The TRUTH SOURCE

Revealing relevant political and religious news, history, topics and truths

CREATION vs. EVOLUTION Debate Part IV

giphy-facebook_s

CREATION vs. EVOLUTION Debate Part IV

Creationism and Intelligent Design versus Evolution Theories

FIRST CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE CREATIONISTS

AGAINST COSMIC EVOLUTION

Let us be clear; the majority of secular scientists at least in the field of astrophysics and who support such said theories of cosmic evolution show forth two points.  First, they deny God and specifically have an agenda to move all mankind to do likewise.  Second, when they are honest, nearly all admit that what caused or came before the explosion of their Big Bang Theory is a mystery – an unknown.   We will prove these points, then show the flaws in cosmic evolution.

The UNIVERSE: Understanding NUMBERS and Reason

SECULAR AGENGA against GOD

The famous cosmologist, theoretical physicist and renowned atheist Stephen Hawking said, “The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in.  For me this means there is no possibility of a Creator because there is no time for a Creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything (Discovery Channel; 2011, “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?)”   “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (1988)

British astronomer and Director of Harvard College Observatory, Harlow Shapley, has stated, “Some (say), ‘In the beginning God,’ but I say ‘In the beginning hydrogen’.”  Shapley studied under Henry Russell.   British astronomer Arthur Hinks know for work in calculating the distance to the Sun influenced Russell.   Russell of Princeton wrote two standard texts of Astronomy: The Solar System and Astrophysics… and was director of the Princeton Uni. Observatory. Shapley studied under Russell; as did Menzel with the CFA (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and Spitzer (plasma physics and Hubble Space Telescope project).   And under these men were textbook contributors and professors from Caltech to Columbia.   For example, Carl Sagan influenced hundreds of students at Harvard and Cornell; but he influenced millions with his books and TV programs; and thousands of teachers while at the CFA.

“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah’s ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it’s about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.” Neil deGrasse Tyson – took over Carl Sagan’s place as host of Cosmos.

Carl Sagan, astronomer, professor, bestselling author said, “The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”  In his last book the year he died, Sagan said: “I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.” (Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium)

“The existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. In fact, the data strongly support the hypothesis that no such miracle occurred. If we regard such a miracle as predicted by the creator hypothesis, then the prediction is not confirmed.” V. Stenger; God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God does not Exist.

Chief atheist Richard Dawkins at the Reason Rally (2012) said, “Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?  No… I don’t despise religious people; I despise what they stand for…”

Of course Hawking and all of these in their great intelligence are given over to delusion and ignorance; giving power to lifeless inanimate objects and mysterious particles over the Omnipotent Eternal Creator; they misuse the Law of Causality of which Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton and a thousand other brilliant minds understood the need for a FIRST CAUSE.

 THE MYSTERY and Admitted Unknown First Cause

January 13, 2015, Space.com contributor Charles Chol wrote, “in 2014, scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced they had found a faint signal in the cosmic microwave background that could be the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, themselves considered a ‘smoking gun’ for the Big Bang.  The findings were hotly debated, but the search for these mysterious ripples continues.”

Astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of Berkeley says, ‘The Big Bang is an enormously successful theory.’ However, he says, “Scientists don’t know what might have spurred inflation.  That remains one of the key questions in Big Bang cosmology.” (Space.com; 11/21/2011)

Sean Carroll, theoretical physicist at Caltech says, “It could just be empty space that existed before our Big Bang happened, then some quantum fluctuation gave birth to a universe like ours…” (Space.com; 11/21/2011)

Ahmed Ali at Benha University told Phys.org (2/2015) that, “The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there.”

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das of the University of Lethbridge (Canada) published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their NEW MODEL in which the universe has no beginning and no end.” (Physic Letters B; Vol. 741, 2015)

Brian Koberlein of Rochester Institute of Technology stated, “the universe had no beginning; it existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang… the new model …comes from Ali… and Das… from the Raychaudhuri equation (of their former professor in India).”  Earthsky.org; 2/2015  And on his website Koberlein stated, “Singularities are problematic, and they tend to stir up lots of debate… the classical Raychaudhuri equation uses a variation with a few quantum tweaks to answer the problem.”

Physicist Paul Davies of Arizona State Uni. wrote, “Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific…” Physicist Robert Matthews of Ashton Uni. in England wrote, “It is now beginning clear that everything can – and probably did – come from nothing.” Richard Dawkins in The Ancestor’s Tale wrote, “the fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.” (thegodhaters.com; quoting from WorldNetDaily 9/20/2009)

Michio Kaku, bestselling author, Discovery Channel and Science Channel host, proposes an 11 dimension Universe of tiny unseen strings of matter, and has also said, “Our grandkids will lead the lives of the gods of mythology. Zeus could think and move objects around. We’ll have that power. Venus had a perfect, timeless body. We’ll have that, too. Pegasus was a flying horse. We’ll be able to modify life in the future.”

In his LIST OF FINE-TUNING PARAMETERS Jay Richards of the Center for Science & Culture; Discovery Institute said, “It’s important to distinguish this local “fine-tuning” is different from cosmic fine-tuning. With cosmic fine-tuning, we’re comparing the actual universe as a whole with other possible but non-actual universes. And though theorists sometimes postulate multiple universes to try to avoid the embarrassment of a fine-tuned universe, we have no direct evidence that other universes exist.”

Eric Chaisson, director of Harvard-Smithsonian’s CFA and Cosmic Evolution website said, “No observer has ever unambiguously reported evidence for galaxies forming at the present epoch, and no theorist can realistically suggest how they might do so given the present temperature and density throughout the Universe.  Clearly, the hotter gas, more intense radiation, and greater turbulence of the early fireball were more conducive to galaxy formation; but specifically how they formed remains a mystery.”

Chaisson in the article: ‘Cosmic Catastrophes’ at CFA added, “…to coalesce into the present planets and moons remains one of the great riddles of modern science.  Frankly, we may never know the precise details, given the role played by chance… The Moon partook of a grand event in our cosmic neighborhood that spawned our Solar System eons ago. However, none of the several theories advanced in the 20th century to account for the Moon has proved entirely satisfactory.”

Note: Eric Chaisson of MIT; 1981, first stated 3 eras; then 6 epochs and now 8 epochs in Cosmic Evolution, with the forth ‘atom epoch’ lasting between “100 sec to about a million years after the Bang.”

Concerning Stephen Hawking’s ‘information and horizons,’ Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at Berkeley stated, “It’s not possible to have both of those things, to have no drama at the apparent horizon and to have the information come out,” Bousso told SPACE.com “Stephen just doesn’t discuss this argument, so it’s unclear how he means to address it.”  Don Page, physicist at the University of Alberta in Canada, agreed. “I do not think that eliminating event horizons by itself solves the firewall problem, which is a subtle problem,”

And Nasa’s own website in an article called ‘Black Holes’ states, “Scientists can’t directly observe black holes with telescopes that detect x-rays, light, or other forms of electromagnetic radiation.  …Most stellar black holes, however, lead isolated lives and are impossible to detect. Judging from the number of stars large enough to produce such black holes, however, scientists estimate that there are as many as ten million to a billion such black holes in the Milky Way alone.”

Ashtekar and Bojowald (2006) and Ashtekar, Pawlowski and Singh (2006) argue that, “in the context of loop quantum gravity, neither the big bang singularity nor black hole singularities appearSingularties don’t exist, nor is the question of how to define them, as such, particularly urgent. Instead, the pressing question is what indicates the borders of the domain of applicability of general relativity?”

Astronomers who go by the name Bicep  made headlines in 2014 when they claimed to have detected gravitational waves from the beginning of the Big Bang, using a telescope at the South Pole. They later acknowledged that their observations had probably been contaminated by interstellar stardust.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking found that matter and energy can escape a black hole through what is now known as Hawking radiation. However, he contended that the radiation would be so scrambled that scientists could never work backwards to understand what fell into the black hole in the first place. This violates a basic piece of quantum theory, the idea that information cannot be destroyed.  In 2004, Hawking had a change of heart and admitted he was wrong about information loss. However, no one is quite sure how information could escape a black hole. Information radiating out of a black hole is not compatible with general relativity, and destroying information isn’t possible within the confines of quantum theory.  Then, Hawking’s two-page study attempted to resolve the issue by doing away with event horizons and replacing them with the idea of “apparent horizons.”  He wrote, “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity. There are, however, apparent horizons, which persist for a period of time.”

By 2016, space.news was reporting, “This has been an outstanding problem in theoretical physics for the last 40 yearsno satisfactory resolution has been advanced,” Professor Hawking said. “I propose that the information is stored not in the interior of the black hole as one might expect, but on its boundary – the event horizon,” In the 1970s, Hawking suggested black holes could radiate particles and that energy was lost in the process, inevitably causing the three-dimensional hole to shrink. Last year, Hawking modified the theory by stating black holes were actually grey.  According to the grey hole theory, matter and energy are held for a period of time before they are released back into the universe.”  And just as secular scientists were trying to grasp these ideas, in mid-2015 Hawking also added the Novikov’s (1964) ‘white hole’ theory may be the answer to some gaps. A white hole is a theoretical structure, and as black holes none are known to exist, and they cannot ever be reached from the outside. And since they don’t form when stars collapse and none have been observed, the theory rightly so has been dismissed by a generation or more.

Moreover, Jan. 2014 as recorded by nationalgeographic.com, “quantum physicist Seth Lloyd of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology felt Hawking’s idea was a good way to avoid firewalls, he said it doesn’t really address the problems that firewalls raise. I would caution against any belief that Hawking has come up with a dramatic new solution answering all questions regarding black holes,” said theoretical physicist Sean Carroll at the California Institute of Technology, who did not participate in this study. “These problems are very far from being resolved.” Theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind  at Stanford University in California, who also did not take part in Hawking’s research, suggests there may be another solution to the conundrums that black holes pose. For instance, work by Susskind and his colleague Juan Maldacena hint that entanglement might be linked to wormholes.”

LAWS of the MAKER; the CREATOR and Architect of All Things (Isa. 66:2)

By faith we understand that the Universe was famed by the word of God, so that the things with are seen were not made of things which are visible… (Heb. 11:2).”  You are, “God, the Lord who created the heavens and stretched them out… who created the Earth (‘by Your wisdom; and hangs the earth on nothing’ – Jer. 10:12; Job 26:7) and who gives breath to the people on it (Isa. 42:5).”  Almighty God, “You alone are the LORD, the Maker of the highest Heaven of heavens and their host (Neh. 9:6); ‘for all the gods of the peoples are idols, but he LORD made the heavens (Psa. 96:5);’ thus we join with the faithful and the hosts of Heaven saying, “to Him who sits on the Throne …to Him who reigns forever… You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for You created all things and by Your will they exist… (Rev. 4:10-11).” (ICor.8:6; John 1:3; Gen.1:2; Psa.33:6; Isa. 65:17).

Before speaking to the science; I admonish you ‘nominal’ Christians, if you do not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was with God and that “by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions – all things have been created through Him and for Him (Col. 1:16),” and that “to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb is due all praise and honor and glory and power, forever and ever (Rev. 5:13)!” – Then you are in grave danger, because you do not stand on this firm foundation of faith, nor possess the confession of the faithful and true – even that of the most ancient Christian Creed’s, as the Apostle’s taught, “I believe in God, the Father, almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.  I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord… He will come to judge the living and the dead.”

Second Law of Thermodynamics

So we see that we their best scientists say ‘we don’t know’ if these theories of cosmic evolution are true.  But what does science say.  Concerning the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Lord Kelvin (who’s work on the ‘Thermometric Scale’ lead to the ‘Kelvin,’ ‘K’ unit) stated, “There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work;” or thus, the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less.   For example; in a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.  But the point is an external agent was needed and required.

Lincoln Barnett, in The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1948), wrote, “The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere in the cosmos heat is turning into cold, matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space. The universe is thus progressing to an ultimate ‘heat death’….And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the second law of thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves just one way.”

Wylen and Sonntag, “…we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe.” Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985.

“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)

Conservation of Energy

This Law or scientific principle states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; thus, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can transform from one form to another – solid, liquid, gas, plasma.

The redshift of starlight is interpreted as a Doppler effect; that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy (Harrison; Mining Energy in an Expanding Universe, 1955). Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws. Furthermore, these galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating. 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 (Tifft; ‘Properties of the Redshift,’ The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 382; 1991).

Other Problems with Cosmic Evolution: Dark Matter

Concerning ‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy,’ of which Dr. Carlton Baugh, states ‘dark matter has not been detected in the laboratory, and there is no convincing theoretical explanation of dark energy (‘Universal Building Blocks,’ Nature, Vol. 421; 2003).  Scientists at Creationscience.com say “it does not exist;” and they offer the following sources as well. Cosmologist Jim Peebles admitted, “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical (‘Out of Sight, Out of MOND,’ Astronomy, Vol. 29; 2001).”   “No one knows what dark matter is… (Jenny Hogan; Nature, Vol. 448, 2007).” “We should have seen hundreds or thousands of dark matter events and we simply don’t see any (Richard Gaitskell; ‘New Experiment…’ Science; Vol. 342, 2013).”

H. Dicke, “Gravitation and the Universe: The Jayne Lectures for 1969,” American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, 1970, p. 62. Stated it is sometimes called the flatness problem. However, after the shocking discovery in 1998 that distant galaxies were accelerating (not decelerating) away from us, the missing mass problem was replaced by the “dark energy” problem. No longer was it necessary to find the missing mass that kept the universe from flying apart, because the best measurements showed that the universe was flying apart.  He said, ‘no solutions have been found, but theoretical speculations abound… black holes, dead stars, low-mass stars, subatomic particles and objects dreamed up by cosmologists simply to solve this problem.”

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

Six Dark Matter Studies

One study of two adjacent galaxies showed that they had relatively little dark matter.  Ron Cowen, “Ringing In a New Estimate for Dark Matter,” Science News, Vol. 136, 1989; note below – a decade later Cowen concludes it does not exist.] Another study found no dark matter within 150 million light-years of Earth. [Eric J. Lerner, “COBE Confounds the Cosmologists,” Aerospace America, March 1990] A third study found no dark matter in a large elliptical galaxy, M105. [“Dark Matter Isn’t Everywhere,” Astronomy, September 1993] A fourth study found no dark matter in the main body of our galaxy. [Alexander Hellemans, “Galactic Disk Contains No Dark Matter,” Science, Vol. 278, 1997] A fifth study, after cataloging positions and distances of 100 million galaxies, concluded that the needed mass does not exist. [Ron Cowen, “Whole-Sky Catalog,” Science News, Vol. 155, 1999] A sixth study, the most sensitive ever conducted on Earth, found no dark matter. [Charles Seife, “Once Again, Dark Matter Eludes a Supersensitive Trap,” Science, Vol. 304, 2004.]
 Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation

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.  “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.” Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, 1994. And a decade later, “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, May 2004.  Within a short time this article critiquing the Big Bang THEORY was signed by over 400 scientists, engineers and researchers; now over 500. www.cosmologystatement.org or http://cosmologystatement.info/

Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.  “The distant galaxies bunch together instead of being distributed randomly in space…” (Steidel of CalTech; quoted by R. Cowen, ‘Light from the Early Universe,’ Science News, Vol. 153, Feb. 1998.)  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. Simply stated, the big bang did not produce the CMB. (Geller and Huchra, ‘Mapping the Universe,’ Science, Vol. 246, Nov. 1989.)

Helium, Lithium, Etc.

Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of HELIUM in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium. Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older” stars contradict the big bang theory. (H. Arp, ‘The Extragalactic Universe…,’ Nature, Vol. 346, 1990; and R. Cowen, ‘Starlight Casts Doubt on Big Bang Details; Science News, Vol. 140, Sept. 1991)

A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none have been found. (B. Carr, ‘Where is Population III?’ Nature, Vol. 326, April 1987)

As for LITHIUM, the total amount seen in and outside of our galaxy is only a third of what the big bang theory predicts (A. Mucciarelli; ‘The Cosmological Lithium Problem…’ Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 444, Oct. 2014).   And “old stars contain one-quarter to one-half as much lithium-7 (3 protons & 4 neutrons) as the Big Bang Theory predicted and contains 1,000 times more lithium-6 (3 p / 3 n) than expected (A. Grant, ‘Lab Tests Mystery of Lithium Levels,’ Science News, Vol. 186, Aug. 2014).”

Problem with Rotating bodies

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

If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies or quasars at such great distances, but they are seen. Nor should a big bang produce rotating bodies such as galaxies and galaxy clusters. Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion. (A. Dressler, ‘The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies,’ Scientific American, Vol. 257, Sept. 1987)

For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.  For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron. “As far as we know, there is no appreciable amount of antimatter in the universe.” (S. Weinberg, The First Three Minutes; 1977) Yet, only trivial amounts of this antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies. (J. Silk, The Big Bang; 1980).

The ‘Cosmic Egg’

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

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect. (‘Big Bang Gone Quiet,’ Nature, Vol 372, Nov. 1994)  All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred. “When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.” (F. Hoyle; ‘The Big Bang Under Attack,’ Science Digest, May 1984)

HEAVY ELEMENTS

Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin of heavy elements. (A big bang would produce only the three lightest elements: hydrogen, helium, and lithium.) The other 100+ elements supposedly formed deep inside stars and during stellar explosions. This theory is hard to verify, because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed. However, a vast region of gas containing the mass of 300,000,000,000,000 suns has been found that is quite rich in iron and other heavy elements. The number of nearby visible stars is a thousand times too small to account for the heavy elements in that huge region.  Heavy elements are even relatively abundant in nearly empty regions of space that are far from stars and galaxies.  (M. Hattori, ‘A Dark Cluster of Galaxies at Redshift z = 1,’ Nature, Vol. 388, July 1997; and Cowie & Songaila, ‘Heavy-Element Enrichment in Low Density Regions of the Intergalactic Medium,’ Nature, Vol. 394, July 1998)

Most hydrogen atoms weigh one atomic mass unit, but some, called heavy hydrogen, weigh two units. If everything in the universe came from a big bang or a swirling gas cloud, heavy hydrogen should be uniformly mixed with normal hydrogen. It is not. Comets have twice the concentration of heavy hydrogen as oceans. Oceans have 10–50 times the concentration as the solar system and interstellar matter.

Detailed analyses have long shown that neither stars nor planets could form from interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by first forming dust particles or by direct gravitational collapse of the gas, would require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. An obvious alternative is that stars and planets were created.

Hertzsprung-Russell

The theory of stellar evolution was developed by arranging (on paper) different types of stars according to their color and absolute brightness—what is called a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. A physical rationale was then devised for how stars changed from one portion of the diagram to another.  Astronomers recognize that all stars in each massive star cluster formed at about the same time, because the stellar wind from the first stars to form would have blown out of the tight cluster the raw material needed to form all the other stars in the cluster. Despite the same age for stars in a given cluster, the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram sometimes gives drastically different ages.

Single Sun; Moon and Fast Binaries

In our galaxy, about 60% of all stars are grouped in closely spaced pairs called binaries. Fortunately, our Sun does not have a binary partner. If it did, temperatures on Earth would vary too much to support life. The mutual gravitational attraction between stars in a binary pair causes them to orbit each other, just as the Moon orbits Earth.

Stellar evolutionists believe that stars slowly change from one type to another. However, scientists have never observed such changes, and many stars do not fit this pattern. According to stellar evolution, a typical star’s volume, late in its lifetime, expands to about a million times that of our Sun and finally collapses to become a small star about the size of Earth (a white dwarf) or even smaller (a neutron star). Only such tiny stars could have their centers 80,000 miles apart and still orbit each other. Obviously, these fast binary stars did not evolve from larger stars, because larger stars orbiting so closely would collide. If two stars cannot evolve into a condition that has them orbiting each other every 11 minutes, one wonders whether stars evolve at all. (King & Watson, ‘The Shortest Period Binary Star?’ Nature, Vol. 323, Sept. 1986; and Eberhart, ‘Now You See It, Now You Don’t,’ Science News, Vol. 135, Jan. 1989)

Ida, Canup, & Stewart, “Many models have been proposed for the formation of the Moon, but no one has succeeded in showing the formation satisfactorily.” Nature, V.389, 9/25/1997; thus Nafi Toksoz of M.I.T. said, “It’s far easier to explain why the moon shouldn’t be there than to explain its existence,” Science 81, 3/81.

STARS

In 1995, NASA claimed that they had pictures of hundreds of stars forming.  Evolutionists claim that stars form from swirling clouds of dust and gas. For this to happen, vast amounts of energy, angular momentum, and residual magnetism must be removed from each cloud. This is not observed today, and astronomers and physicists have not explained, in an experimentally verifiable way, how it all could happen.  “The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.” (M. Harwit, Science, Vol. 231, March 1986)

The most luminous stars in our galaxy, called O stars, are “burning fuel” hundreds of thousands of times faster than our Sun. This is so rapid that they must be quite young on an evolutionary time scale. If these stars evolved, they should show easily measurable characteristics, such as extremely high rates of rotation and enormous magnetic fields. Because these characteristics are not observed, it seems quite likely these stars did not evolve. And, “No one has unambiguously observed material falling onto an embryonic star, which should be happening if the star is truly still forming…”  (I. Peterson, ‘The Winds of Starbirth,’ Science News, Vol. 137, June 1990)

If stars evolve, star births should about equal star deaths. Within our Milky Way Galaxy alone, about one star dies each year and becomes an expanding cloud of gas and dust. (Balick & Frank, ‘The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars,’ Scientific American, Vol. 291, July 2004)  The less frequent deaths of more massive stars are much brighter, more violent explosions called supernovas. Star births, on the other hand, would appear as new starlight not present on the many photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments which can detect dust falling into and forming supposedly new stars have not done so. “No one has caught a molecular cloud in the act of collapsing.” (Peterson, Ibid. ‘Winds of Starbirth;’ and F. Whipple, The Mystery of Comets, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985) Actually, stars that some astronomers believe are very new are expelling matter. We have seen hundreds of stars die, but we have never seen a star born. (E. Hand, ‘Mega-Array Reveals Birthplace of Giant Stars,’ Nature, Vol. 492, Dec. 2012)

Moreover, stars could not have evolved in globular clusters, where up to a million stars occupy a relatively small volume of space. Wind and radiation pressure from the first star in the cluster to evolve would have blown away most of the gas needed to form the other stars in the cluster.  In other words, if stars evolved, we should not see globular clusters, yet our galaxy has about 200 globular clusters. To pack so many stars that tightly together requires that they all came into existence about the same time. (J. Turner, ‘An Extragalactic Supernebula,’ Nature, Vol. 423, June 2003)

A similar problem exists for stars that are more than 20 times more massive than our Sun. After a star grew to 20 solar masses, it would exert so much radiation pressure and emit so much stellar wind that additional mass could not be pulled in to allow it to grow. (E. Young, ‘Cloudy with a Chance of Stars…,’ Scientific American, Vol. 302, Feb. 2010)

Many stars are heavier than a hundred suns. Black holes are millions to billions of times more massive than the Sun. Poor logic is involved in arguing for stellar evolution, which is assumed in estimating the ages of stars. These ages are then used to establish a framework for stellar evolution.  That is circular reasoning.  The fact is “we don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” (Carlos Frenk, quoted in ‘Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,’ Science, Vol. 303, March 2004)

Other Quotes / Conclusion below

 “Our conclusions, then, are that the sequence of the classification of galaxies is not an evolutionary sequence …” Paul W. Hodge, The Physics and Astronomy of Galaxies and Cosmology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966)

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

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

“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, January 1983

Fifty cosmologists attended a conference on galaxy formation. After summarizing much observational data, two of the most respected authorities optimistically estimated the probability that any existing theory on galaxy formation is correct is about 1 out of 100. See P. J. E. Peebles and Joseph Silk, “A Cosmic Book,” Nature, Vol. 335, October 1988

Chemicals would not have survived their half-life do to the Heat of a theoretical Big Bang.  Nevertheless, as Roman philosopher Lucretius argued more than 2,000 years ago, “nothing can be created from nothing.”

Conclusion

A balloon on a table has all of the components necessary to be inflated: there is sufficient air to fill it and its latex makeup will allow it to expand and trap air. Yet, it doesn’t trap air and expand all by itself; someone must come up with the idea of forcing the air into the balloon and then act to make that happen. An inflated balloon is an effect and the person pushing air into the balloon is the cause.  Similarly, it takes an intelligence to cause a change in timeless eternity.

