundreds of thousands of years.9
These two important details derail the ice-core argument for an old earth: layers are not necessarily annual, and researchers employ circular reasoning to adjust counts to fit the vast ages they expect. The volcanism during the Flood year would have warmed ocean water enough for increased evaporation and precipitation to rapidly build the ice sheets.7 A post-Flood ice age best explains the origin of today’s ice sheets.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1518550 wrote: Where did I acknowledge Evolution is based on Evidence? I have never seen any.
My post referred to how Evolution relies on Evidence. You replied "That is how Evolution works"
Creation is solidly based on scientific evidence, which I have been demonstrating. Here is evidence for God's existence:
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
1. There is no evidence for there having been nothing. There is also no evidence of there having been anything. Therefore, without hard evidence one way or the other, anything else is mere supposition.
2. There is no evidence that cause of the Universe was not natural. If something happens it is natural that it happens. 'Supernatural' is just a term used by the superstitious in an attempt to attribute something magical to that which they don't understand. There are many Scientific Theories as to the origin of the Universe. All of them that fit the evidence. Most of them are quite plausible. None of which involve anything Supernatural.
3. The simple fact that there are alternative Theories nullifies your argument that there is no other possibility. Therefore, there is nothing to prove the existence of A God (note I don't even restrict that to YOUR God, as you also seem to discount that as a possibility).
One 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.
Another is: 2 the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
The first definition is biological. The second can refer to astronomy. Both are used by evolutionists and are the result of imagination.
Your argument against Evolution refers solely to the Biological side of things. Evolution, in whatever respect you want to use it refers to change of what exists. In no way does it ever refer to the creation of anything. Only Creationists refer to Evolution in terms of Astronomy & only Creationists try to connect it to Evolutionists in this way.
Furthermore, observable evidence is not a result of imagination. I can show you fossil records of evolution. I challenge you to provide any such evidence of a God. True, I cannot disprove the existence, quite simply because you can never disprove anything that doesn't exist. Only when you find evidence can you positively prove anything. Evolution has such evidence. Creationism does not.
My post referred to how Evolution relies on Evidence. You replied "That is how Evolution works"
Creation is solidly based on scientific evidence, which I have been demonstrating. Here is evidence for God's existence:
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
1. There is no evidence for there having been nothing. There is also no evidence of there having been anything. Therefore, without hard evidence one way or the other, anything else is mere supposition.
2. There is no evidence that cause of the Universe was not natural. If something happens it is natural that it happens. 'Supernatural' is just a term used by the superstitious in an attempt to attribute something magical to that which they don't understand. There are many Scientific Theories as to the origin of the Universe. All of them that fit the evidence. Most of them are quite plausible. None of which involve anything Supernatural.
3. The simple fact that there are alternative Theories nullifies your argument that there is no other possibility. Therefore, there is nothing to prove the existence of A God (note I don't even restrict that to YOUR God, as you also seem to discount that as a possibility).
One 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.
Another is: 2 the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
The first definition is biological. The second can refer to astronomy. Both are used by evolutionists and are the result of imagination.
Your argument against Evolution refers solely to the Biological side of things. Evolution, in whatever respect you want to use it refers to change of what exists. In no way does it ever refer to the creation of anything. Only Creationists refer to Evolution in terms of Astronomy & only Creationists try to connect it to Evolutionists in this way.
Furthermore, observable evidence is not a result of imagination. I can show you fossil records of evolution. I challenge you to provide any such evidence of a God. True, I cannot disprove the existence, quite simply because you can never disprove anything that doesn't exist. Only when you find evidence can you positively prove anything. Evolution has such evidence. Creationism does not.
Science Disproves Evolution
[QUOTE=FourPart;1518551]My post referred to how Evolution relies on Evidence. You replied "That is how Evolution works"
I was commenting on the rest of your statement that: "As with all Science, the evidence comes FIRST. With Creationism the notion comes first then you desperately try to find ways that might support it, whilst ignoring all other evidence to the contrary." Substitute evolution for Creationism.
1. There is no evidence for there having been nothing. There is also no evidence of there having been anything. Therefore, without hard evidence one way or the other, anything else is mere supposition.
The supposition is based on experience. The evidence of there having been anything is the fact it now exists; the universe. Experience tells us everything had a beginning, including the universe and before that beginning it did not exist and there was nothing.
2. There is no evidence that cause of the Universe was not natural. If something happens it is natural that it happens. 'Supernatural' is just a term used by the superstitious in an attempt to attribute something magical to that which they don't understand. There are many Scientific Theories as to the origin of the Universe. All of them that fit the evidence. Most of them are quite plausible. None of which involve anything Supernatural.
Do any of them explain how the universe came from nothing by some natural cause?
3. The simple fact that there are alternative Theories nullifies your argument that there is no other possibility. Therefore, there is nothing to prove the existence of A God (note I don't even restrict that to YOUR God, as you also seem to discount that as a possibility).
Your attempt to deny the existence of God is humorously pathetic. The fact remains that before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
Your argument against Evolution refers solely to the Biological side of things. Evolution, in whatever respect you want to use it refers to change of what exists. In no way does it ever refer to the creation of anything. Only Creationists refer to Evolution in terms of Astronomy & only Creationists try to connect it to Evolutionists in this way.
I can accept evolution if it only refers to change. Everything is in a state of change. But if you assert that change results in one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal, I would need to see evidence of that.
Furthermore, observable evidence is not a result of imagination. I can show you fossil records of evolution. I challenge you to provide any such evidence of a God. True, I cannot disprove the existence, quite simply because you can never disprove anything that doesn't exist. Only when you find evidence can you positively prove anything. Evolution has such evidence. Creationism does not.
Where does the fossil record show signs of evolution? Where is evidence for evolution? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms
The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.
According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:
1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.
However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.
Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.
Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.
Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.
Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.
In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.
The Institute for Creation Research
I was commenting on the rest of your statement that: "As with all Science, the evidence comes FIRST. With Creationism the notion comes first then you desperately try to find ways that might support it, whilst ignoring all other evidence to the contrary." Substitute evolution for Creationism.
1. There is no evidence for there having been nothing. There is also no evidence of there having been anything. Therefore, without hard evidence one way or the other, anything else is mere supposition.
The supposition is based on experience. The evidence of there having been anything is the fact it now exists; the universe. Experience tells us everything had a beginning, including the universe and before that beginning it did not exist and there was nothing.
2. There is no evidence that cause of the Universe was not natural. If something happens it is natural that it happens. 'Supernatural' is just a term used by the superstitious in an attempt to attribute something magical to that which they don't understand. There are many Scientific Theories as to the origin of the Universe. All of them that fit the evidence. Most of them are quite plausible. None of which involve anything Supernatural.
Do any of them explain how the universe came from nothing by some natural cause?
3. The simple fact that there are alternative Theories nullifies your argument that there is no other possibility. Therefore, there is nothing to prove the existence of A God (note I don't even restrict that to YOUR God, as you also seem to discount that as a possibility).
Your attempt to deny the existence of God is humorously pathetic. The fact remains that before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
Your argument against Evolution refers solely to the Biological side of things. Evolution, in whatever respect you want to use it refers to change of what exists. In no way does it ever refer to the creation of anything. Only Creationists refer to Evolution in terms of Astronomy & only Creationists try to connect it to Evolutionists in this way.
I can accept evolution if it only refers to change. Everything is in a state of change. But if you assert that change results in one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal, I would need to see evidence of that.
Furthermore, observable evidence is not a result of imagination. I can show you fossil records of evolution. I challenge you to provide any such evidence of a God. True, I cannot disprove the existence, quite simply because you can never disprove anything that doesn't exist. Only when you find evidence can you positively prove anything. Evolution has such evidence. Creationism does not.
Where does the fossil record show signs of evolution? Where is evidence for evolution? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms
The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.
According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:
1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.
However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.
Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.
Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.
Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.
Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.
In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Genetic Distances 2
DNA and RNA. Comparisons can be made between the genetic material of different organisms. The list of organisms that have had all their genes sequenced and entered in databases, such as “GenBank,†is doubling each year. Computer comparisons of each gene with all other genes in the database show too many genes that are completely unrelated to any others (d). Therefore, an evolutionary relationship between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals (e). Each category of organism appears to be almost equally isolated (f).
(d). Gregory J. Brewer, “The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design,†ICR Impact, No.341, November 2001, pp.1–4.
Field, pp.748–753.
(e). Denton, p.285.
(f). “The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins’ amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.†Ibid. p.289.
“Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence.†Ibid. pp.289–290.
“Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.†Ibid. p.290.
“There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.†Ibid. pp.290–291.
