Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Jul 8, 2015

Big Bang? 2

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. [See "Connected Galaxies" and "Galaxy Clusters" on page 43.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts (d). Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas (e). Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory (f). Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values (g). Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

d. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.”Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.

e. Halton M. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies (Berkeley, California: Interstellar Media, 1987).

f. “It clearly took a while after that primordial explosion for clouds of gas to congeal into a form dense enough for stars and quasars to ignite, and the Sky Survey is already prompting astronomers to question some of the assumptions about how that process unfolded [i.e, the big bang theory].” Michael D. Lemonick, “Star Seeker,” Discover, November 2001, p. 44.

g. William G. Tifft, “Properties of the Redshift,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 382, 1 December 1991, pp. 396–415.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences17.html]

Pahu · Jul 16, 2015

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. [This blistering article critiquing the big bang theory was originally signed by 33 scientists from 10 countries. Later 374 other scientists, engineers, and researchers endorsed the article. See www.cosmologystatement.org]

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences17.html]

Pahu · Jul 22, 2015

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.

“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.

“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.

“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 [that the universe is fractal] 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.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences17.html]

Pahu · Jul 30, 2015

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). [See pages 434–436.]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.]

John Travis, “Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky,”Science,Vol.263, 25March 1994, p.1684.

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 [the Great Wall] 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.

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.

“[The] 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 [the inflationary big bang] 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.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences17.html]

EdisonTrent · Jul 30, 2015

Yes no matter the matter the energy it forms is from a positive and negative reactions. Created polarity

EdisonTrent · Jul 30, 2015

On the Big Bang, God is pure positive He created the negative terminal of life in all its forms and for us to know them and To know him of course

Tintin · Jul 30, 2015

I'm positive that the Big Bang is a big negative as a theory. It has so many different problems and is no longer is a workable naturalistic (sans God) explanation for how the universe began. We're not given many details, but how about we work with what we do have in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1 and 2? Just an idea.

EdisonTrent · Jul 31, 2015

Tintin said:

Yes not much detail on the subject in the bible, but one the other hand as we know today all energy even in us, down to the atom levels has a positive and negative charge, nuclear and beyond thus the people of long ago didn't understand electrical currents.

Tintin · Jul 31, 2015

EdisonTrent said:

True. Still, it's not Science's job to answer questions about the metaphysical world, the philosophical world, the ethical world.

EdisonTrent · Jul 31, 2015

Tintin said:

i know how you feel brother it's a really big pill to swallow or believe I get it completely been there done that for a long time.
In my thoughts it was the same with all religions or no religions (Science math engineering) for they all explain things the best they could do with what they had as far as knowledge and wording or lack of.. used in that time period on how to explain a soul that is a living energy force in those times when the word living energy wasn't even known yet. It was and still is the best example of free will from God nothing is forced upon us nor ever will. we choose the knowledge and wording that we have at our disposal.
as today I read scripture then ask him about it because even today I don't think in the way people did 2000yrs ago nor will future people think like we do today.I'm not going to try and convince anyone to believe in anything I say though I can be quick to speak slow to think at times and say things out of a burst of nothing.
I've battled with the same thoughts for many many years caused me a lot confusion and fear until one day I said God I give in I'm tired of running hiding from your human voice in my head as I know it, not believing in the unbelievable saying how can this be, but it was my Fear(the Created negative side) that held me back after truly in my heart To believe and opened up to him. I'm so so much more at peace and becoming more comfortable with things though I only have the knowledge and words used in today's language and knowledge to explain want he places in my heart to speak. So if I say a positive side of electricity I'm merely using a tool that I know to explain him though even electricity isn't what or who he is its the best I can do to explain what he tells me is life and him though it's not that far off a living force like lightning. There's no words or knowledge in yesterday today or tomorrow to completely explain what, who and how his very being is and his creations is made.
for me true freedom came when I allowed myself to take a leap of faith out of faith as a knew it into the unknown out side of the box so to speak.

Tintin · Jul 31, 2015

I'm not sure what you're getting at, brother. Science is testable and repeatable observation and experimentation. Science can't answer the questions of origins etc. That's just not it's role. As for other religions, they aren't doing the best job they can, they're trying to make sense of life without their Creator. And that's not wise. They're blinded to the truth because they've chosen a lie. We all were at that point before Jesus came into our lives.

