Science Disproves Evolution

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). In 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]

Dear god are you done copying and pasting things yet!?

I hope you have permission to copy and paste this guy's entire book.

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 relatively 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 ]

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]

I believe in old earth creationism. New earth creationism is dis-proven; the earth is obviously older than 6,000 years. I think its really bigoted to walk around saying that it is such when the scientific evidence clearly says otherwise.

Biblically, the world isn't 6,000 years old. According to the Bible, the heavens and the earth were created "IN THE BEGINNING" (Genesis 1:1). Do Christians even take that verse into account nowadays? "IN THE BEGINNING" doesn't mean 6,000 years, nor even a billion years. For all we know, according to Genesis 1:1, the earth could be older than billions of years, even older than we ever imagined. The earth was created eternal in the beginning before the Fall of Adam, it was an eternal place where Paradise was created. Paradise was a place not removed from the earth we now know. This being so, the earth could be infinitely old. When Christians say that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old they are underestimating God and the earth itself. God made the earth to be eternally inhabited by people, from the very beginning, evidenced by the creation of Paradise. This place we call the earth is nothing new, it is older then we could ever imagine.

The New Earth theory was just created by Christians who wanted to battle against evolution, but an Old Earth theory does not presuppose that evolution is true, that is what the New Earth Christians failed to understand. An Old Earth of understanding of Creation is actually a better way to prove Creationism because it gives people a better understanding of the world; that it was made to be eternal and is itself older than we probably can imagine, just like God is.

The information I am sharing is not a copyright violation. The author, Walt Brown, has given permission:

“Any portion of this book may be reproduced for teaching or classroom use. 
For all other uses, simply reference this book and Walt Brown as your source.

“There is no charge for reading or printing any or all portions of it.”

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Preface

So you could've just posted a link then?

Copying and pasting massive walls of text is not how you initiate or participate in genuine discussion.

Are you here to talk about it? Or just bombard people?

My goal is to educate. What is there to talk about. The information I am sharing is complete.

Just link the book instead of copy pasting everything, if people are interested enough to read it they will click the link and read it. I've seen mostly quotes up til now, and out of context information, but that might be how the book is written -anyhow-You aren't providing anything you don't understand most of what you post, you've been pasting for like months now! Seriously, save yourself some time, by now we know the book and the author name or if you want to make our life easy just provide a link to where we can find/read the book.

In all honesty, I don't think you are the right person to be educating people on this subject.

Interstellar Gas


Detailed analyses have long shown 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]

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]

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 Beginning” by Walt Brown]

so by attempting to use a 'scientific' argument to refute evolution you are copying for a clearly biased website? interesting how this theory works...

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]

Low mass star formations have been observed. Many times.

Science is a process that continues to happen all the time. It's not like some mysterious group called 'science' makes a declaration about how everything is and everyone just accepts it and never thinks of it again.

Be wary of old research, especially when it hasn't been peer reviewed. Be even more wary of books that misrepresent that research to prove an ideological point.

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 200: 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]

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]

I was going to break this into several quotes and 'refute' each one individually. But I have a better idea...

My answer to all of this is better said by someone else. Follow this link and watch the videos:

Grasp Truth - CSE

It is long - but 'I promise' it is well worth it.

Is it weird that my first reaction when seeing Kent Hovind nowadays is to laugh?

this site is pretty good, makes sense to me at least:

s8int.com

you might get a warning that its a malicious website, its not, this warning was recent cause i remember a while ago on the cc youtube some guy put this up and it had no warnings.