Science Disproves Evolution

[Malcolm Wright]

BTW Too late to edit, but replace 'blond' with 'blind' in the previous post...

[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]

[Pahu]

I think you are missing the point. I'm not obsessed with evolution - although you quite obviously are a tad. I was trying to discuss with you the possible reasons for your obsession, not trying to argue evolution itself with you. That's obviously a fool's game as it is your biggest blond spot by definition, and I doubt we'll be able to have a rational conversation about it.

I will say this though - there is a reason evolution emerged as the most successful theory to describe the current biological state of the world. Its that no other coherent theory has proposed anything better. It doesn't mean that the theory of evolution as postulated by Darwin is perfect - many people have brought valid additional commentary and criticism to the table. But nobody has scientifically invalidated it as a whole.

Every one of my posts show the impossibility of evolution, in part and as a whole.

Your deeper reasons for attacking it are very obviously seated beyond the realm of science - I wouldn't try to masquerade around that. When dealing with creating a paradigm for understanding the fossil record (which by the way is more evidence than you, Pahu, could ever hope to refute), the idea is not absolute proof: no such thing exists with such an enterprise. The idea is to unveil compelling ways of understanding how species came to be the way they are today. If you have a more compelling scientific way of understanding it - share it with your DA buddies.

What is a DA buddy? The fossil record is one of the best pieces of evidence disproving evolution since there is no evidence among the millions of fossils found so far that any of them evolved. Each life form is fully developed. The notion any of them evolved is sheer speculation.

Meanwhile, I'm far more interested in hearing why you find evolution so threatening, whereas the other major religions don't. I laid out my thoughts on why Christians seem to be the only ones so peeved by it - when you dare to, give it some thought and maybe share your impressions.

Christianity teaches God is the cause of everything. Evolution teaches natural laws are the cause of everything. This is a contradiction. Either one or the other is true, but they can’t both be true.

The main reason I persist in sharing the truth about evolution is because I have noticed we act according to our beliefs. If our beliefs are wrong, our actions will be wrong.

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 ]

[optimus]

Pahu - You're very confused.

[Malcolm Wright]

Pahu... Rather than wade through every attempt of yours to raise enigmas that may hint at problems with evolution (that's as much as I'll concede you've managed to do) - I'll start with just one assertion of yours from the beginning of your post on Venus.

You claim that the surface rocks must be brittle or tar like. To prove this you cite the melting points of lead and zinc. But silicates are solid at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit... roughly 250 degrees Fahrenheit above the mean surface temperature of the planet...

M

[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]
[ditto ]

[Malcolm Wright]

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]
[ditto ]

Not sure what this post has to do with evolution: even if the universe was created, evolution still makes sense as a mechanism within that universe.

However the fact that the universe has a beginning does not really entail a creator - it entails a creation process. It may have been spawned by another universe, or may be an ejecta from another dimension. The question is whether there is conscience in the creation process.

I actually prefer the creator explanation, but in a way that is completely at odds with Christian dogma. I think there is conscience in the creation process.

I have a question for you Pahu. Are you going to go on spamming the thread with more and more cut and pastes, or are you going to adapt to the fact that someone is engaging you, and actually shift to answering his posts instead? Your answer to this question will determine whether my interest in this conversation survives or not.

M

[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]
[Ditto ]

[Pahu]

Not sure what this post has to do with evolution: even if the universe was created, evolution still makes sense as a mechanism within that universe.

In what way does evolution still makes sense as a mechanism within that universe? Where is the evidence for evolution?

However the fact that the universe has a beginning does not really entail a creator - it entails a creation process.

Doesn’t a creation process need a Creator?

It may have been spawned by another universe, or may be an ejecta from another dimension. The question is whether there is conscience in the creation process.

The definition of “universe” is totality of everything that exists, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space. How can there be more than one?

When you use speculation of multi-universes and other dimensions, you are moving into science fiction.

I actually prefer the creator explanation, but in a way that is completely at odds with Christian dogma. I think there is conscience in the creation process.

I thought the Christian dogma includes a belief in conscience in the creation process.

I have a question for you Pahu. Are you going to go on spamming the thread with more and more cut and pastes, or are you going to adapt to the fact that someone is engaging you, and actually shift to answering his posts instead? Your answer to this question will determine whether my interest in this conversation survives or not.

I intend to continue sharing information demonstrating that science disproves evolution. If I consider a response worth a reply, I will reply. I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself.

[colonel]

I intend to continue sharing information demonstrating that science disproves evolution. If I consider a response worth a reply, I will reply. I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself.

I suppose this explains why this thread is cluttering up the lounge. I mean if you don't want to "quibble" on a discussion board why not dump all your gas bagging in the social forum?

Makes perfect sense.

[Malcolm Wright]

In what way does evolution still makes sense as a mechanism within that universe? Where is the evidence for evolution?

Come on Pahu - you have access to the evidence of evolution. Mitochondrial DNA studies. Evolution directly observed in microbes in the lab. And the fossil record. Sorry, but the absurd statement that each species is already fully formed can't pass as any sort of demonstration here.

Doesn’t a creation process need a Creator?

Like I said - depends on whether conscience is at work or not. From the perspective of someone on the ground by an erupting volcano, the volcano is 'creating' lava. However we won't call the volcano 'creator' unless there is conscience involved. I believe there is.

The definition of “universe” is totality of everything that exists, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space. How can there be more than one?

When you use speculation of multi-universes and other dimensions, you are moving into science fiction.

No - scientific theory. And if a creationist is going to forbid the inclusion of respected scientific theory in a debate, you'll forgive me for leaving this discussion to greater fools than I.

I thought the Christian dogma includes a belief in conscience in the creation process.

Sure it does, along with a whole load of other stuff that in contrast, I am far from subscribing to.
Our common ground probably only lies in the perception of consciousness in the creation process.

I intend to continue sharing information demonstrating that science disproves evolution. If I consider a response worth a reply, I will reply. I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself.

Why are you afraid to be specific here? It is not endless quibbling that you are avoiding, but a discussion of why Christianity seems to be the only major religion that has a problem with evolution. You really won't touch that discussion with a ten foot pole - you can't even refer to it specifically! I find that very telling.

Far from quibbling, its a valid and fairly powerful observation and I offered a rational explanation for it.

But look, if you find it more satisfying to spam reams of cuts and pastes without actually discussing them - just say so.

M

[Malcolm Wright]

Evolution vs. creationism is a popular debate nowadays. The purpose of this article is to point out the fallacies in the theory of evolution using the principles that are meant to support it. I will not use scripture to disprove evolution because it is inviting to attacks from atheists and scientists. Instead I will use the scientific method to point out that believing in evolution is more akin to faith than fact

Ok Jim... so far, I can't fault your reasoning. Good that you realized that quoting scripture isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't hold the Bible in as high a position as you do, and may even invite attacks, as you say.

And it is always wise to try to speak the language of your interlocutor if you want to make an impression on him or her.

So right on - you've got me all open-minded and open-hearted. I hope I'm wrong about the nagging feeling that this is where the honey-moon might end...

M

[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]

[Malcolm Wright]

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]

Bla bla bla. What does any of that have to do with evolution?
I mean at least the questions I have asked you, and which you pointedly hide from, are smack on target of the subject you defined for this thread. A lot of your spam posts are not.

Meh... I think I'm getting the message that you're not capable of being rational about this.

M

[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. [See “Dark Thoughts” on page 33.]

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. [See "Connected Galaxies" and "Galaxy Clusters" on page 41.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts (d). Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas (e). Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory (f).

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

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

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

f. 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]

[optimus]

Pahu, you do know that Jesus never existed, right? This is basic, basic stuff.

[Pahu]

Pahu, you do know that Jesus never existed, right? This is basic, basic stuff.

That must be a trick question. There is overwhelming evidence He did exist:


Do Other Nonbiblical Sources Confirm Jesus Christ's Existence?

Many people assume that, apart from the Bible, history is silent concerning Jesus of Nazareth. But in fact, several independent witnesses testify of Jesus' existence.

Let's notice a few.

Testimony from the Romans

Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56-120) was a Roman senator, consul and governor of the Roman province of Anatolia (covering most of modern-day Turkey) as well as one of ancient Rome's greatest historians. Late in his life he wrote a 16-volume history of the Roman emperors, the Annals.

No friend to either Nero or Christians, Tacitus writes that Nero blamed "a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace." He goes on to explain that "Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hand of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome ..." ( Annals, 15:44, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, 1998, p. 82).

A contemporary of Tacitus, Caius Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. 69-140), overseer of Rome's libraries and court official to several emperors, writes that the emperor Claudius "banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus [Christ] being their leader" ( Lives of the First Twelve Caesars: Life of Claudius, quoted by Grant Jeffrey, Jesus: The Great Debate, 1999, p. 163). This banishment of Jews from Rome is mentioned in Acts 18:2.

Also, "Pliny the younger, the Roman legate of Bithynia-Pontus (what is now north-central Turkey) in the early second century, wrote to the emperor Trajan, requesting advice on how to deal with Christians who refused to reverence Caesar's image. Pliny noted that these Christians met regularly and sang hymns 'to Christ as if to a god' ( Letters 10:96.7). The phrase 'as if to a God' suggests that Pliny knew Jesus had been a person who had lived on earth but was reluctant to call him divine" (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 1987, p. 196).

From these historical sources, none connected in any way with the Bible, we see references to these facts:

• A group called "Christians" derived its name from "Christus" (Christ).
• This "Christus" was executed during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate (Tiberius reigned A.D. 14-37; Pilate held office from 26 to 36 or 37).
• This new movement involved "a most mischievous superstition," quite possibly a reference to Christians' belief that Jesus rose from the dead after His crucifixion.
• This new movement begun by Christians began in Judea and spread to Rome.
• Early Christians considered Christ to be a divine Being.

Testimony from Josephus

Flavius Josephus, a prominent Jewish historian of the first century, is well known to historians and scholars. Born into a priestly family in A.D. 37, Josephus was well educated and commanded a Jewish detachment in Galilee during the Jewish revolt of 66-70 until his capture by the Romans. At the end of the war he went to Rome with the Roman general Titus, where he lived and wrote until his death about A.D. 100.

Josephus twice mentions Jesus in his monumental work Antiquities of the Jews, written A.D. 90-95. His most extensive quote reads:

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,—a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" ( Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, section 3).

While many scholars dispute parts or all of the passage, it is quoted as above by the historian Eusebius as early as 315.

A second mention of Jesus by Josephus is seldom disputed by scholars. It concerns the martyrdom of James, His half brother: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions;] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned ..." ( Antiquities, 20:9:1).

Another prominent figure from the Gospels mentioned by Josephus is John the Baptizer: "Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion,...thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause...Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus,...and was there put to death" ( Antiquities, 18:5:2).

Although Josephus was never a Christian, in his works we find mention of many other figures from the Gospels and other New Testament books. These include the family of the Herods; the Judean procurators and members of the high priestly families. His books, like the writings of the Roman historians and officials, provide powerful independent corroboration of the historical accuracy of the Gospels and the existence of Jesus Christ.

http://www.ucg.org/booklet/jesus-chr...l-sources-con/

[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]

[Malcolm Wright]

Avoiding a discussion of why Christians are so upset with evolution is one thing. That can be chalked up to mere intellectual cowardice.
But spamming on and on and on with posts that Pahu is no longer even trying to relate to evolution is the sign of something more concerning - and a real indication that honest discourse will be impossible. I mean he started the thread. He chose to call it Science Disproves Evolution. And yet he is spamming his own thread with cut and pastes of other people's writings which have zero connection to evolution. I give up. The best thing to do when one finds oneself in a mad house is to leave, and be glad one has the freedom to do so. Pahu I'm afraid, is stuck in it.

M

[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]