“In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed ‘intermediate’, ‘ancestral’ or ‘primitive’ by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status.†Ibid., p.293.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Your perpetual resort to saying that something is Supernatural & claiming that 'Proves' something is just mind blowing in its stupidity. It's a playground argument of "Why? Because I said so!" It has no validity whatsoever, and you claim this to be a Scientific approach. Science requires hard evidence. Something that can be seen. Something that can be measured & catalogued. Claims that something happened by unexplained Supernatural means does not come under any of these categories whatsoever. When you see an illusionist performing a trick, do you see how the trick is done? Of course not - that is the art of the illusionist. It's magic. What you can see - or more to the point, what you THINK you can see, cannot be explained by Natural causes, therefore it must be Supernatural. Time & time again that is your argument - IN THOSE VERY WORDS. The fact that not yet being able to understand something doesn't come into your understanding. You expect the entire history & full explanations of the coming of the Universe to be explained in one single book. A book that is already loaded with discrepancies & contradictions, whilst at the same time totally ignoring & refuting the evidence of quadrillions of terrabytes of recorded evidence to the contrary, which still only covers a fraction of what there is to learn. To early Cavemen, the ability to start a fire & control it would have been considered magical - it could not be explained by any Natural causes (by their understanding of the time), therefore it had to be Supernatural. Your constant reference to the Supernatural simply defines you as a Prehistoric Caveman in your total ignorance.
Things that are still not understood include things as basic as Gravity & Electricity, and many others. We may not understand how they work or why, but we don't view them as being Supernatural. They are not things we can see. We can only see how they affect the things around them. But where are such things mentioned in the Bible? By your logic, if they weren't mentioned in the Bible, then they must have only come into existence since the Bible was written, seeing that everything must have had a beginning. The simple fact is that Human life - that is, recognisable as being human, has only been on this planet for a proportionate amount of time as a grain of sand on the beach, and you seem to expect us to understand the most intricate details of every other grain of sand, not only on this beach, but all other beaches as well.
Things that are still not understood include things as basic as Gravity & Electricity, and many others. We may not understand how they work or why, but we don't view them as being Supernatural. They are not things we can see. We can only see how they affect the things around them. But where are such things mentioned in the Bible? By your logic, if they weren't mentioned in the Bible, then they must have only come into existence since the Bible was written, seeing that everything must have had a beginning. The simple fact is that Human life - that is, recognisable as being human, has only been on this planet for a proportionate amount of time as a grain of sand on the beach, and you seem to expect us to understand the most intricate details of every other grain of sand, not only on this beach, but all other beaches as well.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518630 wrote: Your perpetual resort to saying that something is Supernatural & claiming that 'Proves' something is just mind blowing in its stupidity. It's a playground argument of "Why? Because I said so!" It has no validity whatsoever, and you claim this to be a Scientific approach. Science requires hard evidence. Something that can be seen. Something that can be measured & catalogued. Claims that something happened by unexplained Supernatural means does not come under any of these categories whatsoever. When you see an illusionist performing a trick, do you see how the trick is done? Of course not - that is the art of the illusionist. It's magic. What you can see - or more to the point, what you THINK you can see, cannot be explained by Natural causes, therefore it must be Supernatural. Time & time again that is your argument - IN THOSE VERY WORDS. The fact that not yet being able to understand something doesn't come into your understanding. You expect the entire history & full explanations of the coming of the Universe to be explained in one single book. A book that is already loaded with discrepancies & contradictions, whilst at the same time totally ignoring & refuting the evidence of quadrillions of terrabytes of recorded evidence to the contrary, which still only covers a fraction of what there is to learn. To early Cavemen, the ability to start a fire & control it would have been considered magical - it could not be explained by any Natural causes (by their understanding of the time), therefore it had to be Supernatural. Your constant reference to the Supernatural simply defines you as a Prehistoric Caveman in your total ignorance.
Where are the discrepancies & contradictions found in the Bible?
Things that are still not understood include things as basic as Gravity & Electricity, and many others. We may not understand how they work or why, but we don't view them as being Supernatural. They are not things we can see. We can only see how they affect the things around them. But where are such things mentioned in the Bible? By your logic, if they weren't mentioned in the Bible, then they must have only come into existence since the Bible was written, seeing that everything must have had a beginning. The simple fact is that Human life - that is, recognisable as being human, has only been on this planet for a proportionate amount of time as a grain of sand on the beach, and you seem to expect us to understand the most intricate details of every other grain of sand, not only on this beach, but all other beaches as well.
So explain how the universe appeared from nothing by some natural cause.
Where are the discrepancies & contradictions found in the Bible?
Things that are still not understood include things as basic as Gravity & Electricity, and many others. We may not understand how they work or why, but we don't view them as being Supernatural. They are not things we can see. We can only see how they affect the things around them. But where are such things mentioned in the Bible? By your logic, if they weren't mentioned in the Bible, then they must have only come into existence since the Bible was written, seeing that everything must have had a beginning. The simple fact is that Human life - that is, recognisable as being human, has only been on this planet for a proportionate amount of time as a grain of sand on the beach, and you seem to expect us to understand the most intricate details of every other grain of sand, not only on this beach, but all other beaches as well.
So explain how the universe appeared from nothing by some natural cause.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1518644 wrote: So explain how the universe appeared from nothing by some natural cause.
I never said the Universe did come from nothing. That is something no-one knows for certain. You, on the other hand, clearly know better than any of the world's leading scientists, as you appear to have all the answers. The answer, of course, being "Magic".
The leading theory, as you must be aware, is that of the Big Bang, originating from a chain reaction of energy. Now, it is a proven Scientific FACT that Energy, Matter & Time are related & interchangeable. The 1st law of energy is that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another. This basic law means that energy has always been there. There is also a theory that when Black Holes have taken in as much as they possibly can, they can also react & be a cause of another Big Bang. It is only a theory, but as with all Scientific theories it is based on the known facts. Of course it hasn't been proven - nor has it been disproven, but it is, at least, plausible. Furthermore, simply by there being another possibility immediately discounts your claim that something could not have happened by any other way, as that is at least one other possible way. Already your argument of "the only possible answer being Supernatural" has fallen apart.
Incidentally, were you aware that it was a Catholic Priest (Georges Lemaître) who first proposed the notion that the Universe was expanding? This was later shown to be true & laid the ground evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang.
I never said the Universe did come from nothing. That is something no-one knows for certain. You, on the other hand, clearly know better than any of the world's leading scientists, as you appear to have all the answers. The answer, of course, being "Magic".
The leading theory, as you must be aware, is that of the Big Bang, originating from a chain reaction of energy. Now, it is a proven Scientific FACT that Energy, Matter & Time are related & interchangeable. The 1st law of energy is that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another. This basic law means that energy has always been there. There is also a theory that when Black Holes have taken in as much as they possibly can, they can also react & be a cause of another Big Bang. It is only a theory, but as with all Scientific theories it is based on the known facts. Of course it hasn't been proven - nor has it been disproven, but it is, at least, plausible. Furthermore, simply by there being another possibility immediately discounts your claim that something could not have happened by any other way, as that is at least one other possible way. Already your argument of "the only possible answer being Supernatural" has fallen apart.
Incidentally, were you aware that it was a Catholic Priest (Georges Lemaître) who first proposed the notion that the Universe was expanding? This was later shown to be true & laid the ground evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518646 wrote: I never said the Universe did come from nothing. That is something no-one knows for certain. You, on the other hand, clearly know better than any of the world's leading scientists, as you appear to have all the answers. The answer, of course, being "Magic".
The leading theory, as you must be aware, is that of the Big Bang, originating from a chain reaction of energy. Now, it is a proven Scientific FACT that Energy, Matter & Time are related & interchangeable. The 1st law of energy is that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another. This basic law means that energy has always been there.
The first law only applies to matter that exists. Before it existed, it did not exist and there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor, the cause was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
There is also a theory that when Black Holes have taken in as much as they possibly can, they can also react & be a cause of another Big Bang. It is only a theory, but as with all Scientific theories it is based on the known facts. Of course it hasn't been proven - nor has it been disproven, but it is, at least, plausible. Furthermore, simply by there being another possibility immediately discounts your claim that something could not have happened by any other way, as that is at least one other possible way. Already your argument of "the only possible answer being Supernatural" has fallen apart.
Only in your imagination. If a natural cause is impossible, that leaves only one other possibility, a supernatural cause.
Incidentally, were you aware that it was a Catholic Priest (Georges Lemaître) who first proposed the notion that the Universe was expanding? This was later shown to be true & laid the ground evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Big Bang?
Dark Thoughts
Missing Mass. Between 1969 and 1998, virtually all big bang theorists said that the rapidly expanding universe must have enough mass to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter would not have come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass was always 10–20% of the needed amount. They reasoned that since the big bang theory was correct, the missing mass had to exist.u
Dark Matter. One would expect that the rotational velocities of stars around the center of a spiral galaxy would decrease the farther a star is from that center. However, since 1933, it has been known that those velocities are roughly constant beyond the galaxy’s central bulge. (This discovery gives great insight into how and when the universe began, but contradicts the way big-bang advocates think galaxies formed.) To explain these almost constant velocities, those advocates have told us since 1975 that (1) an invisible form of matter, called “dark matter,†must surround and permeate galaxies, and (2) five times more dark matter than normal matter should even be in the room where you are sitting. No direct measurements show that dark matter exists.v
Dark Energy. Big bang theorists have struck again by devising something new and imaginary to prop up their theory. Prior to 1998, the big bang theory predicted that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. Then in 1998, a shocking discovery was made and confirmed. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!a Therefore, to protect the big bang theory, something again had to be invented. Some energy source that overpowers gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. That energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy. Again, an important discovery that gives insight into how the universe actually began was effectively lost by a faulty explanation: dark energy.