I cannot diminish God, and you should not… it approaches at least unbelief or blasphemy; look at His names… at His works… the heavens and the earth declares them.  Come let us reason together, if we say God is the Creator and architect of the Universe, with our Lord Jesus Christ, then once we say the Lord God need any form of help, by time or space or matter or evolution, then we say He is not Omnipotent, He is not the Almighty – what are these things to God – He is in all things and controls all things including time and matter… but some may say He put it into motion, first that is not what ALL of His prophets and disciples declared, thus His Word would be a lie and He a liar if so; so, that theory is wrong.  But more important is the fact that anything short of saying He spoke things into existence goes beyond godly wisdom and knowledge and moves into leaning on human experience and mortal understanding and misunderstands and denies God’s awesome and eternal powers.

The UNIVERSE: Understanding NUMBERS and Reason

14 Billion Years – how so; you start simply enough using basic math, but with much speculation.  t = D ÷ c.  That is Time (in years) equals Distance (of farthest star) divided by the speed of light.  Thus, according to gsfc.nasa.gov is “13 billion light years… comes out to approximately 123,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 km.”     Thus, simply by using point A to point B map, the Milky Way is said to be 150,000 light-years across.   And some say the Universe is a sphere of about 100 billion light-years.  Nevertheless, Newton said nothing is faster than the speed of light, which is the speed at which electromagnetic radiation propagates in a vacuum or 186,282 miles per second.  Ok so a Trillion is 10 to the 12th power; and a Sextillion is or 123 sextillion kilometers or about   miles.

Now, so we know a few things – roughly.  We know that the Universe is big; and for argument sake let’s use 3 different numbers: 76 sextillion miles, 500 sextillion miles, and a Googolplex (which is more than number of particles in the universe) so let’s just say infinity wide.  So using infinity the equation would be the universe is ∞t = ∞D ÷ c.   We also know the speed of light – in a vacuum anyway.  So we know speculative distances and the speed of light; but don’t get caught up in the distances – just understand it’s amazingly omnipotently big.

So, we are rational Christians, we do not argue we the fact the Universe is big and the speed of light is fast but constant.  But now, come let us reason together.  Ok, let’s say I hire you (and a civil engineer) to come to my city’s water treatment plant.  We tell you we are using DN600 or 24 inch pipe and running it 100,000 feet at a flow rate of about 23 gallons per second or a velocity of 1 foot per second.  And we ask you 2 questions.  FIRST, how many seconds will it take for water to travel from the plant to the 100,000 feet at the end of the plant?  Well your civil engineer says, that’s easy enough you already provided the answer 100,000 x 1’ per second or 100 thousand seconds or about 27.8 hours.

So we say great, that confirms the answer to our first question.  Now, for the second question, exactly how old is that water line based on those facts?  The civil engineer says, respectfully sir; the time in which it takes for the water to flow from one end of your pipe to the other – tells nothing and has absolutely nothing to do with how old the SYSTEM itself is!  If you assume that the System was built a second before the water reaches the end of the pipe today – then I say it’s about 28 hours old.    But unless you can be like God and speak that water pipe and the pumping system into existence in would say it’s at least years old and somewhere in the mid to late 20th century base on known facts.

But here we are speaking of stars out to an unknown distance.  So we know how long it takes for the speed of light to travel, but that does not tell us when the SYSTEM of the Universe began.  By secular standards denying God and a first cause in favor of ridiculous speculation it could be from 13 billion years to infinity.  But by truth and the word of God, it is between 5,760 according to the Jewish calendar and Hebrew Bible and up to about 6,000 years according to James Usher and others.   We know by history that the first recorded dynasties were about 4 to 5 thousand years ago and we know that even secular anthropologists tell us that about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago civilization began in Mesopotamia that is in the Fertile Crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates as described in Genesis.  Thus, based on these facts, of course the Universe could have been spoken into existence by God less than 6,000 years ago.  The things within the universe vary in age based on how He created them – so you tell me an asteroid – which cannot be Carbon dated because it is not a living thing – is a billion years old – what do I care – what is it to God; He spoke the material into existence as an actual and appearingly old rock – it still only took Him a millisecond to do it.  (2 Peter 3:5: “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water.”)

also see: INSTANTANEOUS CREATION: Part I

%d bloggers like this: