Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 7


Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium (k). Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) (l) and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older” stars (m) contradicts the big bang theory.

k. “And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful without some ad hoc parameterization to ‘adjust’ predictions that otherwise would have been judged as failures.” Van Flandern, p. 33.

“It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances.” H. C. Arp et al., “The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View,” Nature, Vol. 346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.

“The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been predictions, but merely adjustments of theory (‘retrodictions’) to accommodate current data.” Mitchell, p. 7.

l. Steidl, pp. 207–208.

D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 149–155.

m. “Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers have detected a far greater abundance [a thousand times too much] of beryllium atoms than the standard Big Bang model predicts.” Ron Cowen, “Starlight Casts Doubt on Big Bang Details,” Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p. 151.

Gerard Gilmore et al., “First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17–21.

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1011757]

[Jarik]

I'm less interested in the multitude of sources you provided then your answer to what you think is really true. If not evolution, then what?

Tell me what you believe

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Objectively, as far as current knowledge is concerned there is no compelling reason to have to believe in either one; there are more than just two choices as far as theories go, as religion and science are both just philosophical constructs; they also both have the same intellectual roots in inductive reasoning, and while empiricism has produced some nifty parlor tricks and technology, it is just as inadequate and an intellectual dead end as far as the 'big questions' go, being built entirely on circular reasoning, and can't actually prove anything for certain either. IIRC it was Heisenberg who pointed out the elephant in the room re scientific measurement a while back there, I'm rusty on the finer details.

[Pahu]

I'm less interested in the multitude of sources you provided then your answer to what you think is really true. If not evolution, then what?

Tell me what you believe

Creation!

[Jarik]

Creation!

You can be a Creationist and still believe in evolution.

[Pahu]

You can be a Creationist and still believe in evolution.

Aren't the two ideas mutually exclusive?

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Aren't the two ideas mutually exclusive?

Only on the question of origins, not implementation. An evolutionary process that takes billions of years would be nothing to an immortal that set the chain of sequences up to self-perpetuating without the need for micro-managing every detail. As a practical matter, the exact nature of how it all originated is of little consequence over all, as there is pretty much nothing that we can do about it anyway.

According to the bible, it took '6 days', and a series of developmental steps, which is an evolutionary design model in itself; it wasn't created instantaneously, and it was necessary for some things to be 'created' before others, was it not?

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

You can be a Creationist and still believe in evolution.

Yes, you certainly can.

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 8


A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found (n).

n. “One might expect Population III stars [stars with only hydrogen and helium and no heavier elements] to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the Sun) still to be burning their nuclear fuel. The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star.” Bernard Carr, “Where Is Population III?” Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, p. 829.

“Are there any stars older than Population II [i.e., Population III stars]? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe [i.e., the big bang theory] are correct....There is no statistically significant evidence for Population III objects [stars].” Leif J. Robinson, “Where Is Population III?” Sky and Telescope, July 1982, p. 20.

“Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy.” Robert Irion, “The Quest for Population III,” Science, Vol. 295, 4 January 2002, p. 66.


Supposedly, Population II stars, stars having slight amounts of some heavy elements, evolved after Population III stars. Predicted characteristics of Population II stars have never been observed.

“Spectral studies of ancient [Population II] stars in the Milky Way haven’t turned up anything so distinctive [as the chemical elements that should be present], [Timothy] Beers notes, but the search continues.” Ibid., p. 67.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1011757]

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 9


Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies” here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp3361417] A big bang should not produce highly concentrated (o) or rotating bodies (p). Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce tightly clustered galaxies (q). Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion (r).

o. “There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.” James Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988), p. 3.

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

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

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

p. “Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary motions?” William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1987), p. 177.

q. “One of the great challenges for modern cosmology is to determine how the initial power spectrum evolved into the spectrum observed today....the universe is much clumpier on those scales [600–900 million light-years] than current theories can explain.” Stephen D. Landy, “Mapping the Universe,” Scientific American, Vol. 280, June 1999, p. 44.