“Dark matter†was created to make spiral galaxies spin correctly after a big bang. “Missing mass†was created to hold the universe together, and “dark energy†was created to push (actually accelerate) the universe apart. None of these have been seen or measured,v even with the world’s best telescopes and most sophisticated experiments. However, we are told that 95% of the universe is invisible—either dark matter (25%) or dark energy (70%). As respected cosmologist, Jim Peebles, admitted, “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical.â€w Other authorities have said that “dark matter†and “dark energy†“serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.â€u Few realize that these mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory. It is much like the supposed “missing link†that should exist between apes and man if man evolved from some apelike animal. Direct evidence does not exist.
History records other shocking discoveries that caused astronomers to assume aspects of the universe that they could not see or measure—a common practice in cosmology. Planets appeared to sometimes move backwards. This led to the belief, from A.D. 150 to 1543, that planets must revolve about the earth on epicycles—wheels that carried planets and rode on the circumferences of other wheels. As more was learned about planetary motion, more epicycles were required to support that theory. Those cosmologists said, “After all, those wheels must be there, because that would explain the strange movements of planets.†Without direct observations or measurements, such beliefs are completely unscientific. History is repeating itself with “missing mass,†“dark matter,†“dark energyâ€â€”and an often uncritical public. Notice that these strange ideas make no predictions, a sure sign that they are scientifically weak.
Instead of cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with authoritative sounding statements about things for which no direct evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang theory is faulty? Yes, but big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, funding, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists.
Below are listed some evidences that are contrary to the big bang theory. “Chemical Evolution Theory†on page 402 describes four errors in the big bang theory that required major revisions since 1946. Each revision rejected what had been assumed without direct evidence and taught for years until calculations showed those assumptions were false. Pages –441 explain why the 68 heaviest chemical elements would not form after a big bang. Pages 447–461 lay out the clear evidence for the correct expansion, or “stretching out,†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, if correctly understood, contradict the big bang theory.
Redshift. The redshift of starlight is a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Because the more distant stars and galaxies have a greater redshift, the space between these bodies is increasing—a fact so consistently observed that it is called “Hubble’s Law,†after Edwin Hubble who discovered it in 1929.
Space itself has expanded—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter has increased with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c These galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating, but to the surprise of everyone, measurements showed the opposite; galaxies are accelerating. Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws.
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. 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. Because redshifts are caused by the motion of objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g It is as strange as seeing all cars on a highway traveling at an odd number of miles per hour, and nothing in between. 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, 1–3 trillion visible galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. Simply stated, the big bang did not produce the CMB.j [See pages 468–469.]
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].â€p
Antimatter. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge and spin.q (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter exist, even in other galaxies.r
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 453.] Nor should a big bang produce rotating bodiess 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.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 estimated 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?
The leading theory, as you must be aware, is that of the Big Bang, originating from a chain reaction of energy. Now, it is a proven Scientific FACT that Energy, Matter & Time are related & interchangeable. The 1st law of energy is that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another. This basic law means that energy has always been there.
The first law only applies to matter that exists. Before it existed, it did not exist and there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor, the cause was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
There is also a theory that when Black Holes have taken in as much as they possibly can, they can also react & be a cause of another Big Bang. It is only a theory, but as with all Scientific theories it is based on the known facts. Of course it hasn't been proven - nor has it been disproven, but it is, at least, plausible. Furthermore, simply by there being another possibility immediately discounts your claim that something could not have happened by any other way, as that is at least one other possible way. Already your argument of "the only possible answer being Supernatural" has fallen apart.
Only in your imagination. If a natural cause is impossible, that leaves only one other possibility, a supernatural cause.
Incidentally, were you aware that it was a Catholic Priest (Georges Lemaître) who first proposed the notion that the Universe was expanding? This was later shown to be true & laid the ground evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Big Bang?
Dark Thoughts
Missing Mass. Between 1969 and 1998, virtually all big bang theorists said that the rapidly expanding universe must have enough mass to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter would not have come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass was always 10–20% of the needed amount. They reasoned that since the big bang theory was correct, the missing mass had to exist.u
Dark Matter. One would expect that the rotational velocities of stars around the center of a spiral galaxy would decrease the farther a star is from that center. However, since 1933, it has been known that those velocities are roughly constant beyond the galaxy’s central bulge. (This discovery gives great insight into how and when the universe began, but contradicts the way big-bang advocates think galaxies formed.) To explain these almost constant velocities, those advocates have told us since 1975 that (1) an invisible form of matter, called “dark matter,†must surround and permeate galaxies, and (2) five times more dark matter than normal matter should even be in the room where you are sitting. No direct measurements show that dark matter exists.v
Dark Energy. Big bang theorists have struck again by devising something new and imaginary to prop up their theory. Prior to 1998, the big bang theory predicted that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. Then in 1998, a shocking discovery was made and confirmed. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!a Therefore, to protect the big bang theory, something again had to be invented. Some energy source that overpowers gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. That energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy. Again, an important discovery that gives insight into how the universe actually began was effectively lost by a faulty explanation: dark energy.
“Dark matter†was created to make spiral galaxies spin correctly after a big bang. “Missing mass†was created to hold the universe together, and “dark energy†was created to push (actually accelerate) the universe apart. None of these have been seen or measured,v even with the world’s best telescopes and most sophisticated experiments. However, we are told that 95% of the universe is invisible—either dark matter (25%) or dark energy (70%). As respected cosmologist, Jim Peebles, admitted, “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical.â€w Other authorities have said that “dark matter†and “dark energy†“serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.â€u Few realize that these mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory. It is much like the supposed “missing link†that should exist between apes and man if man evolved from some apelike animal. Direct evidence does not exist.
History records other shocking discoveries that caused astronomers to assume aspects of the universe that they could not see or measure—a common practice in cosmology. Planets appeared to sometimes move backwards. This led to the belief, from A.D. 150 to 1543, that planets must revolve about the earth on epicycles—wheels that carried planets and rode on the circumferences of other wheels. As more was learned about planetary motion, more epicycles were required to support that theory. Those cosmologists said, “After all, those wheels must be there, because that would explain the strange movements of planets.†Without direct observations or measurements, such beliefs are completely unscientific. History is repeating itself with “missing mass,†“dark matter,†“dark energyâ€â€”and an often uncritical public. Notice that these strange ideas make no predictions, a sure sign that they are scientifically weak.
Instead of cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with authoritative sounding statements about things for which no direct evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang theory is faulty? Yes, but big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, funding, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists.
Below are listed some evidences that are contrary to the big bang theory. “Chemical Evolution Theory†on page 402 describes four errors in the big bang theory that required major revisions since 1946. Each revision rejected what had been assumed without direct evidence and taught for years until calculations showed those assumptions were false. Pages –441 explain why the 68 heaviest chemical elements would not form after a big bang. Pages 447–461 lay out the clear evidence for the correct expansion, or “stretching out,†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, if correctly understood, contradict the big bang theory.
Redshift. The redshift of starlight is a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Because the more distant stars and galaxies have a greater redshift, the space between these bodies is increasing—a fact so consistently observed that it is called “Hubble’s Law,†after Edwin Hubble who discovered it in 1929.
Space itself has expanded—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter has increased with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c These galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating, but to the surprise of everyone, measurements showed the opposite; galaxies are accelerating. Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws.
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. 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. Because redshifts are caused by the motion of objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g It is as strange as seeing all cars on a highway traveling at an odd number of miles per hour, and nothing in between. 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, 1–3 trillion visible galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. Simply stated, the big bang did not produce the CMB.j [See pages 468–469.]
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].â€p
Antimatter. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge and spin.q (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter exist, even in other galaxies.r
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 453.] Nor should a big bang produce rotating bodiess 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.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 estimated 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?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Big Bang ?
References
a . “Observations only recently made possible by improvements in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the Universe under intense pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980s about the shape and history of the Universe have now been abandoned—and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility that the Universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy, whose origin is not at all understood.†Peter Coles, “The End of the Old Model Universe,†Nature, Vol. 393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.
u “Three years ago, observations of distant, exploding stars blew to smithereens some of astronomers’ most cherished ideas about the universe . To piece together an updated theory, they’re now thinking dark thoughts about what sort of mystery force may be contorting the cosmos.
“According to the standard view of cosmology, the once infinitesimal universe has ballooned in volume ever since its fiery birth in the Big Bang, but the mutual gravitational tug of all the matter in the cosmos has gradually slowed that expansion.
