Science Disproves Evolution

[TopsyTurvy]

Origin of Pahu's intellect.


Evolutionary theories for the origin of Pahu's intellect are highly speculative and completely inadequate.

[Pahu]

Evolution of the Solar System?


Evolutionists claim the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4.6 billion years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. (To understand why, see the Poynting-Robertson effect here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1260991). Particles should still be falling into the Sun’s upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured, infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991, showed no such glow (a). So the assumed “millions of years” and this explanation for the solar system’s origin are probably wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences10.html]

[Pahu]

Faint Young Sun


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1631493]

[Pahu]

Mountains of Venus

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

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

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


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

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1631600]

[Pahu]

Space, Time, and Matter Demand A Beginning


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

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ciences13.html
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ciences14.html

[Pahu]

First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1011713
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences16.html]

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 1


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

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

a. “Observations only recently made possible by improvements in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the Universe [the big bang] under intense pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980s about the shape and history of the Universe have now been abandoned—and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility that the Universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy, whose origin is not at all understood.” Peter Coles, “The End of the Old Model Universe,” Nature, Vol. 393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.

“Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.” Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.

b. Redshifts can be caused by other phenomena. [See Jayant V. Narlikar, “Noncosmological Redshifts,” Space Science Reviews, Vol. 50, August 1989, pp. 523–614.] However, large redshifts are probably the result of the Doppler effect.

c. “...energy in recognizable forms (kinetic, potential, and internal) in an expanding, spatially unbounded, homogeneous universe is not conserved.” Edward R. Harrison, “Mining Energy in an Expanding Universe,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 446, 10 June 1955, p. 66.

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

[206]

Is this how you communicate, through cut-and-pastes? If it is, then there's no chance of reaching the logic and reasoning centers of your brain...I've just pointed towards something absolutely frikkin HUGE, man...something staring you in the face every single day, something which easily proves the fact that WE DO LIVE in a self-organizing universe, one that 'EVOLVES'...And, what do you do? You give me more malarky from the outcasts occupying the fringes of sceintific study...

The overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors throughout the world believe in the facts of evolution...You are always going to find dissidents on the fringes of any given industry or field you examine...The world wouldn't be any fun at all if everyone was completely sane. The nutters are what provides entertainment.

You didn't reply to anything I've said up there, but you go and hit me up with some claim about how 'immune systems' couldn't have possibly evolved...But, what's the exact nature of your grievance here, friend...I gotta know what precisely you're finding fault with the system and how it got its footing...so, then I can straighten things out for ya.

Once again....http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?

[Pahu]

Is this how you communicate, through cut-and-pastes? If it is, then there's no chance of reaching the logic and reasoning centers of your brain...

My reasoning in sharing information from scientists that disproves evolution, instead of my own ignorant opinions, is they have the training and education I lack.

I've just pointed towards something absolutely frikkin HUGE, man...something staring you in the face every single day, something which easily proves the fact that WE DO LIVE in a self-organizing universe, one that 'EVOLVES'...And, what do you do? You give me more malarky from the outcasts occupying the fringes of sceintific study...

If, by “the outcasts occupying the fringes of sceintific study,” you mean the scientists being quoted, you may be surprised to learn who they are:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts

The overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors throughout the world believe in the facts of evolution

Actually, it is a little over half, and that is rapidly shrinking. Like most of us, scientists hear that evolution is true and believe it without examination. When they examine the idea, they learn science does not support it.

Until Charles Darwin popularized the idea of evolution in the middle of the 19th century, most people including the vast majority of scientists were creationists. Over the next 50 to 100 years, however, evolution came to be the ruling paradigm in the biological sciences in particular, and science in general.

In the early 1960s, creationism began a resurgence, followed a few decades later by intelligent design. Once these ideas had started to gain a degree of popularity, however, many people, committed to evolutionary thought, began to oppose these competing views of the history of life. (These people generally consider Intelligent design to be creationism in disguise, although there are significant differences between the two ideas.)

However, this opposition has not been merely academic debate of the merits of the competing ideas, but a concerted effort to suppress creationism and intelligent design. This opposition has included keeping the ideas out of the education system and marginalizing or ridiculing the ideas in the mass media.

"It appears from various reports reaching this office, that a trend is developing in the halls of Academe … that Liberalism’s great contribution to American education, namely “Academic Freedom” has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires … . [A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism]". [Haney, K., Academic freedom’s double standard, Christian Times, p. 4, 28 June 1985, quoted by Bergman, 1995.]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Suppres...s_to_evolution

But, what's the exact nature of your grievance here, friend...I gotta know what precisely you're finding fault with the system and how it got its footing...so, then I can straighten things out for ya.