EdisonTrent · Aug 1, 2015

Tintin said:

its either staying in a comfort zone or spreading wings, it's our choice to choose I choose flight then fight

Tintin · Aug 1, 2015

EdisonTrent said:

I still don't understand what this has to do with staying in one's comfort zone or spreading one's wings. The nature of Science, the purpose of Science, the authority of Science simply doesn't allow Science to answer these kinds of questions. That's all I'm saying. It's like asking a rocket scientist to do brain surgery on a patient. The rocket scientist is great at what he does, but he'd be hopeless in this situation, because brain surgery isn't his field of expertise. Now imagine that this rocket scientist represents the world of Science and the brain surgery operation represents the world of Origins. Do you get what I'm driving at? Science isn't prepared to answer the questions of Origins. It's that simple.

EdisonTrent · Aug 1, 2015

Roger that most don't

Pahu · Aug 5, 2015

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.” William C. Mitchell, p. 375.
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.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences17.html]

Pahu · Aug 13, 2015

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. “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.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences17.html]

Pahu · Aug 20, 2015

Big Bang? 9

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

o. “Our result shows that this discrepancy is a universal problem concerning both the Milky Way and extra-galactic systems.” A. Mucciarelli et al., “The Cosmological Lithium Problem Outside the Galaxy,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 444, 21 October 2014, p. 1812.

“... stars in M54 have just as little lithium as stars in the Milky Way, suggesting that the lithium problem is universal.” Christopher Crockett, “Mystery of the Missing Lithium Extends Beyond the Milky Way,” Science News, Vol. 186, 18 October 2014, p. 15.

p. Andrew Grant, “Lab Tests Mystery of Lithium Levels,” Science News, Vol. 186, 9 August 2014, p.6.

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

zoii · Aug 20, 2015

UM...no its not proof - If you want to use science to disprove science then you have to acknowledge the research going into the composition of the universe that includes dark matter. So yes Lithium may in some galaxies be lower than predicted , however that does not break down the big bang theory which has a massive volume of well researched evidence.

Having said that creation is the concept accepted on this site but we have to acknowledge that not all Christians have rejected the big bang and that article you cite doesn't really scientifically support the rejection of big bang theory.

I'm sure others here though will disagree and that's fine

Pahu · Aug 20, 2015

zoii said:

Here is some information you might consider:

[h=4]Dark Thoughts[/h]Missing Mass. Between 1969 and 1998, virtually all big bang theorists said that the rapidly expanding universe must have enough mass to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter would not have come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass was always 10–20% of the needed amount. They reasoned that since the big bang theory was correct, the missing mass had to exist.[SUP]u[/SUP]Dark Matter. One would expect that the rotational velocities of stars around the center of a spiral galaxy would decrease the farther a star is from that center. However, since 1933, it has been known that those velocities are roughly constant beyond the galaxy’s central bulge. (This discovery gives great insight into how and when the universe began, but contradicts the way big-bang advocates think galaxies formed.) To explain these almost constant velocities, those advocates have told us since 1975 that (1) an invisible form of matter, called “dark matter,” must surround and permeate galaxies, and (2) five times more dark matter than normal matter should even be in the room where you are sitting. No direct measurements show that dark matter exists.[SUP]v[/SUP]Dark Energy. Big bang theorists have struck again by devising something new and imaginary to prop up their theory. Prior to 1998, the big bang theory predicted that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. Then in 1998, a shocking discovery was made and confirmed. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating![SUP]a[/SUP] Therefore, to protect the big bang theory, something again had to be invented. Some energy source that overpowers gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. That energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy. Again, an important discovery that gives insight into how the universe actually began was effectively lost by a faulty explanation: dark energy.“Dark matter” was created to make spiral galaxies spin correctly after a big bang. “Missing mass” was created to hold the universe together, and “dark energy” was created to push (actually accelerate) the universe apart. None of these have been seen or measured,[SUP]v[/SUP] even with the world’s best telescopes and sophisticated experiments. However, we are told that 95% of the universe is invisible—either dark matter (25%) or dark energy (70%). As respected cosmologist, Jim Peebles, admitted, “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical.”[SUP]w[/SUP] Other authorities have said that “dark matter” and “dark energy” “serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.”[SUP]u[/SUP] Few realize that these mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory. It is much like the supposed “missing link” that should exist between apes and man if man evolved from some apelike animal. Direct evidence does not exist.History records other shocking discoveries that caused astronomers to assume aspects of the universe that they could not see or measure—a common practice in cosmology. Planets appeared to sometimes move backwards. This led to the belief, from A.D. 150 to 1543, that planets must revolve about the earth on epicycles—wheels that carried planets and rode on the circumferences of other wheels. As more was learned about planetary motion, more epicycles were required to support that theory. Those cosmologists said, “After all, those wheels must be there, because that would explain the strange movements of planets.” Without direct observations or measurements, such beliefs are completely unscientific. History is repeating itself with “missing mass,” “dark matter,” “dark energy”—and an often uncritical public. Notice that these strange ideas make no predictions, a sure sign that they are scientifically weak.Instead of cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with authoritative sounding statements about things for which no direct evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang theory is faulty? Yes, but big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, funding, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists. Below are listed some evidences that are contrary to the big bang theory. “Chemical Evolution Theory” on page 379 describes four errors in the big bang theory that required major revisions since 1946. Each revision rejected what had been assumed without direct evidence and taught for years until calculations showed those assumptions were false. Pages 364–413 explain why the 68 heaviest chemical elements would not form after a big bang. Pages 418–430 lay out the clear evidence for the correct expansion, or “stretching out,” of the universe.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 56.

Pahu · Aug 20, 2015

zoii said:

Here is some information you might consider:

Dark Thoughts

Missing Mass. Between 1969 and 1998, virtually all big bang theorists said that the rapidly expanding universe must have enough mass to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter would not have come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass was always 10–20% of the needed amount. They reasoned that since the big bang theory was correct, the missing mass had to exist.[SUP]u[/SUP]

Dark Matter. One would expect that the rotational velocities of stars around the center of a spiral galaxy would decrease the farther a star is from that center. However, since 1933, it has been known that those velocities are roughly constant beyond the galaxy’s central bulge. (This discovery gives great insight into how and when the universe began, but contradicts the way big-bang advocates think galaxies formed.) To explain these almost constant velocities, those advocates have told us since 1975 that (1) an invisible form of matter, called “dark matter,” must surround and permeate galaxies, and (2) five times more dark matter than normal matter should even be in the room where you are sitting. No direct measurements show that dark matter exists.[SUP]v[/SUP]

Dark Energy. Big bang theorists have struck again by devising something new and imaginary to prop up their theory. Prior to 1998, the big bang theory predicted that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. Then in 1998, a shocking discovery was made and confirmed. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating![SUP]a[/SUP] Therefore, to protect the big bang theory, something again had to be invented. Some energy source that overpowers gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. That energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy.
Again, an important discovery that gives insight into how the universe actually began was effectively lost by a faulty explanation: dark energy.

“Dark matter” was created to make spiral galaxies spin correctly after a big bang. “Missing mass” was created to hold the universe together, and “dark energy” was created to push (actually accelerate) the universe apart. None of these have been seen or measured,[SUP]v[/SUP] even with the world’s best telescopes and sophisticated experiments. However, we are told that 95% of the universe is invisible—either dark matter (25%) or dark energy (70%). As respected cosmologist, Jim Peebles, admitted, “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical.”[SUP]w[/SUP] Other authorities have said that “dark matter” and “dark energy” “serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.”[SUP]u[/SUP] Few realize that these mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory. It is much like the supposed “missing link” that should exist between apes and man if man evolved from some apelike animal. Direct evidence does not exist.

History records other shocking discoveries that caused astronomers to assume aspects of the universe that they could not see or measure—a common practice in cosmology. Planets appeared to sometimes move backwards. This led to the belief, from A.D. 150 to 1543, that planets must revolve about the earth on epicycles—wheels that carried planets and rode on the circumferences of other wheels. As more was learned about planetary motion, more epicycles were required to support that theory. Those cosmologists said, “After all, those wheels must be there, because that would explain the strange movements of planets.” Without direct observations or measurements, such beliefs are completely unscientific. History is repeating itself with “missing mass,” “dark matter,” “dark energy”—and an often uncritical public. Notice that these strange ideas make no predictions, a sure sign that they are scientifically weak.

Instead of cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with authoritative sounding statements about things for which no direct evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang theory is faulty? Yes, but big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, funding, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists.

Below are listed some evidences that are contrary to the big bang theory. “Chemical Evolution Theory” on page 379 describes four errors in the big bang theory that required major revisions since 1946. Each revision rejected what had been assumed without direct evidence and taught for years until calculations showed those assumptions were false. Pages 364–413 explain why the 68 heaviest chemical elements would not form after a big bang. Pages 418–430 lay out the clear evidence for the correct expansion, or “stretching out,” of the universe.

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

Science Disproves Evolution

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

EdisonTrent

Guest

EdisonTrent

Guest

Tintin

Guest

EdisonTrent

Guest

Tintin

Guest

EdisonTrent

Guest

Tintin

Guest

EdisonTrent

Guest

Tintin

Guest

EdisonTrent

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member