“In 1998, however, scientists reported that a group of distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther from Earth, than the standard theory indicated. It was as if, in the billion or so years it took for the light from these exploded stars to arrive at Earth, the space between the stars and our planet had stretched out more than expected. That would mean that cosmic expansion has somehow sped up, not slowed down. Recent evidence has only firmed up that bizarre result.†Ron Cowen, “A Dark Force in the Universe,†Science News, Vol. 159, 7 April 2001, p. 218.
u “Not only don’t we see the universe slowing down; we see it speeding up.†Adam Riess, as quoted by James Glanz, “Astronomers See a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work,†Science, Vol. 279, 27 February 1998, p. 1298.
u “In one of the great results of twentieth century science, NSF-funded astronomers have shown both that the universe does not contain enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion, and that the rate of expansion actually increases with distance. Why? Nobody knows yet.†National Science Foundation Advertisement, “Astronomy: Fifty Years of Astronomical Excellence,†Discover, September 2000, p. 7.
u “The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is accelerating and that whatever caused the acceleration (dubbed “dark energyâ€) cannot be Standard Model physics.†Gordon Kane, “The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,†Scientific American, Vol. 288, June 2003, p. 73.
u “Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.†Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.
b . Redshifts can be caused by other phenomena. [See Jayant V. Narlikar, “Noncosmological Redshifts,†Space Science Reviews, Vol. 50, August 1989, pp. 523–614.] However, large redshifts are probably the result of the Doppler effect.
c . “... energy in recognizable forms (kinetic, potential, and internal) in an expanding, spatially unbounded, homogeneous universe is not conserved.†Edward R. Harrison, “Mining Energy in an Expanding Universe,†The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 446, 10 June 1955, p. 66.
d . “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.†Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,†Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
e . Halton M. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies (Berkeley, California: Interstellar Media, 1987).
f . “It clearly took a while after that primordial explosion for clouds of gas to congeal into a form dense enough for stars and quasars to ignite, and the Sky Survey is already prompting astronomers to question some of the assumptions about how that process unfolded [i.e, the big bang theory].†Michael D. Lemonick, “Star Seeker,†Discover, November 2001, p. 44.
g . William G. Tifft, “Properties of the Redshift,†The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 382, 1 December 1991, pp. 396–415.
h . “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.†Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?†Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33.
“Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it.†Ibid., p. 25.
u “History also shows that some BB [big bang] cosmologists’ ‘predictions’ of MBR [microwave background radiation] temperature have been ‘adjusted’ after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.†William C. Mitchell, “Big Bang Theory Under Fire,†Physics Essays, Vol. 10, June 1997, pp. 370–379.
u “What’s more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.†Eric J. Lerner et al., “Bucking the Big Bang,†New Scientist, Vol. 182, 22 May 2004, p. 20. www.cosmologystatement.org.]
i . “In each of the five patches of sky surveyed by the team, the distant galaxies bunch together instead of being distributed randomly in space. ‘The work is ongoing, but what we’re able to say now is that galaxies we are seeing at great distances are as strongly clustered in the early universe as they are today,’ says Steidel, who is at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.†Ron Cowen, “Light from the Early Universe,†Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 92.
u “One of the great challenges for modern cosmology is to determine how the initial power spectrum evolved into the spectrum observed today. ... the universe is much clumpier on those scales [600–900 million light-years] than current theories can explain.†Stephen D. Landy, “Mapping the Universe,†Scientific American, Vol. 280, June 1999, p. 44.
u “There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.†James Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988), p. 3.
u Geoffrey R. Burbidge, “Was There Really a Big Bang?†Nature, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 36–40.
u Ben Patrusky, “Why Is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?†Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.
u Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, “Superclusters and Voids in the Distribution of Galaxies,†Scientific American, Vol. 246, March 1982, pp. 106–114.
u “In fact, studies we have done show that the distribution of matter is fractal, just like a tree or a cloud.†[Patterns that repeat on all scales are called fractal.] Francesco Sylos Labini, as quoted by Marcus Chown, “Fractured Universe,†New Scientist, Vol. 163, 21 August 1999, p. 23.
“If this dissenting view is correct and the Universe doesn’t become smoothed out on the very largest scales, the consequences for cosmology are profound. ‘We’re lost,’ says [Professor of Astrophysics, Peter] Coles. ‘The foundations of the big bang models would crumble away. We’d be left with no explanation for the big bang, or galaxy formation, or the distribution of galaxies in the Universe.’ †Ibid.
j . Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, “Mapping the Universe,†Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897–903. [See also M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall,†Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885.]
u John Travis, “Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky,†Science, Vol. 263, 25 March 1994, p. 1684.
u Will Saunders et al., “The Density Field of the Local Universe,†Nature, Vol. 349, 3 January 1991, pp. 32–38.
u “But this uniformity [in the cosmic microwave background radiation, CMB] is difficult to reconcile with the obvious clumping of matter into galaxies, clusters of galaxies and even larger features extending across vast regions of the universe, such as ‘walls’ and ‘bubbles’. †Ivars Peterson, “Seeding the Universe,†Science News, Vol. 137, 24 March 1990, p. 184.
u As described below, one of the largest structures in the universe, “The Great Wall,†was discovered in 1989. It consists of tens of thousands of galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.
“The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the 2.7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very homogeneous in the beginning.†M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe Gets Larger—Maybe,†Science, Vol. 238, 13 November 1987, p. 894.
“The map’s most eye-catching feature is the Sloan Great Wall of galaxies, a clustering of galaxies that stretches 1.37 billion light-years across the sky and is the largest cosmic structure ever found. Astronomers worried that such a humongous structure, 80 percent bigger than the famous Great Wall of galaxies first discerned in a sky survey 2 decades ago, might violate the accepted model of galaxy evolution.†Ron Cowen, “Cosmic Survey,†Science News, Vol. 164, 1 November 2003, p. 276.
u James Glanz, “Precocious Structures Found,†Science, Vol. 272, 14 June 1996, p. 1590.
u For many years, big bang theorists searched in vain with increasingly precise instruments for temperature concentrations in the nearly uniform CMB. Without concentrations, matter could never gravitationally contract around those concentrations to form galaxies and galaxy clusters. Finally, in 1992, with great fanfare, an announcement was made in the popular media that slight concentrations were discovered. Major shortcomings were not mentioned:
v The concentrations were only one part in 100,000—not much more than the errors in the instruments. Such slight concentrations could not be expected to initiate much clustering. As Margaret Geller stated, “Gravity can’t, over the age of the universe, amplify these irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies].†Travis, p. 1684.
v “ data are notoriously noisy, and the purported effect looks remarkably like an instrumental glitch: it appears only in one small area of the sky and on an angular scale close to the limit of the satellite’s resolution.†George Musser, “Skewing the Cosmic Bell Curve,†Scientific American, Vol. 281, September 1999, p. 28.
v Slight errors or omissions in the many data processing steps could easily account for the faint signal.
v Reported variations in the CMB spanned areas of the sky that were 100 or 1,000 times too broad to produce galaxies.
v “... mysterious discrepancies have arisen between theory and observations ... It looks like inflation is getting into a major jam.†Glen D. Starkman and Dominik J. Schwarz, “Is the Universe Out of Tune?†Scientific American, Vol. 293, August 2005, pp. 49, 55.
The slight temperature variations (0.00003°C) detected have a strong statistical connection with the solar system. [Ibid., pp. 52–55.] They probably have nothing to do with a big bang.
k . “And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful without some ad hoc parameterization to ‘adjust’ predictions that otherwise would have been judged as failures.†Van Flandern, p. 33.
u “It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances.†H. C. Arp et al., “The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View,†Nature, Vol. 346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.
u “The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been predictions, but merely adjustments of theory (‘retrodictions’) to accommodate current data.†William C. Mitchell, p. 375.
l . Steidl, pp. 207–208.
u D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 149–155.
m . “Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers have detected a far greater abundance [a thousand times too much] of beryllium atoms than the standard Big Bang model predicts.†Ron Cowen, “Starlight Casts Doubt on Big Bang Details,†Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p. 151.
u Gerard Gilmore et al., “First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model,†The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17–21.
u Ron Cowen, “Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the Elements,†Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286–287.
n . “One might expect Population III stars [stars with only hydrogen and helium and no heavier elements] to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the Sun) still to be burning their nuclear fuel. The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star.†Bernard Carr, “Where Is Population III?†Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, p. 829.
u “Are there any stars older than Population II [i.e., Population III stars]? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe [i.e., the big bang theory] are correct. ... There is no statistically significant evidence for Population III objects [stars].†Leif J. Robinson, “Where Is Population III?†Sky and Telescope, July 1982, p. 20.
u “Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy.†Robert Irion, “The Quest for Population III,†Science, Vol. 295, 4 January 2002, p. 66.
Supposedly, Population II stars, stars having slight amounts of some heavy elements, evolved after Population III stars. Predicted characteristics of Population II stars have never been observed.