Your concern for my crookedness is touching. The exact nature of my grievance here and elsewhere is the fact that unrealistic beliefs lead to unrealistic behavior. The world has been deceived into believing evolution is true and therefore creation is false. The results have been devastating.

Opinions about origins have profound social consequences and even affect the way we think. Consider the following perspectives and some responses. Notice that all these perspectives presume evolution occurred, despite the scientific evidence. We recognize that some people believe that God used evolution to create and that evolution is compatible with the Bible; however, a careful reading shows, in dozens of ways, that it is not.

1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?

2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes?
Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.

3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil?
Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.

4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved.

5. Communism. Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book “contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].” Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.
Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, killed millions of his people. Stalin read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school and urged others to read it. During that time, he became an atheist.

6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.
Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.
Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more.

7. Relativism. There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your truth is just as good as my truth.
Response: Obviously, the One who created the universe, life, and humans has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes—and He has.

8. Social Darwinism. If life evolved, then the human mind evolved. So did products of the human mind and all social institutions: law, government, science, education, religion, language, economics, industry—civilization itself.
Response: Technology progresses, information accumulates, and civilization often improves, but humans remain humans—with all our frailties and shortcomings.

9. Secular Humanism. If the “molecules-to-monkeys-to-man” idea is correct, then man is the highest form of being. Man should be the object of greatest concern, not some fictitious Creator that man actually created.
Response: That philosophy is called secular humanism (a humane, intellectual-sounding term) that claims God is irrelevant and the Bible is fiction. Secular humanism will decline as people increasingly learn the scientific flaws of evolution.

10. New Age Movement. If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?
Response: These beliefs, built on evolution, continue to spread like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. New age beliefs also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known.

11. Marriage. If marriage is a cultural development, begun by ignorant tribes thousands of years ago, then why not change that custom, as we do other out-of-date customs? Animals don’t marry; why should people? After all, we’re just animals. If people are a product of natural processes, then why not do what comes naturally? What’s wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage as long as no one is hurt?
Response: God instituted marriage when He created a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, and said they should become one.

12. Racism. If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.
Response: But that’s racism. That’s the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his Aryan master race and to justify killing six million Jews in the Holocaust. This does not mean that evolutionists are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers of a century ago were extreme racists. However, evolution has provided the main rationale for racism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “Biological arguments for racism ... increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” People with darker skin have suffered greatly from evolutionary racism. Belief in evolution has also caused others to suffer even more. They are victims of a greater holocaust going on all around us—abortion.

13. Abortion. We dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn’t it the mother’s right? Shouldn’t she have a “choice” in such a personal matter? After all, a fetus has no name or personality. During its first three months, it’s just a tiny glob of tissue—no more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn’t a fetus, having less value than an adult, be “terminated” if adults or society would benefit? This will help solve our population problem. We must guide our destiny.
Response: Abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent, defenseless, developing (but completely human) baby. Calling an unborn child merely a “fetus” is dehumanizing. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That is simply a euphemism for killing a very young human.

Nine years after Darwin published his theory of evolution, Professor Ernst Haeckel announced that animal embryos, including unborn humans, pass through stages that mimic their evolutionary steps. Human embryos begin as microscopic spheres, because, Haeckel said, humans evolved from bacteria, which are sometimes microscopic spheres. Later, unborn babies look like fish, because humans evolved from fish. Still later, human embryos look like chimpanzees, because humans evolved from some apelike ancestor. So, human embryos are not yet human. Can you see the errors in this logic? Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.

Haeckel faked his drawings to fit his theory. In the following 130 years, hundreds of textbook writers copied these drawings, popularizing the theory. It has since been taught as fact worldwide, even in medical schools. Today the theory is completely discredited, although it is still taught.

Unborn children are human. Each adult’s body has about 100 trillion cells. When you were just one cell inside your mother, all the marvelous, complex information that physically defines you and every organ in your body was there. Although you were tiny and immature, you were completely human when you were one cell. While you were in your mother’s womb, she was your support system, just as medical support systems are needed by some sick or elderly people. Needing a support system does not remove a person from the human race or justify killing that person.

Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact. These social problems did not originate with evolution, but they follow logically from evolution. No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social problems, but from an evolutionist perspective these behaviors are easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated. Evolution, while not the cause of evil, can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific credibility.

Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes. By what logic could anyone oppose these thirteen viewpoints if there were no moral absolutes? Without moral absolutes, “right” and “wrong” will be decided by whoever is in control, but that will change from time to time. A false understanding of origins has subtle and far-reaching consequences.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ412.html]

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 2


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

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts (d). Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas (e). Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory (f).

Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values (g). Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

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

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

f. Michael D. Lemonick, “Star Seeker,” Discover, November 2001, p. 44.

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

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

[Jarik]

Referring to the OP before this tidal wave of overabundant bullshit hit us:

Some of your points rely on the apparent incomprehensible beauty of nature and life and that it is impossible to create something of equal visual and spiritual value. Have you noticed that this is completely ONE HUNDRED PER-FING-CENT opinion? Have you ever stopped to think perhaps we enjoy nature and life as human beings because they allow us to EXIST? I think it's kind of natural that we'd feel a release of endorphins when looking at life and nature, because it keeps us assured that we're actually alive and well.

As sentient beings, when we cast all other sources of pleasure and fulfillment aside, life and nature are the most direct origins of happiness to us because it's our instinct to survive as a species and life and nature are what let us accomplish that.

Your theory that God creates beauty, on the other hand, is full of holes. You fail to define beauty or why God makes it the way it is. I have clearly described it as a method your body uses to make you enjoy what's good for you and hate what's bad for you called instinct. You enjoy eating, eating keeps you alive, you enjoy sex, sex allows the species to continue living, you don't like pain, pain can cause death. Do you not realize all of our feelings are indirectly borrowed from a reward/punishment system developed by organisms to keep their species alive?

[Pahu]

Referring to the OP before this tidal wave of overabundant bullshit hit us:

Some of your points rely on the apparent incomprehensible beauty of nature and life and that it is impossible to create something of equal visual and spiritual value. Have you noticed that this is completely ONE HUNDRED PER-FING-CENT opinion? Have you ever stopped to think perhaps we enjoy nature and life as human beings because they allow us to EXIST? I think it's kind of natural that we'd feel a release of endorphins when looking at life and nature, because it keeps us assured that we're actually alive and well.

As sentient beings, when we cast all other sources of pleasure and fulfillment aside, life and nature are the most direct origins of happiness to us because it's our instinct to survive as a species and life and nature are what let us accomplish that.

Your theory that God creates beauty, on the other hand, is full of holes. You fail to define beauty or why God makes it the way it is. I have clearly described it as a method your body uses to make you enjoy what's good for you and hate what's bad for you called instinct. You enjoy eating, eating keeps you alive, you enjoy sex, sex allows the species to continue living, you don't like pain, pain can cause death. Do you not realize all of our feelings are indirectly borrowed from a reward/punishment system developed by organisms to keep their species alive?

Isn't that 100% your opinion? The reason we know God exists is because the facts of science leave no other option. When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/B...KU-000005147#]

[Jarik]

Isn't that 100% your opinion? The reason we know God exists is because the facts of science leave no other option. When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/B...KU-000005147#]

Your logic only applies under the assumption that the cause and effect theory is completely infallible, which it is likely not. What if I told you the universe and everything in it was always here, infinite in past and future? You cannot comprehend such a thing, so you denounce it. Yet if there WAS a supernatural creation, then we must assume that said supernatural power does not require a cause for its effect because that would lead us on a never ending line of cause and effects, thus creating a paradox. Ergo, you must believe that the cause and effect theory does not apply to ALL things in totality. Further ergo, by using YOUR logic, I can claim that the universe as an object is not subject to the theory of cause and effect, thus allowing my claim that it was never created and always has been to hold equal merit to your claims.

Now that my claims on the universe's origin are on equal ground with your own as far as credibility is concerned, I can further prove that mine are more credible than yours with one simple statement: You can prove there is a universe because we can see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, etc, but you CANNOT prove there is a God. Therefore, my theory that the universe has always been and always will be is more credible and logical than your theory that it was created by a God.

I simply utilized your logic, but replaced God with the universe, attributing all of God's abilities to withstand the cause and effect theory to the universe. The fact that the universe is proven and God is theory dictated that I had the more plausible idea.

I love rhetoric

[Pahu]

Your logic only applies under the assumption that the cause and effect theory is completely infallible, which it is likely not. What if I told you the universe and everything in it was always here, infinite in past and future?

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

Yet if there WAS a supernatural creation, then we must assume that said supernatural power does not require a cause for its effect because that would lead us on a never ending line of cause and effects, thus creating a paradox. Ergo, you must believe that the cause and effect theory does not apply to ALL things in totality.

Right. The law of causality states that every effect must have a cause. God is not an effect. The universe is an effect. God is the cause.

Further ergo, by using YOUR logic, I can claim that the universe as an object is not subject to the theory of cause and effect, thus allowing my claim that it was never created and always has been to hold equal merit to your claims.

Refuted above.

