Science Disproves Evolution

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:18 pm

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and......

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:03 am

Earth: The Water Planet 2

Did comets or meteorites deliver Earth’s water? Although comets contain considerable water (b), comets did not provide much of the Earth’s water, because comet water contains too much heavy hydrogen, relatively rare in Earth’s oceans. Comets also contain too much argon. If comets provided only 1% of Earth’s water, then our atmosphere should have 400 times more argon than it does (c). The few types of meteorites that contain water

also have too much heavy hydrogen (d). [Pages 278–333 explain why comets and some types of meteorites contain so much water and heavy hydrogen. Pages 337–383 explain why comets have so much argon. Heavy hydrogen is described on page 286.]

These observations have caused some to conclude that water was transported from the outer solar system to Earth by objects that no longer exist (e). If so, many of these “water tankers” should have collided with the other inner planets (Mercury, Venus, and Mars), producing water characteristics similar to those of Earth. In fact, their water characteristics are not like those of Earth (f). Instead of imagining “water tankers” that conveniently disappeared, perhaps we should ask if the Earth was created with its water already present.

a. “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun.” Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens?” Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.

b. The water content of Comet Tempel 1 was 38% by mass. [See Endnote 4 on page 300.]

c. “Hence, if comets like Hale-Bopp brought in the Earth’s water, they would have brought in a factor of 40,000 times more argon than is presently in the atmosphere.” T. D. Swindle and D. A. Kring, “Implications of Noble Gas Budgets for the Origin of Water on Earth and Mars,” Eleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference, Abstract No. 3785 (Houston: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 20–24 May 2001). [To learn how comets probably collected argon, see Endnote 31 on page 302.]

d. “Oxygen, D/H and Os [osmium] isotopic ratios all...rule out extant meteoritic material as sources of the Earth’s water.” Michael J. Drake and Kevin Righter, “Determining the Composition of the Earth,” Nature, Vol. 416, 7 March 2002, p. 42.

D/H is the ratio of heavy hydrogen (also called deuterium, or D) to normal hydrogen (H). Drake and Righter give many other reasons why meteorites could not have provided much of Earth’s water.

e. “If existing objects in space couldn’t have combined to make Earth’s unique mix of water and other elements, the planet must have formed from—and entirely depleted—an ancient supply of water-rich material that has no modern analog, Drake and Righter argue.” Harder, p. 185.

f. “If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found.” Ibid.

After reading pages 278–333, you will see that the water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids—as well as some water detected elsewhere in the inner solar system—came primarily from the subterranean water chambers. During the flood, this subterranean water mixed with Earth’s surface water, giving our surface water different isotope characteristics from water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids.

“The carrier’s elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system....it doesn’t seem geochemically plausible...” Ibid., p. 186.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:08 am

Molten Earth? 1

For decades, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment (a). If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over (b). Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface (c). Therefore, the entire Earth was never molten and did not form by meteoritic bombardment.

a. “The textbook view that the earth spent its first half a billion years drenched in magma could be wrong.” John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth?” Scientific American, Vol. 294, October 2005, p. 59.

b. “The kinetic energy (~5 x 10^38 ergs) released in the largest impacts (1.5 x 10^27 g at 9 km/sec) would be several times greater than that required to melt the entire Earth.” George W. Wetherill, “Occurrence of Giant Impacts during the Growth of the Terrestrial Planets,” Science, Vol. 228, 17 May 1985, p. 879.

c. If gold were found only near volcanoes, then one might claim that gold was brought up to the Earth’s surface by volcanoes. However, gold is seldom found near volcanoes.

Suppose that extremely hot water (932°F or 500°C) circulated under the crust—a crust that had never been molten. Gold in high concentrations could go into solution. If the solution then came up to the Earth’s surface fast enough, little gold would precipitate as the water’s pressure dropped. If this happened, about 250 cubic miles of water must have burst forth to account for the gold found in just one gold mining region in Canada. [See Robert Kerrich, “Nature’s Gold Factory,” Science, Vol. 284, 25 June 1999, pp. 2101–2102.] If these ideal pressure-temperature conditions did not exist, even more water must come up faster to account for the Earth’s gold deposits. These are hardly the slow processes that evolutionists visualize. On pages 108–139 and 429–433, you will see how, why, and when vast amounts of hot water burst up through faults.

About 40% of all gold mined in the world is from the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa. This gold, deposited in compressional fractures within the basin, precipitated from water whose temperature exceeded 300°C. [See A. C. Barnicoat et al., “Hydrothermal Gold Mineralization in the Witwatersrand Basin,” Nature, Vol. 386, 24 April 1997, pp. 820–824.]

Robert R. Loucks and John A. Mavrogenes, “Gold Solubility in Supercritical Hydrothermal Brines Measured in Synthetic Fluid Inclusions,” Science, Vol. 284, 25 June 1999, pp. 2159–2163.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:47 pm

littleCJelkton;1387415 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and......