Spectral studies of ancient [Population II] stars in the Milky Way haven’t turned up anything so distinctive [as the chemical elements that should be present], [Timothy] Beers notes, but the search continues. Ibid., p. 67.
u A few stars might be Population III stars that became polluted with elements heavier than hydrogen and helium that fell into the star as dust. Tests are conducted to see if the right mix of these heavy elements that are in dust are present, such as titanium and iron. So far “observations have yet to turn up any [Population III star].†[See Christopher Crockett, “Milky Way May Harbor Primeval Stars,†Science News, Vol. 188, 14 November, 2015, p. 12.]
o . “Our result shows that this discrepancy is a universal problem concerning both the Milky Way and extra-galactic systems.†A. Mucciarelli et al., “The Cosmological Lithium Problem Outside the Galaxy,†Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 444, 21 October 2014, p. 1812.
u “... stars in M54 have just as little lithium as stars in the Milky Way, suggesting that the lithium problem is universal.†Christopher Crockett, “Mystery of the Missing Lithium Extends Beyond the Milky Way,†Science News, Vol. 186, 18 October 2014, p. 15.
p . Andrew Grant, “Lab Tests Mystery of Lithium Levels,†Science News, Vol. 186, 9 August 2014, p.6.
q . “It is a fundamental rule of modern physics [namely, the big bang theory] that for every type of particle in nature there is a corresponding ‘antiparticle’.†Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1977), p. 76.
u “If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and antimatter. But instead the stars and nebulae are made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their antiparticles (their antimatter equivalents).†Kane, pp. 73–74.
u “But to balance the cosmic energy books—and to avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics—matter and antimatter should have been created [in a big bang] in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out. Yet here we are.†Tim Folger, “Antimatter,†Discover, August 2004, p. 68.
u “As far as physicists know, matter and antimatter should have been created in equal amounts in the early Universe and so blasted each other into oblivion. But that didn’t happen, and the origin of this fundamental imbalance remains one of the biggest mysteries in physics.†Elizabeth Gibney, “The Antimatter Race,†Nature, Vol. 548, 3 August 2017, p. 20.
r . “Within our galaxy, we can be confident that there are no stars of antimatter; otherwise, the pervasive interstellar medium would instigate annihilation and ensuing gamma-ray emission at a rate far in excess of that observed. ... One difficulty with the idea of antigalaxies lies in maintaining their separation from galaxies. Empty space may now separate them, but in the early universe, these regions must have been in relatively close contact. Annihilation seems difficult to avoid, particularly because we now know that many regions of intergalactic space are occupied by a tenuous gas. Interaction with the gas would make annihilation inevitable in antimatter regions, with the consequent emission of observable gamma radiation.†Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980), p. 115.
u “Also, as far as we know, there is no appreciable amount of antimatter in the universe.†Weinberg, p. 88.
u “Antimatter continues to intrigue physicists because of its apparent absence in the observable Universe. Current theory requires that matter and antimatter appear in equal quantities after the Big Bang, but the Standard Model of particle physics offers no quantitative explanation for the apparent disappearance of half the Universe.†M. Ahmadi et al., “An Improved Limit on the Charge of Antihydrogen from Stochastic Acceleration,†Nature, Vol. 529, 21 January 2016, p. 373.
s . “Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary motions?†William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1987), p. 177.
u The big bang theory says that before the “bang,†all matter in the universe was concentrated at an infinitesimal point. Therefore, with the “primordial egg†having essentially a zero radius, matter would have had an infinitesimal amount of angular momentum. The law of conservation of angular momentum states that in an isolated system that has no external torques, which the universe would be (according to the theory), the angular momentum would not change. Therefore, according to the big bang theory, the universe today should have no net angular momentum. But it does!
t . Alan Dressler, “The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies,†Scientific American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46–54.
u . The “missing mass†problem is of historical interest only. It was first explained by R. H. Dicke, “Gravitation and the Universe: The Jayne Lectures for 1969,†American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, 1970, p. 62. (It is sometimes called the flatness problem.) However, after the shocking discovery in 1998 that distant galaxies were accelerating (not decelerating) away from us, the missing mass problem was replaced by the “dark energy†problem. No longer was it necessary to find the missing mass that kept the universe from flying apart, because the best measurements showed that the universe was flying apart. The problem then became: (1) what force could overcome gravity and make the universe fly apart, and (2) since the universe was flying apart, how could mass be concentrated enough in the early universe to form stars and galaxies. To solve these problems, billions of dollars have been spent on experiments and observations. No solutions have been found, but theoretical speculations abound.
Candidates for “missing mass†included neutrinos, black holes, dead stars, low-mass stars, various subatomic particles, and objects dreamed up by cosmologists simply to solve this problem. Each candidate had many scientific problems. Prior to 1998, this “missing mass†was sometimes called “dark matter.†Today, the term “dark matter†refers to a completely different problem with the big bang theory.
v . “Of all the many mysteries of modern astronomy, none is more vexing than the nature of dark matter. Most astronomers believe that large quantities of some unidentified material pervade the universe. ... Yet this dark matter has eluded every effort by astronomers and physicists to bring it out of the shadows. A handful of us suspect that it might not really exist, and others are beginning to consider this possibility seriously.†Mordehai Milgrom, “Does Dark Matter Really Exist?†Scientific American, Vol. 287, August 2002, p. 43.
u One study of two adjacent galaxies showed that they had relatively little dark matter. [See Ron Cowen, “Ringing In a New Estimate for Dark Matter,†Science News, Vol. 136, 5 August 1989, p. 84.] Another study found no dark matter within 150 million light-years of Earth. [See Eric J. Lerner, “COBE Confounds the Cosmologists,†Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 40–41.] A third study found no dark matter in a large elliptical galaxy, M105. [See “Dark Matter Isn’t Everywhere,†Astronomy, September 1993, pp. 19–20.] A fourth study found no dark matter in the main body of our galaxy. [See Alexander Hellemans, “Galactic Disk Contains No Dark Matter,†Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.] A fifth study, after cataloging positions and distances of 100 million galaxies, concluded that the needed mass does not exist. [See Ron Cowen, “Whole-Sky Catalog,†Science News, Vol. 155, 6 February 1999, pp. 92–93.] A sixth study, the most sensitive ever conducted on Earth, found no dark matter. [See Charles Seife, “Once Again, Dark Matter Eludes a Supersensitive Trap,†Science, Vol. 304, 14 May 2004, p. 950.]
u See "93. Galaxy Clusters" Endnote c on page 109.
u . “... dark matter has not been detected in the laboratory, and there is no convincing theoretical explanation of dark energy.†Carlton Baugh, “Universal Building Blocks,†Nature, Vol. 421, 20 February 2003, p. 792.
u “No one knows what dark matter is, but they know what it is not. It’s not part of the ‘standard model’ of physics that weaves together everything that is known about ordinary matter and its interactions.†Jenny Hogan, “Welcome to the Dark Side,†Nature, Vol. 448, 19 July 2007, p. 241.
u “We should have seen hundreds or thousands of [dark matter] events and we simply don’t see any.†Richard Gaitskell, as quoted by Adrian Cho, “New Experiment Torpedoes Lightweight Dark Matter,†Science, Vol 342, 1 November 2013, p. 542.]
w . James Peebles, as quoted by Steve Nadis, “Out of Sight, Out of MOND,†Astronomy, Vol. 29, August 2001, p. 31.
u “We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe its components, ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy,’ serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.†David B. Cline, “The Search for Dark Matter,†Scientific American, Vol. 288, March 2003, p. 52.
x . One might also ask where the “cosmic egg†came from if there had been a big bang. Of course, the question is unanswerable. Pushing any origin explanation back far enough raises similar questions—all scientifically untestable. Thus, the question of ultimate origins is not a purely scientific matter. What science can do is test possible explanations once the starting assumptions are given. For example, if a tiny “cosmic egg†(having all the mass in the universe) existed, it should not explode or suddenly inflate, based on present understanding. Claiming that some strange, new phenomenon caused an explosion (or inflation) is philosophical speculation. While such speculation may or may not be correct, it is not science. [See “How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?†on page 446.]
y . “Big Bang Gone Quiet,†Nature, Vol. 372, 24 November 1994, p. 304.
u Michael J. Pierce et al., “The Hubble Constant and Virgo Cluster Distance from Observations of Cepheid Variables,†Nature, Vol. 371, 29 September 1994, pp. 385–389.
u Wendy L. Freedman et al., “Distance to the Virgo Cluster Galaxy M100 from Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Cepheids,†Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, pp. 757–762.
u N. R. Tanvir et al., “Determination of the Hubble Constant from Observations of Cepheid Variables in the Galaxy M96,†Nature, Vol. 377, 7 September 1995, pp. 27–31.
u Robert C. Kennicutt Jr., “An Old Galaxy in a Young Universe,†Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 555–556.
u James Dunlop, “A 3.5-Gyr-Old Galaxy at Redshift 1.55,†Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 581–584.
u “It’s clear to most people that you can’t be older than your mother. Astronomers understand this, too, which is why they’re so uncomfortable these days. The oldest stars in globular clusters seem to date back 15 billion years. The universe appears to be only 9 billion to 12 billion years old. At least one of those conclusions is wrong.†William J. Cook, “How Old Is the Universe?†U.S. News & World Report, 18–25 August 1997, p. 34.
z . “I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.†Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang Under Attack,†Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.
References
a . “Observations only recently made possible by improvements in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the Universe under intense pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980s about the shape and history of the Universe have now been abandoned—and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility that the Universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy, whose origin is not at all understood.†Peter Coles, “The End of the Old Model Universe,†Nature, Vol. 393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.
u “Three years ago, observations of distant, exploding stars blew to smithereens some of astronomers’ most cherished ideas about the universe . To piece together an updated theory, they’re now thinking dark thoughts about what sort of mystery force may be contorting the cosmos.
“According to the standard view of cosmology, the once infinitesimal universe has ballooned in volume ever since its fiery birth in the Big Bang, but the mutual gravitational tug of all the matter in the cosmos has gradually slowed that expansion.
“In 1998, however, scientists reported that a group of distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther from Earth, than the standard theory indicated. It was as if, in the billion or so years it took for the light from these exploded stars to arrive at Earth, the space between the stars and our planet had stretched out more than expected. That would mean that cosmic expansion has somehow sped up, not slowed down. Recent evidence has only firmed up that bizarre result.†Ron Cowen, “A Dark Force in the Universe,†Science News, Vol. 159, 7 April 2001, p. 218.
u “Not only don’t we see the universe slowing down; we see it speeding up.†Adam Riess, as quoted by James Glanz, “Astronomers See a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work,†Science, Vol. 279, 27 February 1998, p. 1298.
u “In one of the great results of twentieth century science, NSF-funded astronomers have shown both that the universe does not contain enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion, and that the rate of expansion actually increases with distance. Why? Nobody knows yet.†National Science Foundation Advertisement, “Astronomy: Fifty Years of Astronomical Excellence,†Discover, September 2000, p. 7.
u “The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is accelerating and that whatever caused the acceleration (dubbed “dark energyâ€) cannot be Standard Model physics.†Gordon Kane, “The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,†Scientific American, Vol. 288, June 2003, p. 73.
u “Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.†Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.
b . Redshifts can be caused by other phenomena. [See Jayant V. Narlikar, “Noncosmological Redshifts,†Space Science Reviews, Vol. 50, August 1989, pp. 523–614.] However, large redshifts are probably the result of the Doppler effect.
c . “... energy in recognizable forms (kinetic, potential, and internal) in an expanding, spatially unbounded, homogeneous universe is not conserved.†Edward R. Harrison, “Mining Energy in an Expanding Universe,†The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 446, 10 June 1955, p. 66.
d . “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.†Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,†Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
e . Halton M. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies (Berkeley, California: Interstellar Media, 1987).
f . “It clearly took a while after that primordial explosion for clouds of gas to congeal into a form dense enough for stars and quasars to ignite, and the Sky Survey is already prompting astronomers to question some of the assumptions about how that process unfolded [i.e, the big bang theory].†Michael D. Lemonick, “Star Seeker,†Discover, November 2001, p. 44.
g . William G. Tifft, “Properties of the Redshift,†The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 382, 1 December 1991, pp. 396–415.
h . “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.†Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?†Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33.
“Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it.†Ibid., p. 25.
u “History also shows that some BB [big bang] cosmologists’ ‘predictions’ of MBR [microwave background radiation] temperature have been ‘adjusted’ after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.†William C. Mitchell, “Big Bang Theory Under Fire,†Physics Essays, Vol. 10, June 1997, pp. 370–379.
u “What’s more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.†Eric J. Lerner et al., “Bucking the Big Bang,†New Scientist, Vol. 182, 22 May 2004, p. 20. www.cosmologystatement.org.]
i . “In each of the five patches of sky surveyed by the team, the distant galaxies bunch together instead of being distributed randomly in space. ‘The work is ongoing, but what we’re able to say now is that galaxies we are seeing at great distances are as strongly clustered in the early universe as they are today,’ says Steidel, who is at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.†Ron Cowen, “Light from the Early Universe,†Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 92.
u “One of the great challenges for modern cosmology is to determine how the initial power spectrum evolved into the spectrum observed today. ... the universe is much clumpier on those scales [600–900 million light-years] than current theories can explain.†Stephen D. Landy, “Mapping the Universe,†Scientific American, Vol. 280, June 1999, p. 44.
u “There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.†James Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988), p. 3.
u Geoffrey R. Burbidge, “Was There Really a Big Bang?†Nature, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 36–40.
u Ben Patrusky, “Why Is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?†Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.
u Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, “Superclusters and Voids in the Distribution of Galaxies,†Scientific American, Vol. 246, March 1982, pp. 106–114.
u “In fact, studies we have done show that the distribution of matter is fractal, just like a tree or a cloud.†[Patterns that repeat on all scales are called fractal.] Francesco Sylos Labini, as quoted by Marcus Chown, “Fractured Universe,†New Scientist, Vol. 163, 21 August 1999, p. 23.
“If this dissenting view is correct and the Universe doesn’t become smoothed out on the very largest scales, the consequences for cosmology are profound. ‘We’re lost,’ says [Professor of Astrophysics, Peter] Coles. ‘The foundations of the big bang models would crumble away. We’d be left with no explanation for the big bang, or galaxy formation, or the distribution of galaxies in the Universe.’ †Ibid.
j . Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, “Mapping the Universe,†Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897–903. [See also M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall,†Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885.]
u John Travis, “Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky,†Science, Vol. 263, 25 March 1994, p. 1684.
u Will Saunders et al., “The Density Field of the Local Universe,†Nature, Vol. 349, 3 January 1991, pp. 32–38.
u “But this uniformity [in the cosmic microwave background radiation, CMB] is difficult to reconcile with the obvious clumping of matter into galaxies, clusters of galaxies and even larger features extending across vast regions of the universe, such as ‘walls’ and ‘bubbles’. †Ivars Peterson, “Seeding the Universe,†Science News, Vol. 137, 24 March 1990, p. 184.
u As described below, one of the largest structures in the universe, “The Great Wall,†was discovered in 1989. It consists of tens of thousands of galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.
“The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the 2.7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very homogeneous in the beginning.†M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe Gets Larger—Maybe,†Science, Vol. 238, 13 November 1987, p. 894.
“The map’s most eye-catching feature is the Sloan Great Wall of galaxies, a clustering of galaxies that stretches 1.37 billion light-years across the sky and is the largest cosmic structure ever found. Astronomers worried that such a humongous structure, 80 percent bigger than the famous Great Wall of galaxies first discerned in a sky survey 2 decades ago, might violate the accepted model of galaxy evolution.†Ron Cowen, “Cosmic Survey,†Science News, Vol. 164, 1 November 2003, p. 276.
u James Glanz, “Precocious Structures Found,†Science, Vol. 272, 14 June 1996, p. 1590.
u For many years, big bang theorists searched in vain with increasingly precise instruments for temperature concentrations in the nearly uniform CMB. Without concentrations, matter could never gravitationally contract around those concentrations to form galaxies and galaxy clusters. Finally, in 1992, with great fanfare, an announcement was made in the popular media that slight concentrations were discovered. Major shortcomings were not mentioned:
v The concentrations were only one part in 100,000—not much more than the errors in the instruments. Such slight concentrations could not be expected to initiate much clustering. As Margaret Geller stated, “Gravity can’t, over the age of the universe, amplify these irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies].†Travis, p. 1684.
v “ data are notoriously noisy, and the purported effect looks remarkably like an instrumental glitch: it appears only in one small area of the sky and on an angular scale close to the limit of the satellite’s resolution.†George Musser, “Skewing the Cosmic Bell Curve,†Scientific American, Vol. 281, September 1999, p. 28.
v Slight errors or omissions in the many data processing steps could easily account for the faint signal.
v Reported variations in the CMB spanned areas of the sky that were 100 or 1,000 times too broad to produce galaxies.
v “... mysterious discrepancies have arisen between theory and observations ... It looks like inflation is getting into a major jam.†Glen D. Starkman and Dominik J. Schwarz, “Is the Universe Out of Tune?†Scientific American, Vol. 293, August 2005, pp. 49, 55.
The slight temperature variations (0.00003°C) detected have a strong statistical connection with the solar system. [Ibid., pp. 52–55.] They probably have nothing to do with a big bang.
k . “And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful without some ad hoc parameterization to ‘adjust’ predictions that otherwise would have been judged as failures.†Van Flandern, p. 33.
u “It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances.†H. C. Arp et al., “The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View,†Nature, Vol. 346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.
u “The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been predictions, but merely adjustments of theory (‘retrodictions’) to accommodate current data.†William C. Mitchell, p. 375.
l . Steidl, pp. 207–208.
u D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 149–155.
m . “Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers have detected a far greater abundance [a thousand times too much] of beryllium atoms than the standard Big Bang model predicts.†Ron Cowen, “Starlight Casts Doubt on Big Bang Details,†Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p. 151.
u Gerard Gilmore et al., “First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model,†The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17–21.
u Ron Cowen, “Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the Elements,†Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286–287.
n . “One might expect Population III stars [stars with only hydrogen and helium and no heavier elements] to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the Sun) still to be burning their nuclear fuel. The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star.†Bernard Carr, “Where Is Population III?†Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, p. 829.
u “Are there any stars older than Population II [i.e., Population III stars]? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe [i.e., the big bang theory] are correct. ... There is no statistically significant evidence for Population III objects [stars].†Leif J. Robinson, “Where Is Population III?†Sky and Telescope, July 1982, p. 20.
u “Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy.†Robert Irion, “The Quest for Population III,†Science, Vol. 295, 4 January 2002, p. 66.
Supposedly, Population II stars, stars having slight amounts of some heavy elements, evolved after Population III stars. Predicted characteristics of Population II stars have never been observed.
Spectral studies of ancient [Population II] stars in the Milky Way haven’t turned up anything so distinctive [as the chemical elements that should be present], [Timothy] Beers notes, but the search continues. Ibid., p. 67.
u A few stars might be Population III stars that became polluted with elements heavier than hydrogen and helium that fell into the star as dust. Tests are conducted to see if the right mix of these heavy elements that are in dust are present, such as titanium and iron. So far “observations have yet to turn up any [Population III star].†[See Christopher Crockett, “Milky Way May Harbor Primeval Stars,†Science News, Vol. 188, 14 November, 2015, p. 12.]
o . “Our result shows that this discrepancy is a universal problem concerning both the Milky Way and extra-galactic systems.†A. Mucciarelli et al., “The Cosmological Lithium Problem Outside the Galaxy,†Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 444, 21 October 2014, p. 1812.
u “... stars in M54 have just as little lithium as stars in the Milky Way, suggesting that the lithium problem is universal.†Christopher Crockett, “Mystery of the Missing Lithium Extends Beyond the Milky Way,†Science News, Vol. 186, 18 October 2014, p. 15.
p . Andrew Grant, “Lab Tests Mystery of Lithium Levels,†Science News, Vol. 186, 9 August 2014, p.6.
q . “It is a fundamental rule of modern physics [namely, the big bang theory] that for every type of particle in nature there is a corresponding ‘antiparticle’.†Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1977), p. 76.
u “If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and antimatter. But instead the stars and nebulae are made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their antiparticles (their antimatter equivalents).†Kane, pp. 73–74.
u “But to balance the cosmic energy books—and to avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics—matter and antimatter should have been created [in a big bang] in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out. Yet here we are.†Tim Folger, “Antimatter,†Discover, August 2004, p. 68.
u “As far as physicists know, matter and antimatter should have been created in equal amounts in the early Universe and so blasted each other into oblivion. But that didn’t happen, and the origin of this fundamental imbalance remains one of the biggest mysteries in physics.†Elizabeth Gibney, “The Antimatter Race,†Nature, Vol. 548, 3 August 2017, p. 20.
r . “Within our galaxy, we can be confident that there are no stars of antimatter; otherwise, the pervasive interstellar medium would instigate annihilation and ensuing gamma-ray emission at a rate far in excess of that observed. ... One difficulty with the idea of antigalaxies lies in maintaining their separation from galaxies. Empty space may now separate them, but in the early universe, these regions must have been in relatively close contact. Annihilation seems difficult to avoid, particularly because we now know that many regions of intergalactic space are occupied by a tenuous gas. Interaction with the gas would make annihilation inevitable in antimatter regions, with the consequent emission of observable gamma radiation.†Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980), p. 115.
u “Also, as far as we know, there is no appreciable amount of antimatter in the universe.†Weinberg, p. 88.
u “Antimatter continues to intrigue physicists because of its apparent absence in the observable Universe. Current theory requires that matter and antimatter appear in equal quantities after the Big Bang, but the Standard Model of particle physics offers no quantitative explanation for the apparent disappearance of half the Universe.†M. Ahmadi et al., “An Improved Limit on the Charge of Antihydrogen from Stochastic Acceleration,†Nature, Vol. 529, 21 January 2016, p. 373.
s . “Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary motions?†William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1987), p. 177.
u The big bang theory says that before the “bang,†all matter in the universe was concentrated at an infinitesimal point. Therefore, with the “primordial egg†having essentially a zero radius, matter would have had an infinitesimal amount of angular momentum. The law of conservation of angular momentum states that in an isolated system that has no external torques, which the universe would be (according to the theory), the angular momentum would not change. Therefore, according to the big bang theory, the universe today should have no net angular momentum. But it does!
t . Alan Dressler, “The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies,†Scientific American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46–54.
u . The “missing mass†problem is of historical interest only. It was first explained by R. H. Dicke, “Gravitation and the Universe: The Jayne Lectures for 1969,†American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, 1970, p. 62. (It is sometimes called the flatness problem.) However, after the shocking discovery in 1998 that distant galaxies were accelerating (not decelerating) away from us, the missing mass problem was replaced by the “dark energy†problem. No longer was it necessary to find the missing mass that kept the universe from flying apart, because the best measurements showed that the universe was flying apart. The problem then became: (1) what force could overcome gravity and make the universe fly apart, and (2) since the universe was flying apart, how could mass be concentrated enough in the early universe to form stars and galaxies. To solve these problems, billions of dollars have been spent on experiments and observations. No solutions have been found, but theoretical speculations abound.
Candidates for “missing mass†included neutrinos, black holes, dead stars, low-mass stars, various subatomic particles, and objects dreamed up by cosmologists simply to solve this problem. Each candidate had many scientific problems. Prior to 1998, this “missing mass†was sometimes called “dark matter.†Today, the term “dark matter†refers to a completely different problem with the big bang theory.
v . “Of all the many mysteries of modern astronomy, none is more vexing than the nature of dark matter. Most astronomers believe that large quantities of some unidentified material pervade the universe. ... Yet this dark matter has eluded every effort by astronomers and physicists to bring it out of the shadows. A handful of us suspect that it might not really exist, and others are beginning to consider this possibility seriously.†Mordehai Milgrom, “Does Dark Matter Really Exist?†Scientific American, Vol. 287, August 2002, p. 43.
u One study of two adjacent galaxies showed that they had relatively little dark matter. [See Ron Cowen, “Ringing In a New Estimate for Dark Matter,†Science News, Vol. 136, 5 August 1989, p. 84.] Another study found no dark matter within 150 million light-years of Earth. [See Eric J. Lerner, “COBE Confounds the Cosmologists,†Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 40–41.] A third study found no dark matter in a large elliptical galaxy, M105. [See “Dark Matter Isn’t Everywhere,†Astronomy, September 1993, pp. 19–20.] A fourth study found no dark matter in the main body of our galaxy. [See Alexander Hellemans, “Galactic Disk Contains No Dark Matter,†Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.] A fifth study, after cataloging positions and distances of 100 million galaxies, concluded that the needed mass does not exist. [See Ron Cowen, “Whole-Sky Catalog,†Science News, Vol. 155, 6 February 1999, pp. 92–93.] A sixth study, the most sensitive ever conducted on Earth, found no dark matter. [See Charles Seife, “Once Again, Dark Matter Eludes a Supersensitive Trap,†Science, Vol. 304, 14 May 2004, p. 950.]
u See "93. Galaxy Clusters" Endnote c on page 109.
u . “... dark matter has not been detected in the laboratory, and there is no convincing theoretical explanation of dark energy.†Carlton Baugh, “Universal Building Blocks,†Nature, Vol. 421, 20 February 2003, p. 792.
u “No one knows what dark matter is, but they know what it is not. It’s not part of the ‘standard model’ of physics that weaves together everything that is known about ordinary matter and its interactions.†Jenny Hogan, “Welcome to the Dark Side,†Nature, Vol. 448, 19 July 2007, p. 241.
u “We should have seen hundreds or thousands of [dark matter] events and we simply don’t see any.†Richard Gaitskell, as quoted by Adrian Cho, “New Experiment Torpedoes Lightweight Dark Matter,†Science, Vol 342, 1 November 2013, p. 542.]
w . James Peebles, as quoted by Steve Nadis, “Out of Sight, Out of MOND,†Astronomy, Vol. 29, August 2001, p. 31.
u “We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe its components, ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy,’ serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.†David B. Cline, “The Search for Dark Matter,†Scientific American, Vol. 288, March 2003, p. 52.
x . One might also ask where the “cosmic egg†came from if there had been a big bang. Of course, the question is unanswerable. Pushing any origin explanation back far enough raises similar questions—all scientifically untestable. Thus, the question of ultimate origins is not a purely scientific matter. What science can do is test possible explanations once the starting assumptions are given. For example, if a tiny “cosmic egg†(having all the mass in the universe) existed, it should not explode or suddenly inflate, based on present understanding. Claiming that some strange, new phenomenon caused an explosion (or inflation) is philosophical speculation. While such speculation may or may not be correct, it is not science. [See “How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?†on page 446.]
y . “Big Bang Gone Quiet,†Nature, Vol. 372, 24 November 1994, p. 304.
u Michael J. Pierce et al., “The Hubble Constant and Virgo Cluster Distance from Observations of Cepheid Variables,†Nature, Vol. 371, 29 September 1994, pp. 385–389.
u Wendy L. Freedman et al., “Distance to the Virgo Cluster Galaxy M100 from Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Cepheids,†Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, pp. 757–762.
u N. R. Tanvir et al., “Determination of the Hubble Constant from Observations of Cepheid Variables in the Galaxy M96,†Nature, Vol. 377, 7 September 1995, pp. 27–31.
u Robert C. Kennicutt Jr., “An Old Galaxy in a Young Universe,†Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 555–556.
u James Dunlop, “A 3.5-Gyr-Old Galaxy at Redshift 1.55,†Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 581–584.
u “It’s clear to most people that you can’t be older than your mother. Astronomers understand this, too, which is why they’re so uncomfortable these days. The oldest stars in globular clusters seem to date back 15 billion years. The universe appears to be only 9 billion to 12 billion years old. At least one of those conclusions is wrong.†William J. Cook, “How Old Is the Universe?†U.S. News & World Report, 18–25 August 1997, p. 34.
z . “I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.†Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang Under Attack,†Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Genetic Distances 3
Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.
Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and compared. The overall differences are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected (g). Divergencies include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions or deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements (h).†Although it is only 4% of the DNA, a vast DNA chasm of critical differences separates humans from chimpanzees.
Moreover, differences between the male portion of the human and chimpanzee sex chromosome are huge! More than 30% of those sequences, in either the human or the chimpanzee, do not match the other at all, and those that do, contain massive rearrangements (i). The genetic differences are comparable to those between the nonsex chromosomes in chickens and humans (j).
Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic information. They conflict in major ways (k).
g. After sequencing just the first chimpanzee chromosome, surprises were apparent.
“Surprisingly, though, nearly 68,000 stretches of DNA do differ to some degree between the two species…Extra sections of about 300 nucleotides showed up primarily in the human chromosome…Extra sections of other sizes—some as long as 54,000 nucleotides—appear in both species.†Bruce Bower, “Chimp DNA Yields Complex Surprises,†Science News, Vol. 165, 12 June 2004, p. 382.
“Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences [even] at the amino acid sequence level….the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated.†H. Watanabe et al., “DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22,†Nature, Vol. 429, 27 May 2004, pp. 382, 387.
h. Tarjei S. Mikkelsen et al., “Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome,†Nature, Vol. 437, 1 September 2005, p. 69.
i. “Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY [male-specific portion of the Y chromosome] sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ... Moreover, the MSY sequences retained in both lineages have been extraordinarily subject to rearrangement ... .†Jennifer F. Hughes et al., “Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes Are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content,†Nature, Vol.463, 28 January 2010, p.537.
j. “... the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.†Ibid. p.538.
k. “Instead, the comparisons [using DNA] have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well.†Elizabeth Pennisi, “Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?†Science, Vol.284, 21 May 1999, p.1305.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Genetic Information 1
Information never self-assembles. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books (a).
a. Carl Sagan showed, using straight-forward calculations, why one cell’s worth of genetic information is the equivalent of 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Sagan’s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. {See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p.25.}
Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 10^14 (10 to the 14th power) cells. About 800 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to 4,000 books, th
ey would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.
The Moon is 240,000 miles from Earth. If the DNA in a human cell were stretched out and connected, it would be more than 7 feet long. If all this DNA in one person’s body were placed end-to-end, it would extend to the Moon 552,000 times.
The DNA in a human cell weighs 6.4 10^-12 (10 to the –12 power) grams. [See Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p.54.] Probably less than 50 billion people have lived on earth. If so, one copy of the DNA of every human who ever lived—enough to define the physical characteristics of all those people in microscopic detail—would weigh only 6.4 10^-12 × 50 × 10^9 0.32 grams.
This is less than the weight of one aspirin.
“... there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. ... There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.†Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp.116–117.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
If you take 2 different colour sponges (live ones, not bathroom ones) and put them both into a liquidiser then pour the ensuing smoothie back into the water they will reform back into their individual colours.
Crystals form into very precise forms by themselves.
Snowflakes form into complex fractal forms all by themselves.
All of these are natural occurances. They do not require the input of any imagined deity. They are all simple examples of information self assembling, thus proving the very first line wrong, thus discounting any additional claims based on the initial premise.
Crystals form into very precise forms by themselves.
Snowflakes form into complex fractal forms all by themselves.
All of these are natural occurances. They do not require the input of any imagined deity. They are all simple examples of information self assembling, thus proving the very first line wrong, thus discounting any additional claims based on the initial premise.
Science Disproves Evolution
Oh ?????
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1346283 wrote:
Extraterrestrial Life?
No verified form of life, which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a). [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?â€
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Is There Life in Outer Space?
Mars Lander
Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking Landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.
a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,†Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 12. Extraterrestrial Life?
It's interesting that you should present this Pahu because secular studies have been done that show that in every single case of an Alien Abduction, whenever the name of Jesus Christ is invoked, the abduction stops immediately.
Extraterrestrial Life?
No verified form of life, which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a). [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?â€
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Is There Life in Outer Space?
Mars Lander
Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking Landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.
a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,†Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 12. Extraterrestrial Life?
It's interesting that you should present this Pahu because secular studies have been done that show that in every single case of an Alien Abduction, whenever the name of Jesus Christ is invoked, the abduction stops immediately.
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1522265 wrote: It's interesting that you should present this Pahu because secular studies have been done that show that in every single case of an Alien Abduction, whenever the name of Jesus Christ is invoked, the abduction stops immediately.
That's because even the Alien Abduction Conspiracy Theorists can't help but crack up laughing.
That's because even the Alien Abduction Conspiracy Theorists can't help but crack up laughing.
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1522272 wrote: That's because even the Alien Abduction Conspiracy Theorists can't help but crack up laughing.
The study was done by a non Christian and he wasn't laughing.
The study was done by a non Christian and he wasn't laughing.
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1522377 wrote: The study was done by a non Christian and he wasn't laughing.
What study?
What study?
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
I shake my head at the ignorance.
-
Fisher Amen
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:36 pm
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1522448 wrote: I shake my head at the ignorance.
Studies aren't ignorance. Those who disregard them are ignorant.
Studies aren't ignorance. Those who disregard them are ignorant.
Science Disproves Evolution
???????????
-
Fisher Amen
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:36 pm
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1522492 wrote: ???????????
It's interesting that no matter how much evidence you guys are presented with you completely ignore it and write it off. You won't address it or refute it. You just refuse to look at it and then call Frodo and Pahu the ignorant ones. You are blinded.
What happened to Pahu?
It's interesting that no matter how much evidence you guys are presented with you completely ignore it and write it off. You won't address it or refute it. You just refuse to look at it and then call Frodo and Pahu the ignorant ones. You are blinded.
What happened to Pahu?
Science Disproves Evolution
And I didn't think this thread could go further downhill.
Shows what I know.
Shows what I know.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Your point, no doubt to put the credibility of supposed UFO Abductees at hte same level of the Religious nutjob. Sounds about right to me. They both believe in an imaginary Invisible Sky Daddy who only talks to weirdos.
-
Fisher Amen
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:36 pm
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1522521 wrote: Your point, no doubt to put the credibility of supposed UFO Abductees at hte same level of the Religious nutjob. Sounds about right to me. They both believe in an imaginary Invisible Sky Daddy who only talks to weirdos.
I think the point was that, whether you believe in UFO abductions or not, the study was NOT done by a Christian source and in every case where the name of Christ was invoked, the abduction stopped immediately. These people weren't colluding together. These are separate, distinct studies of various alleged abductions. Personally, I do believe that people have these experiences. There are countless stories of this type of thing happening for thousands of years. I don't believe that these things are caused by aliens though. They are demonic at their core as the study seems to imply.
I think the point was that, whether you believe in UFO abductions or not, the study was NOT done by a Christian source and in every case where the name of Christ was invoked, the abduction stopped immediately. These people weren't colluding together. These are separate, distinct studies of various alleged abductions. Personally, I do believe that people have these experiences. There are countless stories of this type of thing happening for thousands of years. I don't believe that these things are caused by aliens though. They are demonic at their core as the study seems to imply.
Science Disproves Evolution
Absolutely not.
-
Fisher Amen
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:36 pm
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1522539 wrote: Absolutely not.
So I guess the millions of people who have incredible stories are all making it up. The millions of Christians that have experiences with God are all making it up. The former atheists who had incredible conversions because of experiences with God are all making it up. The muslims who converted to Christianity because of visions from Christ are all making it up. Ok then.
So I guess the millions of people who have incredible stories are all making it up. The millions of Christians that have experiences with God are all making it up. The former atheists who had incredible conversions because of experiences with God are all making it up. The muslims who converted to Christianity because of visions from Christ are all making it up. Ok then.
Science Disproves Evolution
Fisher Amen;1522541 wrote: So I guess the millions of people who have incredible stories are all making it up. The millions of Christians that have experiences with God are all making it up. The former atheists who had incredible conversions because of experiences with God are all making it up. The muslims who converted to Christianity because of visions from Christ are all making it up. Ok then.
You're making a good point there, and I agree with you, they're all making it up.
I think you're onto something there.
You're making a good point there, and I agree with you, they're all making it up.
I think you're onto something there.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
Science Disproves Evolution
I think you're all very naughty, teasing Fish like that. Tut. We all know about brainwashing, and so does Fish ! I find it all rather entertaining, and it passes the time innit !
Seriously, though, it concerns me a little how easily many, many people allow themselves to be taken in by words that are convincingly spoken. In Germany, there was a lot of unemployment and people were deeply depressed. Up jumped a loud-mouthed moustached fella who persuaded masses to side with him. They needed somebody who would get them out of the hole that they found themselves in, and there he was - Hitler. Oh what an orator, how persuasive. They felt that here was their saviour, and he would do as he promised - that Germany would be great and would be the leader of the world ! Now look what happened to them !
Seriously, though, it concerns me a little how easily many, many people allow themselves to be taken in by words that are convincingly spoken. In Germany, there was a lot of unemployment and people were deeply depressed. Up jumped a loud-mouthed moustached fella who persuaded masses to side with him. They needed somebody who would get them out of the hole that they found themselves in, and there he was - Hitler. Oh what an orator, how persuasive. They felt that here was their saviour, and he would do as he promised - that Germany would be great and would be the leader of the world ! Now look what happened to them !
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully