Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Living Technology 1



Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems—including those involving electrical, acoustical, mechanical, chemical, and optical phenomena. Detailed studies of various animals also have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that the world’s best designers, using the most sophisticated technologies, cannot duplicate. Examples of these designs include molecular-size motors in most living organisms (a); advanced technologies in cells (b); miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises, and whales; frequency-modulated “radar” and discrimination systems of bats (c); efficient aerodynamic capabilities of hummingbirds; control systems, internal ballistics, and the combustion chambers of bombardier beetles (d); precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds, fish, and insects (e); and especially the self-repair capabilities of almost all forms of life. No component of these complex systems could have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage until the component’s evolution was complete. All evidence points to intelligent design.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Living Technology 1



[continued]

a. “Life implies movement. Most forms of movement in the living world are powered by tiny protein machines known as molecular motors.” Manfred Schliwa and Günther Woehlke, “Molecular Motors,” Nature, Vol. 422, 17 April 2003, p. 759.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Living Technology 2







Figure 18: Arctic Tern Migration Routes and Cockpit. The Arctic Tern, a bird of average size, navigates across oceans with the skill normally associated with navigational equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft. A round trip for the Tern might be 22,000 miles. The Tern’s “electronics” are highly miniaturized, extremely reliable, maintenance free, and easily reproduced. Furthermore, this remarkable bird needs no training. If the equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft could not have evolved, how could the Tern’s more amazing “equipment” have evolved?

Equally amazing is the monarch butterfly that flies thousands of miles from breeding grounds as far north as Canada to wintering grounds as far south as Mexico. Processing information in a brain the size of a pin head, it navigates using a magnetic compass and, to a lesser extent, the Sun.

Many bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and some Streptococci, propel themselves with miniature motors at up to 15 body-lengths per second (f), equivalent to a car traveling 150 miles per hour—in a liquid. These extremely efficient, reversible motors rotate at up to 100,000 revolutions per minute (g). Each shaft rotates a bundle of whiplike flagella that acts as a propeller. The motors, having rotors and stators, are similar in many respects to electrical motors (h). However, their electrical charges come from a flow of protons, not electrons. The bacteria can stop, start, and change speed, direction, and even the “propeller’s” shape (i). They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-term memory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit inside the circular cross section of a human hair (j).

Evolutionary theory teaches that bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and, therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. They can even communicate among themselves using chemicals (k).

Some plants have motors that are one-fifth the size of bacterial motors (l). Increasing worldwide interest in nanotechnology is showing that living things are remarkably designed—beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.



Figure 19: Bacterial Motor. Drawing based on a microphotograph of the flagellum of a salmonella bacterium.



Figure 20: Illustration of a Bacterial Motor. Although no one completely understands how these tiny motors work, many studies have deduced the presence of the above components.

f. David H. Freedman, “Exploiting the Nanotechnology of Life,” Science, Vol. 254, 29 November 1991, pp. 1308–1310.

Tom Koppel, “Learning How Bacteria Swim Could Set New Gears in Motion,” Scientific American, Vol. 265, September 1991, pp. 168–169.

Howard C. Berg, “How Bacteria Swim,” Scientific American, Vol. 233, August 1975, pp. 36–44.

g. Y. Magariyama et al., “Very Fast Flagellar Rotation,” Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, p. 752.

h. Could a conventional electrical motor be scaled down to propel a bacterium through a liquid? No. Friction would overcome almost all movement. This is because the ratio of inertial-to-viscous forces is proportional to scale. In effect, the liquid becomes stickier the smaller you get. Therefore, the efficiency of the bacterial motor itself, which approaches 100% at slow speeds, is remarkable and currently unexplainable.

i. C. Wu, “Protein Switch Curls Bacterial Propellers,” Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 86.

j. Yes, you read this correctly. The molecular motors are 25 nanometers in diameter while an average human hair is about 75 microns in diameter.

k. “Bacteria can organize into groups, they can communicate. ... How could this have evolved?” E. Peter Greenberg, “Tiny Teamwork,” Nature, Vol. 424, 10 July 2003, p. 134.

Bonnie L. Bassler, “How Bacteria Talk to Each Other: Regulation of Gene Expression by Quorum Sensing,” Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1 December 1999, pp. 582–587.

l. “...the smallest rotary motors in biology. The flow of protons propels the rotation...” Holger Seelert et al., “Proton-Powered Turbine of a Plant Motor,” Nature, Vol. 405, 25 May 2000, pp. 418–419.

“The ATP synthase [motor] not only lays claim to being nature’s smallest rotary motor, but also has an extremely important role in providing most of the chemical energy that aerobic and photosynthetic organisms need to stay alive.” Cross, Richard L. “Turning the ATP Motor,” Nature, Vol. 427, 29 January 2004, pp. 407–408.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 41. Living Technology

[Pahu]

The Validity of Thought 1



If life is ultimately the result of natural processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts—including what you are thinking now—would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of irrational causes. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance or natural processes (a).

a. “But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 313.

“For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds (London: Chatto & Windus, 1927), p. 209.

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i. e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.” C. S. Lewis, God In the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 52–53.

“Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense. But Naturalism [evolution], as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort.” C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1947), p. 21.

C. S. Lewis, “The Funeral of a Great Myth,” Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), p. 89.

“If the universe is a universe of thought, then its creation must have been an act of thought.” James H. Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, new revised edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1932), p. 181.

“A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced the theory. The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.” Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), p. 62.

“One of the absurdities of materialism is that it assumes that the world can be rationally comprehensible only if it is entirely the product of irrational, unguided mechanisms.” Phillip E. Johnson, “The Wedge in Evolutionary Ideology: It’s History, Strategy, and Agenda,” Theology Matters, Vol. 5, No. 2, March/April 1999, p. 5.

Phillip E. Johnson has also made the point that intelligence might produce intelligence. However, for lifeless, inorganic matter to produce intelligence, as the theory of evolution claims, would be an astounding miracle.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces47.html]

[Pahu]

Life Science Conclusions 1



When Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, the “evolutionary tree” had only a few gaps. Believers in his new theory thought that these gaps would be filled as scientific knowledge increased. Just the opposite has happened. As science has progressed, these “missing links” have multiplied enormously, and the obstacles to “bridging” these gaps have become even more obvious. For example, in Darwin’s day, all life fell into two categories (or kingdoms): animals and plants. Today, it is generally accepted that life falls into five radically different kingdoms, of which animals and plants comprise only two. (None of the five include viruses, which are complex and unique in their own way.) In the 1800s, the animal kingdom was divided into four animal phyla; today there are about forty.

Darwin suggested that the first living creature evolved in a “warm little pond.” Today, almost all evolutionary biologists will privately admit that science has no explanation for how life evolved. We now know that the chance formation of the first living cell is a gigantic leap, vastly more improbable than for bacteria to evolve into humans. In Darwin’s day, a cell was thought to be about as simple as a ping-pong ball. Even today, many evolutionists think bacteria—one of the first forms of life to evolve—are simple. However, bacteria are marvelously integrated and complex manufacturing facilities with many mysteries yet to be understood, such as bacterial motors and communication among bacteria. Furthermore, cells come in two radically different types—those with a nucleus and those without. The evolutionary leap from one to the other is staggering to imagine.

The more evolutionists learn about life, the greater complexity they find. A century ago there were no sophisticated microscopes. Consequently, gigantic leaps from single- to multiple-cell organisms were grossly underestimated. Each type of cell in a multicellular organism has a unique job that is controlled by only part of the organism’s DNA. If that organism evolved, its delicate controls (directing which of the myriad of DNA instructions to follow, which to ignore, and when) must also have evolved. Had it not evolved perfectly the first time, that organism would have been diseased. If that first unique cell could not reproduce, the new function would disappear. If just one reproducing cell is out of control, the organism would have one type of cancer.

Development of the computer has also given us a better appreciation of the brain’s intricate electronics, extreme miniaturization, and vast storage capabilities. The human eye, which Darwin admitted made him shudder, was only a single jump in complexity. [See Endnote 9b here: ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 9. Fully-Developed Organs We now know there are at least a dozen radically different kinds of eyes, each requiring similar jumps if evolution happened. Likewise, the literal leap we call “flight” must have evolved not once, but on at least four different occasions: for birds, some insects, mammals (bats), and reptiles (pterosaurs). Fireflies produce light without heat, a phenomenon called bioluminescence. Other species, including certain fish, crustaceans, squids, plants, bacteria, and fungi, also have lighting systems. Did all these remarkable capabilities evolve independently?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Life Science Conclusions

[Pahu]

Life Science Conclusions 2





Figure 21: Integration and Compatibility. An organ is a complex structure of different types of tissues and cells, all of which work together to perform a specific function such as seeing, hearing, digesting, or pumping. A system, such as the nervous system, circulatory system, skeletal system, or reproductive system, consists of related organs and other tissues and cells that have even broader functions. A healthy body has all its systems working properly. Life depends on a broad, compatible, and complex hierarchy: molecules −−> cells −−> tissues −−> organs −−> systems −−> body −−> other organisms −−> the environment. All are carefully balanced and integrated with each other.

Arbitrarily changing one component at any level will often be harmful at that level and to the vertical hierarchy. For example, change one type of molecule throughout a category of cells, and the result may be damaged cells and a diseased body. Environmentalists and ecologists are aware of this critical balance (regarding, say, the spotted owl and the environment), but often they fail to ask, “Who or what created this balance?” Some fail to see the incredible complexity, integration, and systems engineering that extends throughout the universe—from carbon atoms to galaxies to physical laws.

Humans are only one of millions of different organisms. To integrate all organisms into a living ecosystem requires stupendous design and balance. If evolution happened, time and natural processes alone must have maintained a livable environment for most forms of life as each new organism came into existence and proliferated. No global contaminants, plagues, predators, or famines could be allowed for billions of years. Imagine what would happen if a few organisms at the base of the food chain became extinct.

Who or what has the ability to design, construct, and harmoniously integrate and maintain all of life? Time and natural processes, as evolution states, or an infinitely intelligent Creator?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Life Science Conclusions

[Pahu]

Life Science Conclusions 3



Before 1977, it was thought that sunlight provided the energy for all life. We now know that some organisms, living at widely separated locations on the dark ocean floor, use only chemical and thermal energy. For one energy-conversion system to evolve into another would be like changing, by thousands of rare accidents, the wood-burning heating systems of widely separated homes to electricity—but slowly, one accident each year. The occupants would risk freezing every winter. How such a system could evolve on different ocean floors, without solar energy, and in a cold, diluting environment has yet to be explained.

If evolution happened, many other giant leaps must also have occurred: the first photosynthesis, cold-blooded to warm-blooded animals, floating marine plants to vascular plants, placental mammals to marsupials, egg-laying animals to animals that bear live young, insect metamorphosis, the transition of mammals to the sea (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and manatees), the transition of reptiles to the sea (plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs), and on and on.

Gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago, evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. The same gaps persist, and most paleontologists now admit that those predictions failed. Of course, the most famous “missing link” is between man and apes, but the term is deceiving. There is not merely one missing link, but thousands—a long chain—if the evolutionary tree were to connect man and apes (with their many linguistic, social, mental, and physical differences).

Scientific advancements have shown that evolution is an even more absurd theory than it seemed in Darwin’s day. It is a theory without a mechanism. Not even appeals to long periods of time will allow simple organisms to “jump gaps” and become more complex and viable. In fact, as the next section will show, long periods of time make such leaps even less likely. Later in this book, you will see that those long, unimaginable time periods in which evolution was claimed were a result of a scientific blunder—failure to understand the origin of earth’s radioactivity.

Breeding experiments that many had hoped would demonstrate macroevolution have failed. The arguments used by Darwin and his followers are now discredited or, at best, in dispute, even among evolutionists. Finally, research during the last several decades has shown that the requirements for life are incredibly complex. Just the design that most people can see around them obviously implies a designer. Oddly enough, evolutionists still argue against this design by using arguments which they spent a great deal of time designing. The theory of organic evolution is invalid.

As we leave the life sciences and examine the astronomical and physical sciences, we will see many other serious problems with evolutionary theories. If the Earth, the solar system, our galaxy, the universe, or even the heavier chemical elements could not have evolved, as now seems to be the case, then organic evolution could not even have begun.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Life Science Conclusions

[Pahu]

Strange Planets 1



Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved (a). One theory says planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their known moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false (b).



Figure 22: Unique Planets. This is a composite photograph (not-to-scale) of all planets in the solar system, except Pluto. They are, from top to bottom: Mercury, Venus, Earth (with the Moon to the right), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The photos were taken by Mariner 10 (Mercury), Pioneer Venus Orbiter (Venus), Apollo 17 astronauts (Earth), Earth-based telescopes (Moon and Mars), and the two Voyager spacecraft (the four giant planets).

Each planet is unique. Similarities that would be expected if the planets had evolved from the same swirling dust cloud are seldom found. Yet most planetary studies begin by assuming that the planets evolved and are therefore similar. Typical arguments are as follows: “By studying the magnetic field (or any other feature) of Planet X, we will better understand how Earth’s magnetic field evolved.” Actually, each magnetic field is surprisingly different. “By studying Earth’s sister planet, Venus, we will see how plate tectonics shaped its surface and better understand how plate tectonics works on Earth.” It is now recognized that plate tectonics does not occur on Venus.



a. “...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.

“To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.” Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, 6th edition (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 387.

“But if we had a reliable theory of the origin of planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with the laws of physics so that we understood how planets form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate the probability that other stars have attendant planets. However, no such theory exists yet, despite the large number of hypotheses suggested.” R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 4.

“A great array of observational facts must be explained by a satisfactory theory, [on the evolution of the solar system] and the theory must be consistent with the principles of dynamics and modern physics. All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or remain unproved, when physical theory is properly applied.” Fred L. Whipple, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 3rd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 243.

“Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.

b. “The most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets.” David Stevenson, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “The Solar System’s New Diversity,” Science, Vol. 265, 2 September 1994, p. 1360.

“I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seems to be unique.” Ibid.

“Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in the solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths.” Kerr, “The Solar System’s New Diversity,” p. 1360.

“You put together the same basic materials and get startlingly different results. No two [planets] are alike; it’s like a zoo.” Alexander Dessler, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid., p. 1361.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 43. Strange Planets

[Pahu]

Strange Planets 2



According to these evolutionary theories:

Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus (c), and Pluto rotate backwards (d).

Backward Orbits. Each of the almost 200 known moons in the solar system should orbit its planet in the same direction, but more than 30 have backward orbits (e). Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Tipped Orbits:

Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits (f).

Planets. The orbital planes of the planets should lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun. Instead, the orbital planes of the planets typically deviate from the Sun’s equatorial plane by 7 degrees, a significant amount.

Angular Momentum. The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun (g).

c. Uranus’ spin axis is “tilted” 98°. In other words, Uranus spins on its side and slightly backwards. Evolutionists have incorrectly speculated that Uranus must have been tipped over by a giant impact. However, such an impact would not have changed the orbital planes of Uranus’ larger moons, which are also “tipped over.”

d. The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2003 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), p. F2.

e. Ibid.

f. Ibid.

The Moon’s orbital plane is inclined 18.5° – 28.5° to the Earth’s equatorial plane. (Actually, the Moon’s orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when one recognizes that the Moon possesses 82.9% of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.

Theories that for centuries claimed to show how the Moon evolved can now be rejected because of this fact alone. A more recent theory claims that a Mars-size body collided with the early Earth and kicked up debris that formed the Moon. Ward and Canup acknowledge that:

“Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, [less than 1°] the Earth’s equatorial plane.” William R. Ward and Robin M. Canup, “Origin of the Moon’s Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions,” Nature, Vol. 403, 17 February 2000, p. 741.

Nevertheless, speculative ways to circumvent this problem continue to be suggested. Even if some theory could explain the Moon’s high orbital inclination and angular momentum, other problems remain. [See “Origin of the Moon” ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 48. Origin of the Moon

g. Lyttleton, p. 16.

Fred Hoyle, The Cosmology of the Solar System (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1979), pp. 11–12.

“One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum.” Frank D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), p. 4.

Some have proposed transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets by “magnetic linking.” McCrea states:

“However, I scarcely think it has yet been established that the postulated processes would inevitably occur, or that if they did they would operate with the extreme efficiency needed in order to achieve the required distribution of angular momentum.” William Hunter McCrea, “Origin of the Solar System,” Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), p. 8.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 43. Strange Planets

[Pahu]

Strange Planets 3



Is Pluto a Planet?

In 2006, after years of internal debate, 4% of the members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU)—those meeting in Prague—voted to no longer call Pluto a planet. Instead, they said Pluto is a transneptunian object (h).

The IAU had no jurisdiction to change the definition of “planet” for the rest of the world. It is fine for an organization to tell others what it considers a word to mean, but common usage is the basis for definitions. Our language is filled with scientific words whose meanings have changed based on new discoveries and broader understandings. Few meanings have changed based on an organization’s vote.

Since Pluto’s discovery 76 years earlier, Pluto has been a thorn in the side of astronomers trying to explain how planets evolve, because so many characteristics of Pluto do not fit into evolutionary scenarios. No longer calling Pluto a planet (even though it is spherical, has three known moons, and orbits the Sun in the right direction) may reduce those man-made problems, but now calls attention to the more difficult question of how a thousand transneptunian objects evolved.

In 1930, after astronomers had been searching for a suspected ninth planet for 25 years, a tenacious farm boy from Kansas, Clyde W. Tombaugh (1906–1997), discovered Pluto. He later became one of my favorite professors. Going to his backyard to use his handmade 9-inch telescope was memorable. Professor Tombaugh was a warm, unpretentious man with the biggest smile you have ever seen. However, in class, he sometimes became irate at astronomers who made pronouncements but seldom touched a telescope.

Classification can be a useful tool, but at other times it leads to endless arguments, because the world (or, in this case, the solar system) is usually more complicated than theories imply. We can call Pluto anything we wish, but tens of thousands of books and hundreds of millions of students have called Pluto a planet.

What is a planet? Its original meaning was “wandering star.” I will always associate Pluto with Clyde Tombaugh and the worldwide excitement of finally discovering the ninth planet. For historical reasons, if nothing else, I suspect that millions of others will continue to call Pluto a planet as well as a transneptunian object.

Semantics aside, the scientific question remains: how could Pluto evolve?

h. Far more astronomers and planetary scientists quickly signed a petition opposing the IAU’s vote. They said:

“We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU’s definition of a planet, nor will we use it.”

Jenny Hogan, “Pluto: The Backlash Begins,” Nature, Vol. 442, 31 August 2006, pp. 965.

A transneptunian object is a body that orbits the Sun—usually beyond the orbit of the planet Neptune, about 30 astronomical units, or 2.8 billion miles, from the Sun.

Contributing to the IAU’s decision to remove Pluto’s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of what are now more than a thousand transneptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto. All are much farther from the Sun than Pluto.

A simple fix for the IAU would have been to define transneptunian objects as those bodies that always orbit the Sun beyond the orbit of Neptune. (Pluto’s orbit sometimes comes inside that of Neptune.) Also, an honest acknowledgement that all planets are unique would have clarified matters. Even the many planets that have been discovered outside the solar system are completely different from those inside the solar system. Evolutionary process will not explain them all.



Figure 23: Saturn and Six of Its Moons. Saturn has 60 known moons. One of them, named Phoebe, has an orbit almost perpendicular to Saturn’s equator. This is difficult for evolutionist astronomers to explain.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate.

[Pahu]

Earth: The Water Planet 1



The amount of water on Earth greatly exceeds that known on or within any other planet in the solar system. Liquid water, which is essential for life to survive, has unique and amazing properties; it covers 70% of Earth’s surface. Where did all Earth’s water come from?

If the Earth and solar system evolved from a swirling cloud of dust and gas, almost no water would reside near Earth’s present orbit. Any water (liquid or ice) that close to the Sun would vaporize and be blown by solar wind to the outer reaches of the solar system (a), as we see happening with water vapor in the tails of comets.

a. “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun.” Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens?” Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... nces5.html]

[Pahu]

Earth: The Water Planet 2



Did comets or meteorites deliver Earth’s water? Although comets contain considerable water (b), comets did not provide much of the Earth’s water, because comet water contains too much heavy hydrogen, relatively rare in Earth’s oceans. Comets also contain too much argon. If comets provided only 1% of Earth’s water, then our atmosphere should have 400 times more argon than it does (c). The few types of meteorites that contain water also have too much heavy hydrogen (d). [For an explanation why comets and some types of meteorites contain so much water and heavy hydrogen go here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Comets. Heavy hydrogen is described here: ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Details Requiring an Explanation

These observations have caused some to conclude that water was transported from the outer solar system to Earth by objects that no longer exist (e). If so, many of these “water tankers” should have collided with the other inner planets (Mercury, Venus, and Mars), producing water characteristics similar to those of Earth. In fact, their water characteristics are not like those of Earth (f). Instead of imagining “water tankers” that conveniently disappeared, perhaps we should ask if the Earth was created with its water already present.

a. “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun.” Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens?” Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.

b. The water content of Comet Tempel 1 was 38% by mass. [See Endnote 4 here: ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - References and Notes

c. “Hence, if comets like Hale-Bopp brought in the Earth’s water, they would have brought in a factor of 40,000 times more argon than is presently in the atmosphere.” T. D. Swindle and D. A. Kring, “Implications of Noble Gas Budgets for the Origin of Water on Earth and Mars,” Eleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference, Abstract No. 3785 (Houston: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 20–24 May 2001). [To learn how comets probably collected argon, see Endnote 40 here: ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - References and Notes

d. “Oxygen, D/H and Os [osmium] isotopic ratios all...rule out extant meteoritic material as sources of the Earth’s water.” Michael J. Drake and Kevin Righter, “Determining the Composition of the Earth,” Nature, Vol. 416, 7 March 2002, p. 42.

D/H is the ratio of heavy hydrogen (also called deuterium, or D) to normal hydrogen (H). Drake and Righter give many other reasons why meteorites could not have provided much of Earth’s water.

e. “If existing objects in space couldn’t have combined to make Earth’s unique mix of water and other elements, the planet must have formed from—and entirely depleted—an ancient supply of water-rich material that has no modern analog, Drake and Righter argue.” Harder, p. 185.

f. “If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found.” Ibid.

After reading pages 266-319 []In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Comets, you will see that the water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids—as well as some water detected elsewhere in the inner solar system—came primarily from the subterranean water chambers. During the flood, this subterranean water mixed with Earth’s surface water, giving our surface water different isotope characteristics from water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids.

“The carrier’s elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system....it doesn’t seem geochemically plausible...” Ibid., p. 186.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... nces5.html]

[Pahu]

Molten Earth? 1




For decades, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment (a). If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over (b). Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface (c). Therefore, the entire Earth was never molten and did not form by meteoritic bombardment.

a. “The textbook view that the earth spent its first half a billion years drenched in magma could be wrong.” John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth?” Scientific American, Vol. 294, October 2005, p. 59.

b. “The kinetic energy (~5 x 10^38 ergs) released in the largest impacts (1.5 x 10^27 g at 9 km/sec) would be several times greater than that required to melt the entire Earth.” George W. Wetherill, “Occurrence of Giant Impacts during the Growth of the Terrestrial Planets,” Science, Vol. 228, 17 May 1985, p. 879.

c. If gold were found only near volcanoes, then one might claim that gold was brought up to the Earth’s surface by volcanoes. However, gold is seldom found near volcanoes.

Suppose that extremely hot water (932°F or 500°C) circulated under the crust—a crust that had never been molten. Gold in high concentrations could go into solution. If the solution then came up to the Earth’s surface fast enough, little gold would precipitate as the water’s pressure dropped. If this happened, about 250 cubic miles of water must have burst forth to account for the gold found in just one gold mining region in Canada. [See Robert Kerrich, “Nature’s Gold Factory,” Science, Vol. 284, 25 June 1999, pp. 2101–2102.] If these ideal pressure-temperature conditions did not exist, even more water must come up faster to account for the Earth’s gold deposits. These are hardly the slow processes that evolutionists visualize. On pages 108–139 and 429–433, you will see how, why, and when vast amounts of hot water burst up through faults.

About 40% of all gold mined in the world is from the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa. This gold, deposited in compressional fractures within the basin, precipitated from water whose temperature exceeded 300°C. [See A. C. Barnicoat et al., “Hydrothermal Gold Mineralization in the Witwatersrand Basin,” Nature, Vol. 386, 24 April 1997, pp. 820–824.]

Robert R. Loucks and John A. Mavrogenes, “Gold Solubility in Supercritical Hydrothermal Brines Measured in Synthetic Fluid Inclusions,” Science, Vol. 284, 25 June 1999, pp. 2159–2163.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 45. Molten Earth?

[Pahu]

Molten Earth? 2



Radioactive dating of certain zircon minerals also contradicts a molten Earth. Trace elements within those zircons show that the zircons formed on a cold Earth (less than 212°F) (d). However, based on radioactive dating, those zircons formed on an extremely young Earth, when, according to evolutionists, it should have been molten (exceeding 1,800°F)—an obvious contradiction. Either the molten Earth idea or the radioactive dating method must be wrong; perhaps both are wrong.

Meteorites contain much more of the element xenon than Earth’s surface rocks, relative to other noble (inert) gases such as helium, neon, and argon. Had Earth formed by meteoritic bombardment, Earth’s surface rocks would have a different composition, and our atmosphere would contain up to ten times more xenon than it has (e). If Earth did not evolve by meteoritic bombardment, it may have begun as one large body. [See “Melting the Inner Earth” ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Melting the Inner Earth

d. John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth?” Scientific American, Vol. 294, October 2005, pp. 58–65.

e. “Meteorites, he notes, contain 10 times as much xenon, relative to other noble gasses, than occurs in Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the relative abundance of xenon isotopes found in meteorites doesn’t jibe with the pattern found on Earth. If meteorites did deliver most of the water to our planet, they also would have provided xenon, and our atmosphere would have to have a very different composition, Owen maintains.” Ron Cowen, “Found: Primordial Water,” Science News, Vol. 156, 30 October 1999, p. 285.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 44. Earth: The Water Planet

[Pahu]

Evolving Planets? 1



Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the Sun (a). Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational interactions than they are to be pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together (b). (Similar difficulties relate to a moon forming from particles orbiting a planet.)

Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet” by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling (c).

a. Very special conditions are required to capture and then merge orbiting bodies. They are discussed more fully here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Gravity: How and Why Most Things Move.



b. John F. Kerridge and James F. Vedder, “An Experimental Approach to Circumsolar Accretion,” Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), pp. 282–283.

“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54.

c. Tim Folger, “This Battered Earth,” Discover, January 1994, p. 33.

“‘We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ‘that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, prograde rotation just can’t be explained,’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.” Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,” Science, Vol. 258, 23 October 1992, p. 548.

Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, “Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?” Science, Vol. 259, 15 January 1993, pp. 350–354.

Some believe that the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) gained their spins through a few very large and improbable impacts. However, this appeal to large or improbable impacts will not work for the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), which have the most spin energy. Such impacts on these gaseous planets would be even more improbable, because they move more slowly and are so far from the center of the solar system. Besides, impacts from large rocks would not account for the composition of the giant planets—basically hydrogen and helium.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 45. Molten Earth?

[Pahu]

Evolving Planets? 2



The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d):

a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets.

b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, several times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)

c. Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists say are young—do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f).

Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. [See “Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?” here: ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?

Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.

d. “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.

“Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn—the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass—and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.” Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,” Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.

e. This idea has a further difficulty. If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter’s orbit, why didn’t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today?

f. B. Zuckerman et al., “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars,” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, pp. 494–496.

g. “In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, [what evolutionists believe is] the lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’” Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.

Renu Malhotra, “Chaotic Planet Formation,” Nature, Vol. 402, 9 December 1999, pp. 599–600.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 45. Molten Earth?

[Pahu]

Planetary Rings



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



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



Actually, rings have nothing to do with a planet’s origin. Rings form when material is expelled from a moon by a volcano, a geyser, or the impact of a comet or meteorite (c). Debris that escapes a moon because of its weak gravity and a giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished, they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years (d). Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 46. Evolving Planets?

[Pahu]

Origin of the Moon



Evolutionary theories for the origin of the Moon are highly speculative and completely inadequate (a). The Moon could not have spun off from Earth, because its orbital plane is too highly inclined. Nor could it have formed from the same material as Earth, because the relative abundances of its elements are too dissimilar from those of Earth (b). The Moon’s nearly circular orbit is also strong evidence that it was never torn from nor captured by Earth (c). If the Moon formed from particles orbiting Earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the Moon’s orbit; none are.

Some claim that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor. If so, many small moons should have formed (d). The impactor’s glancing blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast (e). Also, small particles splashed from Earth would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. However, Apollo astronauts found on the Moon tiny glass beads that had erupted as molten material from inside the Moon but had dissolved water inside! The total amount of water that was once inside the moon probably equaled that in the Caribbean Sea (f).



These explanations have many other problems. Understanding them caused one expert to joke, “The best explanation [for the Moon] was observational error—the Moon does not exist (g).” Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other (almost 200) known moons in the solar system.

But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was created in its present orbit.

a. “The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative.” Robert C. Haymes, Introduction to Space Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), p. 209.

On 10 November 1971, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning chemist and lunar scientist, stated “I do not know the origin of the moon, I’m not sure of my own or any other’s models, I’d lay odds against any of the models proposed being correct.” Robert Treash, “Magnetic Remanence in Lunar Rocks,” Pensee, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 1972, p. 22.

“In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.” David W. Hughes, “The Open Question in Selenology,” Nature, Vol. 327, 28 May 1987, p. 291.

b. Haymes, p. 209.

c. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 77–79.

M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Origin of the Moon,” Science, Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606–607.

“If the Moon had separated from the Earth, it would either have broken away completely or returned, but it could not have gone into orbit.” Stacey, p. 38.

d. “We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.” Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.

e. “...no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.” Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Nature, No. 2, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.

f. “This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says [Erik] Hauri. ‘It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,’ he says. ‘That’s a really, really difficult knot to untie.’ ” Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, “Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past,” Glass Beads From Moon Hint Of Watery Past : NPR, 12 July 2008. [See Endnote 18 here: ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - References and Notes



g. Jack J. Lissauer, “It’s Not Easy to Make the Moon,” Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, pp. 327–328.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 47. Planetary Rings

[Pahu]

Evolution of the Solar System?



Evolutionists claim the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4.6 billion years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. (To understand why, see the Poynting-Robertson effect here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 89. Poynting-Robertson Effect). Particles should still be falling into the Sun’s upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured, infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991, showed no such glow (a). So the assumed “millions of years” and this explanation for the solar system’s origin are probably wrong.

Disks of gas and dust sometimes surround stars. That does not mean planets are forming in those disks. Some disks formed from matter suddenly expelled from the star (b). Other disks formed (via gravity and the laws of physics) from impact debris or other matter near the star. Early astronomers called the disks planetary nebula, because they mistakenly thought they contained evolving planets.

a. “For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii], above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill....In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall [Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy] was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’ ” Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse,” Science, Vol. 253, 26 July 1991, pp. 386–387.

“...interplanetary dust is not highly concentrated around the sun. In situ measurements made with impact detectors aboard the two Helios probes, which reached a heliocentric distance of 60 [solar radii], have also shown that the spatial IDP [interplanetary dust particles] density gradually levels off inside ~100 solar radii.

“Our two-dimensional IR [infrared] observations have shown unambiguously that a prominent circumsolar dust ring did not exist at the time of the 11 July 1991 solar eclipse. Consistent with these results, a second recent IR eclipse experiment also found no evidence of surface brightness enhancements.” P. Lamy et al., “No Evidence of a Circumsolar Dust Ring from Infrared Observations of the 1991 Solar Eclipse,” Science, Vol. 257, 4 September 1992, p. 1379.

b. L. F. Miranda et al., “Water-Maser Emission from a Planetary Nebula with a Magnetic Torus,” Nature, Vol. 414, 15 November 2001, pp. 284–286.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces10.html]

[Pahu]

Faint Young Sun



If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25–30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates today (a). (A drop in the Sun’s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice’s mirror like surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun’s radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If it had, all agree that life could not have evolved.

Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun” problem by assuming Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it (b). Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age” (c).

A second approach assumes that Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases, and at high concentrations methane produces a haze that would have cooled Earth’s surface rather than warming it (d). Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic (e).

A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable (f).

Evolutionists have never explained in any of these approaches how such drastic changes could occur in almost perfect step with the slow increase in the Sun’s radiation. Until some evidence supports such “special pleadings,” it does not appear that the Sun evolved (g).

If the Sun, a typical and well-studied star, did not evolve, then why presume other stars did?

a. Gregory S. Jenkins et al., “Precambrian Climate: The Effects of Land Area and Earth’s Rotation Rate,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, 20 May 1993, pp. 8785–8791.

This paper acknowledges that if the Earth rotated almost twice as fast as it does today, this problem would be lessened—but not solved. Still required are a flooded Earth and an atmosphere with 30–300 times more carbon dioxide than today.

b. Let’s assume that at least a fifth of the atmospheric carbon dioxide needed to prevent a runaway ice age had been present throughout the Earth’s first 2,750,000,000 years. That carbon dioxide would have combined with weathered rocks to produce appreciable amounts of the mineral siderite (FeCO3). Siderite is missing from ancient soils, showing the concentrations of carbon dioxide needed to prevent a frozen Earth were never present. [See Rob Rye et al., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations before 2.2 Billion Years Ago,” Nature, Vol. 378, 7 December 1995, pp. 603–605.]

“There is no direct evidence to show that carbon dioxide levels were ever a thousand times higher.” Gregory Jenkins, as quoted by Tim Folger, “The Fast Young Earth,” Discover, November 1993, p. 32.

c. William R. Kuhn, “Avoiding a Permanent Ice Age,” Nature, Vol. 359, 17 September 1992, p. 196.

d. “The methane greenhouse effect is limited, however, because organic haze starts to form [chemically] at CH4/CO2 ratios higher than ~0.1, and this creates an anti-greenhouse effect that cools the surface if the haze becomes too thick.” James F. Kasting, “Faint Young Sun Redux,” Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010, p. 688.

e. In 1972, Carl Sagan and George H. Mullen first proposed that the early Earth had lots of heat-trapping methane and ammonia. They had no evidence for early methane and ammonia; they simply were looking for something that might have warmed the Earth, so there would have been no runaway deep freeze and life could have evolved. At the time of Sagan’s death (1996), he was still looking.

f. “Despite all of these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved. Ice albedo feedback has been neglected in all of these one-dimensional climate calculations.” Kasting, p. 688.

g. For a frank admission of these and other “special pleadings,” see Carl Sagan and Christopher Chyba, “The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases,” Science, Vol. 276, 23 May 1997, pp. 1217–1221.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 50. Faint Young Sun

[Pahu]

Mountains of Venus



Venus must have a strong crust to support its extremely high, dense (a) mountains. One mountain, Maat Mons, rises higher than Earth’s Mount Everest does above sea level. Because Venus is relatively near the Sun, its atmosphere is 860°F—so hot its surface rocks must be weak or “tarlike.” (Lead melts at 622°F and zinc at 787°F.) Only if Venus’ subsurface rocks are cold and strong can its mountains defy gravity. This allows us to draw two conclusions, both of which contradict major evolutionary assumptions.

First, evolutionists assume that planets grew (evolved) by the gradual accumulation of rocky debris falling in from outer space, a process called gravitational accretion. Heat generated by a planet’s worth of impacts would have left the rocky planets molten. However, Venus was never molten. Had it been, its hot atmosphere would have prevented its subsurface rocks from cooling enough to support its mountains. So, Venus did not evolve by gravitational accretion.

Secondly, evolutionists believe the entire solar system is billions of years old. If Venus were billions of years old, its atmospheric heat would have “soaked” deeply enough into the planet to weaken its subsurface rocks. If so, not only could Venus’ crust not support mountains, the hot mountains themselves could not maintain their steep slopes. Venus must be relatively young.



Figure 25: Maat Mons on Venus. If Venus’ mountains were composed of lighter material, they would “float” in the denser rock below, similar to an iceberg floating in denser liquid water. (Mountains on Earth are buoyed up, because they have a density of about 2.7 gm/cm3 and “float” in rock that is about 3.3 gm/cm3.) Data from the Magellan spacecraft that orbited and mapped Venus for several years showed that Venus’ mountains are composed of rock that is too dense to “float.” So, what supports them? It must be Venus’ strong crust—despite Venus’ extremely hot atmosphere. This implies Venus is not old and did not evolve.

(a) Richard A. Kerr, “A New Portrait of Venus: Thick-Skinned and Decrepit,” Science, Vol. 263, 11 February 1994, pp. 759–760.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 51. Mountains of Venus

[Pahu]

Space, Time, and Matter Demand A Beginning



No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of space, time, or matter. Because each is intimately related to or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others (a).

Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning (A beginning suggests a Creator (b)).

a. Nathan R. Wood, The Secret of the Universe, 10th edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1936).

b. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 52. Space, Time, and Matter

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 53. A Beginning

[Pahu]

First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics



The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. In other words, energy (or its mass equivalent) is not now being created or destroyed; it simply changes form. Countless experiments have verified this.

A corollary of the first law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Therefore, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce mass and energy—the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe—then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe.

If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, thus implying the universe had a beginning (a).

A further consequence of the second law is that soon after the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory (b).

a. “The more orthodox scientific view is that the entropy of the universe must forever increase to its final maximum value. It has not yet reached this: we should not be thinking about it if it had. It is still increasing rapidly, and so must have had a beginning; there must have been what we may describe as a ‘creation’ at a time not infinitely remote.” Jeans, p. 181.

b. “A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications. The question that arises is how did the universe get into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy?...The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe.” Gordon J. Van Wylen, Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959), p. 169.

“The time asymmetry of the Universe is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy increases with time as order is transformed into disorder. The mystery is not that an ordered state should become disordered but that the early Universe apparently was in a highly ordered state.” Don N. Page, “Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry,” Nature, Vol. 304, 7 July 1983, p. 39.

“There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state.” Ibid., p. 40.

“The real puzzle is why there is an arrow of time at all; that is, why the Universe is not simply a thermodynamic equilibrium at all times (except during the inevitable local fluctuations). The theory of nonequilibrium systems [such as those described by Ilya Prigogine] may tell us how such systems behave, given that there are some; but it does not explain how they come to be so common in the first place (and all oriented in the same temporal direction). This is ‘time’s greatest mystery’, and for all its merits, the theory of nonequilibrium systems does not touch it. What would touch it would be a cosmological demonstration that the Universe was bound to be in a low-entropy state after the Big Bang.” Huw Price, “Past and Future,” Nature, Vol. 348, 22 November 1990, p. 356.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 54. First Law of Thermodynamics

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces16.html]

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 1



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

Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect (b); that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself supposedly expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere (c). Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws.

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.

“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.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 55. Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 2



Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If a big bang happened, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us, they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating from us.

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. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values (g). Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

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. 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.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 55. Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 3



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).

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.

“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.

“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]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 55. Second Law of Thermodynamics

[tasneemjaved]

no i am not agree with you because i am Masters in zoology and i have studied a lot on evolution

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 4





Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see (i).

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.

“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.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... Sciences16

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 5



Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB (j).



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.]

Will Saunders et al., “The Density Field of the Local Universe,” Nature, Vol. 349, 3 January 1991, pp. 32–38.

“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.

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.

James Glanz, “Precocious Structures Found,” Science, Vol. 272, 14 June 1996, p. 1590.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 55. Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 6



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:

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.

“ 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.

Slight errors or omissions in the many data processing steps could easily account for the faint signal.

Reported variations in the CMB spanned areas of the sky that were 100 or 1,000 times too broad to produce galaxies.

“...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.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

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

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 7



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” stars (m) contradicts the big bang theory.

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.

“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.

“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.” Mitchell, p. 7.

l. Steidl, pp. 207–208.

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.

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.

Ron Cowen, “Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the Elements,” Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286–287.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

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

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 8



A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and 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 has been found (n).

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.

“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.

“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.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

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

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 9



Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies” here: ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Evidence A big bang should not produce highly concentrated (o) or rotating bodies (p). Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce tightly clustered galaxies (q). Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion (r).

o. “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.

Geoffrey R. Burbidge, “Was There Really a Big Bang?” Nature, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 36–40.

Ben Patrusky, “Why Is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?” Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.

Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, “Superclusters and Voids in the Distribution of Galaxies,” Scientific American, Vol. 246, March 1982, pp. 106–114.

p. “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.

q. “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.

r. Alan Dressler, “The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46–54.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

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

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 10



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

s. “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.

“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.

“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.

t. “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.

“Also, as far as we know, there is no appreciable amount of antimatter in the universe.” Weinberg, p. 88.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

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

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 11





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 (u)?

u. One might also ask where the “cosmic egg” came from if there was 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, 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?” here: ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

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

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 12




For decades, big bang theorists said that the amount of mass in a rapidly expanding universe must be enough to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter could not come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass always fell far short of that minimum amount. This “missing mass” is often called dark matter, because no one could see it or even detect it. Actually, “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. The media’s frequent reference to “dark matter” enshrined it in the public’s consciousness, much like the supposed “missing link” between apes and man.

The big bang has struck again by devising something new and imaginary to support the theory. Here’s why. The big bang theory predicts that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from the Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. The shocking result is now in—and the answer has been rechecked in many ways. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating (v)! Therefore, to protect the theory, something must again be invented. Some energy source that counteracts gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. This energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy.

v. “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.

“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.

“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.

“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 energy”) cannot be Standard Model physics.” Gordon Kane, “The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,” Scientific American, Vol. 288, June 2003, p. 73.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

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

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 13



Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the universe together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) has been seen or measured (w). We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy (x).” Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.

Rather than cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty? Of course. But big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, 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.



If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose

ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect (y). All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred (z).

w. “...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.

“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. Wayne Hu and Martin White, “The Cosmic Symphony,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, February 2004, p. 50.

y. “Big Bang Gone Quiet,” Nature, Vol. 372, 24 November 1994, p. 304.

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.

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.

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.

Robert C. Kennicutt Jr., “An Old Galaxy in a Young Universe,” Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 555–556.

James Dunlop, “A 3.5-Gyr-Old Galaxy at Redshift 1.55,” Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 581–584.

“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.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

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

[Pahu]

Missing Mass 1



Imagine seeing several rocks in outer space, moving radially away from Earth. If the rocks were simultaneously blasted away from Earth, their masses, changing velocities, and distances from Earth would have a very precise mathematical relationship with each other. When a similar relationship is checked for billions of observable galaxies, an obvious conclusion is that these galaxies did not explode from a common point in a huge “big bang” (a). It is even more obvious that if such an explosion occurred, it must have been much, much less than billions of years ago.

Evolutionists try to fix this problem in two ways. They assume the universe is filled with at least ten times as much matter as can be seen. This is maintained even though three decades of searching for this “missing mass” have turned up nothing other than the conclusion that it does not exist (b).

a. This problem was first explained by R. H. Dicke, “Gravitation and the Universe: The Jayne Lectures for 1969,” American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, 1970, p. 62. Alan Guth’s attempt to solve it led to the “inflationary big bang theory.”

b. This missing mass is called dark matter, because it cannot be seen and, so far, has not been detected. Candidates for “missing mass” include neutrinos, black holes, dead stars, low-mass stars, and various subatomic particles and objects dreamed up by cosmologists simply to solve this problem. Each candidate has many scientific problems.

One study of two adjacent galaxies shows they have 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 missing mass 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 the 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.]

“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.

“Even the most enthusiastic cosmologist will admit that current theories of the nature of the universe have some big holes. One such gap is that the universe seems to be younger than some of the objects contained within it. Another problem is that the observed universe just doesn’t appear to have enough matter in it to explain the way it behaves now, nor the way theorists predict it will evolve.” Robert Matthews, “Spoiling a Universal ‘Fudge Factor,’” Science, Vol. 265, 5 August 1994, pp. 740–741.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces18.html]

[Pahu]

Missing Mass 2



A second “fix attempt” assumes that the rocks (or, in the real problem, all particles in the universe) were briefly, almost magically, accelerated away from some point. This process, called inflation, supposedly reached speeds billions of trillions of times faster than the speed of light (c). An instant later, and for no apparent reason, inflation stopped. All this happened by an unknown, untestable phenomenon—not by a blast. Then this matter became controlled by gravity after it reached just the right speed to give the universe an age (based on one set of assumptions) of about 13.7 billion years (d). Such flights of imagination and speculation are common in the field of cosmology.

c. Supposedly, nothing can exceed the speed of light. Advocates of “the inflationary big bang” get around this problem by claiming that space expanded much faster than the speed of light, but the speed of matter relative to that space did not expand faster than the speed of light. They liken matter to raisins in a ball of dough. As the dough (representing space) rises (or expands), the raisins move outward with the dough but do not move relative to the dough.

“Inflation” has no experimental or observational support and supposedly happened before the laws of physics came into existence. Therefore, “inflation” lies outside the scientific realm. “Inflation” is a relatively recent “patch job,” a nonscientific speculation inserted to get around a scientific problem. Here, the scientific problem is that nothing can exceed the velocity of light (except possibly the expansion rate of space). In science, a “patch job” is usually a warning that a theory is in trouble.

d. The inflationary big bang was proposed by Alan H. Guth in a paper titled “A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problem” in Physical Review, D, Vol. 23, 15 January 1981, pp. 348–356.

The “missing mass problem” can be stated more directly. If the big bang occurred, the total mass of the expanding universe should have a very precise relationship with the outward velocities and distances of all galaxies and other matter. This mass must not deviate from this amount by even one part in 10^55 (ten thousand million billion trillion trillion trillion).

If the mass were slightly greater than this critical value (the closed condition):

i. gravity would have quickly collapsed all the matter in the universe into one big ball, perhaps within seconds,

ii. we would not be here to wonder how everything began.

If the mass were slightly less than this critical value (the open condition):

i. particles would have expanded indefinitely,

ii. stars and galaxies would not have formed, and

iii. we would not be here to think about it.

The estimated mass of the visible universe is less than a tenth of this critical value. Stars and galaxies exist. Therefore, the big bang probably did not occur. Faith in the big bang theory requires believing that a vast amount of invisible, unmeasurable mass is hidden somewhere.

This problem can be viewed another way. If the universe began in a big bang billions of years ago, it should:

i. have collapsed on itself (closed), or

ii. have expanded so much that stars and galaxies could never have formed (open), or

iii. have expansion velocities for most visible particles in the universe that lie within a ridiculously tight one part in 10^55 of their escape velocities!

Consequently, the universe probably did not begin in a big bang billions of years ago.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 57. Missing Mass

[Pahu]

Heavy Elements



Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin of heavy elements. (A big bang would produce only the three lightest elements: hydrogen, helium, and lithium.)The other 100+ elements supposedly formed deep inside stars and during stellar explosions. This theory is hard to verify, because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed. However, a vast region of gas containing the mass of 300,000,000,000,000 suns has been found that is quite rich in iron and other heavy elements. The number of nearby visible stars is a thousand times too small to account for the heavy elements in that huge region (a). Heavy elements are even abundant in nearly empty regions of space that are farthest from stars and galaxies (b).

Most hydrogen atoms weigh one atomic mass unit, but some, called heavy hydrogen, weigh two units. If everything in the universe came from a big bang or a swirling gas cloud, heavy hydrogen should be uniformly mixed with normal hydrogen. It is not (c). Comets have twice the concentration of heavy hydrogen as oceans. Oceans have 10–50 times the concentration as the solar system and interstellar matter. [See “Heavy Hydrogen” here: ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Details Requiring an Explanation

a. “Given that the cluster apparently comprises few galaxies, yet contains a large amount of iron, a new type of astronomical object is implied by our results. A revision of theoretical models of the metal [heavy element] enrichment process in galaxy clusters may therefore be required,” M. Hattori et al., “A Dark Cluster of Galaxies at Redshift z=1,” Nature, Vol. 388, 10 July 1997, p. 146.

b. Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, “Heavy-Element Enrichment in Low-Density Regions of the Intergalactic Medium,” Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, pp. 44–46.

c. “In both cases, the scatter of the observed values [of heavy hydrogen] is quite large and seems to reach a factor of 10. Although it is already surprising to see such variations within ~1000 pc from the sun, this looks unbelievable within only 30 pc from the sun.” [1 pc (or parsec)=3.258 light-years] A. Vidal-Madjar, “Interstellar Helium and Deuterium,” Diffuse Matter in Galaxies, editors J. Audouze et al. (Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983), pp. 77–78.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 58. Heavy Elements

[Pahu]

Interstellar Gas



Detailed analyses indicate that neither stars nor planets could form from interstellar gas clouds (a). To do so, either by first forming dust particles (b) or by direct gravitational collapse of the gas (c), would require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. An obvious alternative is that stars and planets were created.

a. “The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known. In quantitative work, it has simply been assumed that the number of atoms per cm3 has somehow increased about a thousand-fold over that in a dense nebula. The two principal factors inhibiting the formation of a protostar are that the gas has a tendency to disperse before the density becomes high enough for self-gravitation to be effective, and that any initial angular momentum would cause excessively rapid rotation as the material contracts. Some mechanism must therefore be provided for gathering the material into a sufficiently small volume that self-gravitation may become effective, and the angular momentum must in some way be removed.” Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 279–280.

b. Martin Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973), p. 394.

