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
Errol
> 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.
So science is all fucked up then? They are forever disgraced and
should hang up their academic robes and slink off into the sunset.
(4.5 b.y old)
But God could be the explanation for this eery business.
God has a different perspective of time than we mere mortals (See
section titled "the mysterious ways of God")
> Also, the Hubble
> Space Telescope has found distant galaxies whose age, based on big
> bang assumptions, exceeds the age of the universe (3).
Oops forgot those there from a previous cycle of the universe
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