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1011757]

[megadebt]

This Pahu is the biggest closet-atheist freak I've ever witnessed. No original thoughts whatsoever. Never saw a sentence posted by himself here since I arrived. Just loads of cut and paste make-pretend irrational science-like malarky in major shipments.

Precisely the type of behavior one would expect out of a person who was trying their darndest to convince themselves that they actually believed in God. This cut and paste stuff is tantamount to those 'hear no, see no, speak no evil' monkeys in HD action. Remember when you were a kid and would hum "Hummmm" really loud when you didn't want to hear another kid saying something that was uncomfortable to hear? Same thing.

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 10


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

s. “It is a fundamental rule of modern physics [namely, the big bang theory] that for every type of particle in nature there is a corresponding ‘antiparticle’.” Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1977), p. 76.

“If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and antimatter. But instead the stars and nebulae are made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their antiparticles (their antimatter equivalents).” Kane, pp. 73–74.

“But to balance the cosmic energy books—and to avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics—matter and antimatter should have been created [in a big bang] in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out. Yet here we are.” Tim Folger, “Antimatter,” Discover, August 2004, p. 68.

t. “Within our galaxy, we can be confident that there are no stars of antimatter; otherwise, the pervasive interstellar medium would instigate annihilation and ensuing gamma-ray emission at a rate far in excess of that observed....One difficulty with the idea of antigalaxies lies in maintaining their separation from galaxies. Empty space may now separate them, but in the early universe, these regions must have been in relatively close contact. Annihilation seems difficult to avoid, particularly because we now know that many regions of intergalactic space are occupied by a tenuous gas. Interaction with the gas would make annihilation inevitable in antimatter regions, with the consequent emission of observable gamma radiation.” Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980), p. 115.

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1011757]

[Cyclone Ranger]

You can be a Creationist and still believe in evolution.

In fact, I believe that's the official position of the Catholic Church.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

In fact, I believe that's the official position of the Catholic Church.

I didn't know that. All the sects or just the top brass?

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

This Pahu is the biggest closet-atheist freak I've ever witnessed. No original thoughts whatsoever. Never saw a sentence posted by himself here since I arrived. Just loads of cut and paste make-pretend irrational science-like malarky in major shipments.

Precisely the type of behavior one would expect out of a person who was trying their darndest to convince themselves that they actually believed in God. This cut and paste stuff is tantamount to those 'hear no, see no, speak no evil' monkeys in HD action. Remember when you were a kid and would hum "Hummmm" really loud when you didn't want to hear another kid saying something that was uncomfortable to hear? Same thing.

So don't read them; some of us don't mind reading.

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 11


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

u. One might also ask where the “cosmic egg” came from if there was a big bang. Of course, the question is unanswerable. Pushing any origin explanation back far enough raises similar questions—all scientifically untestable. Thus, the question of ultimate origins is not a purely scientific matter. What science can do is test possible explanations once the starting assumptions are given. For example, if a tiny “cosmic egg” (having all the mass in the universe) existed, it should not explode, based on present understanding. Claiming that some strange, new phenomenon caused an explosion (or inflation) is philosophical speculation. While such speculation may or may not be correct, it is not science. [See “How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?” here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp2727001]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1011757]

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 12

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

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

v. “Three years ago, observations of distant, exploding stars blew to smithereens some of astronomers’ most cherished ideas about the universe [the big bang theory]. To piece together an updated theory, they’re now thinking dark thoughts about what sort of mystery force may be contorting the cosmos.

“According to the standard view of cosmology, the once infinitesimal universe has ballooned in volume ever since its fiery birth in the Big Bang, but the mutual gravitational tug of all the matter in the cosmos has gradually slowed that expansion.

“In 1998, however, scientists reported that a group of distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther from Earth, than the standard theory indicated. It was as if, in the billion or so years it took for the light from these exploded stars to arrive at Earth, the space between the stars and our planet had stretched out more than expected. That would mean that cosmic expansion has somehow sped up, not slowed down. Recent evidence has only firmed up that bizarre result.” Ron Cowen, “A Dark Force in the Universe,” Science News, Vol. 159, 7 April 2001, p. 218.

“Not only don’t we see the universe slowing down; we see it speeding up.” Adam Riess, as quoted by James Glanz, “Astronomers See a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work,” Science, Vol. 279, 27 February 1998, p. 1298.

“In one of the great results of twentieth century science, NSF-funded astronomers have shown both that the universe does not contain enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion, and that the rate of expansion actually increases with distance. Why? Nobody knows yet.” National Science Foundation Advertisement, “Astronomy: Fifty Years of Astronomical Excellence,” Discover, September 2000, p. 7.

“The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is accelerating and that whatever caused the acceleration (dubbed “dark energy”) cannot be Standard Model physics.” Gordon Kane, “The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,” Scientific American, Vol. 288, June 2003, p. 73.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1011757]

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 13


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

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

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose
ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect (y). All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred (z).

w. “...dark matter has not been detected in the laboratory, and there is no convincing theoretical explanation of dark energy.” Carlton Baugh, “Universal Building Blocks,” Nature, Vol. 421, 20 February 2003, p. 792.

“We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe its components, ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy,’ serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.” David B. Cline, “The Search for Dark Matter,” Scientific American, Vol. 288, March 2003, p. 52.

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

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

Michael J. Pierce et al., “The Hubble Constant and Virgo Cluster Distance from Observations of Cepheid Variables,” Nature, Vol. 371, 29 September 1994, pp. 385–389.

Wendy L. Freedman et al., “Distance to the Virgo Cluster Galaxy M100 from Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Cepheids,” Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, pp. 757–762.

N. R. Tanvir et al., “Determination of the Hubble Constant from Observations of Cepheid Variables in the Galaxy M96,” Nature, Vol. 377, 7 September 1995, pp. 27–31.

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

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

“It’s clear to most people that you can’t be older than your mother. Astronomers understand this, too, which is why they’re so uncomfortable these days. The oldest stars in globular clusters seem to date back 15 billion years. The universe appears to be only 9 billion to 12 billion years old. At least one of those conclusions is wrong.” William J. Cook, “How Old Is the Universe?” U.S. News & World Report, 18–25 August 1997, p. 34.

z. “I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.” Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang Under Attack,” Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1011757]

[Pahu]

Missing Mass 1


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

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

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

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

One study of two adjacent galaxies shows they have relatively little dark matter. [See Ron Cowen, “Ringing In a New Estimate for Dark Matter,” Science News, Vol. 136, 5 August 1989, p. 84.]

Another study found no missing mass within 150 million light-years of Earth. [See Eric J. Lerner, “COBE Confounds the Cosmologists,” Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 40–41.]

A third study found no dark matter in a large elliptical galaxy, M105. [See “Dark Matter Isn’t Everywhere,” Astronomy, September 1993, pp. 19–20.]

A fourth study found no dark matter in the main body of our galaxy. [See Alexander Hellemans, “Galactic Disk Contains No Dark Matter,” Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]

A fifth study, after cataloging the positions and distances of 100 million galaxies, concluded that the needed mass does not exist. [See Ron Cowen, “Whole-Sky Catalog,” Science News, Vol. 155, 6 February 1999, pp. 92–93.]

A sixth study, the most sensitive ever conducted on Earth, found no dark matter. [See Charles Seife, “Once Again, Dark Matter Eludes a Supersensitive Trap,” Science, Vol. 304, 14 May 2004, p. 950.]

“Of all the many mysteries of modern astronomy, none is more vexing than the nature of dark matter. Most astronomers believe that large quantities of some unidentified material pervade the universe. ... Yet this dark matter has eluded every effort by astronomers and physicists to bring it out of the shadows. A handful of us suspect that it might not really exist, and others are beginning to consider this possibility seriously.” Mordehai Milgrom, “Does Dark Matter Really Exist?” Scientific American, Vol. 287, August 2002, p. 43.

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences18.html]

[Pahu]

Missing Mass 2


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. particles would have expanded indefinitely,

ii. stars and galaxies would not have formed, and

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

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

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

i. have collapsed on itself (closed), or

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1011854]