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:30 am

Molten Earth? 2

Radioactive dating of certain zircon minerals also contradicts a molten Earth. Trace elements within those zircons show that the zircons formed on a cold Earth (less than 212°F) (d). However, based on radioactive dating, those zircons formed billions of years ago when, according to evolutionists, the Earth should have been molten (exceeding 1,800°F)—an obvious contradiction. Either the molten Earth idea or the radioactive dating method must be wrong; perhaps both are wrong.

Meteorites contain much more of the element xenon than Earth’s surface rocks, relative to other noble (inert) gases such as helium, neon, and argon. Had Earth formed by meteoritic bombardment, Earth’s surface rocks would have a different composition, and our atmosphere would contain up to ten times more xenon than it has (e). If Earth did not evolve by meteoritic bombardment, it may have begun as one large body. [See “Melting the Inner Earth” on pages 518–521.]

d. John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth?” Scientific American, Vol. 294, October 2005, pp. 58–65.

e. “Meteorites, he notes, contain 10 times as much xenon, relative to other noble gasses, than occurs in Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the relative abundance of xenon isotopes found in meteorites doesn’t jibe with the pattern found on Earth. If meteorites did deliver most of the water to our planet, they also would have provided xenon, and our atmosphere would have to have a very different composition, Owen maintains.” Ron Cowen, “Found: Primordial Water,” Science News, Vol. 156, 30 October 1999, p. 285.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:29 am

littleCJelkton;1387495 wrote:

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1387495]Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:15 pm

Evolving Planets? 1

Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from just the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the Sun. (a). Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational attraction than they are to be permanently pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together (b). (Similar difficulties exist in trying to form a moon from particles orbiting a planet.)

Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet” by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling (c).

a. Very special conditions are required to capture and then merge orbiting bodies. They are discussed more fully starting on page 281.

b. John F. Kerridge and James F. Vedder, “An Experimental Approach to Circumsolar Accretion,” Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), pp. 282–283.

“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54.

c. Tim Folger, “This Battered Earth,” Discover, January 1994, p. 33.

“‘We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ‘that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, prograde rotation just can’t be explained,’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.” Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,” Science, Vol. 258, 23 October 1992, p. 548.

Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, “Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?” Science, Vol. 259, 15 January 1993, pp. 350–354.

Some believe that the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) gained their spins through a few very large and improbable impacts. However, this appeal to large or improbable impacts will not work for the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), which have the most spin energy. Such impacts on these gaseous planets would be even more improbable, because they move more slowly and are so far from the center of the solar system. Besides, impacts from large rocks would not account for the composition of the giant planets—basically hydrogen and helium.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:09 am

littleCJelkton;1387560 wrote:

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1387560]Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

littleCJelkton;1387560 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:05 pm

Evolving Planets? 2

The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d):

a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets.

b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, several times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)

c. Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists say are young—do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f).

Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. [See “Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?” on page 418.]

Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.

d. “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.

“Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn—the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass—and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.” Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,” Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.

e. This idea has a further difficulty. If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter’s orbit, why didn’t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today?

f. B. Zuckerman et al., “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars,” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, pp. 494–496.

g. “In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, [what evolutionists believe is] the lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’” Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.

Renu Malhotra, “Chaotic Planet Formation,” Nature, Vol. 402, 9 December 1999, pp. 599–600.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:37 am

Planetary Rings

Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune (a). Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved (b).

Figure 24: Planetary Rings. The rings of Saturn, Uranus, and Jupiter (left to right) are forming today and steadily breaking up. Rings are not composed of debris remaining after planets evolved.

Actually, rings have nothing to do with a planet’s origin. Rings form when material is expelled from a moon by a volcano, a geyser, or the impact of a comet or meteorite (c). Debris that escapes a moon because of its weak gravity and a giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished, they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years (d). Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.

a. William K. Hartmann, Moons and Planets, 3rd edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993), p. 143.

b. Similar faulty logic claims that, because we see comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, the solar system must have evolved.

c. “Geysers on Enceladus replenish the E ring.” Richard A. Kerr, “At Last, a Supportive Parent for Saturn’s Youngest Ring,” Science, Vol. 309, 9 September 2005, p. 1660.

“Saturn’s moons are bombarded by comets or micro-meteoroids. Those collisions knock off ice particles and send them into orbit around Saturn, forming rings.” Ron Cowen, “Ring Shots,” Science News, Vol. 170, 21 October 2006, p. 263.

This has also been observed for Jupiter’s rings. Jupiter has a few moons large enough to be hit frequently by meteoroids or comets, small enough to have little gravity so the debris can escape the moon, and close enough to Jupiter that tidal effects can spread the moon’s debris into rings. [See Ron Cowen, “Mooning Over the Dust Rings of Jupiter,” Science News, Vol. 154, 12 September 1998, pp. 182–183. See also Gretchen Vogel, “Tiny Moon Source of Jupiter’s Ring,” Science, Vol. 281, 25 September 1998, p. 1951.]

d. “Yet nonstop erosion poses a difficult problem for the very existence of Saturn’s opaque rings—the expected bombardment rate would pulverize the entire system in only 10,000 years! Most of this material is merely redeposited elsewhere in the rings, but even if only a tiny fraction is truly lost (as ionized vapor, for example), it becomes a real trick to maintain the rings since the formation of the solar system [as imagined by evolutionists].” Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Ringed Planets: Still Mysterious—II,” Sky & Telescope, Vol. 69, January 1985, p. 22.

Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Saturn: Jewel of the Solar System,” The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp. 12–15.

Also, water in Saturn’s rings is rapidly ionized and transported along magnetic lines to certain latitudes on Saturn. The Hubble Space Telescope has detected this water concentration in Saturn’s atmosphere. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Slow Leak Seen in Saturn’s Rings,” Science, Vol. 274, 29 November 1996, p. 1468.]

Richard A. Simpson and Ellis D. Miner, “Uranus: Beneath That Bland Exterior,” The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp. 16–18.

“Saturn’s rings (as well as the recently discovered ring system around Uranus) are unstable, therefore recent formations.” S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky, “Comets and the Cosmogony of the Solar System,” Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, editor A. H. Delsemme (Toledo, Ohio: The University of Toledo, 1977), p. 473.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:29 am

littleCJelkton;1387830 wrote:

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1387830]Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

littleCJelkton;1387830 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

littleCJelkton;1387830 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:35 am

Pahu.

Can you give us a concise definition of "Evolution"?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:55 am

Origin of the Moon

Evolutionary theories for the origin of the Moon are highly speculative and completely inadequate (a). The Moon could not have spun off from Earth, because its orbital plane is too highly inclined. Nor could it have formed from the same material as Earth, because the relative abundances of its elements are too dissimilar from those of Earth (b). The Moon’s nearly circular orbit is also strong evidence that it was never torn from nor captured by Earth (c). If the Moon formed from particles orbiting Earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the Moon’s orbit; none are.

Some claim that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor. If so, many small moons should have formed (d). The impactor’s glancing blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast (e). Besides, part of Earth’s surface and mantle would have melted, but none of the indicators of that melting have been found (f). Also, small particles splashed from Earth would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. However, Apollo astronauts found on the Moon tiny glass beads that had erupted as molten material from inside the Moon but had dissolved water inside! The total amount of water that was once inside the moon probably equaled that in the Caribbean Sea (g).

These explanations have many other problems. Understanding them caused one expert to joke, “The best explanation [for the Moon] was observational error—the Moon does not exist (h).” Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other (almost 200) known moons in the solar system.

But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was created in its present orbit. [See “Evolving Planets?” on page 30, and “Moon Recession,” “Moon Dust and Debris,” and “Hot Moon” on page 40.]

a. “The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative.” Robert C. Haymes, Introduction to Space Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), p. 209.

On 10 November 1971, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning chemist and lunar scientist, stated “I do not know the origin of the moon, I’m not sure of my own or any other’s models, I’d lay odds against any of the models proposed being correct.” Robert Treash, “Magnetic Remanence in Lunar Rocks,” Pensee, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 1972, p. 22.

“In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.” David W. Hughes, “The Open Question in Selenology,” Nature, Vol. 327, 28 May 1987, p. 291.

b. Haymes, p. 209.

c. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 77–79.

M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Origin of the Moon,” Science, Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606–607.

“If the Moon had separated from the Earth, it would either have broken away completely or returned, but it could not have gone into orbit.” Stacey, p. 38.

d. “We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.” Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.

e. “...no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.” Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Nature, No. 2, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.

f. “A collision big and hot enough to yield the moon’s magma ocean would have melted at least part of Earth’s surface as well. But geologists could not find any evidence that the mantle had ever melted. If it had, they expected to find that iron-loving elements such as nickel, tungsten, and cobalt had been drawn from Earth’s upper layers into its iron core. Instead, the concentration of iron-loving elements, called siderophiles, remains relatively high in Earth’s mantle. And other elements that should have segregated in a liquid mantle were instead commingled.” Karen Wright, “Where Did the Moon Come From?” Discover, Vol. 24, February 2003, pp. 65–66.

g. “This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says [Erik] Hauri. ‘It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,’ he says. ‘That’s a really, really difficult knot to untie.’ ” Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, “Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past,” Glass Beads From Moon Hint Of Watery Past : NPR, 12 July 2008. [See Endnote 60 on page 304.]

h. Jack J. Lissauer, “It’s Not Easy to Make the Moon,” Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, pp. 327–328.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:13 pm

littleCJelkton;1387939 wrote:

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1387939]Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

littleCJelkton;1387939 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

littleCJelkton;1387939 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

littleCJelkton;1387939 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Oh' and Lars I have found Pahu has very little to contribute to this thread that is not a copy paste from Walt Brown so I would assume No

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:16 pm

littleCJelkton;1388054 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1388054]Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....littleCJelkton;1388054]Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

littleCJelkton;1388054 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

littleCJelkton;1388054 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....littleCJelkton;1388054]Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

littleCJelkton;1388054 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:33 am

Evolution of the Solar System?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:48 am

littleCJelkton;1388056 wrote:

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1388056]

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1388056]

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1388056]

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1388056]

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:36 am

Faint Young Sun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:54 pm

You're still spinning this, Pahu? Evolutionary theory makes no claims about cosmology other than to say it's evolved as does everything and everyone, including you.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:44 am

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]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:46 am

Wrong again , Pahu.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:25 am

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 ]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:45 am

Pahu;1389083 wrote:

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 ]They all just appeared. That's your theory, isn't it? Whether or not a magic man made them just appear is insignificant.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:25 am

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 ]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:22 am

Pahu;1389231 wrote:

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.How about some independent citations. I realize they're countless, or, at least beyond your counting ability, but five or six will do.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:55 am

Nope it is just copy paste

littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote:

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1388104]Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....

littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
littleCJelkton;1388104 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....
Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and.....[/QUOTE]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:57 am

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 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]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:58 am

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]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:37 am

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. www.cosmologystatement.org]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:40 am

littleCJelkton;1389264 wrote:

[QUOTE=littleCJelkton;1389264]Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....
littleCJelkton;1389264 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....
littleCJelkton;1389264 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....
littleCJelkton;1389264 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....
littleCJelkton;1389264 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....
littleCJelkton;1389264 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....
littleCJelkton;1389264 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....
littleCJelkton;1389264 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....littleCJelkton;1389264 wrote: Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....
Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:41 am

littleCJelkton;1390311 wrote: and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....and Round And Round and Round and Round and....

It just never stops does it

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:44 am

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 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]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:39 am

Big Bang? 5

Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB (j). [See pages 402–404.]

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

John Travis, “Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky,” Science, Vol. 263, 25 March 1994, p. 1684.

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

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

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

“The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the 2.7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very homogeneous in the beginning.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe Gets Larger—Maybe,” Science, Vol. 238, 13 November 1987, p. 894.

“The map’s most eye-catching feature is the Sloan Great Wall of galaxies, a clustering of galaxies that stretches 1.37 billion light-years across the sky and is the largest cosmic structure ever found. Astronomers worried that such a humongous structure, 80 percent bigger than the famous Great Wall of galaxies first discerned in a sky survey 2 decades ago, might violate the accepted model of galaxy evolution.” Ron Cowen, “Cosmic Survey,” Science News, Vol. 164, 1 November 2003, p. 276.

James Glanz, “Precocious Structures Found,” Science, Vol. 272, 14 June 1996, p. 1590.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:33 am

littleCJelkton;1390312 wrote: aroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddddddd, and aroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddddddd, and aroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddddddd, and aroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddddddd, and aroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddddddd, and
aroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:36 am

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

oooooooo oooooooooo

oooooooo oooooo

oooooooo ooooooo

nnnnnnn nnnnnnn

nnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnn

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

ddddddddddddddddd dddddddddddddddd

ddddddddddddd ddddddddddddd

ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

oooooo

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:44 am

littleCJelkton;1390901 wrote: oooooo

Poor guy ( looking sad ).

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:00 pm

no just a bunch of circles like this thread

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:52 am

Big Bang? 6

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

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

“ data are notoriously noisy, and the purported effect looks remarkably like an instrumental glitch: it appears only in one small area of the sky and on an angular scale close to the limit of the satellite’s resolution.” George Musser, “Skewing the Cosmic Bell Curve,” Scientific American, Vol. 281, September 1999, p. 28.

Slight errors or omissions in the many data processing steps could easily account for the faint signal.

Reported variations in the CMB spanned areas of the sky that were 100 or 1,000 times too broad to produce galaxies.

“... mysterious discrepancies have arisen between theory and observations ... It looks like inflation is getting into a major jam.” Glen D. Starkman and Dominik J. Schwarz, “Is the Universe Out of Tune?” Scientific American, Vol. 293, August 2005, pp. 49, 55.

The slight temperature variations (0.00003°C) detected have a strong statistical connection with the solar system. [Ibid., pp. 52–55.] They probably have nothing to do with a big bang.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:11 pm

o0O

littleCJelkton;1390977 wrote: no just a bunch of circles like this thread

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:40 am

Big Bang? 7

Helium. 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 (k). Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) (l) and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older” stars (m) contradicts the big bang theory.

k. “And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful without some ad hoc parameterization to ‘adjust’ predictions that otherwise would have been judged as failures.” Van Flandern, p. 33.

“It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances.” H. C. Arp et al., “The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View,” Nature, Vol. 346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.

“The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been predictions, but merely adjustments of theory (‘retrodictions’) to accommodate current data.” Mitchell, p. 7.

l. Steidl, pp. 207–208.

D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 149–155.

m. “Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers have detected a far greater abundance [a thousand times too much] of beryllium atoms than the standard Big Bang model predicts.” Ron Cowen, “Starlight Casts Doubt on Big Bang Details,” Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p. 151.

Gerard Gilmore et al., “First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17–21.

Ron Cowen, “Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the Elements,” Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286–287.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:04 am

Science and Religion should go hand in hand complementing for discoveries made by what religion finds to be proof of God`s existence. And science should not use the laboratory to disprove God`s existence. Instead of using the Hubble telescope why not use the electron microscope to probe what goes inside our human bodies and find the cure for diseases man has not been able to cure. God has explicitly told everyone the kingdom of God is from within not from without. Scientists can not find God in outer space by looking at a galaxy or universe. God is not there.

One who knows God knows the scientific conception of how the universe was born ( the big bang ) theorized by scientists and personal conception of how the universe manifested ( God`s glancing at His own effulgence ) in accordance with the Hindu scriptures are to be considered simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. An example is the spider & its web; the plants that come forth from the earth & hair growing on a human being.

This article disproves Evolution

I am the alpha & omega ( Rev 22:13)

When Jesus said he is the alpha ( 1st ) & omega ( last ), he was actually referring himself to a radioactive atom (spirit-soul) whose nuclei has spontaneously disintegrated & emitted alpha particles or electromagnetic rays during the process ( alpha decay )& Resurrection as an Omega ( baryon )-a subatomic hadron particle which have the symbols Ω

Jesus was trying to tell us that we are radioactive atoms (spirit-souls) which have decayed into the human form, aquatic animals, birds, etc after thousands of years of emitting alpha, beta & gamma rays.

Here`s an example how a 238U is transformed with a half live of 4.5 billion years to another atomic particle (thorium-234 )when it spontaneously emitted an alpha ray.

The natural decay chain of 238U,

decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years to thorium-234

which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 24 days to protactinium-234

which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 1.2 minutes to uranium-234

which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 240 thousand years to thorium-230

which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 77 thousand years to radium-226

which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 1.6 thousand years to radon-222

which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.8 days to polonium-218

which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.1 minutes to lead-214

which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 27 minutes to bismuth-214

which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 20 minutes to polonium-214

which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 160 microseconds to lead-210

which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 22 years to bismuth-210

which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 5 days to polonium-210

which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 140 days to lead-206, which is a stable nuclide.

Similarly when a man dies his soul ( an atomic particle) decays or migrates from one atom ( specie ) to another atom ( specie ) depending on the quality of the radiation it emitted from its past half life. Take a look at bismuth-210 with a half life of 22 days decays, through beta emission, with a half life of 5 days to polonium-210 which decays, through alpha emission, with a half life of 140 days to lead-206, a stable atom. But when a stable or dead atom transforms or becomes unstable emitting spontaneously an alpha, beta or gamma ray it`s called birth (reincarnation).

The alpha & omega of Jesus supports reincarnation & negates Darwin`s Theory of Evolution.

If God ( Om ) is an atomic particle emitting spontaneously (without cause ) an alpha ray. With a half life of billions of years, God transformed itself into another atomic particle emitting alpha, beta & gamma rays with a half life of 250,000 years. The result of these emissions activated stable (dead or dormant ) atoms into unstable ones and emitting alpha or beta rays as well decaying with a half life between 60-120 years transformed into a human being ( Caucasian, Asian, African, etc).

In other words, reincarnation is the transmigration of the soul in English. In Latin it means, " entering the flesh, " after death either as human being, animal or plant indicating the continuity of the soul not the flesh. In radioactive decay of atoms, emissions of alpha , beta or gamma rays from an atom say uranium-238 signifies it`s ageing with a half life of 4.5 billion years. That it has metamorphosed ( in the end ) to thorium-234, so on and so forth. If the soul is an atomic particle that has acquired a new body. My problem is I still do not have any information as to what atomic particle or nuclei an animal or human being represents.Humans and animals I realized if based on the alpha & omega theory are not evolving but transmigrating and mutating.

For example, a butterfly may produce offspring with new mutations. The majority of these mutations will have no effect; but one might change the color of one of the butterfly's offspring, making it harder (or easier) for predators to see. If this color change is advantageous, the chance of this butterfly surviving and producing its own offspring are a little better, and over time the number of butterflies with this mutation may form a larger percentage of the population. ( Taken from Wikipedia/ Mutation )

If God is an atomic particle (Om) emitting alpha ray spontaneously ( without cause ) God therefore can manifest itself in unlimited forms considering that God has no material body. A decaying atomic particle when it finally manifest a material form at birth say a human body, the evidence of the soul`s presence in the human body as an atomic particle can be proven by looking at an x-ray film of a human being. The picture you see on the x-ray film high lighted by radium is the soul`s consciousness ( radiation that has taken a form ). The origin of this consciousness according to the Vedic scriptures is the soul ( atomic particle ) located within the heart of everyone. Consciousness in other words is the (effulgence) emitted by a decaying atom which have transformed into another atomic form at birth. If however an atomic particle spontaneously ( without a cause ) emits an alpha rad ( Krishna/Christ consciousness ) at birth. The material form most likely it will acquire is an AVATAR

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:24 am

Big Bang? 8

A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and 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 has been found (n).

n. “One might expect Population III stars [stars with only hydrogen and helium and no heavier elements] to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the Sun) still to be burning their nuclear fuel. The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star.” Bernard Carr, “Where Is Population III?” Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, p. 829.

“Are there any stars older than Population II [i.e., Population III stars]? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe [i.e., the big bang theory] are correct....There is no statistically significant evidence for Population III objects [stars].” Leif J. Robinson, “Where Is Population III?” Sky and Telescope, July 1982, p. 20.

“Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy.” Robert Irion, “The Quest for Population III,” Science, Vol. 295, 4 January 2002, p. 66.

Supposedly, Population II stars, stars having slight amounts of some heavy elements, evolved after Population III stars. Predicted characteristics of Population II stars have never been observed.

“Spectral studies of ancient [Population II] stars in the Milky Way haven’t turned up anything so distinctive [as the chemical elements that should be present], [Timothy] Beers notes, but the search continues.” Ibid., p. 67.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:44 am

Big Bang? 9

Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies” on page 396.] A big bang should not produce highly concentrated (o) or rotating bodies (p). Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce tightly clustered galaxies (q). Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular

to the direction of apparent expansion (r).

o. “There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.” James Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988), p. 3.

Geoffrey R. Burbidge, “Was There Really a Big Bang?” Nature, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 36–40.

Ben Patrusky, “Why Is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?” Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.

Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, “Superclusters and Voids in the Distribution of Galaxies,” Scientific American, Vol. 246, March 1982, pp. 106–114.

p. “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 (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1987), p. 177.

q. “One of the great challenges for modern cosmology is to determine how the initial power spectrum evolved into the spectrum observed today. ... the universe is much clumpier on those scales [600–900 million light-years] than current theories can explain.” Stephen D. Landy, “Mapping the Universe,” Scientific American, Vol. 280, June 1999, p. 44.

r. Alan Dressler, “The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46–54.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:46 am

Big Bang? 10

If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge (s). (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies (t).

s. “It is a fundamental rule of modern physics [namely, the big bang theory] that for every type of particle in nature there is a corresponding ‘antiparticle’.” Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1977), p. 76.

“If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and antimatter. But instead the stars and nebulae are made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their antiparticles (their antimatter equivalents).” Kane, pp. 73–74.

“But to balance the cosmic energy books—and to avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics—matter and antimatter should have been created [in a big bang] in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out. Yet here we are.” Tim Folger, “Antimatter,” Discover, August 2004, p. 68.

t. “Within our galaxy, we can be confident that there are no stars of antimatter; otherwise, the pervasive interstellar medium would instigate annihilation and ensuing gamma-ray emission at a rate far in excess of that observed....One difficulty with the idea of antigalaxies lies in maintaining their separation from galaxies. Empty space may now separate them, but in the early universe, these regions must have been in relatively close contact. Annihilation seems difficult to avoid, particularly because we now know that many regions of intergalactic space are occupied by a tenuous gas. Interaction with the gas would make annihilation inevitable in antimatter regions, with the consequent emission of observable gamma radiation.” Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980), p. 115.

“Also, as far as we know, there is no appreciable amount of antimatter in the universe.” Weinberg, p. 88.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:43 am

Big Bang? 11

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 (u)?

u. One might also ask where the “cosmic egg” came from if there was a big bang. Of course, the question is unanswerable. Pushing any origin explanation back far enough raises similar questions—all scientifically untestable. Thus, the question of ultimate origins is not a purely scientific matter. What science can do is test possible explanations once the starting assumptions are given. For example, if a tiny “cosmic egg” (having all the mass in the universe) existed, it should not explode, based on present understanding. Claiming that some strange, new phenomenon caused an explosion (or inflation) is philosophical speculation. While such speculation may or may not be correct, it is not science. [See “How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?” ]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:56 am

Pahu;1391490 wrote:

Big Bang? 11

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 (u)?

u. One might also ask where the “cosmic egg” came from if there was a big bang. Of course, the question is unanswerable. Pushing any origin explanation back far enough raises similar questions—all scientifically untestable. Thus, the question of ultimate origins is not a purely scientific matter. What science can do is test possible explanations once the starting assumptions are given. For example, if a tiny “cosmic egg” (having all the mass in the universe) existed, it should not explode, based on present understanding. Claiming that some strange, new phenomenon caused an explosion (or inflation) is philosophical speculation. While such speculation may or may not be correct, it is not science. [See “How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?” ]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

This argument which came first the egg or chicken never ends. The Big Bang is actually the day when the the egg was hatched. Out came the chicken ( star, galaxy, black hole, quasar, etc ). This is not the only universe you know. In the Vedic scriptures the universe is only 1/3 of the whole. Two-thirds of it is anti-matter ( the spiritual world ).

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:01 am

Big Bang? 12

For decades, big bang theorists said that the amount of mass in a rapidly expanding universe must be enough to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter could not come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass always fell far short of that minimum amount. This “missing mass” is often called dark matter, because no one could see it or even detect it. Actually, “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. The media’s frequent reference to “dark matter” enshrined it in the public’s consciousness, much like the supposed “missing link” between apes and man.

The big bang has struck again by devising something new and imaginary to support the theory. Here’s why. The big bang theory predicts that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from the Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. The shocking result is now in—and the answer has been rechecked in many ways. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating (v)! Therefore, to protect the theory, something must again be invented. Some energy source that counteracts gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. This energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy.

v. “Three years ago, observations of distant, exploding stars blew to smithereens some of astronomers’ most cherished ideas about the universe . To piece together an updated theory, they’re now thinking dark thoughts about what sort of mystery force may be contorting the cosmos.

“According to the standard view of cosmology, the once infinitesimal universe has ballooned in volume ever since its fiery birth in the Big Bang, but the mutual gravitational tug of all the matter in the cosmos has gradually slowed that expansion.

“In 1998, however, scientists reported that a group of distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther from Earth, than the standard theory indicated. It was as if, in the billion or so years it took for the light from these exploded stars to arrive at Earth, the space between the stars and our planet had stretched out more than expected. That would mean that cosmic expansion has somehow sped up, not slowed down. Recent evidence has only firmed up that bizarre result.” Ron Cowen, “A Dark Force in the Universe,” Science News, Vol. 159, 7 April 2001, p. 218.

“Not only don’t we see the universe slowing down; we see it speeding up.” Adam Riess, as quoted by James Glanz, “Astronomers See a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work,” Science, Vol. 279, 27 February 1998, p. 1298.

“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, p. 7.

“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, p. 73.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:04 am

Big Bang? 13

Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the universe together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) has been seen or measured (w). We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy (x).” Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.

Rather than cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty? Of course. But big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists. (Pages 394–399 give an explanation for the expansion, or “stretching out,” of the universe.)

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 (y). All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred (z).

w. “...dark matter has not been detected in the laboratory, and there is no convincing theoretical explanation of dark energy.” Carlton Baugh, “Universal Building Blocks,” Nature, Vol. 421, 20 February 2003, p. 792.

“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.

x. Wayne Hu and Martin White, “The Cosmic Symphony,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, February 2004, p. 50.

y. “Big Bang Gone Quiet,” Nature, Vol. 372, 24 November 1994, p. 304.

Michael J. Pierce et al., “The Hubble Constant and Virgo Cluster Distance from Observations of Cepheid Variables,” Nature, Vol. 371, 29 September 1994, pp. 385–389.

Wendy L. Freedman et al., “Distance to the Virgo Cluster Galaxy M100 from Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Cepheids,” Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, pp. 757–762.

N. R. Tanvir et al., “Determination of the Hubble Constant from Observations of Cepheid Variables in the Galaxy M96,” Nature, Vol. 377, 7 September 1995, pp. 27–31.

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.

“It’s clear to most people that you can’t be older than your mother. Astronomers understand this, too, which is why they’re so uncomfortable these days. The oldest stars in globular clusters seem to date back 15 billion years. The universe appears to be only 9 billion to 12 billion years old. At least one of those conclusions is wrong.” William J. Cook, “How Old Is the Universe?” U.S. News & World Report, 18–25 August 1997, p. 34.

z. “I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.” Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang Under Attack,” Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:31 am

Missing Mass 1

Imagine seeing several rocks in outer space, moving radially away from Earth. If the rocks were simultaneously blasted away from Earth, their masses, changing velocities, and distances from Earth would have a very precise mathematical relationship with each other. When a similar relationship is checked for billions of observable galaxies, an obvious conclusion is that these galaxies did not explode from a common point in a huge “big bang” (a). It is even more obvious that if such an explosion occurred, it must have been much, much less than billions of years ago.

Evolutionists try to fix this problem in two ways. They assume the universe is filled with at least ten times as much matter as can be seen. This is maintained even though three decades of searching for this “missing mass” have turned up nothing other than the conclusion that it does not exist (b).

a. This problem was first explained by R. H. Dicke, “Gravitation and the Universe: The Jayne Lectures for 1969,” American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, 1970, p. 62. Alan Guth’s attempt to solve it led to the “inflationary big bang theory.”

b. This missing mass is called dark matter, because it cannot be seen and, so far, has not been detected. Candidates for “missing mass” include neutrinos, black holes, dead stars, low-mass stars, and various subatomic particles and objects dreamed up by cosmologists simply to solve this problem. Each candidate has many scientific problems.

One study of two adjacent galaxies shows they have relatively little dark matter. [See Ron Cowen, “Ringing In a New Estimate for Dark Matter,” Science News, Vol. 136, 5 August 1989, p. 84.]

Another study found no missing mass within 150 million light-years of Earth. [See Eric J. Lerner, “COBE Confounds the Cosmologists,” Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 40–41.]

A third study found no dark matter in a large elliptical galaxy, M105. [See “Dark Matter Isn’t Everywhere,” Astronomy, September 1993, pp. 19–20.]

A fourth study found no dark matter in the main body of our galaxy. [See Alexander Hellemans, “Galactic Disk Contains No Dark Matter,” Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]

A fifth study, after cataloging the positions and distances of 100 million galaxies, concluded that the needed mass does not exist. [See Ron Cowen, “Whole-Sky Catalog,” Science News, Vol. 155, 6 February 1999, pp. 92–93.]

A sixth study, the most sensitive ever conducted on Earth, found no dark matter. [See Charles Seife, “Once Again, Dark Matter Eludes a Supersensitive Trap,” Science, Vol. 304, 14 May 2004, p. 950.]

“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, “Does Dark Matter Really Exist?” Scientific American, Vol. 287, August 2002, p. 43.

“Even the most enthusiastic cosmologist will admit that current theories of the nature of the universe have some big holes. One such gap is that the universe seems to be younger than some of the objects contained within it. Another problem is that the observed universe just doesn’t appear to have enough matter in it to explain the way it behaves now, nor the way theorists predict it will evolve.” Robert Matthews, “Spoiling a Universal ‘Fudge Factor,’” Science, Vol. 265, 5 August 1994, pp. 740–741.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:25 am

Missing Mass 2

A second “fix attempt” assumes that the rocks (or, in the real problem, all particles in the universe) were briefly, almost magically, accelerated away from some point. This process, called inflation, supposedly reached speeds billions of trillions of times faster than the speed of light (c). In an instant later, and for no apparent reason, inflation stopped. All this happened by an unknown, untestable phenomenon—not by a blast. Then this matter became controlled by gravity after it reached just the right speed to give the universe an age (based on one set of assumptions) of about 13.7 billion years (d). Such flights of imagination and speculation are common in the field of cosmology.

c. Supposedly, nothing can exceed the speed of light. Advocates of “the inflationary big bang” get around this problem by claiming that space expanded much faster than the speed of light, but the speed of matter relative to that space did not expand faster than the speed of light. They liken matter to raisins in a ball of dough. As the dough (representing space) rises (or expands), the raisins move outward with the dough but do not move relative to the dough.

“Inflation” has no experimental or observational support and supposedly happened before the laws of physics came into existence. Therefore, “inflation” lies outside the scientific realm. “Inflation” is a relatively recent “patch job,” a nonscientific speculation inserted to get around a scientific problem. Here, the scientific problem is that nothing can exceed the velocity of light (except possibly the expansion rate of space). In science, a “patch job” is usually a warning that a theory is in trouble.

d. The inflationary big bang was proposed by Alan H. Guth in a paper titled “A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problem” in Physical Review, D, Vol. 23, 15 January 1981, pp. 348–356.

The “missing mass problem” can be stated more directly. If the big bang occurred, the total mass of the expanding universe should have a very precise relationship with the outward velocities and distances of all galaxies and other matter. This mass must not deviate from this amount by even one part in 10^55 (ten thousand million billion trillion trillion trillion).

If the mass were slightly greater than this critical value (the closed condition):

i. gravity would have quickly collapsed all the matter in the universe into one big ball, perhaps within seconds,

ii. we would not be here to wonder how everything began.

If the mass were slightly less than this critical value (the open condition):

i. particles would have expanded indefinitely,

ii. stars and galaxies would not have formed, and

iii. we would not be here to think about it.

The estimated mass of the visible universe is less than a tenth of this critical value. Stars and galaxies exist. Therefore, the big bang probably did not occur. Faith in the big bang theory requires believing that a vast amount of invisible, unmeasurable mass is hidden somewhere.

This problem can be viewed another way. If the universe began in a big bang billions of years ago, it should:

i. have collapsed on itself (closed), or

ii. have expanded so much that stars and galaxies could never have formed (open), or

iii. have expansion velocities for most visible particles in the universe that lie within a ridiculously tight one part in 10^55 of their escape velocities!

Consequently, the universe probably did not begin in a big bang billions of years ago.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]