Science Disproves Evolution
Pah...@gmail.com
Helium-2 Nebulas. Clouds of glowing, blue gas, called helium-2
nebulas, have been set aglow by something hot enough to strip two
electrons from each helium atom. No known star—young or old—is hot
enough to do so (16), but compressed conditions before the heavens
were stretched out would do this.
Dark “Science.” The big bang theory must invoke unscientific
concepts, such as “dark matter” and “dark energy,” to try to explain
the “stretched out heavens.” What is dark matter and dark energy? Even
believers in those ideas don’t know (17).
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB is often given as evidence
for the big bang theory. Actually, that radiation, when studied
closely, is a strong argument against the big bang and evidence for
the sudden creation of matter within an immense universe.
16. “Hotter stars ‘are not predicted by normal stellar evolution, so
the presence of the He II nebulas is a bit of a mystery’ comments
Garnett ...” Donald R. Garnett, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Gorgeous
Gas,” Science News, Vol. 163, 24 May 2003, p. 328.
17. “No one knows what dark matter is, but they know what it is not.
It’s not part of the ‘standard model’ of physics that weaves together
everything that is known about ordinary matter and its interactions.”
Jenny Hogan, “Welcome to the Dark Side,” Nature, Vol. 448, 19 July
2007, p. 241.
“We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe its
components, ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy,’ serve mainly as
expressions of our ignorance.” David B. Cline, “The Search for Dark
Matter,” Scientific American, Vol. 288, March 2003, p. 52.
Summary
With both the big bang and stretching explanations, it is difficult to
imagine time beginning, the sudden presence of matter and energy in a
small universe, a brief period when laws of physics did not operate,
and space expanding. The big bang theory says that space expanded for
a brief fraction of a second from a mathematical point—trillions of
billions of times faster than the speed of light today. The stretching
theory says that a much smaller universe than we have today was
rapidly stretched out, along with the matter and light in that space.
Although no scientific explanation can be given for either form of
expansion, we can see which explanation fits the observable evidence.
We also can appreciate why at least eleven Bible passages, involving
five different writers, mention the “stretched out heavens.” Another
verse, Psalm 19:1, takes on a new depth of meaning: “The heavens are
telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work
of His hands.”
Ken
same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
them
Pah...@gmail.com
In the late 1920s, evolutionists believed that the universe was 2
billion years (b.y.) old. Later, radiometric dating techniques gave
much older ages for certain rocks on Earth (1). Obviously, a part of
the universe cannot be older than the universe itself. This
contradiction was soon removed by devising a rationale for increasing
the age of the universe.
Similar problems are now widely acknowledged. If a big bang occurred,
it happened 13.7 b.y. ago. If stars evolved, some stars are 16 b.y.
old, such as the stars in the globular cluster called M13 (2).
Obviously, stars cannot be older than the universe. Also, the Hubble
Space Telescope has found distant galaxies whose age, based on big
bang assumptions, exceeds the age of the universe (3).
1. Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History (Buffalo, New York:
Prometheus Books, 1987), pp. 102, 129.
2. Ivan R. King, “Globular Clusters,” Scientific American, Vol. 252,
June 1985, pp. 79–88.
3. Robert C. Kennicutt Jr., “An Old Galaxy in a Young Universe,”
Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 555–556.
James Dunlop, “A 3.5-Gyr-Old Galaxy at Redshift 1.55,” Nature, Vol.
381, 13 June 1996, pp. 581–584.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1573636
Ken
Sirius
> How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is? 1
I had once a look at the website passed in reference.
It is a promotion for a book advocating that the bible is to be
interpreted litterally and that the world is about 5000 years old.
Pahu78 post small chunks of this nonsense. For sure he never reads the
answers or the objections to his posts. If he did he would have to
understand what he says.
For example, how can he explain that antartic ice cap drillings already
reached more than 650.000 annual snow caps ?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-
greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
Richard Anacker
Sirius schrieb:
> Pahu78 post small chunks of this nonsense. For sure he never reads the
> answers or the objections to his posts. If he did he would have to
> understand what he says.
And therefore he lives in my shitfile. Why should I read his crap if he
doesn't read mine?
--
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two
Pah...@gmail.com
Let’s suppose that the universe is 13.7 b.y. old. That is not enough
time for stars containing heavy chemical elements to form and then
transmit their light to Earth. A big bang would have produced only
hydrogen, helium, and lithium—the three lightest chemical elements.
Light from the most distant stars and galaxies shows that they contain
much heavier chemical elements such as carbon, iron, and lead—elements
that could not have been in the first generation of stars to form
after the big bang. Evolutionists, therefore, believe that the hundred
or so heavier chemical elements (97% of all chemical elements) were
produced either deep inside stars or when some stars exploded as
supernovas. Much later, a second generation of stars supposedly formed
with the heavy elements from that exploded debris.
In other words, a big bang would produce only the three lightest
chemical elements. Therefore, big bang advocates have struggled to
explain the origin of the heavier chemical elements (carbon, oxygen,
iron, lead etc.). To squeeze enough hydrogen nuclei together to form
some heavier elements would require the high temperatures inside
stars. Theoretically, to form elements heavier than iron requires
something much hotter—a supernova.
So, if a big bang happened, there would not be enough time afterward
to:
a. Form the first generation of stars out of hydrogen, helium, and
lithium.
b. Have many of those stars quickly (4) pass through their complete
life cycles then finally explode as supernovas to produce the heavier
chemical elements.
c. Recollect, somehow, enough of that exploded debris to form the
second generation of stars. (Some were quasars thought to be powered
by black holes, billions of times more massive than our Sun!
d. Transmit the light from these heavy elements to Earth, immense
distances away.
4. For this to happen quickly, evolutionists must assume that the
first stars were giants, more than a hundred times larger than the
Sun. (Theoretically, more massive stars would burn faster.) Thus,
textbooks confidently say that the first stars were giants.
No one knows that the first stars were giants. It’s a required
assumption if stars evolved. In fact, characteristics of the light we
should see from the first generation of evolved stars is missing. [See
Piero Madau, “Trouble at First Light,” Nature, Vol. 440, 20 April
2006, pp. 1002–1003.]
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1573636
Cj
news:fbc0ac3d-4852-468b...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1573636
Your knowledge of physics is on a par with your understanding of biology.
Cj
Ken
Pah...@gmail.com
New and sophisticated light-gathering instruments have enabled
astronomers to discover heavy elements in many extremely distant
galaxies (5) and quasars (6). One such galaxy has a quasar at its
center (7). If the speed of light has been constant, its light has
taken 94% of the age of the universe to reach us. This means that only
the first 6% of the age of the universe would have been available for
events a–c above. (Only 0.8 b.y. would be available in a 13.7-b.y.-old
universe.) Few astronomers believe that such slow processes as a–c
above, if they happened at all, could happen in 0.8 b.y. (8).
5. James Glanz, “CO in the Early Universe Clouds Cosmologists’ Views,”
Science, Vol. 273, 2 August 1996, p. 581.
“The presence of these [25] elements, particularly those heavier than
iron, in such a young [distant] galaxy is striking. Fundamentally, it
seems to indicate that in the galaxies (or at least in this galaxy)
that formed relatively shortly after the Big Bang, the onset of star
formation and related element production was very rapid.” John Cowan,
“Elements of Surprise,” Nature, Vol. 423, 1 May 2003, p. 29.
Jason X. Prochaska et al., “The Elemental Abundance Pattern in a
Galaxy at z=2.626,” Nature, Vol. 423, 1 May 2003, pp. 57–59.
6. “According to standard models [all based on the big bang theory],
the first stars needed at least 500 million years to begin lighting up
and another 700 million to 1 billion years to manufacture heavy
elements such as iron and spread them through space. [Wolfram]
Freudling therefore expected that gas around the quasars, which were
shining when the universe was just 900 million years old, would be
metal-free. [Astronomers call the hundred or so heavier chemical
elements “metals.”] Instead, he and his colleagues found the quasars
are surrounded by copious amounts of iron.” Kathy A. Svitil, “Signs of
Primordial Star Ignition Detected,” Discover, January 2004, p. 66.
“... quasar environments are metal rich at all red shifts.” F. Hamann
et al., “Quasar Elemental Abundances and Host Galaxy Evolution,”
Origin and Evolution of the Elements, Vol. 4, editors A. McWilliam and
M. Rauch (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.
12.
Ohta et al., “Detection of Molecular Gas in the Quasar BR 1202-0725 at
Redshift z = 4.69,” Nature, Vol. 382, 1 August 1996, pp. 426–431.
“First, the chemical composition of quasars hints at early
enrichments, indicative of star formation. Emission lines in the
quasar spectrum can be used to measure their abundance of heavy
elements, or ‘metallicity.’ Luminous, high-redshift quasars have
roughly solar or higher metallicity, even at redshifts > 6, indicating
that they existed in a metal-rich environment similar to that found in
the centers of massive galaxies.” Xiaohui Fan, “Black Holes at the
Cosmic Dawn,” Science, Vol. 300, 2 May 2003, p. 752.
7. Fabian Walter et al., “Molecular Gas in the Host Galaxy of a Quasar
at Redshift z=6.42,” Nature, Vol. 424, 24 July 2003, pp. 406–408.
8. Jeff Kanipe, “Galaxies at the Confusion Limit,” Astronomy, December
1988, pp. 56–58.
R. F. Carswell, “Distant Galaxy Observed,” Nature, Vol. 335, 8
September 1988, p. 119.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1573636
Ken
Pah...@gmail.com
Evolutionists can undoubtedly resolve these time contradictions—but at
the cost of rejecting some cherished belief. Perhaps they will accept
the possibility that light traveled much faster in the past.
Measurements exist which support this revolutionary idea. Maybe they
will conclude that the big bang never occurred, or that heavy elements
were somehow in the first and only generation of stars, or that stars
degrade, but new stars don’t evolve. Much evidence supports each of
these ideas, and all are consistent with a recent creation.
Few evolutionists are aware of these contradictions. However, as more
powerful telescopes begin peering even farther into space, these
problems will worsen and more attention will be focused on them. If
scientists find, as one might expect, even more distant stars and
galaxies with heavy elements, problems with the claimed age of the
universe will no longer be the secret of a few evolutionists (9).
9. Dietrick E. Thomsen, “Farthest Galaxy Is Cosmic Question,” Science
News, Vol. 133, 23 April 1988, pp. 262–263.
M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Farthest Galaxies: A New Champion,” Science,
Vol. 241, 19 August 1988, p. 905.
Dietrick E. Thomsen, “Galaxies in a Primitive State,” Science News,
Vol. 133, 23 January 1988, p. 52.
M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Pushing Back the Redshift Limit,” Science, Vol.
239, 12 February 1988, pp. 727–728.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1573636
Pah...@gmail.com
Ken
Sirius
> How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is? 4
>
> Evolutionists can undoubtedly resolve these time contradictions—but at
> the cost of rejecting some cherished belief. Perhaps they will accept
> the possibility that light traveled much faster in the past.
If my aunt had some, they would have called him uncle.
I suppose you have some evidence to support your conjecture ? Can you
give some valid reference (not in a gospel, not on creationscience or its
subsidiaries).
> will conclude that the big bang never occurred, or that heavy elements
> were somehow in the first and only generation of stars, or that stars
> degrade, but new stars don’t evolve. Much evidence supports each of
> these ideas, and all are consistent with a recent creation.
Even if there is some glitches in some cosmogonic theories, your
conclusion that it proves what you call "recent creation" is far from
convincing.
>
Sirius
> How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is? 4
>
> Evolutionists can undoubtedly resolve these time contradictions—but at
> the cost of rejecting some cherished belief. Perhaps they will accept
> the possibility that light traveled much faster in the past.
> Measurements exist which support this revolutionary idea. Maybe they
> will conclude that the big bang never occurred, or that heavy elements
> were somehow in the first and only generation of stars, or that stars
> degrade, but new stars don’t evolve. Much evidence supports each of
> these ideas, and all are consistent with a recent creation.
>
Some reference to accepted observations or theories substantiating what
you say ?
Never heard of anyone.
Evolution is a biological theory. Electromagnetics (speed of ligh) is
physics. Do you suspect that physicist, from all countries and all
philosophical believing to have agreed to conceal so an important theory
as yours just to help biologist to falsifiate some theory ? Don't you know
that many biologist are theist, and that they consider that the evolution
theory is valid. And that an important proportion of physicists are theist
too, and they are completely sure that what you call "recent creation" is
surely false.
Your so called "creation science" is making you laughable.
Sciences and philosophy have nothing to say about creation, except that if
there have been one, it was at least ten billon years ago. Not really
recent.
Pah...@gmail.com
b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity
of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse
types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for
evolution.
One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in
fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-
Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]
Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size,
extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very
early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated
designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only
the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some
trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all
directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton,
“A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19
September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat
of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd
edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.]
Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye
lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes:
An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2
February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early
trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or
acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear
‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of
the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,”
Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]
The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part
of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of
a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that
acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of
nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array
of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists
had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once
again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.”
Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August
2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed
today’s technology.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873
Ken
BTW----The only time creationism and science should EVER be used in
the same sentence is when the words "IS NOT" has been inserted between
them
Pah...@gmail.com
c. “To my mind the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious
object in the whole universe and no geologic period seems too long to
allow for its natural evolution.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, an
influential evolutionist speaking to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science in December 1929, as told by Roger Lewin, Bones
of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1987), p. 57. [Even
greater capabilities of the brain have been discovered since 1929.
Undoubtedly, more remain.]
“And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the
most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.” Isaac
Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break
Even,” Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10.
Asimov forgot that the brain, and presumably most of its details, is
coded by only a fraction of an individual’s DNA. Therefore, it would
be more accurate to say that DNA is the most complex and orderly
arrangement of matter known in the universe.
The human brain is frequently likened to a supercomputer. In most
respects the brain greatly exceeds any computer’s capabilities. Speed
is one area where the computer beats the brain—at least in some ways.
For example, few of us can quickly multiply 0.0239 times 854.95. This
task is called a floating point operation, because the decimal point
“floats” until we (or a computer) decide where to place it. The number
of floating point operations per second (FLOPS) is a measure of a
computer’s speed. As of this writing, an IBM computer can achieve
3,000 trillion FLOPS (3 petaFLOPS). One challenge is to prevent these
superfast computers from overheating. Too much electrically generated
heat is dissipated in too small a volume.
Overall, the human brain seems to operate at petaFLOPS speeds—without
overheating. One knowledgeable observer on these ultrafast computers
commented:
“The human brain itself serves, in some sense, as a proof of concept
[that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of
neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the
whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of
power. That’s a hard act to follow.” Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers:
Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol.
147, 15 April 1995, p. 235.
How, then, could the brain have evolved?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873
Ken
sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between them
Pah...@gmail.com
An adult human brain contains over 10^14 (a hundred thousand billion)
electrical connections (d), more than all the soldered electrical
connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will
operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is
another engineering marvel (e).
d. “The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve
cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten
thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes
contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total
number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a
thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific
connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.”
Denton, pp. 330–331.
“... the human brain probably contains more than 10^14 synapses ...”
Deborah M. Barnes, “Brain Architecture: Beyond Genes,” Science, Vol.
233, 11 July 1986, p. 155.
e. Marlyn E. Clark, Our Amazing Circulatory System, Technical
Monograph No. 5 (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873