Science Disproves Evolution

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P

Phillipy

Guest
On the distance of galaxies thing: The Bible doesn't say he created things as "baby things" and let them grow. He created the universe, Adam and Eve, the plants, etc. in a mature state.
I've considered that, on the surface it seems viable (in an unverifiable, unfalsifiable way, like the idea the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, our brains made with intact false memories).
I guess my main problem with that idea is that we can tell the light reaching us from distant stars has travelled the space between, it wasn't created in situ just 6-10 thousands light years away, we can tell because it's been stretched by the right amount due to the expansion of space :)
 
G

Grey

Guest
Gladly,# s
Out of date? Provide evidence that it's out of date. Oh, and by the way, if such evidence continually changes, how valid is it? Hence, is the scientific evidence we study today going to be out-of-date tomorrow? If so, what makes it valid?
Gladly two of his main sources were from the fifties and eighties, science and the the fields of biology, genetics, and others were nothing compared to now after the technological revoltution that occurred,genomes w
eren't mapped yet, more accurate microscopes and dating techniques were unavailable. Just look at how fast technology advanced since then, were talking about nano -bot medicine and brain controlled prosthetics. Science, if you follow my comparison, began as a little stone chipping tool and through the ages has grown more refined, more and more accurate as our knowledge of the world increased, when you post out of date sources you may as well be citing a source that says there's four humors in the body controlling health, because what we know is advancing so rapidly things become out of date quickly.
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
The whole idea of evolution (speaking in terms of one kind of creature turning into another) is a baseless attempt to erase God from the equation. Evolution hypothesizes a common ancestor. Scripture verifies this. His name is YHWH.
Not at all, if that were the case then 99% of Christian biologists wouldn't accept evolution. 0% would.
Genetics has confirmed common ancestry to extreme certainty.
 
G

Grey

Guest
Oh and creationism isnt science, science doesn't include the supernatural.
 
M

megaman125

Guest
Not at all, if that were the case then 99% of Christian biologists wouldn't accept evolution. 0% would.
Genetics has confirmed common ancestry to extreme certainty.
Yay, more appeal to athority fallacy. "Well, these "Christian" scientists believe it, therefore you should believe it too."

No thanks, I'm not interested, no matter how desperate people are at getting me to believe in events from "billions of years ago."
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
Cool thanks for the reply Pahu, I certainly found that 'stretching' model interesting in the first message, now in this second message I'm just seeing a few minor issues, like
"a big bang should produce only a decelerating expansion"
- That was the intuitive assumption, the discovery of the acceleration of expansion was a surprise, but it's not *incompatible* with the big bang model.

"Astronomers recognize that the densest gas cloud seen in the universe today could not form stars by any known means, including gravitational collapse"
- I'm not too familiar with the very densest of gas clouds, but I know of lots of 'stellar nurseries' where average nebulas are gravitationally collapsing to form stars.

"Even though nothing should escape black holes, some are expelling powerful jets at “up to 99.98 percent of the speed of light."
- These jets do not cross the event horizon, they are expelled from rings of matter that are spiralling in towards it but have not yet reached it.

" Quasars are the most luminous stable objects in the universe. Most black holes have already pulled in almost all the dust within their vicinity. However, some black holes are at such extreme distances from us (and therefore seen as they were far back in time)"
- I don't think Quasars are considered necessarily black holes, but giant, clumpy proto-galaxies where lots of stars are basically on top of each other and collide with messy orbits. And the last bit in brackets seems to admit that time stretches back billions of years.

"the stars are so massive that their lifetimes are very short in astronomical terms."
- This again seems to admit astronomical scales of time.

"However, if space was recently stretched out, spiral galaxies could appear as they do."
- You also need to assume that galaxies were created as spirals, not that they formed spirals from rotation. If a galaxy completes just 5% of a rotation, stars cross over 6-10 thousand light years. (but you'd probably be fine with that, so this one is a very minor point)

etc. :)
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity
That's a unique definition of macroevolution!
I'd use a broader definition that would include adaptations that decrease complexity, like a kind of bird adapting to become featherless (as an imaginative example)
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
Yay, more appeal to athority fallacy. "Well, these "Christian" scientists believe it, therefore you should believe it too."

No thanks, I'm not interested, no matter how desperate people are at getting me to believe in events from "billions of years ago."
Well strictly the appeal to authority fallacy is when you appeal to a false authority, an undemonstrated authority. Someone speaking outside their field or without evidence... but ya, good point, I'll withdraw the implication that the Christian biologists believing evolution is a demonstration of evolution.
I'm not really appealing to the Christian scientists as an authority, but to the vast body of evidence which has convinced them.
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
And Pahu you don't have to address all of those things I mentioned, but I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on the bits that imply acceptance of the old universe, like how it described that we see distant galaxies far far back in time, and that giant stars only live a few million years but smaller stars live billions of years because the large ones burn fuel faster - inherently admitting an old universe.

It didn't give the numbers, but it seems incompatible with a 10 thousand year old universe. What does 'their lifetimes are very short in astronomical terms' even mean to a young universer? :p
 
Last edited:

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Realistically, if I were to take this info and study it, familiarize myself with all this "science" and
go take an actual college exam how well do you think I would do? Seriously, could you pass a test
in biology, cosmology, or geology with this information or would you fail?

If I wanted to be a geologist but said on my term paper that the world is 6,000 years old how
well do you think that would hold up? Would it ruin or increase my chances of graduating and
actually getting to compete for a good job?
There exists widespread suppression of creation science and intelligent design, ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various theories of evolution.

Cases of suppression

Recognition affected

Individuals have been denied awards or qualifications, or attempts have been made to have them withdrawn.

David Bolhuis

David Bolhuis, a teacher from Hudsonville, Michigan was told that the Michigan Science Teachers' Association had unanimously selected him as the High School Teacher of the Year. However, the American Civil Liberties Union protested, as Bolhuis had been "teaching about" both creation and evolution. Subsequent media pressure resulted in the decision to not give Bolhuis the award.

Employment affected

In many cases, individuals have been fired, threatened with being fired, demoted, moved, or not employed. This is not even confined to creationists and intelligent design advocates, but even affects evolutionists who don't toe the line in refusing to even consider alternatives.

Lloyd Dale

Lloyd Dale was an award-winning and highly-qualified high school teacher in South Dakota who was fired in 1980 for teaching about both evolution and creation.

Forrest Mims

Forrest Mims III is a science writer who, by 1990, had seen more than 500 of his articles published in 62 newspapers and magazines.
Science magazine Scientific American invited him to submit some articles for their Amateur Scientist column, and the expectation was that these would lead on to a permanent job.
The articles were published in 1990, and the editor described Mims' work as "first rate", but when he discovered that Mims was a creationist, Mims was denied further work with the magazine.

Richard Sternberg

For a more detailed treatment, see Smithsonian-Sternberg affair.

Guillermo Gonzalez

Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure and promotion to associate professor by Iowa State University, despite apparently easily meeting their criteria. The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals". Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.
But Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.

Robert Gentry

Robert Gentry became the acknowledged expert on radiohalos, and published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including Science, Nature, and Journal of Geophysical Research. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.

Roger Paull

Roger Paull was a substitute teacher in Arizona. One assignment saw him showing to his class a video left by the regular teacher. The video disparaged Christianity and glorified naturalism. After the third video, on evolution, he briefly mentioned intelligent design to the class. The next day he was suspended and has not been able to teach since, having been effectively "blackballed". He says that he was viewed "almost the same way a potential pedophile would be".

Michael Reiss

Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, an evolutionist, called for schools to teach students about creationism, and this resulted in him being forced to resign from his part time job as Director of Education at the Royal Society.

Accreditation affected

The ICR Graduate School

For a more detailed treatment, see ICR Graduate School.

The ICR Graduate School had for years been offering graduate degrees in California. Then in 1986 California abruptly changed its rules, and its new Superintendent of Public Instruction, William Honig, determined to stop ICR at any cost. ICR had to sue the State in federal court to get his decisions reversed.
In 2006 ICR decided to move to Texas but then encountered the same difficulties. In April 2008 the Academic Excellence and Research Committee of the Texas Higher-Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously to deny the ICR Graduate School's application for accreditation. The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education said only, "Religious beliefs are not science." ICR might appeal the process administratively, submit a new proposal, or sue the State of Texas for injunctive relief.

Court challenges to education

In 1925 the American Civil Liberties Union challenged a Tennessee law that forbade teaching that man had evolved (it didn't otherwise forbid teaching evolution), in what became known as the Scopes Trial. The ACLU lawyer, Clarence Darrow, argued that it was wrong to only teach one view of origins.
Yet now the ACLU and other supporters of evolution argue that only the evolutionary view of origins should be taught.

Dover County School Board

For a more detailed treatment, see Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District.

In 2004, the Dover County School Board in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., approved a curriculum which included that teachers should read to their class a statement pointing out that evolution is an explanation of observations, not a fact, that intelligent design is an alternative explanation, that the book Of Pandas and People is available if students want to know more about Intelligent design, and that the students are to keep an open mind.
But even this was too much for the committed evolutionists, and a court challenge, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, saw the requirement removed, on the grounds that the proponents of the requirement had religious motives.

Philip Bishop

Associate professor of physiology, Dr. Philip Bishop, was taken to court by his employer, the University of Alabama, to stop him briefly expressing his views favoring intelligent design, on the grounds that they were religious. Yet views opposing religion are routinely expressed in classes with no attempts made to stop them.

Cobb County School District

For a more detailed treatment, see Selman v. Cobb County School District.

Even pointing out that students should apply some critical thinking to evolution is unacceptable to the evolutionists.

In 2002 the Cobb County School District in Georgia, U.S.A., placed stickers in the front of biology textbooks which simply read:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Yet even this innocuous statement was challenged in court, with the ultimate result being that the stickers were removed from the textbooks.

Peer review publications

A frequent criticism of creationism and intelligent design is that they fail to pass peer review, and cannot therefore be considered scientific.

Creationists and intelligent design proponents counter that they fail to pass peer review on the grounds of ideology, not scientific merit.

One columnist wrote:

"Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."

Chemistry in Australia

The April 2007 issue of Chemistry in Australia included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.

The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

In August 2004 the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published a paper by Stephen Meyer which gave an overview of intelligent design arguments.
The ensuing outcry, including from people who had not even read the paper, resulted in the Biological Society of Washington undertaking to never again publish anything about intelligent design.
There were claims that the paper had bypassed the peer review process, but these were shown to be false. The refusal to ever publish on the topic again was not on the grounds of not passing peer review, but in line with the American Association for the Advancement of Science's position that intelligent design is not science.

Science letters to the editor

After failing to get a letter published in the journal Science, Russell Humphreys wrote to the letters editor asking if the journal had a policy of suppressing creationist letters. She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism". This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".

Public information

The Science Show, ABC Australia

In a March 2003 broadcast of The Science Show on Radio National, a radio station of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, presenter Robyn Williams and Eugenie Scott, executive director of the American National Center for Science Education, openly admitted, on the pretence that evolution is true, that creationists do not warrant equal time.

Robyn Williams: And the old question of science having two sides - and this is a journalistic thing where some of us still, especially if you go to television, are supposed to display conflict, you know, one side and the other side as if there is this continuing argument.

Eugenie Scott: Well Robyn, you put your finger exactly on the issue. When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. If you were doing a show on anthrax you would not feel compelled to put a Christian scientist[30] who denied the germ theory of disease on the show to balance the program, because the germ theory of disease in medicine is a done deal, we are not debating whether germs cause disease. Similarly, if you are discussing an issue like what topics should be taught in science education at the pre-college level, which is a continuing controversy in the United States, you don't debate whether to teach evolution, because evolution is state of the art science and it should be taught. You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments, there is no body of evidence against evolution. And this is what the theory of biological evolution is all about.

Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre

When creationists proposed that a new visitor's centre at the Giant's Causeway geological formation in Northern Ireland should include the creationist explanation of its formation alongside the secular view, anti-creationists objected, wanting only their view to be made available to visitors.

Attempts to prevent creationists being heard

On numerous occasions, anti-creationists have attempted to prevent creationists being able to promote their point of view by attempting to have their venue bookings cancelled or by heckling the speakers during their talks.

Werner Gitt

In October 2008, protesters attempted to prevent German creationary scientist Dr. Werner Gitt from giving a talk titled Why I as a scientist believe the Bible at Leibniz University. The protests followed unsuccessful attempts to pressure the university administration to cancel the talk. As the talk was about to start, the protesters unfurled banners, one with the German for "Creationists, go to hell!" and another with a foul expression, then started chanting and blowing whistles to prevent the talk from going ahead. Police were called by the organizers, but the two, then five, officers were ignored by the protesters, who were only removed after another 20 police officers arrived, allowing the talk to go ahead an hour late.

Suppression of alternatives to evolution - Conservapedia
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Pahu,

Thanks for all your super educational posts. I really enjoy reading through them. They're very thought provoking.
Thanks for the thumbs up. This is indeed a rare moment in history.
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Not at all, if that were the case then 99% of Christian biologists wouldn't accept evolution. 0% would.
Genetics has confirmed common ancestry to extreme certainty.
The idea of universal common ancestry is the idea that all life on Earth is related via a single family tree. Accordingly, it supposes that human beings, as well as animals, plants and every other form of life on Earth are related. People and monkeys are thus distant cousins.

While universal common ancestry (UCA) is a keystone of the naturalistic theory of evolution (NTOE),[SUP][1][/SUP] it is not exclusive to evolution. Some Intelligent design advocates, includingMichael Behe, have no quarrel with UCA.[SUP][2]
[/SUP]

Creationism vigorously rejects this idea, because it contradicts a straightforward reading of Genesis, which reports that God created each living "according to its kinds," and that God created mankind in His Image, having a superior position and dominion over the rest of God's creation. Creationists also believe that the scientific evidence makes universal common ancestry appear highly improbable or impossible. They believe instead that life originated in a number of unrelated forms, as understood by Baraminology.

Bases for belief

Similarities

Belief in common descent is largely derived from the similarity among forms of life. For example:



From these similarities, an evolutionist infers that all life is related through one original life form.

Criticism

Creationists argue that the inference of common ancestry cannot reasonably be drawn from similarity, for two reasons:


  • Similarity is not meaningful evidence of common ancestry
  • Differences which cannot be explained by evolutionary mechanisms are powerful evidenceagainst common ancestry.

To illustrate the first objection, it stands to reason that if a designer were creating several lifeforms, he would probably use similar designs, because the designs are functional. Just as all cars have design similarities, including four tires, an internal combustion engine, a steering wheel, but obviously are not related; diverse species may simply share common design characteristics. Thus creationists argue that just because humans and plants both have cell membranes is no more evidence of common ancestry than it is of common design.

The second objection includes incidents of irreducible complexity and specified complexity to point to the unlikelihood that all life forms diversified through variation and selection alone. They point to issues such as:


  • The transition from non-self-reproducing chemicals to self-replicating cells: the process of self-replication requires an enormous number of components be present in the cell for it to function at all, and none of the components required for self-replication serve any purpose unless all are present simultaneously; therefore it is unreasonable to conclude thatabiogenesis occurred without design.
  • The transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction: male reproductive organs are incredibly complex, and serve no purpose unless female reproductive organs (which are equally, if not more, complex) already exist. Therefore the sexes could not have evolved in a step-wise fashion, because neither set of reproductive organs would serve any purpose unless the other set already existed.
  • The evolutionary explanation is that living things share common features because the DNA that produces those features has a common ancestry. Creationists point out that in some cases, common features are caused by different genes, thus refuting that explanation.

For the above reasons, creationists conclude that similarity does not provide meaningful evidence of common ancestry.

Shared endogenous retroviruses

A Retrovirus is a virus that incorporates itself into an host cell's DNA, and programs the host cell to produce copies of the virus. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses that infected an organism's germ cells, and were thus passed to the next generation, and incorporated into the organism's genetic line over time.
Researchers estimate that 1% of the human genome is occupied by ERVs, constituting approximately 30,000 different ERVs.[SUP][4][/SUP] Some of these ERVs are shared by humans and apes, and are found in the same place in the respective genomes. [SUP][5][/SUP]
From these facts, evolutionists argue that these ERVs are shared by humans and primates because they were inherited by a common ancestor.

Criticism

Evolutionists gloss over two important facts when making this argument: First, many retroviruses can infect both humans and apes. The most notable of these is HIV, which is widely believed to have originated as SIV in chimpanzees, but can also infect humans, apes, and monkeys.[SUP][6][/SUP] It is entirely possible, therefore, that humans and apes were independently infected with the same virus. Second, some retroviruses have been shown to have highly targeted insertion points, meaning that the virus selects very specific segments of the genome for insertion.[SUP][7][/SUP]

Consequently, it is entirely possible that the same virus infected both humans and apes, and targeted the same location. This seems especially plausible in light of the fact that humans and apes have tens of thousands of endogenous retroviruses in their respective genomes -- at least a few of the retroviruses are likely to infect both humans and apes at the same location.

Additionally, scientists have determined that some endogenous retroviruses are indispensable to a species' life or reproduction.[SUP][8][/SUP] If the retrovirus is advantageous in some way, that would explain how the retrovirus spread to the entire species. It also presents the possibility that retroviruses were used as part of the creative process, as retroviruses are often used in genetic engineering today, to introduce new genetic material to cells.

Common DNA-based genes in diverse species

The most persuasive argument for common ancestry is existence of common DNA-based genes in diverse species. But there are at least three other plausible explanations -- parallel evolution, horizontal gene transfer, and creationism.


  • Parallel evolution: Some people who believe in evolution deny universal common ancestry. They point out that there is still no good theory for how DNA-based life could have arisen from non-life. If it happened once, it may have happened many times. Some people say that separate evolution might have had an entirely different genetic code, but no one knows. It may well be that DNA-based life evolved from non-life many times, and the descendants of that life are living today.


  • Horizonal gene transfer: It is also known that genes sometime migrate somehow from one species to another species, so having a common gene is not proof of common ancestry. Maybe there is no universal common ancestor, and important genes were spread by horizontal gene transfer.


  • Creationism: Creationists argue that common genes in diverse species is no more evidence of common descent as it is of common design.

Universal common ancestry - Conservapedia
 
G

Grey

Guest
Your not going to be legally able to teach creationism as a fact in schools because its religious, government sponsored institutions are not allowed to violate the separation between church and state, whether or not your a Christian I hope you agree with me when I say that some places don't have this in place and as a result you get lectured on the Qur'an or another religion in science class.
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Cool thanks for the reply Pahu, I certainly found that 'stretching' model interesting in the first message, now in this second message I'm just seeing a few minor issues, like
"a big bang should produce only a decelerating expansion"
- That was the intuitive assumption, the discovery of the acceleration of expansion was a surprise, but it's not *incompatible* with the big bang model.

"Astronomers recognize that the densest gas cloud seen in the universe today could not form stars by any known means, including gravitational collapse"
- I'm not too familiar with the very densest of gas clouds, but I know of lots of 'stellar nurseries' where average nebulas are gravitationally collapsing to form stars.

"Even though nothing should escape black holes, some are expelling powerful jets at “up to 99.98 percent of the speed of light."
- These jets do not cross the event horizon, they are expelled from rings of matter that are spiralling in towards it but have not yet reached it.

" Quasars are the most luminous stable objects in the universe. Most black holes have already pulled in almost all the dust within their vicinity. However, some black holes are at such extreme distances from us (and therefore seen as they were far back in time)"
- I don't think Quasars are considered necessarily black holes, but giant, clumpy proto-galaxies where lots of stars are basically on top of each other and collide with messy orbits. And the last bit in brackets seems to admit that time stretches back billions of years.

"the stars are so massive that their lifetimes are very short in astronomical terms."
- This again seems to admit astronomical scales of time.

"However, if space was recently stretched out, spiral galaxies could appear as they do."
- You also need to assume that galaxies were created as spirals, not that they formed spirals from rotation. If a galaxy completes just 5% of a rotation, stars cross over 6-10 thousand light years. (but you'd probably be fine with that, so this one is a very minor point)

etc. :)
Big Bang?

The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,[SUP]a[/SUP] 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;[SUP]b[/SUP] 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.[SUP]c[/SUP] Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws. Furthermore, these galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating. [See “Dark Thoughts” on page 33.]

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. [See "Connected Galaxies" and"Galaxy Clusters" on page 41.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.[SUP]d[/SUP] Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.[SUP]e[/SUP] 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.[SUP]f[/SUP]

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.[SUP]g[/SUP] Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

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

Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.[SUP]i[/SUP]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.[SUP]j[/SUP] [See pages 414416.]

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.[SUP]k[/SUP] Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)[SUP]l[/SUP] and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older” stars[SUP]m[/SUP] contradict the big bang theory.

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

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 the needed 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. [See "Missing Mass" on page 34.] 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![SUP]v[/SUP] 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.

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

Instead of 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? Yes, 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. (Pages 407413 give an explanation for the expansion, or “stretching out,” of the universe.)


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” on page 410.] A big bang should not produce highly concentrated[SUP]o[/SUP] or rotating bodies.[SUP]p[/SUP] Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce tightly clustered galaxies.[SUP]q[/SUP] Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.[SUP]r[/SUP]

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

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.[SUP]y[/SUP] All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.[SUP]z[/SUP]

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

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
And Pahu you don't have to address all of those things I mentioned, but I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on the bits that imply acceptance of the old universe, like how it described that we see distant galaxies far far back in time, and that giant stars only live a few million years but smaller stars live billions of years because the large ones burn fuel faster - inherently admitting an old universe.

It didn't give the numbers, but it seems incompatible with a 10 thousand year old universe. What does 'their lifetimes are very short in astronomical terms' even mean to a young universer? :p
Probably reviewing my post on stretching will answer your questions. Certainly that would rule out the notion that the the universe is billions of years old.
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
Gladly,# s

Gladly two of his main sources were from the fifties and eighties, science and the the fields of biology, genetics, and others were nothing compared to now after the technological revoltution that occurred,genomes w
eren't mapped yet, more accurate microscopes and dating techniques were unavailable. Just look at how fast technology advanced since then, were talking about nano -bot medicine and brain controlled prosthetics. Science, if you follow my comparison, began as a little stone chipping tool and through the ages has grown more refined, more and more accurate as our knowledge of the world increased, when you post out of date sources you may as well be citing a source that says there's four humors in the body controlling health, because what we know is advancing so rapidly things become out of date quickly.
I wonder how absolete science of today will be in 50 years. Apparently truth changes in science along with technology. Who knows what the truth will be in 100 or more years. Obviously not what it is today.
 
S

Siberian_Khatru

Guest
Your not going to be legally able to teach creationism as a fact in schools because its religious, government sponsored institutions are not allowed to violate the separation between church and state, whether or not your a Christian I hope you agree with me when I say that some places don't have this in place and as a result you get lectured on the Qur'an or another religion in science class.
That's not what the legislation of Separation of Church and State was originally intended for.

Not only that, but... does anybody else find it a little ironic that so many flaunt that misnomer in the first place?
 
G

Grey

Guest
I wonder how absolete science of today will be in 50 years. Apparently truth changes in science along with technology. Who knows what the truth will be in 100 or more years. Obviously not what it is today.

I think of it this way, you begin in a dark glass room with a candle, and each year you get a better light emitting tool, each year you see more and more clearly and objects you discerned to be one thing turn about to be another, at the same time objects you were able to discern are more and more illuminated and you can see greater and greater detail.
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
I think of it this way, you begin in a dark glass room with a candle, and each year you get a better light emitting tool, each year you see more and more clearly and objects you discerned to be one thing turn about to be another, at the same time objects you were able to discern are more and more illuminated and you can see greater and greater detail.

Well if it worked that way, I'd have no problem with it. But when you can only see a small portion of one room, I think it's pretty stupid to project what must be in the rest of the house based on what little you can see in that little spot. And to say that projection is true? Common! Let's stick with what we know when it come to science. That I have no problem with.
 
Jun 14, 2013
53
0
0
I wonder how absolete science of today will be in 50 years. Apparently truth changes in science along with technology. Who knows what the truth will be in 100 or more years. Obviously not what it is today.
In 100 years evolution will be confirmed through more evidence (as if it needs anymore) and will be more widely accepted due to education and awareness.