Now that my claims on the universe's origin are on equal ground with your own as far as credibility is concerned, I can further prove that mine are more credible than yours with one simple statement: You can prove there is a universe because we can see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, etc, but you CANNOT prove there is a God. Therefore, my theory that the universe has always been and always will be is more credible and logical than your theory that it was created by a God.

The existence of the universe proves the existence of God, as I pointed out.

I simply utilized your logic, but replaced God with the universe, attributing all of God's abilities to withstand the cause and effect theory to the universe. The fact that the universe is proven and God is theory dictated that I had the more plausible idea.

But you ignored the logic based on the facts.

[Jarik]

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

What do you mean all energy would have been lost? It would either have to convert to matter (from which it can and is constantly being reverted back into energy) or move to another system. To say all useable energy would be lost is to assume either that matter can be destroyed or energy can move into nothingness. My point still stands.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

Assuming that all things require a cause, which is a dogmatic idea humans have gathered by observing their nearby environment. Yet who are we to say it applies to existence itself especially when it leads us to a paradox only solvable by claiming that an uncausable omnipotent being created all.

Right. The law of causality states that every effect must have a cause. God is not an effect. The universe is an effect. God is the cause.

And you're saying the God was causeless, correct? I'm moving the universe to that level. I think that the universe in totality could be where this rule breaks. After all, if you can break the rule for God, why can you not break it for the universe? Just because what we observe IN the universe requires cause and effect doesn't mean the universe itself does too.

I just personally think it's a better conclusion than God, because believing in an omnipotent being could cause numerous anomalies in our thought processes, some of them undesirable, while simply believing the universe to be causeless takes a spiritually neutral standpoint and is less likely to cause religious havoc.

Good debate so far.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Good stuff, Pahu. Some of your posts updated issues that came up in the late '60's and books I read in the '50's, but never kept abreast of. Glad to see they weren't just dropped in favor of orthodoxy and convenience by all scientists.

The theory of evolution is actually pretty ludicrous stuff, and largely 'faith based' in and of itself.

It was only a very very short time ago, historically, that plenty of very intelligent scientists and experimenters believed in the existence of 'the Phologiston' and the 'Ether', and many continued to believe in that after Einstein's general Relativity was published; Tesla, I believe, continued to believe in it, as one example.

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 3


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

h. “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33.

“Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it.” Ibid., p. 25.

“History also shows that some BB [big bang] cosmologists’ ‘predictions’ of MBR [microwave background radiation] temperature have been ‘adjusted’ after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.” William C. Mitchell, “Big Bang Theory Under Fire,” Physics Essays, Vol. 10, June 1997, pp. 370–379.

“What’s more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.” Eric J. Lerner et al., “Bucking the Big Bang,” New Scientist, Vol. 182, 22 May 2004, p. 20. [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]

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

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 4


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

i. “In each of the five patches of sky surveyed by the team, the distant galaxies bunch together instead of being distributed randomly in space. ‘The work is ongoing, but what we’re able to say now is that galaxies we are seeing at great distances are as strongly clustered in the early universe as they are today,’ says Steidel, who is at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.” Ron Cowen, “Light from the Early Universe,” Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 92.

“In fact, studies we have done show that the distribution of matter is fractal, just like a tree or a cloud.” [Patterns that repeat on all scales are called fractal.] Francesco Sylos Labini, as quoted by Marcus Chown, “Fractured Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 163, 21 August 1999, p. 23.

“If this dissenting view is correct [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.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...icalSciences16

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 5


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

j. Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, “Mapping the Universe,” Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897–903. [See also M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall,” Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885.]

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

“But this uniformity [in the cosmic microwave background radiation, CMB] is difficult to reconcile with the obvious clumping of matter into galaxies, clusters of galaxies and even larger features extending across vast regions of the universe, such as ‘walls’ and ‘bubbles’. ” Ivars Peterson, “Seeding the Universe,” Science News, Vol. 137, 24 March 1990, p. 184.

As described below, one of the largest structures in the universe, “The Great Wall,” was discovered in 1989. It consists of tens of thousands of galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.

“The theorists know of no way such a monster [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.

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

[Pahu]

Big Bang? 6


For many years, big bang theorists searched in vain with increasingly precise instruments for temperature concentrations in the nearly uniform CMB. Without concentrations, matter could never gravitationally contract around those concentrations to form galaxies and galaxy clusters. Finally, in 1992, with great fanfare, an announcement was made in the popular media that slight concentrations were discovered. Major shortcomings were not mentioned:

The concentrations were only one part in 100,000—not much more than the errors in the instruments. Such slight concentrations could not be expected to initiate much clustering. As Margaret Geller stated, “Gravity can’t, over the age of the universe, amplify these irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies].” Travis, p. 1684.

“[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.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1017888]