“...there is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains can condense.” Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” New Scientist, Vol. 91, 13 August 1981, p. 413.

c. “Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that objects called protostars are formed as condensations from the interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically, and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.” John C. Brandt, The Physics and Astronomy of the Sun and Stars (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 111.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 59. Interstellar Gas

[LarsMac]

Unless you're Walt Brown, I haven't seen you post an original notion, yet.

If you ARE Mr Brown, I am impressed. Nice way to get people to read your book.

You still haven't proved, or, disproved anything.

[Pahu]

Fast Binaries



In our galaxy, about 60% of all stars are grouped in closely spaced pairs called binaries. Fortunately, our Sun does not have a binary partner. If it did, temperatures on Earth would vary too much to support life. The mutual gravitational attraction between stars in a binary pair causes them to orbit each other, just as the Moon orbits Earth. The closer paired stars are to each other, the faster they orbit. Their orbits do not change appreciably, even over long periods of time.

Two particular stars are so close that they orbit each other every 11 minutes! This implies their centers are about 80,000 miles apart (a). By way of comparison, our Sun, a typical star, is more than 800,000 miles in diameter. Other close binaries are also known (b).

The theory of stellar evolution was developed by arranging (on paper) different types of stars in a sequence according to brightness and color. Stellar evolutionists believe stars slowly change from one type to another. However, scientists have never observed such changes, and many stars do not fit this pattern. According to stellar evolution, a star’s volume, late in its lifetime, expands to about a million times that of our Sun and finally collapses to become a small star about the size of Earth (a white dwarf) or even smaller (a neutron star).

Only such tiny stars could have their centers 80,000 miles apart and still orbit each other. Obviously, these fast binary stars did not evolve from larger stars, because larger stars orbiting so closely would collide. If two stars cannot evolve into a condition that has them orbiting each other every 11 minutes, one wonders whether stars evolve at all.

a. A. R. King and M. G. Watson, “The Shortest Period Binary Star?” Nature, Vol. 323, 4 September 1986, p. 105.

Dietrick E. Thomsen, “A Dizzying Orbit for a Binary Star,” Science News, Vol. 130, 11 October 1986, p. 231.

“Ultrafast Binary Star,” Sky & Telescope, February 1987, p. 154.

b. Jonathan Eberhart, “Now You See It, Now You Don’t,” Science News, Vol. 135, 7 January 1989, p. 13.

Patrick Moore, The New Atlas of the Universe (New York: Arch Cape Press, 1988), p. 176.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 60. Fast Binaries

[Pahu]

Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 1



Evolutionists claim that stars form from swirling clouds of dust and gas. For this to happen, vast amounts of energy, angular momentum, and residual magnetism must be removed from each cloud. This is not observed today, and astronomers and physicists have been unable to explain, in an experimentally verifiable way, how it all could happen (a).

The most luminous stars in our galaxy, called O stars, are “burning fuel” hundreds of thousands of times more rapidly than our Sun. This is so rapid that they must be quite young on an evolutionary time scale. If these stars evolved, they should show easily measurable characteristics such as extremely high rates of rotation and enormous magnetic fields. Because these characteristics are not observed, it seems quite likely these stars did not evolve.

a. “The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That’s 10^22 stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.” Martin Harwit, Book Reviews, Science, Vol. 231, 7 March 1986, pp. 1201–1202.

Harwit also lists three formidable objections to all modern theories of star formation:

i. “The contracting gas clouds must radiate energy in order to continue their contraction; the potential energy that is liberated in this pre-stellar phase must be observable somehow, but we have yet to detect and identify it.

ii. “The angular momentum that resides in typical interstellar clouds is many orders of magnitude higher than the angular momentum we compute for the relatively slowly spinning young stars; where and how has the protostar shed that angular momentum during contraction?

iii. “Interstellar clouds are permeated by magnetic fields that we believe to be effectively frozen to the contracting gas; as the gas cloud collapses to form a star, the magnetic field lines should be compressed ever closer together, giving rise to enormous magnetic fields, long before the collapse is completed. These fields would resist further collapse, preventing the formation of the expected star; yet we observe no evidence of strong fields, and the stars do form, apparently unaware of our theoretical difficulties.”

[From “In the Beginnng” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

[Pahu]

Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 2



If stars evolve, star births would about equal star deaths. Within our Milky Way Galaxy alone, about one star dies each year and becomes an expanding cloud of gas and dust (b). Deaths of more massive stars are much brighter, more violent explosions called supernovas. Star births, on the other hand, would appear as new starlight not present on the many photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments which could detect dust falling into and forming supposedly new stars have not done so (c). Actually, stars that some astronomers believe are very new are expelling matter. We have seen hundreds of stars die, but we have never seen a star born (d).

b. These explosions were misnamed “planetary nebula,” because early astronomers with evolutionary ideas thought these clouds were forming planets around new stars. [See Bruce Balick and Adam Frank, “The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars,” Scientific American, Vol. 291, July 2004, pp. 50–59.]

“Herschel...speculated they might be planetary systems taking shape around young stars. The name stuck even though the opposite turned out to be true; this type of nebula consists of gas molted from dying stars.... [Planetary nebula] pose challenges to stellar evolution theory, the physics that describes the life story of stars.” Ibid., p. 52.

c. “...no one has unambiguously observed material falling onto an embryonic star, which should be happening if the star is truly still forming. And no one has caught a molecular cloud in the act of collapsing.” Ivars Peterson, “The Winds of Starbirth,” Science News, Vol. 137, 30 June 1990, p. 409.

“Precisely how a section of an interstellar cloud collapses gravitationally into a star—a double or multiple star, or a solar system—is still a challenging theoretical problem....Astronomers have yet to find an interstellar cloud in the actual process of collapse.” Fred L. Whipple, The Mystery of Comets (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985), pp. 211–212, 213.

d. “The origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.” Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu, “The Formation of Sunlike Stars,” Science, Vol. 248, 4 May 1990, p. 564.

“Most disturbing, however, is the fact that, despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation. We have not yet been able to unambiguously detect the collapse of a molecular cloud core or the infall of circumstellar material onto an embryonic star. Until such an observation is made, it would probably be prudent to regard our current hypotheses and theoretical scenarios with some degree of suspicion.” Ibid., p. 572.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces22.html]

[Pahu]

Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 3



Some stars are found where astronomers agree they could not evolve, near the center of our galaxy. These short-lived stars orbit a massive black hole, where gravity is so strong that gas and dust clouds could never evolve into a star. Instead, the black hole’s massive gravity would pull such clouds (supposedly evolving stars) apart. (e).

Nor could stars have evolved in globular clusters, where up to a million stars occupy a relatively small volume of space.



Figure 192: Globular Cluster. Globular clusters are tight, spherical concentrations of 10,000–1,000,000 stars. This globular cluster, called M13, is about 22,000 light-years away.

Wind and radiation pressure from the first star in the cluster to evolve would have blown away most of the gas needed to form subsequent stars in the cluster (f). In other words, if stars evolved, we should not see globular clusters, yet our galaxy has about 200 globular clusters. To pack so many stars that tightly together requires that they all came into existence at about the same time.

e. “In fact, given our current understanding of how stars form and the properties of the galactic center, it’s [stellar evolution near the galactic center is] not allowed to happen.” Andrea M. Gaze, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mystery in the Middle,” Science News, Vol. 163, 21 June 2003, p. 394.

“For example, no one can explain how the stars—which are 15 times heftier than our sun—got there [near the center of our galaxy]. According to most astronomical models, they are too big to have formed in the chaos of the galactic center but appear to be too young to have moved there from farther out.” Robert Irion, “The Milky Way’s Dark, Starving Pit,” Science, Vol. 300, 30 May 2003, p. 1356.

“The bizarre question of the hour is what the young stars are doing there at all. Clouds of gas need a calm and cold setting to collapse into a ball dense enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Yet gravitational tidal forces—from the black hole and from stars in the galaxy’s nucleus—make the galactic center the antithesis of such a [stellar] nursery.” Ibid., p. 1357.

“Ironically, stars such as these have no business being so close to a black hole...there is no plausible explanation of how and why the hot, young stars near the centre of the Milky Way and Andromeda got there.” Fulvio Melia, “Odd Company,” Nature, Vol. 437, 20 October 2005, p. 1105.

f. “Little is known about the origins of globular clusters, which contain hundreds of thousands of stars in a volume only a few light years across. Radiation pressure and winds from luminous young stars should disperse the star-forming gas and disrupt the formation of the cluster.” J. L. Turner et al., “An Extragalactic Supernebula,” Nature, Vol. 423, 5 June 2003, p. 621.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

[Pahu]

Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 4



A similar problem exists for stars that are more than twenty times more massive than our sun. After a star grew to 20 solar masses, it would exert so much radiation pressure and emit so much stellar wind that additional mass could not be pulled in to allow it to grow (g). Many stars are heavier than a hundred suns. Black holes are millions to billions of times more massive than the sun. Poor logic is involved in arguing for stellar evolution, which is assumed in estimating the age of stars. These ages are then used to establish a framework for stellar evolution. That is circular reasoning (h).

In summary, there is no evidence that stars evolve, there is much evidence that stars did not evolve, and there are no experimentally verifiable explanations for how they could evolve and seemingly defy the laws of physics (i).

g. “Once a protostar reaches a threshold of about 20 solar masses, the pressure exerted by its radiation should overpower gravity and prevent it from growing any bigger. In addition to the radiation pressure, the winds that so massive a star generates disperse its natal cloud, further limiting its growth as well as interfering with the formation of nearby stars.” Erick T. Young, “Cloudy with a Chance of Stars: Making a Star Is No Easy Thing,” Scientific American, Vol. 302, February 2010, p. 40.

“Nascent stars above 20 solar masses are so luminous that they would be expected to disrupt their own formation, as well as that of nearby stars.” Ibid., p. 37.

h. Steidl, pp. 134–136.

i. “Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable.” Rogier A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, “A Matter of Timing,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p. 30.

“If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect.” Geoffrey R. Burbidge, as quoted by R. L. Sears and Robert R. Brownlee in Stellar Structure, editors Lawrence H. Aller and Dean McLaughlin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 577.

“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

[Pahu]

Galaxies



Evolutionists now admit that galaxies cannot evolve from one type to another (a). There are also good reasons why natural processes cannot form galaxies (b). Furthermore, if spiral galaxies were billions of years old, their arms or bars would be severely twisted (c).



Figure 190: Spiral Galaxies. The arms in these six representative spiral galaxies have about the same amount of twist. Their distances from Earth are shown in light-years. (One light-year, the distance light travels in one year, equals 5,879,000,000,000 miles.) For the light from all galaxies to arrive at Earth tonight, the more distant galaxies, which had to release their light long before the closer galaxies, did not have as much time to rotate and twist their arms. Therefore, farther galaxies should have less twist. Of course, if light traveled millions of times faster in the past, the farthest galaxies did not have to send their light long before the nearest galaxies. Spiral galaxies should have similar twists. This turns out to be the case.21 The galaxies are: A) M33 or NGC 598; B) M101 or NGC 5457; C) M51 or NGC 5194; D) NGC 4559; E) M88 or NGC 4501; and F) NGC 772. All distances are taken from R. Brent Tully, Nearby Galaxies Catalog (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988)

Because they have maintained their shape, either galaxies are young, or unknown physical phenomena are occurring within galaxies (d). Even structures composed of galaxies are now known to be so amazingly large, and yet relatively thin, they could not have formed by slow gravitational attraction (e). Slow, natural processes cannot form such huge galactic structures; rapid, supernatural processes may have.

a. “There is much doubt, however, that galaxies evolve from one type to another at all.” George Abell, Exploration of the Universe, 2nd edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969), p. 629.

“Our conclusions, then, are that the sequence of the classification of galaxies is not an evolutionary sequence...” Paul W. Hodge, The Physics and Astronomy of Galaxies and Cosmology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 122.

b. “The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.” Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe, p. 55.

Trefil explains the basis for this frustration in his fourth chapter entitled, “Five Reasons Why Galaxies Can’t Exist.”

“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.

“A completely satisfactory theory of galaxy formation remains to be formulated.” Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980), p. 22.

“The theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems of astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution.” Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantom Books, Inc., 1977), p. 68.

Fifty cosmologists attended a conference on galaxy formation. After summarizing much observational data, two of the most respected authorities optimistically estimated the probability that any existing theory on galaxy formation is correct is about 1 out of 100. [See P. J. E. Peebles and Joseph Silk, “A Cosmic Book,” Nature, Vol. 335, 13 October 1988, pp. 601–606.]

c. Hodge, p. 123.

d. Harold S. Slusher, “Clues Regarding the Age of the Universe,” ICR Impact, No. 19, January 1975, pp. 2–3.

Steidl, pp. 161–187.

e. “In its simplest form, the Big Bang scenario doesn’t look like a good way to make galaxies. It allows too little time for the force of gravity by itself to gather ordinary matter—neutrons, protons and electrons—into the patterns of galaxies seen today. Yet the theory survives for want of a better idea.” Peterson, “Seeding the Universe,” p. 184.

“It is far too large and too massive to have formed by the mutual gravitational attraction of its member galaxies.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall,” Science, Vol. 2 46, 17 November 1989, p. 885. [See also Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, “Mapping the Universe,” Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897–903.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 62. Galaxies

[Pahu]

Stellar Nursery, or Is the Emperor Naked?



The popular media frequently claim that stars are actually seen evolving and that pictures of these stellar nurseries prove it. Impressive pictures of the Eagle Nebula are usually shown. Many people accept the claim without asking themselves, “Do the pictures contain anything that shows stars are evolving?” Of course not. If stars were evolving, other physical measurements could confirm it. Where are those measurements? Silence.

This willingness to accept what others tell us reminds one of the tale in which citizens told their naked emperor he was nicely dressed. Rather than believing or reporting what their eyes clearly told them, people preferred to accept what others said—or at least not object. Better not disagree or even ask questions; it could be embarrassing.

Why do some astronomers say stars are evolving? Until recently, the atmosphere prevented astronomers from seeing infrared radiations from space. Then in the late 1960s, satellites outside the atmosphere made infrared sky surveys that showed some surprisingly warm clouds of dust and gas in our galaxy. Several things could cause this heating. Perhaps a dim star (a brown dwarf) is behind the cloud, maybe something nearby exploded, or a star is dying as it is being pulled into a massive black hole. Those who struggled to understand how stars evolved had a different interpretation: “Gravity is collapsing the cloud, raising its temperature. In thousands of years, it will become a star.” Still other interpretations are possible.

NASA’s claim in 1995 that these pictures showed hundreds to thousands of stars forming was based on the speculative “EGG-star formation theory.” It has recently been tested independently with two infrared detectors that can see inside the dusty pillars. Few stars were there, and 85% of the pillars had too little dust and gas to support star formation. “The new findings also highlight how much astronomers still have to learn about star formation.” [Ron Cowen, “Rethinking an Astronomical Icon: The Eagle’s EGG, Not So Fertile,” Science News, Vol. 161, 16 March 2002, pp. 171–172.]

What prevents stellar evolution? Just as the Sun’s gravity does not pull planets into the Sun, gravity does not pull gas and dust into a tight ball that then ignites as a star. Each cloud of dust and gas in space has a specific amount of kinetic and potential energy, angular momentum, and magnetic energy that must be removed for even a slight collapse. Evidence of that removal is missing. Furthermore, any collapse would only increase the cloud’s temperature and pressure, which, in turn, would expand the cloud.

If someone tells you that the emperor is well dressed, ask questions, and insist on seeing real evidence.





Figure 26: Gas and Dust Clouds in the Eagle Nebula.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

[Pahu]

Radiometric Dating



To date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

For the past century, a major (but incorrect) assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques has been that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. Unfortunately, few have questioned this huge and critical assumption.

It is also critical that one understands how a dating clock works. For radiometric dating clocks on Earth, this is explained in the chapter “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity” on pages 321–362 here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity. After studying that chapter, you will see that Earth’s radioactivity—and the many daughter products that misled so many into thinking that the Earth was billions of years old—are a result of powerful electrical activity during the flood, only about 5,000 years ago.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity